• 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

disneydude said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are a few trees in the way, but if you look closely, you'll see an entire forest.
 
disneydude said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sure, but if the executive branch has the constitutional/legal authority to do something, then congress has to suck it up and deal with it. Its when the executive branch oversteps its boundaries that checks and balances comes into play, not when it is within its rights.
 


And that is exactly why Rove/Miers should testify under oath. You cannot simply say that the executive branch has a right to limit and investigation when their is evidence that at least demonstrates the Gonzales flat out lied.
The whole argument that the President can fire/hire for whatever reason is true to an extent. However, where there is evidence that the firings were politically motivated and you have the Attorney General lying about it....seems to me that the executive branch can't simply argue that we are untouchable.

What I can't understand are that there are people who are actually standing up for this. If they have nothing to hide...what is the problem with testifying under oath. If they tell the truth there isn't a problem.....so why is the President threatening to fight against it. Hey...if I were President and had nothing to hide I would say fine....put them under oath....put me under oath...because I have no skeletons in my closet. The fact that GWB doesn't want them to testify under oath not only SPEAKS volumes.....it SCREAMS them.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
There are a few trees in the way, but if you look closely, you'll see an entire forest.
Click to expand...

Oh....trust me...I can see the forest AND the trees despite the smokescreen that your president is trying to throw up here. The question that I have is:

If you have nothing to hide why the smokescreen? and for you Bush Apologists why are you willing to light the match?
 
You're looking at the wrong forest altogether. The issue is of setting a precedent that should never be set. That is what the president is fighting for.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
You're looking at the wrong forest altogether. The issue is of setting a precedent that should never be set. That is what the president is fighting for.
Click to expand...

And what is that precedent? That the executive branch is above the power of the law? That the executive branch is untouchable with the subpoena power?

Nixon and Clinton both tried that argument and lost....what makes you think that Bush is above the law?
 
Should there not be checks and balances within government? We would not be having these current scandels leaking out of the majority party, your republican party, of the last congress actually did it's job and kept the executive branch in check.

This is hardly crap. In Jan. Gonzales said "I would never ever make a change in the United states attorney position for political reasons...."
Yet, now we know that those were exactly the reasons why these attorneys were fired.
The man who fired the attorney admits he never even looked at the performance. An email from Karl Rove stating: "....removing up to 20 percent of the nation's U.S. attorneys..... but retaining prosecutors who were 'loyal Bushies'....."
So, either Gonzales is lying, or someone else is lying. Do you not wish to seek out just who is the liar that led to these guy's firings?
 
Navy Pride said:
Prediction here: the courts will tell the left to pack sand too.
Click to expand...
Since you've virtually never been right in any of your predictions....Harriet Meiers, 2006 Election it's good to see that once again you have no idea what the dispute is actually about....how surprising!

Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials’ statements to Congress, which may have been untrue. It needs to question Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials.

Who knows NP, after we investigate Rove et al might be exonerated which would be OK if that is the truth. For you or anyone to pretend that you have any clue as to what the truth is only underscores your continuing hard on for anything Bush. I'm saying let's do what Congress is supposed to do at times, investigate the Executive Branch. This might strike you as BS but guess what Navy Pride if you had ever bothered to study and UNDERSTAND our Constitution you would know that Separation of Power and the right to investigate is one of the founding principles of our country...but you don't care about the Constitution, do you?

Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton’s high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.

Need I go on? What are you Republicans afraid of? Is it like Jack said? "You can't handle the truth."
 
CurrentAffairs said:
He's doing exactly that and I've never been more proud of him.
Click to expand...

:rofl :2rofll: :2funny:

The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of “executive privilege.” That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical. President Richard Nixon tried to withhold the Watergate tapes, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him.

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

That would not be “partisanship,” as Bush wants Americans to believe. It would be Congress doing its job by holding the president and his team accountable — a rare thing in the last six years.
 

I got a few right..........President Bush kicking *** in 2000 and 2004 and the Republicans kicking *** in 2002 allowing Conservatives to take over control of the SCOTUS...... Oh and to get some great tax cuts...thank you Presidne Bush..........:2razz:
 
So you ignore the entire point of my post that deals with the thread subject just to masturbate yourself?????:roll:
 
26 X World Champs said:
So you ignore the entire point of my post that deals with the thread subject just to masturbate yourself?????:roll:
Click to expand...

You need to read the whole thread I already gave my opinion on the dems partisan politics..........They better dump all thse stupid investigations where no crime has been committed and get on with the peoples business or they will be out on their ear again...............You have been trying to get Rove for 6 years and you have yet to lay a glove on him...........Get over it move on.....We have SS and Medicare problems...........Deal with them........

Forget all this gotcha politics because the American people are interested in more important things.......
 
