Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/29/2002 7:11:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:13:34 AM EDT
Lay's house looked bigger and more beautiful than anything I'll ever own....his car (mercedes) looked better than any Toyota I can ever afford... I don't feel for anyone who had all that.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:20:29 AM EDT
Simple, it's called 'executive privilege' and while even some GOP folks are urging the disclosure of contacts, it is a very valid objection to the requests by Congress (House Republican Committee Chairmen, included) of all contacts that the President and his administration may have with third parties. How can they ever rely on the advice and confidences that third parties are giving them, if those third parties know that whatever they may tell the President and his staff 'off the record' might be the subject of a Congressional Hearing some day? We got burned by Clinton, but this privilege is something that has been around, well, since the country was founded! Ever hear of Congressional privilege? Senatorial courtesy? Well, it's part of the same 'game.' Now, if Congress can point to some concrete evidence of wrongdoing, that's another matter, let's not just have a 'fishing expedition' to see what's been said in confidence to the Prez and his folks. Eric The(WouldYouHaveItAnyOtherWay?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:20:33 AM EDT
DK-Prof, something in this mornings cool Oklahoma air forces me to answer candidly. I am not mad because those "slick weasels" are my slick weasels. Now there does seem to be a decent argument on the merits as to whether legally the meeting notes in question must be turned-over. All presidents do seem to be very cautious in setting possibly undesirable precedents. Again and with candor this action is not bad enough to make me turn on "MY" slick weasels.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:27:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they run a campaign that had a cornerstone of "restoring dignity to the white house" and bragging about how everything would be "above-board" and open in their administration? Can someone please remind these slick weasels of those promises when they're standing there smugly arrogant saying that they don't HAVE TO tell anyone who they met with to make energy policy - and daring the GOA to sue them to provide the names because they are confident they can win in court. Okay - I'm done ranting now. [:D]
View Quote
Relax, DK. There is NO indication they (GWB and Cheney) have done anything wrong. Knowing how the Democrats WILL spin any info that comes out to HURT Bush, I don't blame GWB for playing close to the vest. Let's do a little test - You are ethical and above board, right???? Well, send Tom Daschle and the Dems your annual income figures, your Social Security number, your credit card numbers, your mutual fund access passwords, all your personal financial information, as well as private family history, medical info etc etc etc. If you don't do this, you are CLEARLY NOT an ethical person. The Dems can be trusted to properly use (or NOT use) this info, right???? Foolish, right?? Well, that's EXACTLY the standard you are holding GWB to. And it too is foolish. It's AMAZING to me how easily "we" fall into the Dems trap of committing hari kari. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:44:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:47:42 AM EDT
This is the old "if you have nothing to hide, why would object to": ( ) Because.
Link Posted: 1/29/2002 7:52:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: That's my problem here - not that they are hiding behind things like privelege and legal gibberish and doublespeak - but that they are doing so after explicitly PROMISING they wouldn't.
View Quote
I think therein lies your error. [b] I DO NOT BELEIVE they ever said they wouldn't exercise executive priviledge. Show me where they did say that they wouldn't exercise priviledge, and then that's a whole other story.[/b]And exercising priviledge does [b]NOT [/b]equate to being unethical. Given the evil nature of the Democrats, I APPLAUD Bush for stonewalling them. They simply are looking for ANY angle they can, particularly illegitimate ones, to destroy the man. And I DO NOT beleive it is unethical for GWB to NOT make it easy for them to do that. I tell ya one thing tho - the Dems are feeling VERY successful watching YOU do their hatchet job FOR them.
Top Top