What Do They Have to Hide?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Baptist in Richmond, Mar 20, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17702224/

    Interesting that this is a not a big deal, but the Administration will not allow them to be under oath.

    Of course, Congress could simply issue subpoenas.....

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  2. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    4
    If I was Bush, I'd put a gag order on the whole staff. After Delay & Libby, who would want anyone to play into the DISPICABLE partisian games the dems play, of late.
     
  3. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    What do they have to hide?
     
  4. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Evidently they have a lot to hide, but don't worry, the Democrats will get to the bottom of it soon enough! :thumbs:
     
  5. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    4

    I dunno, probably something like Sandy Burglar was trying to hide. Oh wait, I probably just parroted Rush. Sorry.
     
  6. Jeff Weaver

    Jeff Weaver
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would those partisan games resemble those DISPICABPLE Republican ones?
     
  7. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with you concerning Sandy Burger. As far as I'm concerned he and Rove can share a cell.
     
  8. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    You have used that one before in another thread, but it still was funny.
    :laugh:

    If Karl Rove has no cause for concern, then he shouldn't have any problems with testifying under oath. After all, what does he have to hide? If he is going to tell the truth, what is the problem with testifying under oath?

    It must be so rough losing Congress to the Democratic Party.....

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  9. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kind of like the Dems shouldnt be concerned with interviews of fox if they have nothing to hide.
     
  10. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now isnt this quaint, Democrats investigating Republicans, and vice versa in the past in pursuit of truth and the American way. That would be kind of like Saddam Hussein on trial with Adolf Hitler as the judge.
     
  11. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    60
    Well, maybe you should be put under oath as well - if you have no cause for concern, of course. If you're going to tell the truth, what is the problem with making you testifying under oath for no reason?

    You sounds just like Rush Limbaugh with the loaded question.

    Part two, is it?

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Lieberman_considering_support_for_GOP_0319.html

    So far they've done minimal damage, but they're investigating that, too.
     
  12. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    This does not answer the question.
    What do they have to hide?
     
  13. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is an easy answer: I was not involved in the dismissal of these attorneys.

    It is not a loaded question. If they have absolutely nothing to hide, then there is no cause for concern if they must give their testimony under oath. Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any problem with being sworn in by a Republican Congress when he was testifying about Monica, and by his own admission he was lying. They shouldn't be afraid if they are going to tell the truth.


    BTW, do you listen to him? How would you know that I "sounds" like him?

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  14. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    By the way,

    Here is your signature line:
    This isn't attributed to anyone. I hope you aren't claiming that as your quote.....

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  15. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    What do they have to hide? Um, three trillion dollars 'missing' from the Pentagon?
     
    #15 poncho, Mar 20, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 20, 2007
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Perhaps nothing. The president does not have to answer to anyone for firing attorneys. It is his right under the consitution. It seems to me that the Congress is overstepping its bounds by inquiring about something that is none of their business.

    Under the idea of separation of powers, the Congress has no authority to call these people as witnesses and Bush is within his rights to refuse to make them available.

    To me, it's not about hiding something (when there is nothing to hide ... he can fire them when he wants for whatever reason he wants). It is about separation of powers.
     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's about not wasting any more taxpayer's money on a DISPICABLE Drive-by Media manufactured issue.
     
  18. 777

    777
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    60
    That is an unsatisfactory answer, I'm afraid. We really won't know that you weren't involved in the dismissal of the attorneys until you are put under oath. You are aware of the consequences of perjury, are you not?


    His perjury stemmed from depositions he made from civil sexual harrassment charges, not to Congress. This will never avenge that, you know.

    No, but I'm on my way to Chicago tonight, I know his show airs there.

    Finally, Bush looked presidential when he made a statement on this today. No more fishing.
     
  19. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why does anyone expect that the President needs to give an explanation? We all know that the Dems are an a constant witch hunt. And the far left media is willing to provide plenty of fodder.
     
  20. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0

    Nope the quote is pretty well known but the originator is unknown.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...