Does he have something to hide?

[Snacks]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;<font color="#000000">WASHINGTON - A defiant <span class="yqlink">President Bush</span> <u><font size="4"><strong>warned</strong></font></u> Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down</font>&quot;</p><p>You go to love the Republicans. They went after Clinton and found nothing, the only thing they could get him on was lieing about getting a blow job under oath. Yet these same moral police wont allow their people to be interviewed under oath??? Sounds fishy to me. Sounds like he will let them talk but not under oath so that if and when they get caught in a lie it wont be on record or Dems cant say they lied under oath.</p><p>He is going as far as telling the Dems (and the American people) that he will do what he wants. Either your with him or your against him!</p><p>Sounds like Iraq and the rest of the shit he has done since becoming president. The Dems better not back down to his threat.</p><span class="post_edited"></span><span class="post_edited"></span>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-21-07 @ 9:13 AM</span>

[RogerPodacter]

i like boobies

[Sarge]

<p><font size="2">I don't see what the issue with this even is.&nbsp; When Clinton took office he fired all 93 prosecutors without even looking into them individually, and that was his right.&nbsp; It is a presidential right to hire, or fire these prosecutors, for any reason. it is a non issue that Bush mishandled, like just about everything else he does.&nbsp;</font></p>

[Midkiff]

<p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="4">f**k Bush and f**k all of his hayseed apologists</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[HBox]

<strong>Sarge</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font size="2">I don't see what the issue with this even is. When Clinton took office he fired all 93 prosecutors without even looking into them individually, and that was his right. It is a presidential right to hire, or fire these prosecutors, for any reason. it is a non issue that Bush mishandled, like just about everything else he does. </font></p><p><font color="Navy"><font size="2">Here's the difference: Clinton fired only two US Attorneys during his term. One got into legal trouble and the other strangled a cameraman. Bush fired these guys and stupidly left a long paper trial detailing exactly why he was doing it: for being insufficiently loyal to him. He's taken what had traditonally been indpendent postitions and injecting more politics into it. I don't care who did what when and where; this is another dangerous step in the wrong direction. Unless some of you are comfortable with the law applying to everyone except the party currently in charge.</font></font> </p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by HBox on 3-20-07 @ 11:35 PM</span>

[Snacks]

<p>I heard that some of the lawyers that were fired were looking into prosecuting some of the Administration. As soon as rumors about this got out,&nbsp;those laywers were let go. </p><p>Stuff like that is why its a problem. IMO all major politicians are corrupt, its the power. But I think this will go down as the most corrupt. More then Nixon, Kennedy etc.</p><p>The scariest thing will be what happenes when Bush is out of office. How much will he have fucked the country? The rest of the world already hates us. This country is divided like never before. The economy is getting bad. Big business and the rich have gotten richer, yet middle class and the poor are worse off then they were 6 years ago. The war in Iraq is turning into Vietnam but worse b/c those people will not forget and they retaliate (meaning will come here) We are in the largest deficit ever.</p><p>&nbsp;So much more to mention but I now have a headache.</p>

<span class=post_edited>This message was edited by Snacks on 3-20-07 @ 11:47 PM</span>

[high fly]

<strong>Snacks</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;<font color="#000000">WASHINGTON - A defiant <span class="yqlink">President Bush</span> <u><font size="4"><strong>warned</strong></font></u> Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down</font>&quot;</p><p>You go to love the Republicans. They went after Clinton and found nothing, the only thing they could get him on was lieing about getting a blow job under oath. Yet these same moral police wont allow their people to be interviewed under oath??? . </p><p>Of course not.</p><p>Just like with the 9/11 Commission testimony, Bush wants enough leeway to be able to get away with lying.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

[Snacks]

<strong>high fly</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Snacks</strong> wrote:<br /><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors</a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;<font color="#000000">WASHINGTON - A defiant <span class="yqlink">President Bush</span> <u><font size="4"><strong>warned</strong></font></u> Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to have top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down</font>&quot;</p><p>You go to love the Republicans. They went after Clinton and found nothing, the only thing they could get him on was lieing about getting a blow job under oath. Yet these same moral police wont allow their people to be interviewed under oath??? . </p><p>Of course not.</p><p>Just like with the 9/11 Commission testimony, <font style="background-color: #ffff00">Bush wants enough leeway to be able to get away with lying.</font></p><p><font style="background-color: #ffff00"></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>how much more does he think he will get? He's been doing what he wants for 6 years now. Its about time someone does something.</p>

[Rockvillejoe]

that bush is warmonger, power to the people!