Do you ever read what anyone else posts and respond directly to the points raised in that particular post rather than repeating yourself over and over and over again?

My post completely and utterly disproved everything you've written. If you want to debate why not quote specifics in my post that you disagree with and using some intellect rebut those points...versus stroking yourself and contributing nothing new to the debate?????
 
Why would Bush feel the need to be honest about anything?
"I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President ... don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."
--Speaking to the National Security Council
Click to expand...

We don't need no stinkin' oath or transcripts...
"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003
Click to expand...

Congress demanding a proper investigation is not 'partisan politics' - it's their job. Bush calling 'partisan politics' in the face of an investigation is desperate.
:sinking:
(in general)The same people saying 'leave 'em be' are the same people who demand 'proof/sources' from anyone remotely 'anti bush'
:notlook:
Peace
 
Had the last 3 congresses done their job of keeping the executive branch in check.
A) the patriot act would never have passed - thus no warrentless wiretaps
B) Scooter Libby probably would not have been found guilty, Cheney might.
C) we probably wouldn't be in Iraq
D) the "conservatives" wouldn't be crying fowl right now of congress doing their job.

As much as it is the job of congress to pass legislation for the nation, it is also the job of congress to maintain checks on the executive branch. This is exactly why only congress can declare war, not the executive.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
You're looking at the wrong forest altogether. The issue is of setting a precedent that should never be set. That is what the president is fighting for.
Click to expand...

There is NO precedent. Ever since this nation was founded, aides to presidents have appeared under subpoena. When Clinton was in office, the Republicans did it 31 times.

Let's see here. Bush offers to let the Democrats talk to Rove and Miers. Conditions are that there is to be no transcript, they don't have to testify under oath, and they can say anything they want and claim it is true. I have an idea. How about everyone all get together at the nearest corner bar and have a friendly BS'ing contest over a few beers? That is pretty much what Bush's offer amounts to.

In the end, Rove will be forced to testify. You can make book on that. Either he will do it the easy way, or he will choose to do it the hard way, and take his party down with him in the process.
 
disneydude said:
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?
Click to expand...

Not seeing checks and balances outside of the separation of powers in the framers state of mind, what's the matter you don't believe in the separation of powers?
​
 

Karl Rove is a dangerous man who had way too much power.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:


Not seeing checks and balances outside of the separation of powers in the framers state of mind, what's the matter you don't believe in the separation of powers?
​
Click to expand...

You expect the executive branch to check itself? Not this administration. That's basically what Bush is saying. We don't have to be accountable to anyone. Sorry.....he's wrong. That is why we have the seperation of powers. That is the foundation of our system and it was designed exactly for this type of situation: a ruler that believes he is above the law and answerable to no one. GWB wants to be King. He has demonstrated that time and again throughout his "reign".
 

Or... couldn't he take the Fifth and just tell Congress to go fuq themselves?
 

Yup.

And let's not forget that Congress is under Article I and the President is under Article II.
 


disneydude said:
You expect the executive branch to check itself? Not this administration. That's basically what Bush is saying. We don't have to be accountable to anyone.
Click to expand...


In this case they aren't accountable to anyone, if the President isn't supposed to appoint those officials who are in tow with his posititions and the position of his constiuncey then WTF is the point of having Presidential elections?​

Sorry.....he's wrong.​
Click to expand...


No Kernel Sanders you're wrong and you and your little shills are about to find out just how wrong you are because it seems like GWB has finally grown a pair.​

That is why we have the seperation of powers.​
Click to expand...


lmfao dude you don't give a **** about the separation of powers as you have adequately proven throughout this entire debacle you are in full support of a gross overstepping of Congress into the powers of the Executive.​

That is the foundation of our system​
Click to expand...


Ya no sh!t so why are you adamantly opposing its roots? You do know what the separation of powers is right Bambi?​

a ruler that believes he is above the law and answerable to no one. GWB wants to be King. He has demonstrated that time and again throughout his "reign".​
Click to expand...
Lemme tell you something here Susan the reason why the separation of powers were installed is so no one branch of government becomes more powerful than any of the others and in so doing creates a weak centralized government, in your blatant support for the corroding of this institution you are giving the Congress powers not granted to them in the Constitution and not only that pal but as you increase the powers of the congress you're simultaneously decreasing the powers. So the moral of the story here is that if you're going to lecture me on the separation of powers you better find out whose power it is to hire and fire U.S. attorney's first, k there? Bye bye now.​

​
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Yup.

And let's not forget that Congress is under Article I and the President is under Article II.
Click to expand...

It's funny watching the people screaming "fuc/k the separation of powers give the Congress new powers not granted in the Constitution," actually asserting that they're the ones who support the separation of powers. Did I say funny? I meant sad, yes really really sad.
​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…