View Full Version : Will the GOP oust Cheney......
jwharv
06-26-2007, 11:38 PM
I was watching CNN tonight and they were saying that the GOP was going to use a scheduled surgery this summer to replace Cheney's pace maker as a chance to get rid of him. Using the excuse of failing health to show him the back door. DO you think this will actualy happen?
Digging4Truth
06-27-2007, 06:23 AM
I was watching CNN tonight and they were saying that the GOP was going to use a scheduled surgery this summer to replace Cheney's pace maker as a chance to get rid of him. Using the excuse of failing health to show him the back door. DO you think this will actualy happen?
Let's hope so.
I was watching CNN tonight and they were saying that the GOP was going to use a scheduled surgery this summer to replace Cheney's pace maker as a chance to get rid of him. Using the excuse of failing health to show him the back door. DO you think this will actualy happen?
This late in the game? No.
Pressing-On
06-27-2007, 10:41 AM
This late in the game? No.
I agree. I don't think they will.
I was watching CNN tonight and they were saying that the GOP was going to use a scheduled surgery this summer to replace Cheney's pace maker as a chance to get rid of him. Using the excuse of failing health to show him the back door. DO you think this will actualy happen?
absolutly not. there is less than a year and a half left in this presidential term. ousting cheney serves on real purpose.
First of all, watching CNN is not a good place to find out what the republicans are doing. you might as well as Terri McAulfee (sp) what the republicans are doing.
Pressing-On
06-27-2007, 12:14 PM
absolutly not. there is less than a year and a half left in this presidential term. ousting cheney serves on real purpose.
First of all, watching CNN is not a good place to find out what the republicans are doing. you might as well as Terri McAulfee (sp) what the republicans are doing.
Amen!!!!!!!!!
jwharv
06-27-2007, 12:29 PM
absolutly not. there is less than a year and a half left in this presidential term. ousting cheney serves on real purpose.
First of all, watching CNN is not a good place to find out what the republicans are doing. you might as well as Terri McAulfee (sp) what the republicans are doing.
Sadly it is the only news channel we get.........................
Sadly it is the only news channel we get.........................
I am sorry my friend. I will pray for your deliverance!
by the by, this isnt the first time, they have trotted that line out. every time Cheney has some kind of health crisis or simply gets a physical, the left and the media (evidently these two things are actually the same thing), says the republicans may use this as an oppurtuinity to get rid of old DC.
They just hate the guy because he doesnt take their guff. and because he isnt one of them.
chaotic_resolve
06-27-2007, 02:10 PM
I was watching CNN tonight and they were saying that the GOP was going to use a scheduled surgery this summer to replace Cheney's pace maker as a chance to get rid of him. Using the excuse of failing health to show him the back door. DO you think this will actualy happen?
This late in the game? No.
I agree. I don't think they will.
absolutly not. there is less than a year and a half left in this presidential term. ousting cheney serves on real purpose.
I was hoping they'd replace DC in the 2K4 elections with Condi Rice, but that didn't happen. I highly doubt the GOP will change the VP this late, as Chan mentioned. I agree with Ferd, it wouldn't do much with the little time left remaining before the next Presidential term.
I like DC's toughness, but I don't like his secrecy. That goes for the administration. The Bush admin reeks because of all the secrecy they've created.
I'm afraid that will soon come back to bite the GOP if a Democrat gets the WH. Could you imagine the uproar by the GOP if a Democrat were to do the things this administration is doing? Just being fair and honest.
There should be openess, not secrecy, on the part of the administration. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But with all the hush hush secrecy in the WW and WH, it's more like another form of government.
Pressing-On
06-27-2007, 09:53 PM
I was hoping they'd replace DC in the 2K4 elections with Condi Rice, but that didn't happen. I highly doubt the GOP will change the VP this late, as Chan mentioned. I agree with Ferd, it wouldn't do much with the little time left remaining before the next Presidential term.
I like DC's toughness, but I don't like his secrecy. That goes for the administration. The Bush admin reeks because of all the secrecy they've created.
I'm afraid that will soon come back to bite the GOP if a Democrat gets the WH. Could you imagine the uproar by the GOP if a Democrat were to do the things this administration is doing? Just being fair and honest.
