• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

White House Offers to Let Investigators Interview Rove

Maximus Zeebra said:
where is the free speech on this forum? Can you not say your opinion without getting hazzled as being anti-American or bashing?
Click to expand...
Of course you can. Glad to see you support Ann Coulters right to say whatever she feels.
 
aps said:
I am sure GySgt can explain himself, but I understood what he was saying. The part of your post that he said was "bashing" was where you essentially showed your dislike of this administration by making a statement without stating it more objectively and with evidence to substantiate your allegation. JMO

I agree with you--it seems very strange that Bush would not allow Rove and Miers to testify under oath. At first, I thought the Democrats should wait to hear what Rove and Miers had to say before issuing subpeonas; however, this whole thing started based upon Congress being lied to. So the Democrats should be demanding that testimony be under oath.
Click to expand...

So I am not allowed to say anything negative about the Bush administration without getting branded?

I agree, they must be under oaths, if not the US have reached a new political and transparancy lowpoint.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Of course you can. Glad to see you support Ann Coulters right to say whatever she feels.
Click to expand...

Of course she can, that doesnt stop me from thinking very negative about her, but I would go so far as to write her an email saying she is anti world and mentally insane.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
Of course she can, that doesnt stop me from thinking very negative about her, but I would go so far as to write her an email saying she is anti world and mentally insane.
Click to expand...
which is equally your right. By the way, I am agreeing with you on this. Just as you are being branded for speaking negatively about Bush, so are those who speak favorable about Bush. One only needs to look back about 3 pages in this thread.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
unproven, rhetorical and, quite frankly, redudndant.
Click to expand...


LOL If you're going to insult my post, you could at least spell redundant correctly.

I actually agree with you about my statement being redundant. My pointing out that someone from the Bush Administration had spoken to Congress was sufficent enough to establish that Congress was being lied to. My actually stating such was definitely redundant. Thanks for noticing.
 
aps said:
LOL If you're going to insult my post, you could at least spell redundant correctly.

I actually agree with you about my statement being redundant. My pointing out that someone from the Bush Administration had spoken to Congress was sufficent enough to establish that Congress was being lied to. My actually stating such was definitely redundant. Thanks for noticing.
Click to expand...
I always find the criticism of spelling a weak defense. Will you ever be able to forgive my typo, aps?
 
This whole situation is a bunch of crap about nothing....The emocrats had better start doing the peoples business instead of all these useless "Gotcha" investigations or they will be out on their ears.............

I have even heard moderate dems say that who are embarrassed by all this partisanship.......
 
Watching GWB trying to act "tough" by telling the Democrats that they better not want "confrontation" displayed all the signs of classic weakness.

Even Republicans know that they are in trouble here. How often do you hear Bill O' Reilly saying that someone linked to this corrupt administration should go?

The "compromise" offered by Bush is classic! You can interview Rove and Miers but in public and it can't be under oath. What is up with that?

Why is this "President" so afraid of people being under oath? Its the same reason they were against warrants "after the fact" let alone before their illegal spying/wiretapping.

If there is no paper trail and it is not under oath...and there is no record, then they can lie and deceive all they want.
 
Navy Pride said:
This whole situation is a bunch of crap about nothing....The emocrats had better start doing the peoples business instead of all these useless "Gotcha" investigations or they will be out on their ears.............

I have even heard moderate Democrats say that who are embarrassed by all this partisanship.......
Click to expand...

I think we have had 6 years without the "people's business" being done.

I know that exposing corruption in government is not something that you personally care about Navy....because you would still apologize for this administration regardless. But I think the majority of the people in America do care about the corruption in government today and it was for those reasons that Americans voted overwhelmingly the way they did in November.

I know you would love the corruption to remain uncovered....but to do so would be to turn their backs on the American public...and trust me....that's not going to happen.
 
jfuh said:
Maybe this is just some technical legal bable thing. Can anyone with legal knowledge tell me just what the point of giving a testimony but then emphasize it not sworn? To me, it sounds like bullshit.



source
Click to expand...

This way the Democrats can't go on a witch hunt for perjury for faulty memory or mispeaking like they did against Libby even though no crime has been committed, just like with Libby. The Dems are lucky that GWB even gave him this much I would have told Congress to GFT's which is totally with in the purview of the President to do.
 
Gibberish said:
Bush is basically saying: "You can interview Rove but it has to be in private, the interview cannot be recorded in anyway, and he should be allowed to lie without consequence."

