Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So, you would back similar in the future against democrats? Again, with the blue dress and crap. Seriously, this type of stuff should stop. Bush did well to say 'no sworn testimony', he can afford the drop in poll numbers.
he might be able to "afford" a drop in poll numbers, but the republicans nationally can't.
And I say again...if this type of stuff should stop, perhaps the republicans who were perpetrating exactly this type of stuff during the Clinton years should have exhibited a little foresight then, or refrain from whining about it now.
Actually, I think once again that they should refuse to go along with it and try to end it, permanently. It's been ripping the nation apart since Nixon, through each admininstration.
good luck.
as I said, I think a little foresight on the part of republicans during the eight year long Clinton witch hunt would be paying them big dividends today.
Perhaps. At some point though it needs to end. Considering what DOJ did for Berger, seems like a very good time.
so making a plea bargain with Berger cancels out whitewater filegate travelgate vince foster gennifer flowers paula jones monica lewinsky wag the dog impeachment and senate show trial?
what color is the sky in your world?
Hey Bubba, spoken like someone who really doesn't care about the state of the nation. Fire away. My mistake, I thought we were both holding higher standards than just partisanship, but blast off. I do hope that the dems win in 2008. I hope they increase their Congressional holdings too. I want a good 3rd party choice and in a very real sense, I see that a stronger Democratic administration and all that will incur, will make that more possible.
no...Kathianne... I share your desire for a return to civility, I just think that it is a pipedream for republicans to expect democrats to do something they themselves were completely unwilling to do.
I didn't know you then, but were you castigating and roundly criticizing republicans for their full court nonstop assault on Bill Clinton, or have you just recently seen the light?
Don't you find it funny that when Bush was caught doing illegal wiretappings and spying on Americans his supporters came back with, "If you have nothing to hide then why should you care."
Now that one of their own is called up for questioning and is invoking the fifth is magically becomes an issue of Constitutional prerogative.
The loyal Bushies are synonymous with Double Standards and when convenient too.
Best to be careful here and agree with every nutty idea, or they'll call your Mum or wife a whore, or accuse you of butt pirating your children.
So, you would back similar in the future against democrats? Again, with the blue dress and crap. Seriously, this type of stuff should stop. Bush did well to say 'no sworn testimony', he can afford the drop in poll numbers.
So, you would back similar in the future against democrats? Again, with the blue dress and crap. Seriously, this type of stuff should stop. Bush did well to say 'no sworn testimony', he can afford the drop in poll numbers.
Thing is, you can't compare the two. Lying in front of your wife when asked about an affair (to which anyone born is going to lie) and lying about things that impact on government functions are two entirely separate issues.
That said, you think it won't be an issue again with some hypocrite like Newt going after a Dem for doing exactly what he did?
Gee, all this time I didn't know it was Hillary that brought those charges that resulted in the fines and loss of law license. Damn the press for not making that more clear.
Man Kathianne!
Why did you slam me so hard? All I did was agree with a pretty good point.
I actually thought I was going to make it to zero today!
Yeah, Gonzales has pretty well painted his own portrait here: either shifty and possibly crooked, or incompetent in his position. The best decision he could have made (and Sampson too, while we're at it), would have been to simply say, "we decided to dismiss them" without any qualifiers. IMHO, POTUS doesn't owe anyone an explanation as to why, especially when taking settled law into account. That doesn't mean others can't or won't ask, but they should be prepared for the answer, "because I wanted to."I agree with you here CSOB. But as I see it, the technical issue wasn't about these prosecutors being replaced, it was more about Gonzales telling Congress that they were replaced for performance reasons when there is evidence that contradicts him. Had he just come out and said that they were replaced for political reasons, he might be in better standing than he is now. This also came out around the same time that the Patriot Act abuses came out so Gonzales was already in the crosshairs of some of his Repub colleagues in Congress.
Yeah, and the political grandstanding is gonna take the Democrats into the minority again. What is interesting is watching both Congress' and POTUS' job approval ratings over the past 6 months. For all their bluster, the Democrats takeover of Congress has not help Congressional approval at all, and in fact Congressional approval is BELOW Presidential ratings. I'd think if the Democrats want back in the Oval Office, they'd take a bit of a higher road than they are. But politics as usual seems to be norm....Personally I think it's a waste of time, energy, and money. But this is the climate in Washington right now and everyone knew it was political payback time for the Dems and even some Repubs for the last 6 years. I'm not surprised at how big of a spectacle it's become.