There should be openess, not secrecy, on the part of the administration. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But with all the hush hush secrecy in the WW and WH, it's more like another form of government.
I like DC's toughness, but I don't like his secrecy. That goes for the administration. The Bush admin reeks because of all the secrecy they've created.
I also liked his toughness. I just don't think he carried any more secrecy than anyone else. JMO. I like how plain he is when he talks about any subject. He's a pleasant person to listen to. He's very articulate and concise. I like that about him.
I was hoping they'd replace DC in the 2K4 elections with Condi Rice, but that didn't happen. I highly doubt the GOP will change the VP this late, as Chan mentioned. I agree with Ferd, it wouldn't do much with the little time left remaining before the next Presidential term.
I like DC's toughness, but I don't like his secrecy. That goes for the administration. The Bush admin reeks because of all the secrecy they've created.
I'm afraid that will soon come back to bite the GOP if a Democrat gets the WH. Could you imagine the uproar by the GOP if a Democrat were to do the things this administration is doing? Just being fair and honest.
There should be openess, not secrecy, on the part of the administration. This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. But with all the hush hush secrecy in the WW and WH, it's more like another form of government.
when you get a minute, would you mind pointing out for me a few of these examples of secrecy that you are so offended by?
as for Dems being secret, like Hillary leading a panel to create a nationa healthcare system in secret? like that?
chaotic_resolve
06-28-2007, 04:19 PM
when you get a minute, would you mind pointing out for me a few of these examples of secrecy that you are so offended by?
as for Dems being secret, like Hillary leading a panel to create a nationa healthcare system in secret? like that?
Hillary's not the second in line to the Presidency. She's a Senator. Oh, and speaking of creating stuff in secret, how about this blasted Amnesty bill that has largely been assailed by even Rush and Hannity because it was drafted largely in secret by 12 people and these same people . . . INCLUDING the President - are doing their blasted best to try and ram it down our throats without any debate, as quickly as possible, so as not to allow time for adequate or thorough reading of what's in the bill.
As for DC and the current Admin secrets . . . especially relating to the Justice Dept fiasco, they've "lost" (erased) emails and either haven't given important papers to the committee's or have given heavily redacted copies that have very little, if any, information.
If I get some free time, I'll do a google search and see how many times Bush has claimed Executive Priveledge and has refused to hand over requested documents. I know it's more than the former occupant of the WH . . . who was loathed for it by Republicans.
Hillary's not the second in line to the Presidency. She's a Senator. Oh, and speaking of creating stuff in secret, how about this blasted Amnesty bill that has largely been assailed by even Rush and Hannity because it was drafted largely in secret by 12 people and these same people . . . INCLUDING the President - are doing their blasted best to try and ram it down our throats without any debate, as quickly as possible, so as not to allow time for adequate or thorough reading of what's in the bill.
As for DC and the current Admin secrets . . . especially relating to the Justice Dept fiasco, they've "lost" (erased) emails and either haven't given important papers to the committee's or have given heavily redacted copies that have very little, if any, information.
If I get some free time, I'll do a google search and see how many times Bush has claimed Executive Priveledge and has refused to hand over requested documents. I know it's more than the former occupant of the WH . . . who was loathed for it by Republicans.
oh there is so much here to talk about.
one quick hit before I go to bed. the last time GWB used "executive privledge over whitehouse documents it was a refusal to hand over papers from the Clinton whitehouse to congress.
If you are game, tomorrow stands to be quite fun! Night night.
chaotic_resolve
06-28-2007, 09:47 PM
oh there is so much here to talk about.
one quick hit before I go to bed. the last time GWB used "executive privledge over whitehouse documents it was a refusal to hand over papers from the Clinton whitehouse to congress.
If you are game, tomorrow stands to be quite fun! Night night.
Wrong, sir! He's used it a few times since then. The suspension of Habeas Corpus, which was reversed by the Supreme Court. Claims of EP during the 9/11 Commission Hearings. Now with the DOJ fiasco.
He also used an Executive Order (#13233) to overrule President Reagans EO (#12667) that gave Americans access to Presidential papers. Under Bush's new EO (done in November, 2001), Presidential papers are protected for 12 years after a President leaves office.
