posted on December 14, 2002 10:34:29 PM new"With fellow Republicans set to run Congress and a federal court upholding his right to secrecy, President Bush over the next two years will be protected from potentially embarrassing congressional investigations into his administration, especially its relationship with big corporate donors, government officials say."
"Starting next month, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and other top Senate Democrats will lose their chairmanships and much of their power to initiate investigations of the Bush administration, subpoena key officials and hold public hearings on possible wrongdoing. As a result, Bush will likely escape close congressional scrutiny of the role his biggest corporate contributors play in shaping administration policy on environment, energy and other pro-business issues."
The reason that I bring this up is that you should Bookmark this article into your arsenals right now. Do it. That's because there will come a time when idiotic comments made by Republican supporters will need to be slammed and shown for what they are -- a sham! Such comments as: "Bush deserves a second term -- he hasn't done anything wrong and everything right!" You KNOW you'll hear crap like that in the future. That's the time to shove those stupid comments back down their throats with the truth that Bush couldn't be investigated, even if all Americans wanted it!
The SOB now has complete immunity from prosecution!! With that in place, there is no acountability and he's free to do any damned thing that he pleases and he'll never get caught, because he cannot be investigated. Sounds just like the conditions that Adolph Hitler enjoyed -- doesn't it? Especially since he's the commander of the Homeland Security Gestopo and they are accountable only to him -- his own Secret Police!
posted on December 15, 2002 10:07:28 PM new
And this doesn't bother you in the least? That he's made himself immune from investigation or prosecution? What if Clinton had done this? Where would you stand on it then?
posted on December 16, 2002 07:06:13 AM new
Well, isn't that lovely?
Ordinary citizens lose all privacy while he gains the pleasure of privacy and secrecy in all things - even those of a criminal nature. In the meantime, our civil liberties are simply erased. Even such personal information as library records, internet use, telephone conversations, banking transactions, credit card use, school and medical records are under scrutiny. Every thing writen or spoken is under surveilance and George Bush doesn't even have to testify in a criminal trial? Yet, they can have access to our every move just for the hell of it and jail us without probable cause or legal representation....
In preparation for the investigation of 9/11, Democrats said Bush could be asked to testify in person about events leading up to the attacks that killed more than 3,000 people. "The White House rebuffed the suggestion. The commission will look for failures in intelligence, aviation security, immigration and other areas. Subpoenas could be issued by agreement of the chair and vice chair or a vote of six of the 10 commission members." Is George now immune from testifying before this investigative committee????
If anybody in the United States needs agressive surveillance it's George Bush and corporate corruption. The welfare of the world depends upon it.
posted on December 16, 2002 10:03:17 AM new
Thanks, Borillar, article is bookmarked. Oh brother. . . .this may be just my little old opinion, but it seems to me that if you've done nothing wrong and plan not to do anything wrong, you don't need this kind of protection.
posted on December 16, 2002 12:03:56 PM new
I hear what you are saying.
It's not that the same mechanisms aren't in place to deal with executive illegalities as were before. It's just that the men at those posts are his cronies. That is a potential problem anytime one party gets the a clear cut upper hand.
I think the unhealthy attitude has been there in recent years just by observing how the president is treated like king instead of a civil servant.
Streets are closed - traffic halted - everyday business brought to a halt for one man as if he was a little god. We are even held to a different standard in our speech if anything we say should be construed as threatening.
Can you believe that not too many years ago the president could walk down the street from the whitehouse to buy himself a cigar?
posted on December 16, 2002 06:11:40 PM new
How come we don't have any of the staunch Republicans on here crying out about this? After all, if this had been done by Clinton anytime during his administraton, the Republicans in Congress would have made such a screech about it that absolutly 24-hours a day Mouthpieces for them would go non-stop about the "abuse of power" and whatnot, and now that it's Bush that's just peachy-keen! Right?
C'mon Republicans! Show us how much Americans you are by DENOUNCING this act of Abuse of Political Power and Tyranny!
What?
Can't talk right now?
Too busy trying to learn how to become an American?
posted on December 17, 2002 08:01:14 AM new
Seems as though all of the staunch republicans have fled this forum in shame! Was the Truth too much for them? Were the facts so insurmountable that they no longer could hold onto their fairytale political beliefs? Did we "bust them up" so badly by disagreeing with them and asking them to discuss this as adults? I guess so, because not a one will come into here to defend what their Boss has done now. Even those who may not like Bush, but believe in the government as benevolent haven't shown their naive faces in here. Is this the Smoking Gun of our Cause, Ladies and Gentlemen? Is this the One Issue that NO Republican or Government supporter can defend? Is this issue that will put Bush's and the GOP's politics buried back into the ground?
posted on December 17, 2002 11:58:55 AM new
they're probably just off Christmas shopping... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 18, 2002 11:40:49 AM new
Yep, they have yet to explain how "moral" it is to have Bush immune from criminal investigation and prosecution.
posted on December 18, 2002 12:27:22 PM new
oh, didn't you know? He is our PRESIDENT, which for some means never to be questioned, followed regardless of the circumstances, and supported no matter what he does. Because the president is, after all, the president... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 18, 2002 12:42:30 PM new
they may not admit it, to themselves or anyone else, but that is what some people desire: a dictator. A benevolent dictator, of course. A government enitity that will think for them, care for them, & run the country without supervision because it is just too much trouble to run this country as it was set up to be run. Takes too much work. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 18, 2002 01:13:00 PM newthey may not admit it, to themselves or anyone else, but that is what some people desire: a dictator
Bullseye, Bunnicula. Which is a good part of the reason that the backbone and intelligence of the public during the last year seems to approximate the subject of your healthful cuisine thread. To many, the research may be indirectly advocating cannibalism.
posted on December 18, 2002 02:23:46 PM new
Bunni - I'd like to better understand what you mean by:
A government enitity that will think for them, care for them, & run the country without supervision because it is just too much trouble to run this country as it was set up to be run. Takes too much work. If you would, could you give me just an example to two?
To me, those who are even interested in what's happening with our government, appear to go with the party to whom they most agree with on a majority of issues. Rather than being for one party or the other without exception [agreeing with everything they do]. Of course there are those who are very right [or left] wing who believe 'my party right or wrong', but usually most appear to me somewhat in the middle. Might like an issue the dems are for..might like an issue the reps are for. Do you see that differently?
posted on December 18, 2002 03:06:19 PM new
I agree with Bunni. Most Americans aren't concerned and do not want to be bothered by participating in the running of the government. If they had a benevolent dictator without the need to bother with elections all of the time, that would satisfy them just peachy-keen. And, they are getting just that kind of government too! The "benvolent" part is questionsable, coming from the Party Of Greedy People. But certainly, now that Bush has Dicatorial powers, since he can not be investigated or prosecuted for wrongdoing and is not longer accountable to anyone, has his own private Secret Police, and has removed the Civil Rights of Americans indefinetly, we are ALL about to get that type of government!
posted on December 18, 2002 03:18:38 PM newBut Democrats worry potential transgressions will go unnoticed. The oversight process -- while sometimes abused by partisans to embarrass presidents -- has uncovered abuses of power ranging from campaign finance scandals in the Clinton administration to defense procurement scams in the 1980s. Bolded is, IMO, true on both sides. Unnoticed? Don't agree here...there will always be some who will question the actions of those in their own party. They won't all be silent if they believe an injustice is occurring.
The Bush administration, led by Cheney, has waged a war to reverse what it sees as an erosion of the power of the presidency over the past 30 years. Starting in the 1970s, Cheney contends, Congress responded to Watergate and Vietnam by passing laws to provide the legislative branch greater authority over the president. So now the pendulum swings the other way.
gravid said, and I agree It's not that the same mechanisms aren't in place to deal with executive illegalities as were before. It's just that the men at those posts are his cronies. That is a potential problem anytime one party gets the a clear cut upper hand. The voters vote and we live with the results. When any administration has control over both the House and the Senate the same thing occurs.
posted on December 18, 2002 06:55:22 PM newLinda: take a look at our country.
We have the lowest voter turnout percenentage of any free country in the world--only 51% of us voted in the last Presidential election, & only 39.3% voted in this year's November elections. Too much trouble to get of their butts for the rest, I guess.
We have people who are so unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions that they demand the government "protect" them from practically everything under the sun.
People who can't be bothered to scrutinize the actions of government officials--again too much work & they'd rather whine about the results than do something about it.
Just a couple of examples for you...
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 18, 2002 09:24:33 PM new
Thanks Bunni - I agree 100%. Thought that might be what you meant...just wanted to clarify. It's definitely a big problem. Just not sure what a good solution would be.
posted on December 19, 2002 11:39:56 AM new
>We have the lowest voter turnout percenentage of any free country in the world--only 51% of us voted in the last Presidential election, & only 39.3% voted in this year's November elections. Too much trouble to get of their butts for the rest, I guess.
Maybe so. However, I'd bet that there are any number of Americans who have decided that since the last election was overturned by the Supreme Court appointing Bush President that now, their votes truely do not count. A serious situation, as voting is the means whereby the population can redress greiveances and change government more to their liking via peaceful means. Without faith in the voting process, people will end up resorting to other, less peaceful means to change government. They brought this on themselves. Remember what happened to Marie Antonette and her ilk during the French Revolution?
posted on December 19, 2002 11:41:43 AM new
We STILL don't have anyone coming in here, in seriousness, to SUPPORT the President's right to be Above the Law and to be immune from criminal investigation and prosecution!
WHY CAN'T THE REPUBLICANS SUPPORT THEIR OWN LEADERS ANYMORE?
posted on December 19, 2002 11:47:25 AM new
Probably because the people who sign the
Republicans paychecks know the president or actually mowed his lawn.
posted on December 19, 2002 11:51:01 AM new
Hey, you know when people stand for something and are completely obtuse that
just lets other people jump out of the bushes and shoot them in the back.
posted on December 19, 2002 11:54:55 AM new
Yeah, I know the left probably thinks
Bush stole the election, and Bush thinks he's there because of Manifest Destiny.
posted on December 19, 2002 12:46:29 PM newBorillar:Maybe so. However, I'd bet that there are any number of Americans who have decided that since the last election was overturned by the Supreme Court appointing Bush President that now, their votes truely do not count.
No, that isn't it at all. In fact, there were small increases in the turnout of voters in 2000 & here in 2002 due to grassroot campaigns. Other than that voter turn out has been declining since 1960. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 19, 2002 01:29:17 PM new
Bunni, are you saying that the percentage of mid-term election voters has increased or decreased? And also, in your opinion, do you state that you feel that no American voters have been turned off from the voting process by having their votes invalidated at the end of the last Presidential election?
