George Bush: "Fuck You Congress"

[kevbone]

So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares.

 

Get it?

 

I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton.

 

Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down.

 

We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions.

 

We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white.

Yes, there is a difference. Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, NOT the involuntary removal from office. Thus, Clinton did not do anything against Congress when not leaving office--that stage had not been reached.

 

Bush is directly refusing an direct legal order from Congress. That is acting like you are above the law. Steven Segal would have a thing or two to say about that.

 

Clinton lied under oath.

 

Bush says "no" due to executive privledge. Thats his right. Courts to decide.

 

I do not believe it is his right....like said early. The people have a right to know what our government is doing.

[mattp]

You know? KK’s got a point. All presidential adminstrations lie in their State of the Union speeches, lie to take us into war against nations that never attacked us, lie about their domestic spying, lie about their administration’s authorization of torture, make the Justice Department into an arm of the White House, and disclose classified information in an attempt to discredit their political opponents. Big deal. So they don’t think Congress has any power to act as check and balance. What’s wrong with that?

 

Clearly, impeachment would be stupid because all of them do it anyway.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

You know? KK’s got a point. All presidential adminstrations lie in their State of the Union speeches, lie to take us into war against nations that never attacked us, lie about their domestic spying, lie about their administration’s authorization of torture, make the Justice Department into an arm of the White House, and disclose classified information in an attempt to discredit their political opponents. Big deal. So they don’t think Congress has any power to act as check and balance. What’s wrong with that?

 

Clearly, impeachment would be stupid because all of them do it anyway.

 

Matt, when will you and Nancy Pelosi get our troops out of Iraq, as you promised?

 

 

[Seahawks]

So, He Decided they can "go get fucked" for all He cares.

 

Get it?

 

I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton.

 

Is there any real difference? Clinton was impeached but refused to step down.

 

We have the left wing saying X and they are right, and the right wing saying Y and they are right. But X and Y are direct contradictions.

 

We live in a world of varying shades of grey when we want black and white.

Yes, there is a difference. Impeachment is only the legal statement of charges, NOT the involuntary removal from office. Thus, Clinton did not do anything against Congress when not leaving office--that stage had not been reached.

 

Bush is directly refusing an direct legal order from Congress. That is acting like you are above the law. Steven Segal would have a thing or two to say about that.

 

Clinton lied under oath.

 

Bush says "no" due to executive privledge. Thats his right. Courts to decide.

 

I do not believe it is his right....like said early. The people have a right to know what our government is doing.

 

Kevbone its a liberal witch hunt, They want to know why the attorney's were fired. Any president can get advise from his advisors and it not be open to pulic scrutiny. Called presidential privilages.

 

So for you dumb asses this has nothing to do with that. This all about winning the next election. throwing mud in court till next year to make the Republicans look bad so they can get voted in. A child can see that.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Seahawks

[dt_3pin]

Please see tag line below for additional details on Mr. Cheney's response to the subpoenas.

[Weekend_Climberz]

Seahawks, you oversimplify so well. Bush obviously has not read the constitution at any point in his life. As of right now he has officially wiped his ass with it.

[mattp]

KK: I'll bet the Dems do nothing to stick their necks out like force the President to withdraw troops. Your attack against the Democrats, however, in this thread which is about Bush's conduct, adds nothing to the discussion but to show that you refuse to talk about the question at hand. Is it time to call me an assclown now and maybe threaten to kick my butt?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

KK: I'll bet the Dems do nothing to stick their necks out like force the President to withdraw troops. Your attack against the Democrats, however, in this thread which is about Bush's conduct, adds nothing to the discussion but to show that you refuse to talk about the question at hand. Is it time to call me an assclown now and maybe threaten to kick my butt?

 

The Dems use of worthless probes and investigations does nothing of substance, like, say get the troops out of Iraq. That's the real story here.

 

 

 

[kevbone]

Kevbone its a liberal witch hunt

 

Good....its about time.

[kevbone]

Bush obviously has not read the constitution at any point in his life. As of right now he has officially wiped his ass with it.

 

No truer words have been spoken.

[Jim]

While the admistrative branch does have a wide prerogative regarding hiring and firing, what we have heard from Congressional testimony is that attorneys were fired for POLITICAL reasons. That is, because they investigated voter fraud and found no evidence of such, they were fired for not making it into an issue in an election year. Or they were fired for prosecuting corrupt politicians who happened to be Republican. The is no security risk in turning over information these issues. It's a CYA. It raises legitmate concerns about how the Bushies infuse base politics into every action no matter how unconstitutional

[archenemy]

The guidelines for impeachment are written out.

