Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings

[rodeodance]

Source: AP



Bush warns Dems to take offer in firings

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -
President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.


Democrats' response to his proposal was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors;_ylt=AjnsENjR8orJhg.5yAnjOEWOe8UF

[corkhead]

1. Sorry Chimpy, your "political capital" account is long overdrawn

[Joe Bacon]

83. I'd rather play Deal or No Deal with Howie Mandel!

You just KNOW President Peter Pan picked the 1¢ briefcase! And he's stupid enough to boast about it!

[MurrayDelph]

103. Yeah, but how do we get Bushie

to put a rubber glove over his face and mouth?

[fooj]

2. Start IMPEACHMENT proceedings NOW!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. No, it's a criminal fishing expedition

It would appear he not only knows that fact, but that he's also worried about the consequences.

[Epiphany4z]

18. I don't get all the worry about

a fishing exposition. Can't the WH just limit the questions to the matter at hand? Kinda like the CIA had to do for Plame?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

55. It would appear that the matter at hand is what has them so worried

If not, they would simply do as you said and move along.

[pat_k]

100. No? No to what? Impeachment?

Hope that's not what you mean.

You are right to characterize any hearing currently under way in the House or Senate as a "fishing expedition." As long as they refuse to impeach, hearings and investigations constitute a declaration that "We're fishing; we don't have a case for impeachment," which is the opposite of reality.¹ There is enough in the public record right now for at least a half-dozen impeachments.

Once impeachment is underway, of course other hearings should go forward parallel, but until that time, all their hearings and "investigations" are nothing but finger-wagging and empty gesture. The unitary authoritarian executive could care less about getting "caught." Future consequences are meaningless. Half-measures just enable the WH to "gum to death" whatever high crime Congress is tip toeing around at any given moment.²


==============================================

1. Unimpeached Bush and Cheney are "clearing, holding and building" their way to a Unitary Authoritarian Executive with unbounded power.
   
   They are playing for keeps, which is WHY they are breaking the Constitution in plain sight.
   
   Bush and Cheney do something we have forbidden, claim it is not forbidden, and dare Members of Congress to stop them. When Members of Congress refuse to impeach -- the ONLY thing capable of stopping them -- Bush and Cheney "hold and build": **Hey America, told you it wasn't forbidden. Now, let us get on with clearing habeas (or whatever takes our fancy) out of our way.**
   
   Members of Congress who are refusing to publicly demand impeachment are in full retreat, no ifs and or buts. Anything short of a demand for impeachment -- resolutions, legislation, finger-wagging investigations, hearings -- is surrender.
   
   http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/21">More. . .



2. Dec 19 email from Sampson ". . .We should gum this to death. sk the senators to give Tim a chance…then we can tell them we’ll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in “good faith,” of course. . . " (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/17/griffin-white-house">link)

[Lone_Star_Dem]

102. Bush referred to it as, "partisan fishing expedition."

From the article above: Bush, in a late-afternoon statement at the White House, said, "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. ... I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."


That was my reply to him.

[pat_k]

104. Got it. . . and tragically, unless they impeach, the accusation sticks.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
- Pogo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo#.22We_have_met_the_enemy.....22">1971)

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results."
-- Unknown

Watching as Nancy "off the table" Pelosi and Harry "we'll get Cheney" Reid stubbornly hold to their impeachophobic course is heartbreaking in so many ways, it's sometimes difficult to keep track of them all.

• It's heartbreaking to watch them taking a defensive position deep in "Bush territory," when they can so easily go on the attack by impeaching and forcing the Republicans to defend the unconstitutional and criminal acts that Bush and Cheney have carried out in plain sight. Forcing the opposition into a defensive position is always good politics.
  
  Not only does their refusal to impeach say "we're fishing; we don't have a case for impeachment," they are so obsessed with what "they" will say, the Dems can't see how easily they could turn around the accusations they fear (e.g., "if we impeach, they'll accuse us of mounting a "partisan coup"¹). The Democratic Party has turned into a Party of "reactionaries" (always reacting, never acting).


• It's heartbreaking to see them repeat the same, self-destructive, self-defeating, mistakes over and over again.
  
  When simple truths and moral principles demand action, Democrats do the same thing over and over: they slam on the breaks and look for an escape route.
  
  As they plot their escape, they invoke the same rationalizations, with "the backlash beast will get us" and the self-defeating prophesy "can't win so don't fight" vying for the top of the list. The establishment is seemingly blind to the lessons that expose the appalling immorality and political insanity of refusing to fight for principle, regardless of what they believe the outcome will be.


• It's heartbreaking to see them stubbornly cling to the baseless assumption that impeachment is political poison, when the opposite is far more likely to true.
  
  They tell us they were elected "on the issues" and to "get things done," when, above all, they were elected to oppose Bush. Post-election polling found that "Anti-Bush. Anti-Republican" reasons topped the list of "major reasons," while "Pro-Democratic" reasons ranked at the bottom.²
  
  They believe there is a backlash beast lurking out there, but they can't seem to find it in the polls.
  
  They tell us impeachment has insufficient public support, when the polls tell us the opposite. Despite relentless efforts to boost opposition and suppress support for impeachment, just before the election a Newsweek poll found that 51% wanted impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress, while only 44% said it should not be done.³ In a more recent Newsweek poll, 58% the public say they want the Bush presidency over now.⁴ People who want the Bush presidency over are unlikely to object when Democrats seek to end it by impeaching Bush and Cheney.


• It's heartbreaking to hear them say "We can't impeach because it would detract us from ending the war" when impeachment is the ONLY act that can change the dynamics and make it possible to extract ourselves.
  
  What makes hearing this even worse, if that is possible, is that the every poll shows that the vast majority of the public is angry at Bush. The same polls tell us that, like the Democrats themselves, the public is far more ambivalent when it comes to what to do about the quagmire in Iraq (that's the definition of a quagmire, no good way out). In this climate, even if something short of impeachment could "do something about Iraq," it would be a riskier political gambit than going straight for the object of the public's anger and impeaching Bush and Cheney.


• It's heartbreaking to see them exacerbate the problems that are destroying the Democratic Party when they could be solving them.
  
  Their Number 1 problem is the perception that they are weak. Impeaching Bush and Cheney would demonstrate commitment and fortitude. Limiting themselves to pea-shooter half-measures incapable of forcing Bush and Cheney to do anything they don't want to, when they have a gun in their pocket that IS capable of stopping them, just confirms the image that Democrats are weak.
  
  Their Number 2 problem is their failure to define overarching principles that inspire. Impeaching Bush and Cheney allows them to define themselves as champions of the People's Government and the Constitution -- pretty heady stuff. As long as impeachment is "off the table," Democratic leaders can't accuse Bush and Cheney of their violations in strong terms because it would beg the question "If they are so bad, why aren't you impeaching?" They have trapped themselves in a world of doubletalk and euphemism, and there may be nothing LESS inspiring then strategy-driven doublespeak.


• It's heartbreaking to see them refuse to be the heroes we know they could be.

=========================================

1. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12">Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .


2. http://january6th.org/reasons-for-success.pdf">Reason for Democrats success


3. http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Priorities for a Democratic Congress, Newsweek Poll, 10/21/06)


4. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2752103&mesg_id=2753090">58% of Americans want his Presidency over now

[RevCheesehead]

Dems to Bush: BITE ME, BONZO.

[Cha]

30. "FUGW".

:)

[leftchick]

4. he called them "RESIGNATIONS"

he never mentioned the word FIRE. It is interesting the media whores have not made that distinction. :eyes:

[billybob537]

5. LYING SCUM

Bring it on

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. He's snappin' out.

