If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   White House has 10 days to explain "Executive Privilege" to Congress, 8 days to frame the Congressional leadership for "terrorism" and throw them in Gitmo   (foxnews.com) divider line 69
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1701 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2007 at 7:50 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-07-01 05:27:04 PM
i23.photobucket.com
 
2007-07-01 05:33:51 PM
The White House did not immediately respond to the chairmen's tough talk, but Fielding made clear a day earlier that he believes all of the subpoenaed documents are protected by executive privilege.



I just don't see how Bush can win this fight. Well, OTHER than framing Congress for 'terrorism'.

execute Order 99.
 
2007-07-01 05:41:23 PM
Weaver95: The White House did not immediately respond to the chairmen's tough talk, but Fielding made clear a day earlier that he believes all of the subpoenaed documents are protected by executive privilege.



I just don't see how Bush can win this fight. Well, OTHER than framing Congress for 'terrorism'.

execute Order 99.


I don't see a problem for Bush. Congress will ask. Bush will refuse. Congress will stamp its foot. Bush will say, "so what?" That's it. Congress is too scared of another Monica fiasco--where the president survives and the congress ends up bloodied and looking spiteful--to push it any further.

Meanwhile, our system of checks and balances continues to be eroded, and the domestication of the dog continues unabated.
 
2007-07-01 05:42:26 PM
Bush won't comply to anything. He'll stall and stonewall until he leaves office.

I really hope congress doesn't fold, but they probably will.
 
2007-07-01 05:51:14 PM
inTheJungle:
I don't see a problem for Bush. Congress will ask. Bush will refuse. Congress will stamp its foot. Bush will say, "so what?" That's it. Congress is too scared of another Monica fiasco--where the president survives and the congress ends up bloodied and looking spiteful--to push it any further.

Meanwhile, our system of checks and balances continues to be eroded, and the domestication of the dog continues unabated.


I'm not so sure. I figured that Bush would get that immigration legislation passed easily and he failed to do so. I think his position is weaker than he'd like us to believe.

Also, just about everyone in Congress is trying to get into position for the upcoming Presidential elections. A good way for the Republicans to firm up their support might be to sacrifice Bush to the great unwashed masses. Given the lack of support, it certainly couldn't hurt anyways.
 
2007-07-01 06:00:39 PM
Weaver95: inTheJungle:
Also, just about everyone in Congress is trying to get into position for the upcoming Presidential elections. A good way for the Republicans to firm up their support might be to sacrifice Bush to the great unwashed masses. Given the lack of support, it certainly couldn't hurt anyways.


Good God do I hope you're right, and not me.
 
2007-07-01 06:10:02 PM
inTheJungle:
Good God do I hope you're right, and not me.


All that aside, I just don't see how Bush can win this particular fight. He's pushed the limits on 'executive privilege' to the extreme. Not only that, but he's backed some of the most unpopular legislative initiatives since the Carter years. What's his popularity rating at? below 30% last I looked.

So the adminstration can't say they've got popular backing for their arguments. They can't do any real horse trading since they're a lame duck adminstration. And they're failing to meet their legislative goals, with even thier own party bailing on them at key moments. And unless I miss my guess, there isn't much legal precedent to support their position.

Unless congress drops the ball (which is always possible) I think Bush is gonna lose this fight.
 
2007-07-01 06:15:19 PM
Bush will win this easily. Nobody wants to mess with Executive Privilege. The dems are most likely to win the next presidential election. They want Executive Privilege intact. Reps don't want a scandal.
 
2007-07-01 06:19:48 PM
Irregardless: Bush will win this easily. Nobody wants to mess with Executive Privilege. The dems are most likely to win the next presidential election. They want Executive Privilege intact. Reps don't want a scandal.

Again, i'm not so sure. This is a REALLY good opportunity to slam the President for some extremely unpopular actions. And it won't come back to hurt Congress at all.
 
2007-07-01 06:25:01 PM
Irregardless: Bush will win this easily. Nobody wants to mess with Executive Privilege. The dems are most likely to win the next presidential election. They want Executive Privilege intact. Reps don't want a scandal.

