What Do They Have to Hide?

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.

 

Evidently they have a lot to hide, but don't worry, the Democrats will get to the bottom of it soon enough! :thumbs:

 

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

 

Would those partisan games resemble those DISPICABPLE Republican ones?

 

I agree with you concerning Sandy Burger. As far as I'm concerned he and Rove can share a cell.

 

Kind of like the Dems shouldnt be concerned with interviews of fox if they have nothing to hide.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What do they have to hide? Um, three trillion dollars 'missing' from the Pentagon?

 

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.

 

It's about not wasting any more taxpayer's money on a DISPICABLE Drive-by Media manufactured issue.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Nope the quote is pretty well known but the originator is unknown.