The truth...the whole truth...
and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
Why are Republicans so afraid to
testify under oath?
2007-03-22 08:23:13 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Ever lift up a rock and watch the worms, the slugs, the creepy crawly bugs scurry around scared when exposed to the sun light? Testifying under oath would have the same effect on this bunch of slime in the White House.
2007-03-22 08:36:54 · answer #1 · answered by Feathery 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Because if they don't testify under oath everything heard in the discussions is 'hear-say' and would not stand up in a court of law.
Can't we stop grouping all republicans and all democrats together? ALL republicans are not afraid. And all democrats don't smoke weed. Seriously, the gross generalizations are what keeps anything from actually being accomplished. It creates an 'us against them' theme that does nothing but impedes progress.
2007-03-22 15:35:58 · answer #2 · answered by ceaz 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A politicians job is to bend to his superiors will in a way that makes the people think it's cool to be submissive, and consequently follow the loudest shepherd with the most potent sounding message. That's politics all over the world on all planes and and views, not by any means isolated to America, and certainly not restricted to the Republican party.... That just isn't sensible, but I must applaud you for putting this question in a nicer format while still making identical to all the other pseudo-political activism and misunderstood rallies and war cries of everyone else who pretends to know politics on this site....
2007-03-22 16:00:19 · answer #3 · answered by Rick R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They shouldn't, after all this is the same bunch that keep telling us they can pry into our personal affairs and its OK because if we have done nothing wrong we have nothing to be afraid of, right?
I don't understand why thousands of Americans can be sworn in everyday in hundreds of courts, but these people, whose salaries we pay can't bring themselves in to tell us they fired these DAs for cause. Whats the big deal?
Unless they didn't.
Unless they did it to close down investigations into friends and cronies, unless undue influence was put on the justice department to ignore evidence of wrong doing if Republicans did it and go and pick on Democrats even if the evidence didn't warrant it. Then they got a problem.
I want to know, is it nothing, or is it something, go under oath, do it in public so there is no question of waterboarding, open up the government I pay for as this has nothing to do with National Security and everything to do with job security. Theirs
Clinton changed DAs when he came into office, thats normal and no biggie, Bush has fired these DA when HE put them into office, they are HIS appointees.
2007-03-22 15:58:43 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would think you question would be better had it been worded, " It rained today. Can Congress hold a special meeting to see if they can make Bush solely responsible for this?" The executive branch does not have to answer to congress. I guess it is payback time for something. Why is it so difficult for people to accept that these people were fired? Thats it. Clinton did it. No one complained. Oh, wait. Clinton had sex in the oval office and no one complained. Isnt he an impeached president? No I know what the payback is. Nevermind. Could any of this have to do with paving the way for Hillary? You complain now, it will be alot worse God forbid she gets elected. She doesnt have my vote.
2007-03-22 16:28:15 · answer #5 · answered by tcg7213 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The dems have NO ZERO ZILCH NADA business investigating this whatsoever. The president has every single right to fire those attorneys. It is a political appointment people. Clinton fired over 90 of the same attorneys. Where was the outrage???????
Several attorneys themselves said they had every right being fired, they just didnt like the press about why they were fired afterwards. There is no wrongdoing here. Bush can get on the air and say I just didnt like them anymore and thats why I fired them and there still wouldnt be anything wrong with it.
Anyone that is mad over this or think there is some wrongdoing can you explain why is was perfectly ok and nothing wrong when Clinton did it 9 times over.
2007-03-22 15:29:23 · answer #6 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
They don't.
It's just that because we know, understand, protect and defend the Constitution, we are aware of the fact that the Executive branch is not answerable to the Legislature for why it dismisses people from political patronage positions where the people serve at the pleasure of the president.
It's a witch hunt, show-trial dog & pony show, and, sadly, too many Americans are too ignorant of the Constitutional separation of powers to understand that it is the Congress who are overstepping their authority. They are too dull to understand that the Democrats are behaving badly, as are their minions in the press.
2007-03-22 15:33:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with the Democrats throwing up a smokescreen to cover the fact that they haven't kept a single campaign promise that they made. Even your girlfriend Cindy Sheehan says that. They are still the do-nothing, know-nothing Democrat party.
2007-03-22 15:27:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Because the truth is, they fired prosecutors who would not allow themselves to be influenced in their prosecutions. It's true they serve at the pleasure of the pres, however, once in office they are left alone to run their offices. These 8 wouldn't prosecute political cases before the election and were dismissed. That would be obstruction of justice at the very least. Once again, cheney and co. trying to manipulate the system to their ends.
2007-03-22 15:40:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Oh come on they don't know the truth . They have no idea whats going on.
2007-03-22 15:39:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