What is deliciously fun to do is ask a Republican if he would trust Hillary with the kind of power that Cheney is appropriating for the executive branch. . . .


.
 
2007-07-01 06:34:55 PM
Weaver95: I just don't see how Bush can win this fight. Well, OTHER than framing Congress for 'terrorism'.

simple. He can say "I'm not turning anything over"
That could probably lead to impeachment hearings, but unfortunately, he still has enough support in congress that any attempt would be very difficult.
 
2007-07-01 06:38:36 PM
SilentStrider: simple. He can say "I'm not turning anything over"
That could probably lead to impeachment hearings, but unfortunately, he still has enough support in congress that any attempt would be very difficult.


I thought for sure Bush would have enough support in Congress to pass that asinine immigration reform bill, but his own party turned on him and voted it down. Given that rather surprising turn of events, I'm not so sure the adminstration has the level of support necessary to just blow off Congress.
 
2007-07-01 07:15:09 PM
Weaver95: I just don't see how Bush can win this fight. Well, OTHER than framing Congress for 'terrorism'.

Unfortunately, there is one other possibility. Misdirection. All Bush needs to get through this one is another 9/11 or Katrina, or other big media frenzy, which would suck, since this tyrant is long over due to be strung up.
 
2007-07-01 07:15:16 PM
Can our country well afford to have more "dignity" restored? Every turn they hide the facts and label oversight attacks.
 
2007-07-01 07:34:15 PM
pjh3000: Weaver95: I just don't see how Bush can win this fight. Well, OTHER than framing Congress for 'terrorism'.

Unfortunately, there is one other possibility. Misdirection. All Bush needs to get through this one is another 9/11 or Katrina, or other big media frenzy, which would suck, since this tyrant is long over due to be strung up.


No, I don't think we'll see anything like another 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina. At least I hope not anyways. Smaller scale attacks similar to the ones that hit the UK recently - those maybe. But the days of large scale attacks on this country are pretty much over.

I think what worries me is that we're losing the fight to keep the three branches of our government balanced against one another. Congress is off in it's own world, the courts seem to be making things up as they go along and the executive looks like it's been trying to grab anything not nailed down. Add in an electorate that seems isolated (or just asleep) and I start to worry.
 
2007-07-01 07:41:08 PM
Ok guys are Rosie and Cynthia posting on here.

Here you go....
 
2007-07-01 07:42:54 PM
www.aibo-life.com worked that time
 
2007-07-01 07:46:17 PM
Bush said he'd treat the government like a business.

Now's a good time to reorganize. That always buys a few months time.

Maybe a 4th branch?
 
2007-07-01 07:48:48 PM
"The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the republic," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told Fielding.



Well, Bush voters? When you won re-election in '04 and gloated about how America had chosen and we win and you lose hah-ha suck it, we said you would be the ones held accountable since you controlled everything. Now that scandal after scandal after shady dealing keep coming to light, what do you have to say?

Will you blame Clinton or the new Democratic Congress for your failings? Or the Media always makes for convenient scapegoats.
 
2007-07-01 07:58:37 PM
I bet it will be 9 days till some low ranking lackey resigns to spend time with his/her family, then SURPRISE it was all their fault.
 
2007-07-01 08:01:18 PM
Control_this

Bush said he'd treat the government like a business.

Man I hope not, as he bankrupted every business he has ever held an executive position within.
 
2007-07-01 08:07:45 PM
I'm getting the feeling Cheney is having deja vu. You know, when the Republicans in Congress go to the President's office and tell him that he's resigning, or he's going to be impeached and taken from power. Because, despite being daddy's boy, the party isn't going to be taken down by some figurehead whose purpose is now done.

He can biatch and whine, but Daddy's Boy is going to have a very valuable and long-due lesson taught to him. Sometimes in life, you don't get what you want. And when you're President, it's not a one man show. The Party--the one that got you here--must survive and now is facing the greatest threat it will ever face. All the media outlets it controls and all the people he has to throw dirt in Joe Q. Public's eye is not working, not clouding how badly President Jesus Nazi has farked America. The public is focused and angry now. They don't know who they want in 2009 to lead America out of this mess, but they do know who caused it and who is now a living joke. And all the tantrums and bluster that he can manage now only elicts a groan and more fury from the populace, divided on meaningless issues, but united in the fact that they can now no longer prosper in a George W. Bush imaginary America.