[Bob Impact]

<strong>Rockvillejoe</strong> wrote:<br />that bush is warmonger, power to the people!<p>&nbsp;I thought you quit... again.</p>

[K.C.]

<p>I call shenanigans</p><p><img src="http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~jonben/images/blog/shenanigans.jpg" border="0" alt="http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~jonben/images/blog/shenanigans.jpg" title="http://www.astro.ubc.ca/~jonben/images/blog/shenanigans.jpg" width="400" height="267" /></p>

[Ogre]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Rockvillejoe</strong> wrote:<br />that bush is warmonger, power to the people! <p>&nbsp;I thought you quit... again.</p><p><img src="/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/clap.gif" border="0" width="28" height="30" /></p>

[keithy_19]

<p>Everyone has things to hide. </p>

[DonInNC]

<strong>Snacks</strong> wrote:<br /><p>I heard that some of the lawyers that were fired were looking into prosecuting some of the Administration. As soon as rumors about this got out,&nbsp;those laywers were let go. </p><p>I know that's the implication, but I'd like to see some kind of evidence of this before I get fired up about the issue. And that's where I am with the Democrats right now - make this worth while or get&nbsp;to fixing some of numerous fuck-ups of this administration.&nbsp;I'm tired of having to choose the lesser of two evils.&nbsp;</p>

[Bob Impact]

<strong>keithy_19</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Everyone has things to hide. </p><p>&nbsp;Not me, I've got a wood chipper!</p>

[high fly]

<strong>HBox</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>Sarge</strong> wrote:<br /><p><font size="2">I don't see what the issue with this even is. When Clinton took office he fired all 93 prosecutors without even looking into them individually, and that was his right. It is a presidential right to hire, or fire these prosecutors, for any reason. it is a non issue that Bush mishandled, like just about everything else he does. </font></p><p><font color="#000080"><font size="2">Here's the difference: Clinton fired only two US Attorneys during his term. One got into legal trouble and the other strangled a cameraman. Bush fired these guys and stupidly left a long paper trial detailing exactly why he was doing it: for being insufficiently loyal to him. He's taken what had traditonally been indpendent postitions and injecting more politics into it. I don't care who did what when and where; this is another dangerous step in the wrong direction. Unless some of you are comfortable with the law applying to everyone except the party currently in charge.</font></font> </p><span class="post_edited">This message was edited by HBox on 3-20-07 @ 11:35 PM</span> <p><font size="2">More difference is Clinton didn't hire any of them in the first place, and then decide to fire them when they investigated his cronies. Indeed, he kept Loius Freeh around at the FBI despite his incompetence, because Freeh was investigating Clinton and his cronies and Clinton didn't want to look like he was firing him for political reasons like Nixon. </font></p><p><font size="2">And more difference is Clinton did not fire them&nbsp;for failure to investigate members of the other party vigorously enough.</font></p>

[keithy_19]

<strong>Bob Impact</strong> wrote:<br /><strong>keithy_19</strong> wrote:<br /><p>Everyone has things to hide. </p><p>&nbsp;Not me, I've got a wood chipper!</p><p>I've been using a cheese grader...not as efficent. </p>

[patsopinion]

<p>i only read the first post but</p><p>is he going to declare the democrats unamerican and put them in a cuban jail cell if they dont comply</p><p>(finers crossed:lie under oath, lie under oath)</p><p>am i the only person that hopes this thing gets dragged all the way to the election so the hayseeds don't vote republican again?</p>

[hedges]

</p><p>am i the only person that hopes this thing gets dragged all the way to the election so the hayseeds don't vote republican again?</p><hr color="cococo" align="left">[/quote]<p></p>

the "hayseeds" always vote republican

[patsopinion]

<p>they didnt a few days ago</p><p>the hayseeds are easly distracted and are extremely attracted to shiney objects</p><p>and since the dems most shiney thing rite now is<u>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; insert black joke here&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</u>&nbsp;we need that momentium into election</p>