He could well do something very ill-advised before this is finished. Somethat will make the "constitutional crisis" of Watergate look like The Senior Citizen's Tuesday Night Bridge Club.

[leQ]

7. makes me smile to see the bushites on defense. it's been long enough. (eom)

[subterranean]

8. Bush will definitely back down if they call his bluff.

What are they trying to hide? If they did nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about.

[Renew Deal]

9. Honorable people can testify under oath without fear.

Simple enough.

[primavera]

14. It does make them look guilty

It kind of makes me wonder what they were thinking, I mean, what possible justification could there be for agreeing to discuss something only so long as you don't have to promise to tell the truth about it? You're practically coming out and saying openly that you intend to lie about the matter and don't wish to be be prosecuted for perjury when it's discovered that you've lied. Guess Scooter's fate must have made an impression on them, but it still seems out of character for the Bushistas, who have focussed so heavily on propaganda, to balk at doing what they do so naturally, i.e., lying, in order to present a more guileless public image.

[Renew Deal]

95. It's one thing to say they're not testifying.

Then they can make whatever argument to get themselves out of it. But to say that they will talk, but only under oath is bizarre, dumb, and ridiculous. I bet it's a stonewalling tactic. They know the dems won't budge on testifying under oath, so that's what they offer.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Again... Talking Point ---- What does Bushwad have to hide?

That is what the talking point should use. Short and simple. Easy for the American people to understand.

What does Bushwad have to hide?

Or when Democrats are giving an interview.

Mr. President.... What are you hiding?

or

Mr. President.... What are you hiding from the American people?

[Epiphany4z]

42. amen

don't you just love it..we shouldn't worry about phone taps if we have nothing to hide.....and they can't be put under oath..but it's not because they have something to hide...just disgusting.

[solara]

10. Lordy... chimpy isn't used to being told "no"..I think this is gonna get real bumpy

I have been wondering how a desperate and angry chimpy would react when cornered.. I guess we are soon going to find out.

Keepin' the faith......


INVESTIGATE IMPEACH INDICT INCARCERATE :patriot:

[Cabcere]

15. You think he'll start flinging his own feces? n/t

[solara]

23. Well, he does that everytime he opens his mouth... nt

[Cabcere]

44. Ha! Good point. n/t

[Hekate]

74. Hooting and throwing fruit, at the very least.Bring 'em on, you faux cowboy!

:popcorn:

Hekate

[Cabcere]

11. STFU, Bush.

You're a tyrant, plain and simple, and "we the people" (that would be Americans, in case you don't "reckinize" that phrase) don't like tyrants. We won't stand for this lying and petulant bullying much longer - in fact, we've put up with your nonsense for far too long already. So be a good little boy and stop trying to threaten us, okay? It's not cute anymore. (Actually, it was never cute, but I think we're about done giving you the benefit of the doubt. You have proven yourself to be an incorrigible brat, and since we can't actually spank you for that, it's looking like we may have to put impeachment back on the table. Do you know what impeachment is, little Georgie? Think of it as a big, important, presidential (yes, you like that word, don't you?) "time-out.") Go sit in your corner and, while I doubt very much you are intellectually capable of "thinking about what you've done," at least try to elevate yourself to the behavioral standard of a four-year-old for a little bit, while the grown-ups sort things out.

That said...go get 'em, Senator Leahy! :patriot:

[emulatorloo]

12. If Rove is an "honorable public servant" he should have no problem with the oath

On the otherhand if he is not, then there is a big problem.

[LiberalFighter]

24. Make sure they don't include "So help me god"

You know they don't really believe in a god.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Let's introduce a new word to Bush's vocabulary: SUBPOENA

I know you'll just mangle the pronunciation anyway, Mr. President, so I'll just go to the definition. It means that you are compelled by law to testify. There are no "offers" involved. Show up or be in contempt of Congress.