Bush is going to get his walking papers soon. And Cheney just might get them first.
 
2007-07-01 08:09:38 PM
PSUbiochemist2006

Which of the presidents does not belong, based on trends in debt:

Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II

I don't understand how people buy into the label "Conservative" when the only break in spending like a drunk sorority girl armed with her dad's credit card was a Democratic President.

I maintain that Clinton was the best Republican President you guys had in recent history.
 
2007-07-01 08:12:04 PM
images.ucomics.com
 
2007-07-01 08:12:35 PM
Conservatives only use the "fiscal responsibility" line to cover up that every single one of them are bigots.
 
2007-07-01 08:14:02 PM
The Republican congress were morons. Even though tax revenues are going up they found ways to spend it faster than it came in. Reagans spending made sense, the Bushes....not so much.
 
2007-07-01 08:16:20 PM
bubbaprog: Conservatives only use the "fiscal responsibility" line to cover up that every single one of them are bigots.

Yeah, 'cause balancing the budget is racist.

/sarcasm

put down the bong.
 
2007-07-01 08:18:13 PM
Impeach Bush and you get Cheney as president. Impeach both, give them a trial then HANG THEM. Do trials for other scum in the country like Rumsfeld or Jeb Bush or Guiliani or Bloomberg. Trial, HANG.

How is that hard to understand? The procedure for traitors is TRIAL, HANG!

/Foaming at the mouth
 
2007-07-01 08:19:00 PM
Weaver:

No, it is because NO republicans actually have any interest in balancing the budget.

This is, of course, using "republicans" to mean elected members of the republican party, not citizens that describe themselves as republican.
 
2007-07-01 08:22:10 PM
Good luck with that, 'executive privilege' is mentioned nowhere in the constitution. It's a fictitious tradition of our federal government, one that should definitely be ended.
 
2007-07-01 08:23:19 PM
Bill Frist: No, it is because NO republicans actually have any interest in balancing the budget.

.


Yeah, but neither do the 'democrats'.

My point is that the whole 'if you don't support [insert cause here], then you are a racist scumbag' schtick is getting a bit old. People aren't falling for it any more. Look how badly it failed to dissuade people from killing that immigration reform abortion.

If you want to talk about our current crop of politicans and their hypocracy, then SAY that's what you want to talk about. But don't accuse people of racism just because they happen to have a different solution to our problems.
 
2007-07-01 08:25:45 PM
put down the bong

Funny, I say the same thing to idiots who claim Conservatives are fiscally responsible.
 
2007-07-01 08:28:37 PM
The Why Not Guy: put down the bong

Funny, I say the same thing to idiots who claim Conservatives are fiscally responsible.


Conservatives ARE fiscally responsible. The problem is that most of them have been driven out of D.C.

That's why I was so surprised to see that immigration bill die in the Senate. I was utterly convinced that the beltway insiders had that thing locked up tight as a drum. That the bill failed makes me wonder if Congress is abandoning it's support of the President.
 
2007-07-01 08:29:56 PM
I think the WH should send Vice-President Cheney to tell Leahy to go fark himself.
 
2007-07-01 08:34:54 PM
HappyDaddy: I think the WH should send Vice-President Cheney to tell Leahy to go fark himself.

Not very Christian, if you ask me. Other than that, I'm with you: The Bush and Admin can and will do no wrong.

/suck it, libs.
 
2007-07-01 08:58:44 PM
Weaver95 Conservatives ARE fiscally responsible. The problem is that most of them have been driven out of D.C.

Don't even try to sell your "Bush was never really a Conservative" shiat here.
 
2007-07-01 09:03:43 PM
bubbprog: "Conservatives only use the "fiscal responsibility" line to cover up that every single one of them are bigots." ..this kinda shiat is why i no longer vote for democrats, if i can avoid it. The party is so full of intellectual dead-weight.

