Unfortunately (as I posted in more detail), Bush is going to lose even more of the little credibility he has among the public.

Think about it: he's offered up his aides to Congress... and by doing so, he has undercut any separation of powers / executive privilege arguments he might have had.

So what is he arguing about? He doesn't want his aides under oath and he doesn't want a written record of what they said. And why? To avoid the perjury charge when it's later revealed that they lied to Congress.

And it's ludicrous to do so just after Libby was found guilty of lying under oath. Expect to see Leahy and Schumer start mentioning Libby soon, if they haven't started already. And while Bush might drag this out in the courts, every month that this is hanging will be another month that the public is reminded that Bush doesn't trust or want his people to tell the truth to Congress.

While it's nice that Bush is fighting back, it would be nice if he could so somewhat competently.

and by the way, here is a comment from someone who says what Bush should have said... if only Bush was smarter and could afford to buy himself a clue.

"I wanted him to say something like "I hire them, they serve at my pleasure, I can fire them. They don't serve at the pleasure of the senior senator from vermont or the senior senator from New York. Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer have made it clear that they don't like the firings. However, Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer don't like anything I do, so why should I expect them to like this?"

"Are Democrats saying with their opposition to the firings that they don't want voter fraud"

In spite of your slimey fraudulent allegation above, Lorie, you are like so many Repusslicans who love to perpetrate the myth of voter fraud and the myth that Democrats want such fraud to continue as their means of access to power.

If your Bush pig and the batty Miers & Rove are telling the truth, why are so so damned afraid to have their testimony in public and under oath?

As usual, Repusslicans like you don't give a damn about our Constitution and the rule of law when it comes to the antics of your party.

Tony Snow column from 1998:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time."

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold the rule of law.''

Brilliant, crazylibs.

Let's see if l'il Miss Lorie has the balls to explain away that Tony Snow quote

waiting for Lorie......

fea nicks,
I did not perpetrate a "myth" of voter fraud. It is very real and quite a few Democrats have been convicted of voter fraud over the past few years and there are plenty more out there that are getting away with it. Democrats are not interested in stopping voter fraud unless it involves arresting Republicans. Google it. You will find plenty of examples of Dem voter fraud. Heck, you could find a boatload full just by reading Gateway Pundit's archives.

The headlines (front page and inside) in my paper today were all to the effect of "performance of fired attorneys above average". Of course if you actually read the text of the article...all the way to the bitter end...you see that's not the case and they do discuss the poor performance in some areas as well as the 'overall' high prosecution and conviction numbers of the fired USA's as being inflated by immigration cases. But the headlines are what most people will read and remember.

See my comment in the previous "fighting back" thread. I do not see the circus of a congressonal hearing I saw last week in any way resembling "rule of law." Just look at the Toensing testimony alone. It was a bunch of Democrats talking at length about baseless conspiracy theories, asking questions of the "witnesses" and then not even allowing them to answer. A pure show trial circus.

Both Nixon and Clinton claimed executive privilege. With Nixon, it ended up in the Supreme Court, and Nixon lost. Clinton gave in as he knew he would also lose if it went to the Supreme Court.

If Bush also goes that route, he most likely will lose also. Then what happens? If, heaven forbid, Hillary gets in the White House, everyone had better hope that Bush does lose, otherwise all kinds of nasty things can/will be covered up. Then listen to the repug's cry. And them Demo's will be saying "Bush did it", same as the repugs are now saying "Clinton did it". It just won't end.

The real truth needs to come out, not the Demo's or Repug's truth, but the honest truth come out. Then the loser's will cry and the winners will yell "lets deal".

And why is Lorie and Kim et all so against the truth coming out? The only ones who know the truth are the players, and they don't want to be under oath for some reason.

Lorie, I googled "democratic voter fraud" and found mostly accusations from a bunch of your wingnut blogs...not much from any other sources about "many convictions of Democrats" for voter fraud.

You just drink way too much of your extreme rightie Kool Aid until you can't see anything but your own demented propaganda.

I realize what your demented Repusslican condition is like because many years ago I was a Kool Aid drinker myself.

Well, its pretty obvious the Democrats aren't interested in finding out the truth. Why didn't one of them ask Our Gal Val the names of the three people whom she testified cooked up the behesting of her husband to the vast and radioactive wastelands of Africa?
=============================

What is the truth that the dimmers are seeking? Would they even recognize the truth? Is it the truth of using our military to bribe representatives to vote for the cut and run bill? Is it the truth of Cong. Jefferson on his ill gotten money? Is it the truth on Harry Reid and his land deal? The truth is there is no crime here. You cannot investigate a non crime. If the President has the right to appoint these people, there is no crime. If Gonzalas lied to Congress, then he must answer to it. Rove and Meirs did not commit a crime. Now, that is the truth. Do you recognize it? Thought not. ww

kim: The train has left the station. See the chorus to "One After 909" ((c)1969_Lennon-McCartney, Northern Songs, Ltd.)

