Democrats issue 3 subpoenas

[Malachy]

Flexing Muscles, Democrats Issue 3 Subpoenas

By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC LIPTON
Published: April 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 25 — In a vivid display of their new power, Democrats across Capitol Hill on Wednesday approved a flurry of subpoenas to fuel a series of investigations of the Bush administration.

From Condoleezza Rice on pre iraq war intelligence to the Republican National Committee on cover-up to Karl Rove's deputy and an aide to Alberto Gonzalez about the fired US attorneys.

Political vendettas or simply cleaning up after the republican lead judiciary committee?

[Korriken]

political vendettas obviously. the 2 parties are always fighting for more power.

[Me-Patch]

At 4/26/07 09:38 AM, Korriken wrote: political vendettas obviously. the 2 parties are always fighting for more power.

Even so, if concrete evidence of wrong doing is found and justice is served than this is good, yes?

[JoS]

Lets not forget the Republicans issued over 1000 subpoenas to Clinton's White House. They issued a total of 4 in the first 6 years of Bush's administration. The Republicans calling the Dems partisan and saying they are just "fishing" is a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

[HighlyIllogical]

In this case, though, the pot is silver. The Democrats are issuing subpoenas so as to get us out of our debacle.

[Memorize]

At 4/26/07 01:14 PM, JoS wrote: Lets not forget the Republicans issued over 1000 subpoenas to Clinton's White House.

Just one tiny, itty, bitty difference.

Clinton did illegal stuff. Bush... hasn't!

Hurrah!

I like how you losers pick and choose. Pick and choose. Pick and choose. I love people like JoS... they make me feel better about myself.

[Korriken]

At 4/26/07 09:56 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

Even so, if concrete evidence of wrong doing is found and justice is served than this is good, yes?

definately. That much cannot even be argued. corrupt politicians trying to uproot opposing corrupt politicians... irony? nah.

[Proteas]

At 4/26/07 03:43 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: In this case, though, the pot is silver. The Democrats are issuing subpoenas so as to get us out of our debacle.

I don't think anything will come of it, really. It's all just political posturing for the 2008 Presidential race... it's kind of like "Affirming the Consequent" if you will; if the dems can keep the Republicans in Congress wrapped up in red tape for the next two years, they'll be able to convince the public that the republicans are untrustworthy candidates simply because they're under investigation, nevermind that they actually started the investigations.

Mark my words, people.

[stafffighter]

At 4/26/07 07:19 PM, Korriken wrote:

definately. That much cannot even be argued. corrupt politicians trying to uproot opposing corrupt politicians... irony? nah.

If you're waiting for the virginal days of democracy to return I'll settle all the issues that are deeply polarized mainy for traditions sake while you ressurect lincon. Say what you want about him but he knew how to end a war.

[JoS]

At 4/26/07 07:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/26/07 01:14 PM, JoS wrote: Lets not forget the Republicans issued over 1000 subpoenas to Clinton's White House.

Just one tiny, itty, bitty difference.

Clinton did illegal stuff. Bush... hasn't!

We won't know if Bush did illegal stuff if no one looks into the shady corners.

[Draconias]

At 4/27/07 12:01 AM, JoS wrote: We won't know if Bush did illegal stuff if no one looks into the shady corners.

But the goal is to keep looking and looking and looking regardless of whether or not anything is ever actually found because it makes Bush and the Republicans look bad if most of them are under investigation. The Democrats don't actually care if any of the investigations are justified, they just need to make the Republicans look bad at any cost.

Then, if they do get the Presidency, guess how many shady corners Congress will conveniently ignore? All of them.

[Me-Patch]

At 4/26/07 07:19 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/26/07 09:56 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

Even so, if concrete evidence of wrong doing is found and justice is served than this is good, yes?

definately. That much cannot even be argued. corrupt politicians trying to uproot opposing corrupt politicians... irony? nah.

Even if corrupt politicians are trying to expose the crimes of other corrupt politicians nothing but good can possibly come of it. As long as white collar criminals are being punished I'm happy. Besides regardless of which party someones in if there is definitive proof of criminal activity isn't it a good thing that they are charged for their crimes.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 4/26/07 07:00 PM, Memorize wrote:

Clinton did illegal stuff. Bush... hasn't!

Since when?

Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions (violating the highest law in the land: treaties are equal to the constitution), circumvented the UN, engaged in a war on false pretenses, deliberately misinformed the American people, placed illegal wiretaps (in addition to other civil liberties violations), exemplified political favoritism, and been involved in no-bid gov't contracts.

[SyntheticTacos]

Oh no, Bill Clinton got a blowjob because he wasn't getting any from Hillary, how that affects his ability to govern the country!! Lying to the American people about the kind of sex you're getting is SO much worse than lying to the American people about the reasons you invade a country!

No.

The whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was way overblown...

[Me-Patch]

At 4/27/07 05:46 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Oh no, Bill Clinton got a blowjob because he wasn't getting any from Hillary, how that affects his ability to govern the country!! Lying to the American people about the kind of sex you're getting is SO much worse than lying to the American people about the reasons you invade a country!

No.

The whole Monica Lewinsky scandal was way overblown...

He was impeached as a result of allegations that he had lied during grand jury testimony regarding his testimony about his relationship with Lewinski during the Paula Jones civil deposition. That whole a blowjob isn't sex thing.

The man had sex with interns in his office, you usualy do get fired for that, but he wasn't impeachedt for it. He was impeached for perjury.

[Memorize]

At 4/27/07 05:27 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Since when?

Stop doing what your name suggests.

Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions (violating the highest law in the land: treaties are equal to the constitution), circumvented the UN, engaged in a war on false pretenses, deliberately misinformed the American people, placed illegal wiretaps (in addition to other civil liberties violations), exemplified political favoritism, and been involved in no-bid gov't contracts.

What's funny is that you cannot prove every one of those. And almost half of which are not illegal.

Violated Geneva Conventions... depends on what you mean by torture because nothing the US does is physical or permanent by any means and those who do physically torture someone are tried by the military.

Circumvented the UN? Well, they did say "ok" at first.

False pretense war? What about the other 40 nations? What about the multiple foreign intelligence agencies that said Saddam either had or planned to obtain WMDs? What about the fact that the same UN report which said Saddam did not have WMDs which also said that he would've rebuilt his WMD program when the sanctions weakend?

What? Don't have an answer? I thought you wouldn't.

Misinformed the American people? What about Congress who had access to the same exact information (from multiple intelligence agencies, yet again) who voted to authorize military force? What about the people? Who, in poll, voted to invade based off that information?

Let's move on...

Placed illegal wiretaps? You mean... didn't get a warrant I assume? Even though after 9/11 congress gave Bush the authority to do so? And afterwards Bush, and others, claim that they could not receive information unless they got a warrant. And you cannot prove they did not.

Political favoritism? EVERY SINGLE DAMN PRESIDENT HAS DONE THIS. Why? Because why would you want to appoint people who are going to oppose you? What are you? A fucking idiot?

I believe the answer to that last question is an astounding YES.

[Memorize]

At 4/27/07 12:01 AM, JoS wrote:

We won't know if Bush did illegal stuff if no one looks into the shady corners.

Yes, we won't know unless we look into entirely legal "shady" corners.