/not that anyone cares what i think..
 
2007-07-01 09:15:06 PM
Weaver95:

I'll have to disagree with democrats having no interest in balancing the budget. Here's the US government budget, present to 1962 (First year under some key accounting bill). I've normalized everything to year 2000 USD.

ejksdesktop.homelinux.com

Clinton is the only period where the graph definitely levels out. Most of the graph is +$40Bn/year, the mean Clinton budget grew $8Bn/year.

/Needs to get to work crunching through that budget history file...
 
2007-07-01 10:01:17 PM
Bush and Cheney expecting a Visitor

www.genericgeek.com
 
2007-07-01 10:02:52 PM
www.genericgeek.com
 
2007-07-01 10:09:42 PM
Weaver95 2007-07-01 08:28:37 PM
The Why Not Guy: put down the bong

Funny, I say the same thing to idiots who claim Conservatives are fiscally responsible.

Conservatives ARE fiscally responsible. The problem is that most of them have been driven out of D.C.


Dude, you were sold a bill of goods. Shame on you that you bought it. Now try to learn from your mistake.

That's why I was so surprised to see that immigration bill die in the Senate. I was utterly convinced that the beltway insiders had that thing locked up tight as a drum. That the bill failed makes me wonder if Congress is abandoning it's support of the President.

Hmmm; how to explain this? That's because you were thinking about the way things were seven months ago, when the Repubs had a lock on all three branches of government. If you haven't noticed, the legislative branch changed hands recently. Or do you choose to believe that this would have gotten voted down if Bush was still the meal ticket of the GOP? If so, boy, do I have a deal for you...

/The Democratic Congress saved you from that lousy immigration-reform bill. Don't you ever forget that.
 
2007-07-01 10:13:31 PM
It's good to see they have a plan to deal with it at least.
 
2007-07-01 10:23:24 PM
If Bush had a strategy for Iraq like he does Congress, the CIA, and the courts, we would be winning.
 
2007-07-01 10:27:30 PM
Weaver95, et al

Now, I'm not one to cry racism at every turn. In fact, I despise it. But to think conservatives' "fiscal responsibility" has nothing to do with bigotry is ignoring everything the conservatives have done since.

Lee Atwater, influential Republican consultant, on conservative movement:

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'attractive and successful African-American, attractive and successful African-American, attractive and successful African-American.' By 1968 you can't say 'attractive and successful African-American' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'attractive and successful African-American, attractive and successful African-American.'
 
2007-07-01 10:28:13 PM
By 1968 you can't say 'attractive and successful African-American' - that hurts you. Backfires.

Hehe. Just ask Joe Biden.
 
2007-07-01 10:33:53 PM
Time for Darth Cheney declaring martial law.
 
2007-07-01 10:34:11 PM
Pelosi and her bunch are weaker than GWB. GWB wins this one, like someone else posted earlier the Dems don't want to lose executive privilige so they will back off.
The reason I feel the Illegal Immigration Amnesty Bill was defeated, and why Bush lost his base overnight was because he called citizens unamerican for not backing that shiatty piece of legislation (or words to that effect).
 
2007-07-01 10:54:33 PM
torquestripe: ...and why Bush lost his base overnight was because he called citizens unamerican for not backing that shiatty piece of legislation (or words to that effect).

If that's true, it implies that The Uniter's tactics of dividing people and scaring them are becoming threadbare. In which case he is powerless, as I have little recollection of any other tactic he's used. If he's powerless, then the Democrats are in a far stronger position than you seem to believe.

/Thinks the Bush Administration has fallen into the trap of beliving their own PR.
//Expects this to create a black hole of self-reinforcing delusion.
 
2007-07-01 10:59:16 PM
Martial law declared in 3....2....1
 
2007-07-01 11:06:11 PM
torquestripe, you are learning, but not nearly at the speed that reality requires. Expect your Farking priviledges to be revoked, and to be transferred to a nice fellow from India who calls himself Bill.
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report