WildWillie,
You have some very good points there, but if Rove and Meirs did not commit a crime, they shouldn't be scared to testify under oath then, should they?

Don't need a bunch of talking points about this, a simple yes or no will suffice.

Allen,

If there is nothing to investigate with Rove or Meirs, then why the need to call them and waste taxpayer money over nothing? This is a waste, much ado about nothing and it's our money they're spending.

J.R.,
Hell, all politicians waste money, nothing new there,but was waiting on wildwillie's answer, you know, a simple yes or no.

Lorie where are you?

We're still waiting for your explanation of crazylibs' citation of the Tony Snow column above wherein the SnowJobMan had plenty to say about what SnowJobMan alleged was the Clinton abuse of executive privilege.

Come out of your wingnut hypocrisy and cough up a reply.

Or are you a coward, Miss Lorie Kool Aid drinker?

Allen:

And why is Lorie and Kim et all so against the truth coming out? The only ones who know the truth are the players, and they don't want to be under oath for some reason.

Why do you Allen, and others including the bloviating fool Schumer, insist on anyone taking an oath when the penalty for lying to Congress while NOT UNDER OATH is five years in the federal pen?

Do you have a special affinity for dog & pony shows?

Are you in favor of the U.S. Senators pissing away time when 6 bills sit in their collective laps gathering dust, two of which minimum wage increase and implementation of 911 commission recommendations, are of "utmost importance?"

There is a reason why America's citizens hold a far less favorable opinion of Congress than the "evil ChimpyMcHitlerBushCoCabal?"

Can you figure out why that is Allen?

Allen -

If you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the FBI listens to your phone conversations, reads your email or your mail ?

Actual;

That may be the stupidest comment I've ever read any time ever. The last time I checked this isn't Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

Hugh -

My point exactly. Unlike the two example you give, we don't haul people in for show trials when there is no underlying crime.

Lorie, in the previous commnet thread on this topic you wrote:
"I have plenty of respect for the law and rule of law, but not one ounce for the circus-like hearings I saw last week."
Sorry, Lorie, but it's called oversight, and you can't have it both ways. I'll point to the Tony Snow comment above, and ask you to respond.

The people of the US spoke in November and elected a dem house and Senate. In addition to the mismanagementof the Iraq war, one of the top reasons voters gave for turning the Republicans out of congress was oversight of this administration. And here it is, whether you like it or not.

"The people of the US spoke in November and elected a dem house and Senate."

And they have rewarded the Democrat-controlled Congress with a lower approval rating than that of the President. If the 'people' elected Democrats for a change, then whatever it is the Democrats are doing isn't what they 'people' elected them to do, because they don't like it.

Kapow -

Oversight of the removal of prosecutors who can be removed for (a) any reason or (b) no reason ? What possible reason is there that isn't covered by (a) or (b) ?

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=1,027 adults nationwide.

"Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?"

Good Bad Neither Unsure
59% 29% 6% 6 %

Political bluster is all this is. The dimmers just want Rove on the stand so they can make their long, long statements about how evil he is, how he is corrupt, yada, yada, yada. You know it, I know it and they know it. Truth, get it? It amazes me the dimmers are doing what the republicans did with Clinton, wear out the public. Someone referenced Nazi Germany. Maybe a little over the top, but the point is there. Now the dimmers want people to testify in public for a non-crime. The only problem I see is maybe with Gonzalas, but he is already going to appear. Rove and Meirs is plain not necessary. I am in full support of GW on this one. ww

There were enough shenanigans going on here in Milwaukee to merit an investigation, but it's always been pushed to the back burner.

Then of course, the story about the little scumbags who trashed an Army recruiting office here and spread feces all around as some sort of cockroach calling card. And what are they getting? Supposedly, nothing more than a ticket...not even a misdemeanor. Should be a felony, considering it's federal property. But the libtards in the city and for whatever reason, the police, are letting them off easy.

crazylibs:Great quote there from Tony Snow.Why don't you go find some of the quotes from Democrats defending all the Clinton crimes and explaining why no one should ever have to talk about what he did? I'm sure there were plenty of those kind of quotes.And why don't you talk about the recent poll that put the approval rating of the new congress below that of Bush? It's pathetic that fea nicks pretends not to have heard of Democratic vote fraud.That's either a moronic lie or fea nicks has been living under a rock for about the last 40 years.Failure to follow up on vote fraud is one big reason those US attorneys were canned.For examples of Democratic vote fraud there is the Washington state governors race 2002 (lots of press on that one),Milwaukee (more votes cast than county residents),East St. Louis,and a Pennsylvania state senate race a few years ago.That list ain't complete and I'm sure many examples haven't been discovered.The leftist press doesn't want people to know how much leftist vote fraud there is and Bush doesn't appear to have the cojones to go after it like the left goes after him.This is why I don't approve of his job performance-he doesn't seem willing to defend himself and go after his accusers.hopefully that is changing.

marc:

So the penalty for lying to Congress while not under oath is a mere five years, huh? Well, what do you suppose it would be if the lying were under oath? My guess is at least five years (just how many years is Libby facing?). What say you, marc?

You neglected to mention, marc, that under Bush's stipulations, any interrogation of the Bush underlings would NOT be transcribed. How convenient.

And why are you just so pathetically terrified of any members of the Bush Administration testifying while under oath? AFRAID THEY MIGHT LIE, MARC??? WELL??? What's your answer, dude, cat got your tongue??? Of course if they did lie, without any transcripts it would be say a bit harder to prove, right, marc???

Thanks for reading all this. You can now return to kissing Bush's feet.

Great, people think it's good that Dem's have congress...unfortunately they think they're doing a piss poor job. Nice attempt to change the topic, though.

Thanks for reading all this. You can now return to kissing Bush's feet.
Posted by: Herman at March 21, 2007 07:03 PM

All of which means what? That "mear" 5 years in a Fed pen is a cake walk you wouldn't mind taking?

When does the frog march start?

Just how many of the dem members that would sit in on this purposed event would you guess would testify anyone lied transcript or not? I'd guess all of them.

And yes you GOT ME. I'm scared... see the letters on this page shakin' like a palm in a hurricane.

"crazylibs:Great quote there from Tony Snow.Why don't you go find some of the quotes from Democrats defending all the Clinton crimes and explaining why no one should ever have to talk about what he did? I'm sure there were plenty of those kind of quotes.And why don't you talk about the recent poll that put the approval rating of the new congress below that of Bush?"

I got a better idea, Why don't you do your own research.

I got a better idea, Why don't you do your own research.Posted by: crazylibs at March 21, 2007 07:55 PM

An excellent idea. Will you go on record saying you did your research and didn't just hang onto the coattails of a link to the Solon article posted hours before your post?

Tony Snow looked like a fool today. He sure has changed his tune (like most Republicans). He wasn't so keen on executive Priv. back in 1999:

The fellow obviously doesn't grasp the difference between preserving the majesty of his office and covering the expanse of his rump. He seems to believe, like a backwoods Napoleon, that "le presidency, c'est moi."

In that vein, Clinton and his lawyers have invoked executive privilege to dodge responsibility for L'Affair Lewinsky, Whitewater, the China scandals and more. His Justice (sic) Department has spent more time prosecuting Kenneth Starr than tracking down enemies of the state. Tony Snow 9/17/99

OOOPs

Christ, I ask one person a yes or no question, and 3, 3 others, not the one I asked for a answer, tries to show their brilliance, by trying to baffle me with their BS.
When will the person I asked answer, instead of some of his minions? Guess that's not possible is it?

Allen, should Libby have been scared to testify under oath? If he knew Eckenrode had lost his notes and was lying about them, yes.
=========================================

I was lobbying Tuesday and my Senator's office happened to be across from the Senate Judiciary Hearings. From what I could see from the hallway, and the folks waiting in line to get in, it was indeed a circus. BTW, I think I saw Bob Dole in an anteroom nearby. I so wanted to ask him to sign an autograph with the Viagra pen I was carrying... ...but I resisted. I am eager to see what he does with the WRAMC investigation.

Great. Another whining liberal who complains that no one is answering his question while he dodges the questions asked of him.

More evidence of the liberal's perception that there are two sets of rules. One set for conservatives and one set for liberals . (see Cunningham, Duke and Jefferson, William J.)

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 9-11, 2007. N=1,027 adults nationwide.
"Do you think it is good for the country or bad for the country that the Democratic party is in control of Congress?"
Good Bad Neither Unsure
59% 29% 6% 6 %

I you like polls. Here's one...

Gallop Congressional Approval Poll

Approve Disapprove
37% 55% 02/01 - 02/04
28% 64% 03/11 - 03/14

Buyers remorse ?

"An excellent idea. Will you go on record saying you did your research and didn't just hang onto the coattails of a link to the Solon article posted hours before your post?"

Sure I used "The google" and found the quote right away. Sometimes research is easy.

Is Xennady wants to find some dirt on Clinton I advise him to start in the same place. It shouldn't be hard, I imagine even you could do it.