What an arrogant dick.

Way to live up to the name

FTFA: Stephanopoulos noted that President Gerald Ford testified before Congress.

To save his political bacon, Ford went before Congress to assure them there was no quid pro quo in terms of his pardoning Nixon. He went there voluntarily.

There is no constitutional requirement for the President or the Vice President to appear before Congress, and a subpeona of the Vice President would solely be a form of political posturing.

Question.
Why do they need him to testify before congress?

What a very, very bad man he is.

soccerhooligan81: Why do they need him to testify before congress?

The thinking is that when the Dem's take power, they will investigate and investigate and investigate the activities of this administration. Some believe they will also move to impeach, although most every Democrat in a position of leadership is denying this.

Anybody want to whip up a quick "No, you can't have government accountability. (NOT YOURS!)"?

I'm feeling a tad lazy.

Finnley Wren

Ok, so if evidence exists of some wrongdoing, doesn't he have to answer to someone?

investigate and investigate and investigate

The not very subtle rhetorical device of repetition is used here in place of outright floccinaucinihilipilification.

God save the queen!

soccerhooligan81: Ok, so if evidence exists of some wrongdoing, doesn't he have to answer to someone?

If indeed that is the case, then impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate is the only way to deal with it. They must prove "High Crimes and Misdemeaners," language that is squishy at best.

They cannot subpeona the Vice President or the President to testify in front of them, however. Separation of Powers and all that.

Remember the South Park with that fat bald guy who kept on saying "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"?

Kinda prophetic, huh?

SherKhan: floccinaucinihilipilification

Cool word! Like to think I'm well read and all that, but I've never heard it.

And no, I do not want to see the Congress fall into the fingerpointing and accusations and neverending investigations that befell Clinton.

I am, however, a Republican who believes at this point that Bush probably deserves it now more than Clinton ever did, but hope's the Democrats are indeed above all that.

Ahem, "Misdemeanors".

Finnley Wren: I am, however, a Republican who believes at this point that Bush probably deserves it now more than Clinton ever did, but hope's the Democrats are indeed above all that.

It seems to me at some point you've got to punish a President that blatantly overextended his powers for boogeymen and dragged us into two very debatable military conflicts...

But wishing so doesn't even begin to forecast the ensuing feeding frenzy if someone decided to impeach this administration.

Finnley Wren:

They cannot subpeona the Vice President or the President to testify in front of them, however. Separation of Powers and all that.

Actually they can, and they probably will, as they should. Cheney's view of the power of the executive (which is only for Republican executives of course) is flat out wrong. They have been handed their ass a few times in court already and this will be no different. They are accountable to us and the people who represent us are in congress.

BXRWXR: Ahem, "Misdemeanors".

Interesting that I'd get "subpoena" right, though. Maybe I have a brain tumor or something.

/thanks

AgeOfReason: Actually they can, and they probably will,

You are indeed technically correct, Reason. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.

It has never been done before, however, and would become precedent setting to say the least.

whidbey: It seems to me at some point you've got to punish a President that blatantly overextended his powers for boogeymen and dragged us into two very debatable military conflicts...

I think going down as the worst President in American History is punishment enough, whidbey. Unfortunately, he does not believe that he will and even then he will not live to see it happen.

But it will happen.

I am, however, a Republican who believes at this point that Bush probably deserves it now more than Clinton ever did, but hope's the Democrats are indeed above all that.

I am an American and we both know the Democrats have a detailed list of each and every promise not kept, "Bushisms" like "I'm a uniter, not a divider", and things us normal folks forgot about. After all this time of Republican gloating, the Dems are gonna be poking him with a trainload of sticks. Petty? Yes. Deserved? Oh yes

Of course can't be sworn to tell the truth. The man is a habitual liar.

Another from my cool words file (yes, I really have one): orgulous. That's what Dick is. It's positively pre-Autumnal.

Forget about impeachment, I would rather that from January 2007 to January 2009 is spend humiliating President Stoopid and Vice President Greed.

I hope the Democrats spend the next 2 years sticking it to them. Maybe they can't make him testify, but they can shed light, on a daily basis, Cheney's evildoing and Bush's ineptitude.

Finnley Wren: I am, however, a Republican who believes at this point that Bush probably deserves it now more than Clinton ever did, but hope's the Democrats are indeed above all that.

So you think it's important that the Democrats prove that the rule of law is not important to the people of the country when it involves the highest officials in the land?

I'm sorry, I thought that all the fingerpointing and accusations turned our government into a world-wide media circus when they did it to Clinton. But there were accusations of wrong-doing, and it is the responsibility of the Congress to make sure that such issues are settled.

The accusations here are far more serious, depending on who you care to listen to, and I firmly believe that if the Congress does not issue subpoenas, investigate allegations of war-profiteering, was crimes, skewing of intelligence, etc, then they have let us down. Circus or not, it is far more important to demonstrate both to the world at large, and our politicians in specific, that ultimately none of them is above the law. And that's the only way they are going to understand it and believe it.

/And no, I'm not just talking about Republicans. I'm talking about all of them.

Finnley Wren: I think going down as the worst President in American History is punishment enough, whidbey.

Merely giving him a Golden Raspberry Award and then sending him off to a luxurious retirement in "disgrace" isn't going to be enough.

There still has to be some kind of Congressional censure to make sure future Presidents don't try to pull the crap he's been getting away with doing.

Knight_of_Swords:

So you think it's important that the Democrats prove that the rule of law is not important to the people of the country when it involves the highest officials in the land?

Don't think there's any reason at all to "prove" that. It kind of goes without saying and is something that we can all agree on, no?

I'm sorry, I thought that all the fingerpointing and accusations turned our government into a world-wide media circus when they did it to Clinton. But there were accusations of wrong-doing, and it is the responsibility of the Congress to make sure that such issues are settled.

Agreed, and if indeed the President and the Vice President are guilty of High Crimes and Misdemeanors then have at them.

The accusations here are far more serious, depending on who you care to listen to,

We can agree on that as well, however let us remember that the last time our country embarked on an orgy of investigations, there was a group of young men in Hamburg that had other plans for us.

whidbey: There still has to be some kind of Congressional censure to make sure future Presidents don't try to pull the crap he's been getting away with doing.

Not sure that he has "gotten way" with anything, nor am I certain that he is guilty of anything, let alone a High Crime or Misdemeanor. You know something I don't?

Finnley Wren: I think going down as the worst President in American History is punishment enough

If I recall correctly, Teddy Roosevelt wasn't exactly the most popular when he was president. But he is hailed as one of the greatest ever.

If, by some freak events, the situation in Iraq makes the middle-east more stable in the long run, Bush will be regarded as one of the greatest, even thouh He doen't have a clue about what he is doing. Only time will tell.

How is it that Clinton was impeached for a low misdemeanor?

High misdemeanor for politicians should be voter fraud, war profiteering, and murder.

High crimes = treason, if I'm not mistaken.


So uh, wtf Clinton and not Bush?
Nevermind, I know the answer.

even thouh He doen't have a clue about what he is doing

erm...he, not He.

soccerhooligan81:

If I recall correctly, Teddy Roosevelt wasn't exactly the most popular when he was president. But he is hailed as one of the greatest ever.

Teddy was actually quite popular, however he made the foolish decision to announce that he would not run for re-election right after he was elected. He was a lame duck from that moment on.

If, by some freak events, the situation in Iraq makes the middle-east more stable in the long run, Bush will be regarded as one of the greatest, even thouh He doen't have a clue about what he is doing. Only time will tell.

Agreed, hooligan. Don't see it happening, though. But time will tell.

Finnley Wren:

You are indeed technically correct, Reason. They have the power to subpoena anyone they want.

It has never been done before, however, and would become precedent setting to say the least.

Clinton was compelled to appear and testify in a civil matter and I would say that was precedent setting as well.

My wish is that a few investigations do take place and the war profiteering is stopped now. If those investigations lead to the top then so be it, I doubt they will. Basically go after the people that are guilty of convictable crimes and that have profited from the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Do not go after the Pres and the Veep while they are in office. Emasculate them while they are there. Then after he leaves office if he doesn't pardon himself, Cheney and Rummy and there is evidence that they illegally conspired in the corruption, or in handling the evidence before the war then send 'em to prison. If the evidence is not there or cannot be obtained history will still judge this man by his actions.

You know something I don't?

I know that you know that we can't know what we don't know without some sort of an investigation.

/Eeew. I just channeled Rummy

Bush sux, but hearings are bad news. If the terrorists somehow pull off another 9-11, it's bad enough that the Dems will be sitting ducks in Congress, and add to the fact that Bush was being harassed by this inquisition will just make the Dems look like they were distracting from Bush's anti-terrorism.

hearing is a lose lose for everybody.

AgeOfReason:

Clinton was compelled to appear and testify in a civil matter and I would say that was precedent setting as well.

You are correct. It was indeed precedent setting to have an intern trolling sexual harraser rise to such lofty heights.

My wish is that a few investigations do take place and the war profiteering is stopped now.

Agree with you entirely.

Do not go after the Pres and the Veep while they are in office. Emasculate them while they are there . . .

