would you conceal everything and give congress further ammunition
or
would you just reveal EVERYTHING since your guy is innocent and make a democratic congress look like a bunch of fools who are impeding your administration, you have a golden opportunity to make them look like idiots, wouldn't you take this if your guy was innocent and leave no room for futher questions
2007-08-27 14:20:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"This question is a big hypothetical "
no it's completely hypothetical
I'm saying that there is not rationale for executive privledge if you are actually innocent.
2007-08-27 14:36:48 · update #1
In fact bush had more to gain by revealing all if they did nothing wrong
I'm attempting to reach the idiots who still can't comprehend that the bush admin did something wrong here
2007-08-27 14:38:17 · update #2
If you knew that the President COULDN'T reveal everything without compromising the security of the United States, and you were supportive of those trying to undermine our country, wouldn't you attack him at that point?
2007-08-27 14:25:02 · answer #1 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Well of course you've answered your own question. He is obviously as guilty as sin. Having an Attorney General be a liar (and a bad one at that) is a pretty depressing commentary on the state of the union if you ask me. But then it fits with the total moral bankruptcy of George Bush and all he stands for. The man is really corrupted beyond redemption. To be redeemed you have to KNOW the difference between right and wrong.
2007-08-27 14:25:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
But then we know Gonzales is NOT innocent. His testimony before the Senate alone was actionable. We can nail him for perjury alone. What Gonzales did was betray the American people. Hard to defend that.
2007-08-28 01:43:37 · answer #3 · answered by planksheer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A good point. If the Bush administration has nothing to hide, why do they seem to want to hide everything?
2007-08-27 14:40:43 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is a really big if. This question is a big hypothetical because we all know he is guilty as guilty can be. The man has one of the more important jobs in our government yet he "can't recollect" numerous times. If he is telling the truth he must be senile.
2007-08-27 14:30:15 · answer #5 · answered by Stephanie is awesome!! 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I was president in this situation. I would not nominate someone for Attorney general because the opposition will use as a fishing expedition to score politcal points.
2007-08-27 14:36:32 · answer #6 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Bush is not doing option #2 because he knows
man is guilty. His big ego won't let him admit to it though
2007-08-27 14:32:08 · answer #7 · answered by Michael M 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I would stay out of the investigation and let the court do their job.
2007-08-27 14:32:51 · answer #8 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
OBVIOUSLY he isn't innocent or he'd been covered....no one takes that big of a hit......unless maybe he is a liberal like me and thus "scared" of the conflict....
Every knows the republicans fear no one...not even God.
2007-08-27 14:26:07 · answer #9 · answered by jm1970 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Exactly - that's how we see criminals who run when indicted, isn't it? If they have nothing to hide, why run away?
That's how the rest of us would be treated!
2007-08-27 14:45:22 · answer #10 · answered by Done 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