[donkeyotay]

97. Compelled by law to testify, which my dicktionary of pre-bush terms defines as

to make a serious declaration to substantiate a fact; bear witness or give evidence, esp. under oath in court.

In bush's world it would mean "to catapult the propaganda, to serve the crime boss and not the country, to stonewall, bully and obfuscate in order to continue shaking the country upside down like a private piggy bank."

[jpak]

16. The Constitution of the United States of America trumps your dictatorial simian tantrums

They will testify under oath - and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

[Lerkfish]

17. what was it they said about NSA wiretaps? oh yeah "if you not guilty, what do yo have to hide?"

it would seem appropriate to throw that back in their face at this point.

[emulatorloo]

22. very good -- I think you have got it. EOM

[MaineYooper]

19. what freaking planet does he live on?

He really seems to believe that if he tells us the sky is green, well then gosh-almighty, why don't we take his word for it? After all, he and his people have been so demonstrably truthful up to now, why wouldn't we believe him?

Now I remember why I never watch him on tv- reading his quotes is enough to get me swearing at the computer. I have a five-year-old who shouldn't be exposed to the language that this moron reduces me to...

[CGrantt57]

20. Hey, George...

Word to your mother...

Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

Peace.

[global1]

25. Talking Point Is That This Is A 'Partisan Fishing Expedition' And The Dems Want A 'Show Trial' ....

to score political points.

These talking points were developing all day. CNN and Wolfie was pushing this. I don't listen to Rush or Hannity - but I'm sure it was coming from them as well.

It was building up all day into the crescendo of *'s statement just a little while ago.

I'm sure the WH and the RNC fax machines and web servers and 'covert web servers' (see attached link:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/4/135310/0946)are working overtime this evening.

Tomorrow just watch how they will turn this into a Dem witch hunt and the Dems are the bad guys.

And do you know what - the MSM will go along with that.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. A line in the sand.

So the constitutional crisis that has been pending since the new congress was seated is now upon us. Leahy and the Democrats must not give way here.

[FatDave]

47. Leahy and the Democrats MUST NOT GIVE WAY HERE!

Warren, I agree with you 200%. I'll be calling Mr. Leahy's office tomorrow to express that sentiment. I hope many reading this will join me.

[TankLV]

69. No - SINCE HE WAS INSTALLED - back in 2001...

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Except that congress had no clue.

I agree with your general point: Bush's installation in 2001 was a shameless breach of constitutional order and the Democratic congress rolled over and let it happen. Hopefully the subsequent six years of hideous abuse of power has nurtured enough spine for our leaders to actually at least try to preserve the republic.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

27. Call his bluff!

Call him, call him , call him!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is poker and he's bluffing! Call him on it! :mad:

[The Stranger]

28. Oh shit. I'm afraid this is where the Democrats cave, or cut a deal, or have a

"Gang of 14" agree to do nothing, or apologize (like the Dick Durbin), or escalate the conflict to non-binding resolution status, or let more Constitutional rights get obliterated with backdoor meetings, or decide to let Bush invade Iran after all, or . . .

[FatDave]

48. Call their offices!

Call the offices of everyone on the Judiciary Committee and tell them they damn well better not back down!

[calimary]

49. You can find details about who's on that committee at www.congress.org

and you can call them TOLL FREE.

TOLL FREE Capitol Hill switchboard numbers can be found, conveniently located in my sig line below.

They need all the calcium supplement IMAGINABLE for their backbones. Time to call the bluff of the schmuck-in-chief. This may be the first time in his entire life that somebody's actually said "NO" to him. Hopefully, it's not the last, either!

[koopie57]

53. Is an e-mail effective

I don't like to talk on the phone, but I would be happy to write to a few congresspeople. Do they just delete E-mails and I should really call?

[calimary]

57. EVERYTHING helps.

EVERYTHING.

