Trust Us...We've Got Nothing To Hide
It figures. President Bush has made his "reasonable in his mind" offer to agree to let Karl Rove and Harriet Miers meet (secretly, and no transcript) with congress (and not under oath). Oh well, that settles it! Clearly they've nothing to hide, whatsoever! Seriously, if there was no wrongdoing regarding the firing of several United States Attorneys, then why all the hush-hush? From the Associated Press:
This administration is channeling that of Nixon's. They feel they are above the law. This administration is hiding something and Congress better not back down from his threat of aggressive fighting to keep his aides from having to tell the truth.
Bush Warns Dems to Take Offer in Firings
Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."If a sitting president can be questioned, under oath, about his sexual escapades, then why can't White House officials be questioned about alleged wrong doing, under oath? And if everything is on the up and up why has Bush vowed to "aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides"?
He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."
This administration is channeling that of Nixon's. They feel they are above the law. This administration is hiding something and Congress better not back down from his threat of aggressive fighting to keep his aides from having to tell the truth.
Bush Warns Dems to Take Offer in Firings
posted by Tootsie Farklepants at 4:33 PM
8 Comments:
Maybe it's because the Bush Admin doesn't want dems on the hill to try to trap them into Libby-like "perjuries", founded in "I-Don't-Recalls" when they actually don't recall.
Yeah, they should testify under oath, because the Democrats don't have a vendetta or anything of the sort against Bush. Yeah, right.
Never mind that the Clintons fired all 93 of the Bush/Reagan appointees. Including two who were investigating friends of the Clintons. But of course there is nothing unusual there.
It's not just Democrats that are questioning Gonzales's credibility; it's Republicans as well. But if you feel better getting that rant off your chest, congratulations.
I'm consistently amazed that there are people who still defend the Bush administration. You must be one of those 29 percenters.
It's easy to defend the Bush administration with facts. Hollywood Tom's comment is factually dead on correct, it wasn't a rant whatsoever. You and other liberals just want to discount fact or history to make your points.
Do you really think that the Bush admin. is going to play along with this particular Vendetta? The lib's strategy is SOOO transparent on this one.
Get used to being "consistently amazed" by people defending the Bush administration... eventually facts will prevail and history will tell this story.
I get it... you're against the war, but don't become so terribly misguided by driking the kool-aid that you get from the "Daily Show" (or the mainstream media.)
And don't forget that, Nobel Peace Prize winning, democratic president Jimmy Carter, and his 28% rating. But let me guess, you were too young to remember that.
-Ted Schminkleshorts in Valencia
Oh I'm sure that facts will prevail and history will tell the story, but it will be you that will be disappointed in its ending.
Carter? I was 10 when he left office. How is that relevent to Bush? Gas prices? 25% approved of him even with the energy crisis (the cause of his low approval ratings)? What's your point?
Why am I not surprised that you missed my point?
Using cyclical popularity poles to make your arguments is flawed and irrelavent overall... especially given questionable methodology. Even the infallible Pres. Clinton had a 43% at one point.
What history will write about his period of time is that a number of Americans, like you, did not have the stomach to do what it takes to fight the legitimate war on terror. History will vindicate Bush from all the propaganda, vendettas and emotional & factual manupulations of the left.
Ted: "History will vindicate Bush from all the propaganda, vendettas and emotional & factual manupulations of the left."
I'll say to you what I said to Hollywood Tom: "It's not just Democrats that are questioning Gonzales's credibility; it's Republicans as well. But if you feel better getting that rant off your chest, congratulations."
This is a typical response from the left when they run out of "facts" to back up their argument. If any differing opinion is a "rant", then so be it.
Regarding Republicans critical of Gonzo... you can always find dissenters in either party. To use an example of the vast minority to support your point is flawed.
Just curious what you may have been blogging about when Clinton fired the 93 Bush and Reagan appointees?
Yep, I call it a rant. The blog topic/entry is about AG. So far you and Hollywood Tom, collectively, have mentioned Clinton, Reagan, the war on terror, Carter, what history will say about Bush, the vindication of Bush, those that do not toe the Bush line are dissenters (and I guess considered "those on the left" even if they're republicans)...
Ya guys are all over the place. Which argument exactly is it that I'm supposed to back up with facts? There are so many to choose from that you two have thrown out there.
Post a Comment
<< Home