George Bush has told Congress that Albert Gonzales and Carl Rove can speak with a few members of Congress in private, but not under oath. He says that if Congress tries to compel Gonzales and Rove to testify under oath, he will invoke separation of powers to prevent it. Gee. Do you think he came up with that all by himself?
1) This is code for "executive privilege", which every president since Nixon has been loathe to use. So we call it something else and no one will notice.
2) This is a man who has destroyed Separation of powers.
3) I think it is really disgusting that this president is talking about partisanship and calling this a fishing expedition. It just shows how stupid, hypocritical, and political it all is.
I hope the Democrats hold firm. There is no point investigating if these people can lie to Congress. It is time for Congress to show just what separation of powers is there for.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Separation of Powers
Posted by USWest at 7:37 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Other than avoiding the inconvenience and the photographs, is there an honest reason why Bush would try to stop his advisers from testifying under oath?
My favorite quote from Bush so far on this affair, “I regret that these resignations turned into such a public spectacle.”
Resignations?
Yes, I know when Bush fires people he always just gets them to submit a "resignation" for personal reasons... but not even that fig leaf was used here.
I am irritated at the phrase "testifying under oath." To testify is to speak under oath, period. Everything else is called "talking." Testimony is that which is given under oath (or affirmation). Simply put, unsworn testimony is not testimony.
I don't care if the testimony is private, but it must be testimony and must be transcribed for the record.
I note with interest that Harriet Meiers is up to her eye balls in this. This is the kind of person Bush wanted on the Supreme Court!!??
To the 35% or so of people who still support this son of a bitch, I say, "HAVE YOU NO SHAME!?"
Thank you LTG for pointing out the semantics. I had never thought about it. You are absoloutely correct. I shall make a point of avoid such phrases in the future.
The 35% who still support any of these people should have their heads examined. I'd like to know where this 35% exists. Is it the south? The Bible Belt? Or are they imaginary, like the "coalition of the willing".
I'd like to add that this morning they say they are refusing to cooperate with Congress because doing so would "discourage staffers from providing candid" advice to the President.
Don't make me laugh. No one provides candid advice to the President. Read some of the books on this Administration and that becomes immediately apparent.
When you have time, you should all head over to the Colbert Report site and watch the video clip entitled, "Impeach Bush". Pretty funny.
Post a Comment