English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-08-19 06:25:53 · 11 answers · asked by Fedup Veteran 6 in Politics & Government Government

Amy, you never answered my question.

How about the firing of those attorneys or the zero oversight of his wire tapping? You don't need to make the wire tapping totally public, but there is not any oversight via the SPECIAL courts either...but Bush refuses to answer ANY questions even with those "special courts"...it is injustice that he can spy on Americans without any oversight whatever!

2007-08-19 06:46:14 · update #1

11 answers

Never!

The COVER-UP of George W. (DUBYA) BUSH

George W. Bush's last act as Governor of Texas and one of his first acts as president-elect, George W. Bush demonstrated his utter disregard for the law when it comes to secrecy. In December 2000, as the cliff-hanging Florida presidential recount was sorting itself out and heading for the U.S. Supreme Court, Dubya was in Austin, Texas, away from the spotlight. As soon as he got word of the U.S. Supreme Court's favorable ruling, he arraigned for his gubernatorial records to be gathered, placed on sixty large pallets, shrink-wrapped in heavy plastic, and, with no announcement, quietly shipped off to his father's presidential library at Texas A&M University. Actually, this effort to bury his records had started in 1997, when DUBYA sought and obtained a change in Texas law to permit a governor to select a site for his papers, within Texas, other than the Texas State Library. But such an alternative site was permissible only after "consultation" with the state's library and archives commission. This consultation was mandatory, obviously required to make sure any alternative arraignments satisfied the state's stringent open-access law regarding the records. DUBYA, however, removed his papers with no consultation whatsoever; rather, he dispatched an aide to inform the head of the Library and Archive Commission that he was sending his records to his father's library, like it or not.

Well, she didn't like it. With one of the nation's strongest public information laws (much to DUBYA's) chagrin), Peggy Rudd, the director and librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, took exception to his unilateral action. Under Texas law, gubernatorial papers are immediately indexed by archivist and then made publicly available. All requests fir these records must be answered within 10 days under the Texas statute. Bush senior's presidential library is run by the U.S. government's National Archives and Records Administration, however, which quickly advised those seeking access to DUBYA's gubernatorial records that his papers were no longer subject to Texas laws and that the federal archivists were to busy with father's papers to process his son's. DUBYA had effectively federalized his papers, hiding them in legal limbo in his father's library, where no one could have access to them. His handpicked successor, the newly installed Texas governor Rick Perry, agreed with Dubya.

But Ms. Rudd did not cotton to being bullied by the former governor, even if he was president of the country, and refused to accept Dubya's designation of his father's library. It took her over a year, but in May 2002 she prevailed, forcing the Texas attorney general, who would have been hard-pressed to read the Texas law any other way, to rule against Dubya, making his gubernatorial papers subject to Texas Public Information Act. Given the clarity of Texas law, Dubya's claim that Ms. Rudd's office had no role other than the ministerial one of recording the governor's designation of an alternative location was beyond Philadelphia lawyering. It was a flagrant violation of the law.

News accounts reported that Dubya's ploy had not violated the law, but a close reading of the attorney general's formal opinion shows that these reports are incorrect. There are no sanctions for such a violation other than to male the papers available as the law requires. No telling how much scrubbing Dubya's gubernatorial papers received, both before he left office and while in limbo at his father's library.

However, Dubya appears to have the last laugh in this tale; His papers were sent to Austin, Texas, for processing - slowly. And Governor Perry, along with a new attorney general (both DUBYA supporters), had found new exceptions in the state's information law that give him the keys to the filing cabinets with DUBYA's records. In Short secrecy wins, and good luck to anyone seeking DUBYA's gubernatorial records (as a few did before Perry got the keys; such access resulted in DUBYA's embarrassment, like showing that DUBYA and council Alberto Gonzales processed death-row communications on incomplete information and faster than DUBYA could say, "EXECUTE HER". It is really difficult to believe one would go to so much trouble to hide his public records unless he had something he really did not want people to know about.

2007-08-19 10:40:05 · answer #1 · answered by jmf931 6 · 1 0

When the people of this country stop taking the BS answer of "Executive Privilege" and demand answers. After all, the President is supposed to be a *servant* of the people - not a God Almighty power that rules as he/she wishes. We must all remember that the Government is a tool for the people, by the people. If we don't hold the Government's feet to the fire by asking the hard questions of it *and* demanding answers, then we are lost as a free country.

2007-08-19 15:25:47 · answer #2 · answered by Opus 2 · 1 0

When the questions aren't exempt by executive privilege. The liberals know what they're asking is covered by executive privilege, so why are they asking them? Bill didn't have a problem exercising his executive privileges--wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Why was it OK for Clinton to fire more than one hundred federal attorneys without a huge investigation or any questions from you people but when our President fires 6 under the same executive privilege, it's a big deal? Can you say double standard?

2007-08-19 13:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

He is an "Executive" - you've gotta give him that.
But seriously, I think Bush's saving grace is that he just doesn't give a damned! I don't agree with a lot of things he does but I like how he follows his own conscience, and I think a lot of other people feel the same way. Politics has been run by polls for too long.
PS: At some point you just have to say "We're the United States of America! Mess with us at your peril!" I don't really care if everything was done right in Iraq as long as this message gets across loud and clear.

2007-08-19 13:51:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I have a feeling he won't ever stop doing it. The man has considered himself above the law for his entire Presidency, and there is no reason to believe he will ever stop feeling that way.

The only people afraid of the truth are the ones who have something to hide.

2007-08-19 15:21:43 · answer #5 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1 0

It will be when hillary answers questions about the past money she made with Tyson and why she was not able to recall 350 time under oath.

2007-08-19 13:32:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Bush will never not declare "Executive" privilege. He thinks he is above everything.

2007-08-19 15:45:38 · answer #7 · answered by analisha2201 2 · 1 0

Bush hasn't the intelligence to answer a question!

2007-08-20 18:42:08 · answer #8 · answered by AMBER 2 · 0 1

you liberals are priceless...remember
marc rich
susan mcdougal
travelgate
filegate
whitewater
the cattle futures fiasco
filegate
the vince foster coverup
campaign finance fraud 2000
the clinton..."legacy...of

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
jennifer, paula, monica
what is...is
and your worried about executive privelege??? it occurs to me you have alot more serious issues than that. your point is moot.

2007-08-19 16:55:53 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0 2

3-5 days after hell freezes over

2007-08-19 13:42:05 · answer #10 · answered by Paul I 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers