Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe the notion is that if they're talking informally, they can simply decline to answer questions they don't want to answer. Although they could do that under oath, I suppose.

I'm pretty sure the underlying notion is that if the investigators get into areas they aren't supposed to, his people will feel free to lie and don't want to get indicted for it.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So, what's Bush afraid of?

Congressional subpeonas.

They've been afraid of them since 2002.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
His argument is primarily that Democrats are partisan, anyone who disagrees with him is partisan, and that this partisanship should not continue. Partisan was the watchword of the night, because, you know, Congress is very partisan now that it is filled with Democrats, and now that they are doing things like questioning him, which if done in public is partisan but which he'll permit to be done behind closed doors, with no one taking notes.

I believe the proper response to the "Partisan" mantra is "accountability", though perhaps we sprinkle some variety in our responses by also emphasizing "honesty" and "the American people", and by regularly closing our posts with "What's Bush afraid of? "

So, what's Bush afraid of?

In times like these, I fall back on the words of White House spokesman Tony Snow:

• 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.

He said that back in 1998, but it has a sort of timeless quality.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe the notion is that if they're talking informally, they can simply decline to answer questions they don't want to answer. Although they could do that under oath, I suppose.

I am sure he'll explain his position on a need to know basis. You lot don't need to know though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
Let me put it this way, would you take a leader seriously if they pronounced it Ny-cure-egua?

Sure, if that was a common way of saying the word in the region that leader was from. (Just like I would take a nu-cu-lar engineer from the South seriously.)

I guess I learned early on that not everyone who talks a little different is dumb. Maybe growing up with immigrants did that.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In times like these, I fall back on the words of White House spokesman Tony Snow:

• 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.

He said that back in 1998, but it has a sort of timeless quality.

What law has he broken?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What law has he broken?

Does Gonzales' lying to Congress count?


In any event, I thank the Bush Administration for so blantantly demonstrating that the powers they secured in the name of fighting terrorism were really just designed to increase the power of the Executive Branch.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I guess I learned early on that not everyone who talks a little different is dumb. Maybe growing up with immigrants did that.

yet you attack anyone who thinks a little different from you with blind fury, claiming they're stupid?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yet you attack anyone who thinks a little different from you with blind fury, claiming they're stupid?

Mostly that's just exercise, pot.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sure, if that was a common way of saying the word in the region that leader was from. (Just like I would take a nu-cu-lar engineer from the South seriously.)

And you wouldn't expect a person to maybe somewhere over the course of five years of continued debate learn that they are saying it wrong and attempt to correct it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
And you wouldn't expect a person to maybe somewhere over the course of five years of continued debate learn that they are saying it wrong and attempt to correct it?

umm Sidd's point is they aren't saying it "wrong," just different than you do.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
umm Sidd's point is they aren't saying it "wrong," just different than you do.

Here's the thing. They are saying it wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Does Gonzales' lying to Congress count?


In any event, I thank the Bush Administration for so blantantly demonstrating that the powers they secured in the name of fighting terrorism were really just designed to increase the power of the Executive Branch.

This is obviously highly Partisan, just as it was Partisan for Congress to ask Gonzales questions that resulted in his lies, so clearly Gonzales' lies are the fault of a Partisan Congress.

Let's stop with all the Partisan bickering here, and let's get back to talking about Bill Clinton, George McGovern, and other traitors.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Adder
Here's the thing. They are saying it wrong.

So we should all be saying Munchen and Firenze and Paree?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Adder
Here's the thing. They are saying it wrong.

Where are you? I need to put a hit out on you.