The interviewer could get a more realistic interview from the bum down the street.
Click to expand...

He doesn't even got to give Congress this much I would have told them to bring on the supboenas and then to shove them up their stupid asses because not one member of my administration will testify and if you don't like it by all means let's take it to the SCOTUS and see what they have to say about the Presidential Privelege to dismiss any attorney at any time at his leizure whether it's politically motivated or because it's ****ing Tuesday. And of course it's politically motivated, U.S. attorney's are appointed for the purpose of carrying out the President's policy that's why they're appointed not elected, I mean if the President wasn't supposed to appoint people who see eye to eye with him and his constituency then what the hell is the point of having elections in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
He doesn't even got to give Congress this much I would have told them to bring on the supboenas and then to shove them up their stupid asses because not one member of my administration will testify and if you don't like it by all means let's take it to the SCOTUS and see what they have to say about the Presidential Privelege to dismiss any attorney at any time at his leizure whether it's politically motivated or because it's ****ing Tuesday. And of course it's politically motivated, U.S. attorney's are appointed for the purpose of carrying out the President's policy that's why they're appointed not elected, I mean if the President wasn't supposed to appoint people who see eye to eye with him then what the hell is the point of having elections in the first place?
Click to expand...

I am beginning to see an emergence of a government I don't think I am going to like. It is seriously looking like congress is looking to be in control of everything. I don't think they believe in seperation of powers anymore. We may end up with a President one day soon, that is no better than the Queen of England. A figurehead, and not much else.
 
disneydude said:
Watching GWB trying to act "tough" by telling the Democrats that they better not want "confrontation" displayed all the signs of classic weakness.

Even Republicans know that they are in trouble here. How often do you hear Bill O' Reilly saying that someone linked to this corrupt administration should go?

The "compromise" offered by Bush is classic! You can interview Rove and Miers but in public and it can't be under oath. What is up with that?

Why is this "President" so afraid of people being under oath? Its the same reason they were against warrants "after the fact" let alone before their illegal spying/wiretapping.

If there is no paper trail and it is not under oath...and there is no record, then they can lie and deceive all they want.
Click to expand...


No crime has been committed.......This is a liberal witch hunt to get Rove under oath so the left can ask him all kinds of stupid questions......It is great to see the president tell the left to pack sand for a change.......

Prediction here: the courts will tell the left to pack sand too.
 
WI Crippler said:
I am beginning to see an emergence of a government I don't think I am going to like. It is seriously looking like congress is looking to be in control of everything. I don't think they believe in seperation of powers anymore. We may end up with a President one day soon, that is no better than the Queen of England. A figurehead, and not much else.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm glad it seems that GWB is finally taking a stand on this crap.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's why I'm glad it seems that GWB is finally taking a stand on this crap.
Click to expand...

I am not a big GWB fan, but for the sake of future presidents, he better stand up for his own branch and its constitutional/legal rights. Otherwise it will be a meaningless post.
 
WI Crippler said:
I am not a big GWB fan, but for the sake of future presidents, he better stand up for his own branch and its constitutional/legal rights. Otherwise it will be a meaningless post.
Click to expand...
He's doing exactly that and I've never been more proud of him.
 
Navy Pride said:
No crime has been committed.......This is a liberal witch hunt to get Rove under oath so the left can ask him all kinds of stupid questions......It is great to see the president tell the left to pack sand for a change.......

Prediction here: the courts will tell the left to pack sand too.
Click to expand...

Yeah....God forbid that Rove would have to testify UNDER OATH.
Personally I don't see what the problem is. If he is going to tell the truth then what problem is there in answering "stupid questions".

Its kind of like the whole wiretap thing. You hear a lot of people say "I don't mind the government tapping my phone...I have nothing to hide".

and....the President didn't exactly tell "the left to pack sand"....he did one of those shaky afraid little kid shaking a finger saying...."you better not come after me...or....or....or I'll.....or I'll .....you'll regret it".....

Yeah.....THAT was a Real strong threat there.......
 
WI Crippler said:
I am not a big GWB fan, but for the sake of future presidents, he better stand up for his own branch and its constitutional/legal rights. Otherwise it will be a meaningless post.
Click to expand...

Since when is there a Constitutional/Legal right for the executive branch to not be held accountable for any of its actions?
Isn't that EXACTLY what Checks and Balances is all about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom