Was Bush Tough Enough?

Updated with video link at bottom.

While I would have liked to see the President a little less accommodating to the Liberal Dems and anti-Gonzales Republicans, at least he seemed to draw a firm line in the sand around Executive privilege in his recent statement.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to allow top aides to 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.
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."

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

Of course that didn't stop the political pond scum like Leahy and Schumer from firing back.

Democrats' response to Bush's offer was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I wish I had more faith in the people to grasp the constitutional issues behind this non-scandal, but with the media carrying the Dems water, don't count on that.

Still, Bush has to hold firm and continue to portray the filth we called the Democrat leadership as the un-American partisan hacks they are. They disgust me, what with their inability to refrain from damaging the constitution and the country for perceived partisan gain.

I hope Bush is starting to get it. He is in a domestic war that will last through the end of his Presidency. And as with all terrorists, there is no appeasing the treasonous political terrorists some more politely call Liberal Democrats. At some point, their continued betrayal of America must be confronted firmly and brought to an end.

Other conservatives here and here with more from the once conservative and increasingly useless NRO here. Does that antiquated publication even come with a spine anymore?

Update: Video at Hot Air

Comments

[Nishna]

"Do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?"

Plame: "I do"

Buzzy says: "Personally I like spirited debate and even argument but personal attacks bring nothing to the table and are a sign of a shallow mind."

Then Buzzy says: "As for the treasonous Democratic filth who are making a lot of noise over this issue..."

'nuff said

[Buzzy]

Rob, yyy, LOL, Nishna or whatever name you're going by this time: Legally a promise to tell the truth is not legally binding and she was never placed under oath.

Everyone else has to swear or affirm to tell the truth, there is a big difference when it comes to perjury. Other people had to swear or affirm to tell the truth that very same session of the hearings, why was her's different. Why did she just have to promise? A big smoking gun right there.

As for the "treasonous Democratic Filth" who changed the wording just for her.... apparently they knew she was lying. I'd love to see all this investigated to the hilt and see her repeat her same statement under oath so perjury would apply.

[Zifnab]

"Legally a promise to tell the truth is not legally binding and she was never placed under oath."

Oh my god, you are so full of bullshit I don't know where to begin. What's next? The President's Oath to uphold the Constitution isn't really binding? Oh, wait, perjury isn't perjury until there's a blowjob involved. That's also a good one.

"Well she was under oath before Congress but its not like that is binding or anything". Ye-gods, you'll just make any old shit up, won't you? Lying to Congress will get you smacked with contempt charges so fast it'll make your head spin. Why do you think they want Rove, Mier, and the rest bound under oath on the Senate floor rather than hiding in a back room without written testimony?

[Legalize]

Feenicks: "Prove this statement, counselor. You have the entire blog and archives at your command."

You want me to prove a negative? Why? You can't even be bothered to prove the laundry list of idiotic AFFIRMATIVE accusations you make on an hourly basis. Prove that you're not menopausal; I mean, take my word for it - it's plainly evident that you are.

Buzzy: "Legally a promise to tell the truth is not legally binding and she was never placed under oath."

Surreal. I'm gonna try that one next week.

[Jeff]

" I'm gonna try that one next week."

With your pro bono nurse. Hey Legalize, before you go into into court and you get sworn in... what are you swearing... umm, I think its an oath. What, have you ever been to court (except to pay your drunk in public fine).

[Legalize]

Geoff, try forming complete sentences while displaying your witt.

[Fred Beloit]

Legalize, being a lawyer, you are a supposedcertified literate. Please, doesn't the President or his delegate, approved by the Senate, have the legal right to fire any federal prosecutor he deems is not, either through incompetence or purposefully, properly carrying out his/her duties?

[Fred Beloit]

Judge, please instruct the witness to answer yes or no.

[Fred Beloit]

I'll take the blank space as a yes. If the President has this authority, why does the Senate majority want an investigation of a non-crime. Could it be merely for political reasons?

[Fred Beloit]

Legalize, is it possible that this is a case of; "They liked it once; they'll love it twice"? In other words, could this be purely another fishing expedition, as was Fitzgerald's "investigation" hoping to trap someone with a memory lapse or just to beat up people in public to please Kos and his fans, that is to say the neocores (new core of the Demoratics Party)?

[Legalize]

"Legalize, being a lawyer, you are a supposedcertified literate."

The fuck?

"Please, doesn't the President or his delegate, approved by the Senate, have the legal right to fire any federal prosecutor he deems is not, either through incompetence or purposefully, properly carrying out his/her duties?"

How long do you intend to keep asking the same irrelevant question? How many times does this have to be covered before you finally understand it? What the hell - again, no one is arguing that the president doesn't have to right to hire and fire prosecutors as he sees fit; no one is arguing that USAs AREN'T political appointees. The argument, that you either fail to understand, or simply refuse to address, ISN'T a legal one, relative to the hiring and firing of USAs, UNLESS there is some evidence that the executive branch purposely interfered with investigations initiated by USAs, as such interference is arguably a matter of obstruction of justice. The OTHER legal issue involves lying before Congress, while under oath, i.e. "perjury," which it appears Gonzales and McNulty did.

Now, absent the legal issues, of which there are very few, what we have here, as the documents clearly indicate, is a matter where the president, Gonzales, officials at the DOJ, and the presidnent's political advisors within the White House, targeted sitting USAs, whom the president appointed, to be fired because they were not following the partisan interests of the president. In other words, it appears that they were pressured to go after Democrats when there didn't appear to be any justification for doing so, and pressured to ease up on Republicans when there was AMPLE indication that said GOPers were involved in unlawful activity.

I will preemptively address your next argument: "Clinton did the same thing; in fact all presidents do the same thing." This is incorrect. All president's traditionally replace USAs at the beginning of their terms - true - Clinton did it, W did it. No problem. Clinton DID NOT replace 8 USAs who were investigaing or not investigating, cases that invoked the partisan interests of his party.

While this might not be unlawful, it completely ruins the integrity of the DOJ, which is not the president's private law firm; it is the peoples' law enforcement agency. If the AG can not separate his personal loyalties as the president's counselor from his PUBLIC DUTIES as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, he simply has no business serving in his present capacity. Period.

Now, there you go. I look forward to you well-reasoned and thought out response.

/Regards

[Legalize]

Fred, come on, Fred - time to keep playing pretend lawyer. Where is your increadibly well-reasoned and articulate response, Fred? Fred?

[charles]

"it appears that they were pressured to go after Democrats when there didn't appear to be any justification for doing so, and pressured to ease up on Republicans when there was AMPLE indication that said GOPers were involved in unlawful activity."

there you go again, it's all about how it (appears)LOOKS

"AMPLE indication = weasel words

[Legalize]

charles, it's not your turn yet to play pretend lawyer. Spend more than 5 seconds coming up with an argument isn't retardely conclusory and is actually supported by something intelligable.

[yyy]

I would say forget it on this one. They are never going to "understand" the issue, they are either to stupid to distinguish between a political appointment, a political job and a public service job or they are too stubborn.

They don't care about the integrity of DOJ, the FBI, the Joint Chiefs, FDA, anything. They don't care about facts or policy.

All they desire is to defending Bush and malign the Democrats. Nothing else matters.

[Phoenix]

“They've been trained to make statements like the one to which you referred with no explanation or context as to HOW and WHY their point should carry the day.”

Prove this, counselor. Don’t just throw a statement out there you can’t back up. You know better than that.

“You can't even be bothered to prove the laundry list of idiotic AFFIRMATIVE accusations you make on an hourly basis.”

I don’t have to. I use only your words.

“Prove that you're not menopausal; I mean, take my word for it - it's plainly evident that you are.”

You want my doctor to email to Dan’s blog? But wait,...I don’t have to prove it because I get to take your word for it. Otay! Now, you tell me how it’s “plainly evident” that I am menopausal.

And just for fun:

Geoff, try forming complete sentences while displaying your witt.
Posted by: Legalize

That would be ‘wit’, you nimrod.

[charles]

"retardely conclusory and is actually supported by something intelligable."

i'm supposed to believe that you made it through college???

wtf - you can graduate collegeand be functionally illiterate at the same time?

spend more than 5 seconds trying to spell common words correctly and maybe i'll actually take your opinions seriously

until then i'll have to insist you are not as bright as you think you are

[Phoenix]

All they desire is to defending Bush and malign the Democrats. Nothing else matters.

Posted by: yyy

You're right on this, yyy. This isn't going to stop until they bring Bush to his knees.

[Legalize]

You're right of course, yyy. I keep making the mistake of holding out hope that one of these clowns is capable of a reasonable exchange; unfortunately they prove me wrong every time. Oh well. In other news, the House has already approved subpoenas for Rove and Miers: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/fired_prosecutors.

[yyy]

This isn't going to stop until they bring Bush to his knees.
-----------------------------------------------------

George W. Bush has disgraced the United States and disgraced the office of President. He should be impeached and thrown out of the White House for failing to uphold his oath of office and for numerous unconstitutional actions.

The Democrats are refraining from impeachment proceedings for political reasons, because they do not want to be viewed as obstructionists, out for political gain, and because it would be destructive and counter productive given the many problems facing the nation as as result of Bush's pathetic 'leadership'

[Legalize]

“They've been trained to make statements like the one to which you referred with no explanation or context as to HOW and WHY their point should carry the day.”

"I don’t have to. I use only your words."

Except, you know, you routinely fail to actually point to my actual words - over and over again.

"You want my doctor to email to Dan’s blog? But wait,...I don’t have to prove it because I get to take your word for it. Otay! Now, you tell me how it’s “plainly evident” that I am menopausal."

Now, you see, THAT was ironic, because I was actually using your actual words against you, kinda like how you routinely claim to be doing the same thing, while never actually doing it. Whoosh.

"And just for fun:

Geoff, try forming complete sentences while displaying your witt.
Posted by: Legalize

That would be ‘wit’, you nimrod."

Blah blah blah. I know that you think my bad spelling absolves you of your argumentative incompetence; we've heard it over and over again. None of this changes the fact that you are clearly menopausal, of course.

[charles]

"None of this changes the fact that you are clearly menopausal, of course."

and you need to resort to childish immature name calling because you are so scary smart

if you had confidence in your own argument you would let facts or a well thought out opinion carry its own weight

but,, (are you ready for this?) sadly,no! bwahahahahaha

i gave it some small effort but i still can't take you seriously

[Legalize]

"retardely conclusory and is actually supported by something intelligable."

i'm supposed to believe that you made it through college???

wtf - you can graduate collegeand be functionally illiterate at the same time?

spend more than 5 seconds trying to spell common words correctly and maybe i'll actually take your opinions seriously

until then i'll have to insist you are not as bright as you think you are"

Wow, that piercing critique was impressive, given the litany of common punctuation and grammar mistakes littering your *retort*.

[Legalize]

"if you had confidence in your own argument you would let facts or a well thought out opinion carry its own weight"

You mean the facts I've cited and the argument I've formulated, while you babble on in an attempt to avoid the fact that you can't come up with your own analysis?

"and you need to resort to childish immature name calling because you are so scary smart"

*eye roll* Cry me a river, princess. Insults are all you fanboys are capable of tossing out, while constantly whining about being insulted yourselves.

"i gave it some small effort but i still can't take you seriously"

You see - that's ironical too.

[charles]

haha

i'm not the guy who claims to be a scary smart college educated legal automaton

if i were you i would go back to whatever school granted you a diploma and ask for a refund

"common punctuation and grammar mistakes littering your *retort*."

if i actually gave a shit i might have expended more effort

[Phoenix]

Looky! Some more fun for the counselor:

""Who burned an American soldier in effigy?"

Some 17 year old brat. Wingers like Limpy think that (a) you are that guy no matter what, and (b) even if you are not that guy, the mere ffact that it happened means that all "lefties" support it, and (c) that disagreeing with the war and Bush means that you hate America. Limpy's style of "debate" is injecting as many logical fallacies as possible into any given dispute and claiming victory.

Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 05:47 PM"

You mention fallacies. You're a liar. Head over to LGF and scroll down to the photos of the flag and the soldier going up in flames and find us the 17 year old brat. Note the gang surrounding the conflagration.

You must have a hell of a time with court evidence. D'oh...

[charles]

"You mean the facts I've cited and the argument I've formulated"

you mean facts and arguments like this?

"None of this changes the fact that you are clearly menopausal, of course."

this is too easy - it practically writes itself

[Legalize]

"haha

i'm not the guy who claims to be a scary smart college educated legal automaton"

Uh, me either. I've never claimed anything of the sort. I can't help it that the voices in your head are giving you faulty intelligence.

"if i were you i would go back to whatever school granted you a diploma and ask for a refund"

Hey, that's original.

"common punctuation and grammar mistakes littering your *retort*."

"if i actually gave a shit i might have expended more effort"

Priceless. Your errors are merely a product of your lack of effort, while mine are somehow illustrative of your grand indictment of my intelligence. That's pretty convenient for you; I wish I had the benefit of those rules.

[charles]

well legalize, i would like to sit here all day and play whack a troll with you

but i don't have the (opportunity)gall to stay here posting on my bosses dime/time

because, you see

i'm the boss and it's time to go earn some of that beautiful american currency

but you do have my permission to carry on in your oh so foolish manner

don't let the boss catch you slagging off

[Fred Beloit]

You pretend my refusal to accept political BS and use the ad hominem of "pretend lawyer", Leg, (how's business BTW) for reasons of your own. Let me try to clarify for anyone who may be reading this who isn't a kneejerk partisan, of whom admittedly, there may be few. We elect people to the office of President because we want them to have certain authorities. One of them is authority over federal prosecutors. The President or his delegate may fire a prosecutor because it is felt that prosecutor may be working at cross purposes to justice. When you fire someone, it perforce interferes with what they are doing. Duh. So what? You say Clinton fired only those who were working on cases involving politics. How do you know? Was there a Senate hearing? Legal, your comment (a long one)is rife with words like may, if, arguably, some evidence, and similar words and phrases, but you never answered my question. "...could this be purely another fishing expedition..." a la Fitzgerald? If I look at your comment, it is exactly like a defense of such an expedition and so I guess your answer is yes, it could be but that is OK because blah blah blah. BTW I never wrote the comment about all Presidents doing it that you attributed to me.

[Legalize]

"You pretend my refusal to accept political BS and use the ad hominem of "pretend lawyer", Leg, (how's business BTW) for reasons of your own."

Guh?

"Let me try to clarify for anyone who may be reading this who isn't a kneejerk partisan, of whom admittedly, there may be few. We elect people to the office of President because we want them to have certain authorities. One of them is authority over federal prosecutors. The President or his delegate may fire a prosecutor because it is felt that prosecutor may be working at cross purposes to justice."

What the hell does "working at cross purposes to justice" mean? Seriously.

"When you fire someone, it perforce interferes with what they are doing."

I think you mean "per se."

"Duh. So what?"

So ... USAs aren't just "someone." They are holders of the public trust, with an office that holds tremendous power over the life, liberty, and property of Americans. They are supposed to be left to enforce the laws of the United States, not to do the partisan bidding of the president.

"You say Clinton fired only those who were working on cases involving politics."

Uh, no I didn't say that. I said that Clinton fired prosecutors at the beginning of his term like all presidents do.

"You Legal, your comment (a long one)is rife with words like may, if, arguably, some evidence, and similar words and phrases, but you never answered my question. "...could this be purely another fishing expedition..." a la Fitzgerald?"

Because your question is baseless, given the amount of documentation tending to illustrate that something rotten is going on here. That's what senate committees do -they follow the document trail. The trail keeps getting littered with more information that is leading NOT JUST DEMS to beleive that further inquiry is neccessary - as is the RIGHT of the committee.

"If I look at your comment, it is exactly like a defense of such an expedition and so I guess your answer is yes, it could be but that is OK because blah blah blah."

Compelling.

"BTW I never wrote the comment about all Presidents doing it that you attributed to me."

I know you didn't; that's why I "preemptively" addressed it.

[BCMG]

I love it. We're getting useless subpoenas and hearings - the same ones the Dems "promised" not to bog the American Public down with again. But they lied. Big surprise. And from Chucky "I illegally checked Lt. Gov Michael Steele's credit report" Schumer. Why isn't that criminal in jail? Oh, yeah, because he paid off 2 of his interns to take the rap for him. Beats workin', right? Beats doing your job, ending the war etc etc all of the things they were elected to do, right?

[Legalize]

"You mention fallacies. You're a liar. Head over to LGF and scroll down to the photos of the flag and the soldier going up in flames and find us the 17 year old brat. Note the gang surrounding the conflagration.

You must have a hell of a time with court evidence. D'oh..."

I see you will never tire of inventing big wins for yourself. I also see that you are either too dense or too dishonest to address the substance of what I was saying - over and over again. The AGE of the perpetrator is immaterial in the context of my point, as are virtually all of your asinine inquiries and attempted zingers. By the way, "lying" isn't a logical fallacy, unlike your game of inventing strawman after dishonest strawman in an attempt to make some techinical innacuracy into a broad illustration of truth.

Oh, and explain to me what "court evidence" is. While your at it, I'm still waiting for examples of the *damning* statements of mine that you claim to so artfully use against me.

[Fred Beloit]

I don't care what you "preemptivly" address. I'll do my thinking without your help, thanks anyway. Besides I understand the firings were not so ordinary prior to Clinton. Anyway working at cross purposes to justice means harassing a government official doing his duty when no crime has been committed and questioning them about some comment they made during a busy day until you can nit pick a charge of perjury (a charge that lawyer and Senator Schumer has maintained is no big deal) out of what could have been a simple lapse of memory. Hope that helps. "Perforce = by force of circumstances, necessarily" You lawyers are always trying to foist of on the rest of us your version of what words mean, but we love you anyway, or else we wouldn't have made so many of you.

[tk]

First to legalize: If the president removed a prosecutor for not looking into voter fraud when there war evidence it occurred, he has all the legal right to do so. In fact he has all the right to decide what he wants them to do or not do. One of these prosecutors even said so on hardball. Their complaint is the Attorney General said they were dismissed for performance, which was not true.
Second:
Bush and the rest of the republicans need to fight a hell of a lot harder, they look weak trying to be bi-partisan.

[Fred Beloit]

Legal, you wrote, "Clinton DID NOT (your caps) replace 8 USAs who were investigating or not investigating, cases that invoked the partisan interest of his party." I misquoted you previously, but I don't get the meaning of this sentence as stated. Perhaps there was a slip of the keyboard?

[Legalize]

tk, actually read my comment. I've addressed all of you concerns, and I don't have the interest in retyping everything because you guys are too intellectually lazy to consider my points.

[Legalize]

Fred, yes you misquoted me; that seems to be a very common trend around here. By that comment, I meant precisely what I said. Explain your confusion.

[Fred Beloit]

Some of the eight were investigating cases "...that invoked ((definition: 1. to call upon (God) in prayer, 2. to call for the help or protection of, 3. to summon up (a spirit) with words)) the partisan interests of his party. Some of the eight were not so engaged. Regardless, he did not replace any of them. I guess I understand what you said, just don't know why you said it. Unless you are making the point that some investigations that "invoked" or called for help or protection for the partisan interests of his party were dropped because there was no one to investigate them further. How am I doing?