What do you think of that? I believe it would be much funnier to watch this if these clowns were not so dangerous to our country.
2007-03-22 05:16:57 · 5 answers · asked by justagirl33552 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Both debates seem to center around the "what have you got to hide" argument.
People seem to think warrantless wiretapping should be allowed, despite being illegal (18 USC 2511), because those being tapped should object if they have nothing to hide.
By that argument, what do the Bush aides have to hide that they refuse to testify under oath and on the record?
2007-03-22 05:21:00 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Limited powers to wiretap communication internationally, and the executive has a right to ignore the non issue of the federal attourneys, Clinton fired all of them and "BushCo fired 8. Bush did make an offer.
2007-03-22 13:33:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Democrats, please realize that this applies for all presidents regardless of party.
The presidents advisors must be able to speek freely when advising the president. They will not be perfectly candid if there is any possibility that their words will come back to haunt them. It is critical that they can be protected.
In this particular instance, no crime has been alleged to have occurred. They want to drag the presidents advisors out in public, under oath to reveal what advice they gave to the president. That is an abuse of the investigatory power of congress. How would any of the Senators feel if we could drag their advisors out and question them under oath about goings on between them and their boss'?
The separation of powers must be protected for every president. Even if the next president were to be a democrat my postion would not change.
.
2007-03-22 12:50:34 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YEP! My grandpa used to say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"
He wants the "snoopy" rules to apply to everyone but himself. Exactly why when a politician makes a rule, he/she has to consider if they'd like to live with that themselves.
I think Bush should live by his own law...he'll be a little more thoughtful about signing away people's rights when it happens to himself a few times.
This will be more interesting to watch than anything about Anna Nichole or Michael Jackson or anything sports Finally, some REAL news and I'm glued to this one!
May the games begin..."Go Demo's! PUSH 'EM BACK! PUSH 'EM BACK! WAAAAY BACK!" (Where are my pom poms and bull horn when I need it???)
2007-03-22 12:31:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Twisted minds.
2007-03-22 12:36:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