We cannot afford to have another emasculated President. Didn't work with Clinton and it won't work with Bush.

SherKhan: I know that you know that we can't know what we don't know without some sort of an investigation.

Amen. Congress has totally relinquished their important oversight role, another reason why we need the Democrats to take power. My concern is that the pendulum not swing too widely nor distract us from other pressing concerns.

Finnley Wren: Teddy was actually quite popular

Ok...but it was one of your war-time presidents. Don't recall which one. Probably during WW I.

AgeOfReason
Then after he leaves office if he doesn't pardon himself..

WTF?!! He can do that?

Finnley Wren:

Not sure that he has "gotten way" with anything

The wiretapping flap, the habeas corpus flap, the wars...

Especially the Iraq klsterfk.

nor am I certain that he is guilty of anything, let alone a High Crime or Misdemeanor. You know something I don't?

Again, some kind of public censure for the three items I listed above. This administration deserves to be punished in some manner for breaching the trust of the American People and using fear to gain the sweeping powers we've seen in the past five years.

soccerhooligan81: Ok...but it was one of your war-time presidents. Don't recall which one. Probably during WW I.

You are thinking of Truman.

Ironically enough, he was appointed to investigate war profiteering during WWII and was ruthless and dogged in his investigations, which set him up for the VP spot in Roosevelt's fourth term. History has indeed been kind to the "uneducated haberdasher" from Independence, MO.

soccerhooligan81: Question.
Why do they need him to testify before congress?

So they can catch him in a lie under oath.

whidbey:

The wiretapping flap, the habeas corpus flap, the wars...

Not illegal, voted upon by Congress, voted upon by Congress.

Especially the Iraq klsterfk.

Voted upon by Congress.

Again, some kind of public censure for the three items I listed above.

An investigation into the legality or lack thereof of any of the items you list above would be a waste of time, but I wouldn't argue against it too vociferously. To the victor go the spoils, and all.

This administration deserves to be punished in some manner for breaching the trust of the American People and using fear to gain the sweeping powers we've seen in the past five years.

"Breaching the trust of the American people" is kind of squishy, and Presidents have been using fear since Washington. Any new powers the President has gotten in the last five years have been ceded to him by Congress.

Finnley Wren
Any new powers the President has gotten in the last five years have been ceded to him by Congress.

In other words, you guys screwed yourselves over ;)


btw, what novel is your handle from? Catcher in the rye?

"2006-11-05 02:31:43 PM Jeff_from_MD

Bush sux, but hearings are bad news. If the terrorists somehow pull off another 9-11, it's bad enough that the Dems will be sitting ducks in Congress, and add to the fact that Bush was being harassed by this inquisition will just make the Dems look like they were distracting from Bush's anti-terrorism.

hearing is a lose lose for everybody."

I see that you have the "I Don't Want Anyone To Find Out Just How Bad This Administration Is Because It Only Serves To Make Me Look Even Worse And I Simply Cannot Own Up To My Mistakes" talking points down pat.

Shut up, Finnley, you cock.

soccerhooligan81:

In other words, you guys screwed yourselves over ;)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, hooligan. It's more a human thing than a Democrat or Republican thing.

If the Dem's stay in there too long we'll throw them out in eight, ten, or twelve years.

btw, what novel is your handle from?

The novel is actually called Finnley Wren, by one of my all-time favorote writers, Philip Wylie

Axolotl: Shut up, Finnley, you cock.

Dead-ender Republican checking in.

I'm sure Mr Conyers has a lot of questions.

26 pages of stuff he wants to know more about.

Finnley Wren: The wiretapping flap, the habeas corpus flap, the wars...

Not illegal, voted upon by Congress, voted upon by Congress.

No, the wiretapping is most certainly UnConstitutional I would hope at least you'd agree with that, and also agree with the seriousness of this abuse.

As for the war and the habeas corpus, investigations may lead to Senators and Congressmen resigning. I sure have no problem with that.

An investigation into the legality or lack thereof of any of the items you list above would be a waste of time, but I wouldn't argue against it too vociferously. To the victor go the spoils, and all.

You make it sound like the Democrats would merely do this spitefully, and not that there's actual reason to fear that we might have dodged a bullet with Bush. We still have two years for him to screw something else up. Yes, this is the extent of the faith I have in this administration...;)

and Presidents have been using fear since Washington.

Doesn't justify anything. Maybe it's time that practice stopped.

Any new powers the President has gotten in the last five years have been ceded to him by Congress.

But seriously, the charge is that Bush had no business asking for that power, and used fear to coerce the votes he needed.

Which I would then be satisfied with a proper bipartisan Congressional housecleaning as needed.