 

Where are the guidelines to this "Presidential Priviledge" everyone talks about?

[Seahawks]

While the admistrative branch does have a wide prerogative regarding hiring and firing, what we have heard from Congressional testimony is that attorneys were fired for POLITICAL reasons. That is, because they investigated voter fraud and found no evidence of such, they were fired for not making it into an issue in an election year. Or they were fired for prosecuting corrupt politicians who happened to be Republican. The is no security risk in turning over information these issues. It's a CYA. It raises legitmate concerns about how the Bushies infuse base politics into every action no matter how unconstitutional

 

Kind of like the ones let go investigating White water with none to pick up the investigation???

Edited June 28, 2007 by Seahawks

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The guidelines for impeachment are written out.

 

Where are the guidelines to this "Presidential Priviledge" everyone talks about?

 

linky

[Seahawks]

Great Democrats

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has disclosed that she holds stock valued at up to $15,000 in Alcatel-Lucent (formerly Alcatel SA), a company with extensive investments in Iran and Sudan — nations that sponsor terrorism.

 

The disclosure of Pelosi’s holdings comes at the same time that legislation is making its way through the California legislature barring state pension fund managers from investing in companies, like Alcatel-Lucent, that do business with "terror-friendly" nations

 

[Weekend_Climberz]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Notice the big BUT in that sentence. How is the firing of attorney's a "national security concern"? It isn't...so let's see the paperwork.

[kevbone]

All from Wiki....which is not alway true.

 

 

Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others.[citation needed] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

 

 

See bold highlighted area......

 

Nuff said....bush is a crimial.....what is he trying to hide?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Notice the big BUT in that sentence. How is the firing of attorney's a "national security concern"? It isn't...so let's see the paperwork.

 

That's for the courts to decide, not YOU, oh omniscient one.

 

[archenemy]

The guidelines for impeachment are written out.

 

Where are the guidelines to this "Presidential Priviledge" everyone talks about?

 

linky

Thank you

[archenemy]

Seahawks, you oversimplify so well. Bush obviously has not read the constitution at any point in his life. As of right now he has officially wiped his ass with it.

Executive priviledge is not mentioned in the Constitution.

[kevbone]

Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

Just incase any Bush supports did not see this....

[underworld]

All from Wiki....which is not alway true.

 

 

Executive Privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain search warrants and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned in the United States Constitution, but some consider it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[1]

 

Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued that each branch of government may operate with some degree of freedom from the control or supervision of the others.[citation needed] The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that it can be invoked when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.

 

Historically, the uses of executive privilege underscore the untested nature of the doctrine, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over the issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.

 

 

See bold highlighted area......

 

Nuff said....bush is a crimial.....what is he trying to hide?

 

so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution...

 

abortion???

gay marriage??

etc....

 

oh wait - it's open to interpretation, eh?

[dinomyte]

Every administration bends or ignores the rules when it's convenient for them. Just look at all those appointments that happen when Congress is not in session (thus not there to deny confirmation).

 

Some administrations simply do it more than others.

 

And I think it is safe to say that it draws a lot more attention in an election year.

 

 

[Jim]

For years, Presidents had claimed executive privilege on the grounds that there was a need to protect military, diplomatic, or national security secrets. The prevailing thought was that a president cannot be forced to share with other branches of government certain conversations, actions, or information if sharing that information could place the United States foreign relations at risk. This "state secrets privilege" was generally accepted.

 

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Nixon, Nixon's lawyers argued that executive privilege should extend to certain conversations between the president and his aides, even when national security is not at stake. They argued that in order for aides to give good advice and to truly explore various alternatives, they had to be able to be candid. If they were going to issue frank opinions, they had to know that what they said was going to be kept confidential.

 

In the opinion, the Supreme Court conceded that there is indeed a privilege for "confidential executive deliberations" about matters of policy having nothing to do with national security. However, the Court held that this privilege is not absolute but can be overcome if a judge concludes that there is a compelling governmental interest in getting access to the otherwise privileged conversations, as in the case of the Nixon tapes.

 

 

 

 

[kevbone]

 

so let's list the things that AREN'T stated in the constitution...

 

abortion???

gay marriage??

etc....

 

 

So true but Bush is not being subpoenaed because he aborted his last daughter or because of his gay marriage to Jackoff Abrahamoff. But the White House is being asked to give up some emails about the firings of the lawyers. How is that a matter of national security? Its not…..but is will show how the crooks…..uh…I mean republicans choose to do business……