From Salon:
Wow, they really do think we’re idiots.
From Salon:
Wow, they really do think we’re idiots.
Bitte scho:n
Oh great, now I have to go scrub my brain. Thanks a bunch, Mighty_Girl. Where’s the vomit smiley when you need it?
Well, there’s one person arguing in GD that it doesn’t seem like a bad idea.
So, they’re party right.
-Joe
At this point, I have to wonder if they’re just going through the motions.
They know they’re screwed. They’re just going to drag it out and make it as painful as they can, because they’re dicks, and they can.
I don’t think Bush will ever acknowledge being screwed, because he doesn’t believe he is. This lunatic truly believes he’s above the law. I think he’s going to fight like a retarded kid to the end.
But painful to whom? The longer this goes on, the more the GOP with have to distance itself from the President in the run up to the 2008 election. This is presidential suicide-by-Congress.
I thought it was “What did the President forget, and when did he forget it?”
Or as any number of pundits and comedians said at the time, “What did the President know, and when did he stop knowing it?”
Except with the present incumbent, I suspect the answers would be “nothing” and “not applicable.”
I thought it was “What did the President forget, and when did he forget it?”
Depends on whether we’re talking about Nixon or Reagan.
I don’t know what all you folks are getting excited about; the president is just trying to save the country some money.
How much did it cost to prosecute Scooter Libby and how much will it cost to keep him incarcerated (or process his appeals)? If there is no sworn testimony, there can be no charge of perjury or lying under oath, thus saving all the resultant expenses when the facts are revealed, later.
Depends on whether we’re talking about Nixon or Reagan.
In this case I believe it was Reagan. I have trouble keeping forgetful Republicans straight.
Come to think of it, the Democrats could learn a lesson or two from those guys. If Clinton had merely ‘forgotten’ whether he’d had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, he’d have had much less trouble over her.
I agree with the guy who said this:
Evidently, (the president) wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up…
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.
Words of wisdom from…Tony Snow, 1998.
If you haven’t seen any of Snow’s press conferences today, they’ve been pure comedy gold. Even he’s having a hard time pushing this claptrap. As a wise man once said, “You can’t polish a turd, Beavis.”
At this point, I have to wonder if they’re just going through the motions.
They know they’re screwed. They’re just going to drag it out and make it as painful as they can, because they’re dicks, and they can.
I waiver between believing that, or that they truly believe they are doing the right thing and nobody else understands, or that they are just putting off the inevitable til their term is over and then ride off into the sunset.
Sure, we’ll let Rove and Miers talk to congress about the DOJ firings, as long as they don’t have to promise officially to tell the truth." This is our government’s idea of openness. Guess that’ll clear everything up. :dubious:
The Dems do NOT want them under oath. It’s a crap shoot for them.
This way, the Dems get to look like mighty warriors searching for truth and all that. they can’t afford the political fallout that would happen if they put Rove/Miers under oath and then were unable to discover anything nefarious.
Which they won’t, BTW. This is nothing but political posturing and grandstanding.
This is nothing but political posturing and grandstanding.
Wow, yeh – no more nefarious than a third-rate burglary.
The Dems do NOT want them under oath. It’s a crap shoot for them.
This way, the Dems get to look like mighty warriors searching for truth and all that. they can’t afford the political fallout that would happen if they put Rove/Miers under oath and then were unable to discover anything nefarious.
Which they won’t, BTW. This is nothing but political posturing and grandstanding.
:rolleyes: Come on now, it’s pretty obvious at this point the USAs in question were fired for failing to serve the Pub political agenda, and it’s more than likely the orders came from Rove. The only question is whether that rises to the level of “nefarious.”
The Dems do NOT want them under oath.
Your insight into the Democrat mindset is breathaking.
The Dems do NOT want them under oath. It’s a crap shoot for them.
This way, the Dems get to look like mighty warriors searching for truth and all that. they can’t afford the political fallout that would happen if they put Rove/Miers under oath and then were unable to discover anything nefarious.
Which they won’t, BTW. This is nothing but political posturing and grandstanding.
Wow, I bet you’re right! All the administration has to do to make the Democrats look like fools is allow Rove and Miers to be interviewed under oath.
So why won’t they?
So why won’t they?
Because they’re geniuses, geniuses! It’s a long-term strategy: dig in their heels, obstruct obstruct obstruct, and then, finally, when the Dems get their way, and nothing untoward is revealed, when it turns out that the Bushiviks are honorable warriors bearing the swords and shields of truth and righteousness against the slavering barbarians of liberalism and anti-Americanism, they’ll get to say “I told you so.” And then the GOP will cement its hold on power for ever and ever, and lo, all will be right with the world. And then we invade Turkey, or Bolivia, or something. Amen.