As Howard Dean once said, the only way we lose is if we give up. :thumbsup:

[koopie57]

62. Okay, I'll do it on Thursday

[calimary]

77. Good! ANYTHING helps. EVERYTHING helps.

You have no idea how the cumulative effect of this kind of thing will make itself felt, or how soon. How do you know that maybe YOUR email will be THE straw that finally broke the camel's back. Maybe yours is the last of a couple of THOUSAND, all saying the same thing, that some exhausted staffer has had to read through, throws up his/her hands and decides the boss NEEDS to know the RESOUNDING urging from the folks back home. This goes DOUBLE for any and all republi-CONS. They need to see how urgent it is for them to start jumping ship. Even if they don't agree with it.

It took a group of prominent republi-CONS, including THE Barry Goldwater, going to nixon to tell him that he'd lost the support of all his pals in Congress, and that impeachment was imminent. Only THEN did nixon give up. Some of 'em DO know how to read the handwriting on the wall.

And remember that terrific, classic quote (I forget who said it) about how evil can triumph only when good people do nothing.

[Cha]

29. bush the little monkeyass waggin' his

finger. :scared: :scared:

[Kablooie]

31. Hmmm. This is beginning to get interesting.

President pubic hair is sounding scared.

[antonialee839]

32. "We will not go along with a partisan fishing

expedition aimed at honorable public servants.....

You have to give him credit, he actually managed to keep a straight face when uttering this
absurdity.

[Lerkfish]

33. Kenneth Starr and the whitewater witch hunt...

that's all I have to say.

:)

[antonialee839]

40. I meant honorable and Rove in the same sentence.

[Lerkfish]

43. oh, I know, but it reminded of another reason to keep a straight face in the fan of irony

[zanne]

84. That's exactly what I was thinking.

They should have known not to pull this shit so soon after their fishing expedition of Clinton. (Or should I say "entrapment")? Only the 30% who still support Bush can't remember the impeachment mob. There is still alot of resentment about that out here. I'd love to see some payback.

[TankLV]

70. then he should have no problem complying...

1) It'a not partisan - it's called "restoring oversite"
2) They're not "honerable" - that's already been proven many times over...

[donkeyotay]

98. And it didn't come out, "We will not go along with a Parisian finishing

ex-padishun...uh, aimed.....uh, at horrible servants, uh, serving the public, (smirk) HONORABLY. (smirk, smirk). Did it? I didn't watch.

[liberal N proud]

34. It's SHOWDOWN TIME!

Will CONGRESS get a SPINE?

[davekriss]

35. IMPEACH THE TYRANT n/t

[Doctor_J]

36. The unelected Resident with 28% approval issuing warnings

Bring it on, loser. Every rock in the sewer that is your White House is going to be turned over. CSPAN should be great viewing this summer

[Penndems]

37. Bring it on, Junior

"Honorable public servants", my Caucasian Southern behind.

They're honorable to him, in that they know every dirty little secret, every cover-up, every dollar that's been laundered and every vote that's been stolen and won't dime him out.

That's his definition of "honor".

[truthisfreedom]

38. Let's test SCOTUS then... let's see if they have the backbone to uphold the rule of law.

It's time to see what's left of America.

[Penndems]

39. He's DARING Congress and the American people to call his bluff, and has been

for over six years.

It's time to stand up to Bush.

[primavera]

51. Not much hope there anymore

Not with the court stacked with the shrub's hand-picked fascist "judges."

[heatstreak]

41. The arrogance pig-headedness never ends

[BootinUp]

45. This is hilarious.

Nice try dubya. rofl.

[SemperEadem]

46. they aren't going after honorable public servants--only the dishonorable ones

so why is he standing in the way? Got something to hide? Skurrrrr'd?

[BayCityProgressive]

50. Get Fucked With a Pitchfork Bush

[Cabcere]

59. Oh, come on, now...

...what did the pitchfork ever do to deserve that? ;) :P

[peacetalksforall]

52. I think Dems could offer a couple of concessions .....

1. They could promise not to demand that he list ** ALL ** his non-gov or org e-mail id's when he conducts government business.

