Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Tell Bush he can have his Roberts confirmation vote AFTER

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:08 PM
Original message
Tell Bush he can have his Roberts confirmation vote AFTER
he fully answers questions about the Downing Street Minutes and about Rove's security clearance.

That's how politics is done. If he wants to ignore our party's voice, we should use that voice to block his nominees until he listens to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Exactly! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Nice pic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsTryska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. brilliant idea.
i think this needs to be forwarded on to our Congresscritters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. Exactly. He doesn't get to set the agenda.
And, besides, why is it that Bush only does necessary things like this when it serves him best?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yeah- but since we came up with it, its now "Angry, Micheal Moore stuff."
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:15 PM by Dr Fate
Dont count on DEMs ever doing anything slightly creative like you suggest.

I think DEM Senators should ask Roveberts whether outing a CIA agent is a "high crime" or not- but I doubt they would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. That's a brilliant idea, too. The media could ask Scottie
And make it part of the public dialogue.

"Scottie, does the president know how Judge Roberts feels about administration officials leaking classified information to reporters for political reasons? Or any other reasons? Since Rove's indictment is likely to reach the SUpreme Court, have you looked into how Roberts would address this question?"

Damn I'd pay to hear that asked. Thanks, Doc!

(someone email Randi, she'd bring it up!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. It was "Class Warrior's" idea, not mine.
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 05:34 PM by Dr Fate
A felow DUer who I often butt heads with, but we both agree that this is agreat question.

I've sent a letter to Kerry asking him to ask that question. Boxer is next.

Help me & CW start a thread from time to time reminding folks of this idea- who knows, mabey we can get a Senator or two to ask the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maraya1969 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Great idea! Let's send this to some Senators
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. I'm hoping some see it here
I'm sure there are staffers scanning boards like this to judge the mood of the populace. And editorialists looking for their next idea (feel free to steal this one!).

But by all means, email your senators. (I would, but being in Texas, I have better things to waste my time on.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. Would we have let Nixon appoint someone during the Watergate investigat?
Edited on Wed Jul-20-05 02:46 PM by leveymg
Why now? Isn't this worse?

I'd say, no confirmation vote until after prosecution is completed. Been saying that repeatedly for several days, in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
11. Lifetime appointment vs. something we're probably going
to get in one form or another. And when Bush starts "answering questions" it won't be mea clupa - just more crap (see 9/11 commission report). No deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. I didn't say confirm
I said we wouldn't even let if come up for a vote unless Bush answered the other questions we asked. I wouldn't confirm the bastard either way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woodsprite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
12. You forgot to add "alone, under oath" to that statement. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Hah! Right you are! nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greenbeard Donating Member (156 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
13. Great idea
An honest leader would be doing this anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
16. Wow!!!! That's quite a rational proposition!!!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. and Bolton... we want those Bolton info requests...
that's all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Bolton's requests need to be subpoenaed for a criminal trial
Of Rove, Cheney and Bush. Other than that, they can just flush Bolton, I'd rather not have to hear his name again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 10:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC