Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Nov 17, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

    “If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

    Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.


    More Here
     
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    Neat ability to cover your crimes, isn't it? Bush should thank Harry from the bottom of his heart.
     
  3. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    Crimes? What crimes are you accusing Bush of committing?

    peace to you:praying:
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    Where have you been the last 5 to 8 years that you can ask such a question?

    Lieing to the American public.

    Violation of Americans' civil rights.

    Approval of what are considered war crimes, including torture.


    The list could go on ... but don't worry, he will not be prosecuted for his crimes.
     
  5. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Crabby's same old liberal laundry list. I bet you there isn't a Michael Moore film that you don't like. Fact of the matter is that the Democrats want payback for Clinton's impeachment. Now, there's absolutely no doubt that Clinton lied under oath. However, one would be hard pressed to prove that Bush lied. He acted on weak intelligence which may be stupid but isn't a crime.
     
  6. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    That is the crux of the matter.
     
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784

    I believe it is much bigger than Clinton.They want to destroy conservatism to maintain total control of their socialist/communist agenda.
     
  8. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    Well Sag, believe it or not, but I have never seen a Michael Moore movie and am not sure I want to. I do not like going to either extreme. I do not see crime as a liberal or conservative issue, but legal. I fully believe that Bush, if he hasn't committed any crimes, has certainly violated our culture and almost everything we, as a country, have stood for during our history.

    For instance I do not believe we should:

    Spy on our own people
    Torture people
    Pre-emptively start a war
    Allow warrantless wiretaps or searches
    Allow arrests of people and not allow them to know what they are charged with

    This is just starters .....................

    I have never defended Clinton lieing under oath.
     
  9. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think every former president should be expected to keep secret the things he learned while in the white house, really do you want former presidents writting boks or doing invterviews spilling the beans on every american secret they know. Fact is Bush has done nothing more then other former presidents, prehaps we just didn't know about it because people, even the media, used to respect the presidency, and states secrests.
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    WE should all be thankful for that...

    :laugh: :laugh:
     
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    He has done much more than former presidents, and much is or should be illegal. He has violated many stances that are what has made the US the envy of the world. He has tarnished our image all over the world. I only hope we can regain some of the excellent repubation we had as a country prior to his ill adventure in Iraq.
     
  12. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    should be is not the same as illegal.
    i am so worried about my image and what other people think of me, oh boy.
    fact is, we have no real idea what past presidents have actually done.
    and I still say, we do not want presidents leaving the white house and spilling their guts on what they know about this country, giving away our secrets to our enemies. then they'd be charged with spying. i fully expect obama to keep our secrets a secret from the world also. we are never told everything about any one topic, if we knew others in the world would know. this is a fact of the presidency, always has been. none of this is new to bush.
     
    #12 donnA, Nov 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2008
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I challenged you once before to tell me which of your civil rights had been violated. I don't recall seeing any response.:tonofbricks:

    What torture did Bush approve? How do you define torture: locking terrorists up, giving them 3 squares each day, and clean sheets at night?:laugh:

    How do you define lying?

    Webster defines lying as making a false statement with deliberate intent to deceive. Bush may have repeated something that he was told and believed to be true. That is not a lie.

    How are we to understand your statement accusing Bush of lying since no one has proven he lied, not even the most radical democrat? Are you deliberately misleading?:BangHead:
     
  14. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,619
    Likes Received:
    158
    Under the Security act my phone can be tapped, my house can be broken into and searched without a warrant. I can be arrested and not told why I am charged, who charged me and I can be held indefinitely without my family being told where I am. Of course, so can you.



    Water boarding.
    Knowingly not telling the truth.

    Do some research. He was told that some information was wrong, like the aluminum tubes and the yellow cake. Yet he continued to use those as points to support the invastion of Iraq.

    How are we to understand your statement accusing Bush of lying since no one has proven he lied, not even the most radical democrat? Are you deliberately misleading?:BangHead:[/QUOTE]

    Do some research. That he lied is obvious. However, it will never be "proven" as he will never be taken to court on this. But historians will judge him and I believe he will not come off well. Neither you nor I will be alive by that time. It is generally agreed that 100 years has to pass before a definitive history can be written.

    We can discuss this forever. I was a Bush supporter when he was first elected. But, as time passed he has earned my displeasure. If you are still happy with all he has done, than I doubt you will ever believe he did anything wrong. That is fine and I will defend your right to believe such. I expect the same in return.

    Cheers.
     
    #14 Crabtownboy, Nov 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2008
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    If he has tarnished our image all over the world why are people still trying to get here. The people who don't like bush are the leftist elitist in western Europe, excluding Tony Blair. The like BO because they don't take a bath but once a week!:laugh:

    democrats in this country are so eager to tarnish the Presidency of Bush that they will say and do anything, ethical or not. All this because he whupped them twice and would not roll over when they tried to steal the election in Florida. They have been screaming recession since he got elected even though he inheriting a recession from Clinton. They voted for war in Iraq and then have lied and slandered the troops ever since [Murtha, Kerry, Reid, Turbin or Durbin, Pelosi, and assorted other leftists in Congress.

    He has protected this country from terrorist attack since 9/11 and the American people are too gullible to understand it.
     
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    You have hit the proverbial nail square on the head. I believe we need a smilie showing such but bricks will have to do.:tonofbricks:
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Bush also had enemies in the CIA, who leaked state secrets to the NY Times, and possibly in the FBI. For example: Why was the Valerie Plame case referred to the Justice Department for prosecution when no crime was committed.

    I believe that an ambitious special prosecutor could bring the nine Justices of the Supreme Court before a grand jury enough times that he could find a discrepancy in their testimony.
     
  18. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    None of the above. Bush is a criminal and should be impeached before the end of his term to prevent him slipping away. of course, the primary criminals might very well be Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, and Wolfowitz. I don't believe that they have this same kind of protection.
     
  19. sag38

    sag38
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, take away the wire taps, the covert searches, holding terrorists, and any form of so called torture, etc. Then when the first dirty bomb detonates in the United States or some other tragic attack occurs where will your rights be? You will be screaming about your precious rights as we are burying thousands of our citizens once again. You will be screaming at President Obama who cared more about what the ACLU and the Europeans thought, than protecting us from terrorists.
     
  20. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you truely believe this, then what about the others who were in agreement.... Colin Powell, and the Democrats who agreed with the Republicans... and the international and national leaders who also agreed?
    If he did this, was it by his lonesome? I think not: Congress with Democratic help was complacent in passing legislation and funding to permit what you allege.
    Since there has been no indictment and no judgement, your comment should include 'alleged'.
    No? Why is that? He is incapable of doing the things you allege without complicity and cooperation of legislation and agencies. To say "the list goes on" implies there is much more and inflates the image you leading the reader to assume......when only one other addition....you choose ....may be all it takes to complete 'this list'.
     

Share This Page

Loading...