2. They could promise not to ask him if the WH pays the RNC when he uses their server to send WH strategy e-mails. And, if yes, whether the taxpayer is getting double billed.

Things like that - there is wiggle room, Senator Leahy.

[Solly Mack]

54. Gonzales' resignation in exchange for Rove and HM

testifying privately and not under oath is what Bush is offering (imvho)

He'll let them have Gonzales - Bush can always pardon him (and will if it comes down to that)

but he's not letting Congress near Rove without protections in place ..and Rove won't go anywhere near Congress without those protections either.

Bush was being Bush today in his speech...all bluster and bravado

He's looking for a way to save face..and to prevent a more intensive investigation.

He wants the matter closed, so Bush will deal...but he wants a deal that makes it look as if there was a compromise where he maintains the appearance of getting his way

Gonzales resigning will be his compromise...and Congress accepting the terms of Rove and HM testifying would be Congress' compromise.

Naturally Gonzales will resign because he feels his presence is only hurting the President because of those bad Democrats in Congress looking for an excuse to attack Bush. Gonzales will cast himself as the noble victim - sacrificing himself for the greater good...

Bush can always spin Gonzales resignation as partisan politics pushing a good man out of office - allowing right wing talking heads a chance to go on TV and bluster and moan and groan about it, working republican voters into a frenzy of outrage...also such will be the excuse Bush gives for pardoning Gonzales should it come to that

Course, Bush could circle the wagons until the bitter end....he does hold the power to pardon.

[aggiesal]

56. "Take offer ..." or what?

If they have nothing to hide, testify under oath.

[CRK7376]

58. Go piss up a rope shrub!

If they have nothing to hide, then why not let them testify....JACKASS!!!

[Kool Kitty]

78. I screamed the exact same phrase at the TV

today! It's one of my personal faves, and you are the only person I have ever heard use it, besides me and my late Father. And if he was still alive, I'm sure that he would have yelled it at him, too. Thanks for the memory and the laugh.

[truthisfreedom]

60. Anytime bush "warns" us about anything it's time to move foward with whatever is bothering him most.

This schnook needs to be back on his heels 24 hours a day.

[proust78]

61. I thought they loved Bibles

What's so scary about taking an oath with your hand on one? Heck, it doesn't have to be a Bible, they could pick a book close to their heart, like Mein Kampf.

[donkeyotay]

99. Or, "My Pet Goat Ate the Constitution." Hello, proust78.

[0rganism]

63. I'd rather risk a "constitutional showdown" than a "constitutional shutdown"

It seems so obvious to me.

MAKE THE FUCKER VETO, FORCE HIS HAND, CALL HIS BLUFF AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY

The more he goes against the congressional majority, the more he goes against the will of the people, and that will be remembered in 2008.

As a corollary, the Democrats should INVITE senate GOP filibusters. Make THEM explain to the governors why we can't get a Medicaid supplemental passed because of a rider for recalling national guard troops from Iraq. Draw them out, they'll pay in 2008.

[VegasWolf]

64. Dems to bush, "Eat Sh*t!!" nt

[mvd]

67. Oh, the asshole is making me so angry tonight

Must go do something else.. the nerve of him to call it a witch hunt! :grr: :argh:

[tavalon]

65. Note to Bush

Fuck off!

[mvd]

66. The committee will decide whether something was improper

This is a showdown in which we must not yield. Apparently, he still hasn't learned that he isn't King.

[rodeodance]

68. said he would go to court:

"If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed," Bush said. "If scoring political points is the desire, then the rejection of this reasonable proposal will really be evident for the American people to see."

Bush said he would aggressively fight in court any attempt to subpoena White House aides.

"If the staff of a president operates in constant fear of being hauled before congressional committees ... the president would not receive candid advice and the American people would be ill-served," he said. "I'm sorry the situation has gotten to where it's got, but that's Washington, D.C., for you. You know there's a lot of politics in this town."

[keroro gunsou]

71. as much as i overuse this phrase...

bitch please.

if you did nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to hide.

[fishnfla]

72. get out yer bible. put yer hand on it. and try to tell the truth

got a problem with that?

oh yeah the truth part cuts up the thou shalt not lie part

[agincourt]

73. If Bush's

whore-court that installed him, backs him on this, they should be impeached as well, at least impeached that is.

[Betty]

75. eat shit, you miserable little prick

what a tantrum baby threw.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

76. This is the moment *bush's inherent cowardice will shine through

Finally, the point has been reached where he and no other has to stand alone and follow through on what others have started. This is a decision HE will have to make. This is an action HE will have to take. This is something he cannot hand off to an aide. This is something Rove cannot politic out of for him. This is something Cheney cannot speak out on.

Now is the time he either openly declares his dictatorship or gives in to the reality of Democracy.

We're about to see *bush fold like soggy cardboard (which is, after all, what he really is). This is the moment of truth.

This is gonna be GOOD.

[pinniped]

79. Ya, like before.

not under oath

Asshole.

[pinniped]

80. I just saw that POS on the tube.

* is 100% asshole.

"Take them, put them in front of congrass, under oath, blah, blah, blah."

"These are honorable servants, blah, blah, blah."

Fuck him.

[pink-o]

82. I wonder if Lieberman...

...will pick this opportunity to officially change parties...?

[Ragrum]

86. Cheney will step down for health reasons, Lieberman will switch

I am thinking Cheney is about bored and the health stage is set for him to go back to business.
Joe Lieberman will switch and become next VP in a misguided effort to heal the nation.

........kids loose in the kitchen this adminstration have been....I'm glad there are some adults now trying to clean up the mess... !

[zanne]

85. Bush is hoping Dems won't want a "consitutional crisis"...

After all, that was the way we were "placated" after he took the White House in 2000.

[depakid]

93. Thus far, he's gotten his wish

Given the Democrats sorry performance over the past 6 years, if I were Bush, I'd see absolutely no reason to give in to Congress this time, either.

I also see no reason why he shouldn't appoint someone even more extreme to be the next AG.

The Dems got themselves into this mess by rolling over on the so called "patriot" act -and their DINO's ensured that Gonzales was confirmed. Unless and until they start winning a few- I would say, business as usual.

[Richard Steele]

87. This country has been in a "Constitutional crisis" for SIX YEARS now. And Dems didn't cause it.

BushCabal™ is fixin' to reap the whirlwind.

[Seabiscuit]

88. What's with the "warns Dems" crap in such headlines? n/t

[maxrandb]

89. Correct headline should be

"Bush to the American People and Congress: 'Go Fuck Yourself'".

There, that's better.

[Seldona]

90. Why worry if they have nothing to hide?

:sarcasm:

[Arugula Latte]

91. This fucking maniac "p-resident" is OUT OF CONTROL.

We've never had such a lawless president. NEVER. :grr:

[zanne]

94. This could go to the Supreme Court.

This is the scenario as I see it. 1) Dems issue subpoenas to Myers and Rove. 2) Bush blocks subpoenas 3)Yelling, screaming, spin, spin, spin.... 4)Supreme Court, comprised of Conservatives (including the two new appointees of Bushie) decide..................................

[BluePatriot]

92. Or what? You'll whine a lot?

Sorry, "Decider," it's not up to you anymore. THIS is the thing that takes your Admin down. Never piss off lawyers.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[jollyreaper2112]

96. please let this happen

I want to see a showdown. I want to see them push him to the limit that demands impeachment. Keep pushing the bastard, put the screws to him. Make him cross the line.

[Rambis]

101. If big dog was forced testify under oath about sex

I think KKKarl testifying about the absolute power grab and corruption on a kings scale surely qualifies.