Wrong, sir! He's used it a few times since then. The suspension of Habeas Corpus, which was reversed by the Supreme Court. Claims of EP during the 9/11 Commission Hearings. Now with the DOJ fiasco.
He also used an Executive Order (#13233) to overrule President Reagans EO (#12667) that gave Americans access to Presidential papers. Under Bush's new EO (done in November, 2001), Presidential papers are protected for 12 years after a President leaves office.
I remember that EO on presidential papers now that you bring it up. I also rember the 9/11 commision. I was thinking more in line with responding to congressional supeana.
I am wondering why you find that troubling? So one president changes an execustive order? why is that a problem? This is well within both established law and often used precident.
DOJ fiasco? can you explain what you mean by fiasco? exactly why is it a fiasco? (other than that is what liberal news outlets and the demonrats in congress are saying.)
chaotic_resolve
06-29-2007, 10:34 AM
I remember that EO on presidential papers now that you bring it up. I also rember the 9/11 commision. I was thinking more in line with responding to congressional supeana.
I am wondering why you find that troubling? So one president changes an execustive order? why is that a problem? This is well within both established law and often used precident.
DOJ fiasco? can you explain what you mean by fiasco? exactly why is it a fiasco? (other than that is what liberal news outlets and the demonrats in congress are saying.)
I find it troubling that there is a pattern of secrecy in the Bush Admin. There is, like it or not. There's a definite pattern of President Bush making the WH and the office unaccountable to anyone. He angered conservatives by blocking efforts to access Clinton WH records; he's overruled the greatest President in my lifetime (Reagan's) OE that gave American's access to Presidential records. He consistantly tried and has largely succeeded to make the Oval Office a separate power, unquestioned and unaccountable.
Re congressional subpoena, I believe there have been threats made by Congress do subpoena documents, but a compromise has been made. This would be the first time, if Congress follows through, that it's gone this far.
I never liked Bush's choice in Attorney General . . . neither did many other conservatives. Gonzalez was a poor choice, but he's been a Bush friend and loyalist for years so he got the job.
I don't get information from liberal news outlets, I watched the hearings, read the news on FoxNews and read transcripts from Tony Snow and others.
The whole DOJ firings reek. The AG shouldn't still be in office. The facts can't be changed.
Records are there, it's been admitted, that they wanted "Bush loyalists" in those positions.
Did you watch the Senate or House hearings with the AG? I watched both of them. It was pathetic. For being hailed by Bush as a bright man, the AG looked incredibly stupid.
I can't recall....
I don't remember...
I'm not sure...
And other variations of the same stuff.
After the hearings it came out that he had a sit-down conference with a lady who's being subpoena'd. Tried getting the story right before his hearing.
There's just a lot to the DOJ stuff that stinks - most of it deals with the AG. He needs to go, but Bush is stubborn and would rather have his approval numbers bottom out and people be angry with him than to fire a friend for being incompetent.
This second term has been a disappointment. I voted for Bush both times. The first time I was happy about some things, a little concerned about the stupid prescription drug bill and unwillingness to have guts and veto bad bills, but I voted for him again because anything was better than John Kerry. This term has been a huge disaster. And it's not getting any better.
Pressing-On
06-29-2007, 10:45 AM
I find it troubling that there is a pattern of secrecy in the Bush Admin. There is, like it or not. There's a definite pattern of President Bush making the WH and the office unaccountable to anyone. He angered conservatives by blocking efforts to access Clinton WH records; he's overruled the greatest President in my lifetime (Reagan's) OE that gave American's access to Presidential records. He consistantly tried and has largely succeeded to make the Oval Office a separate power, unquestioned and unaccountable.
Re congressional subpoena, I believe there have been threats made by Congress do subpoena documents, but a compromise has been made. This would be the first time, if Congress follows through, that it's gone this far.
I never liked Bush's choice in Attorney General . . . neither did many other conservatives. Gonzalez was a poor choice, but he's been a Bush friend and loyalist for years so he got the job.
I don't get information from liberal news outlets, I watched the hearings, read the news on FoxNews and read transcripts from Tony Snow and others.
The whole DOJ firings reek. The AG shouldn't still be in office. The facts can't be changed.
Records are there, it's been admitted, that they wanted "Bush loyalists" in those positions.
Did you watch the Senate or House hearings with the AG? I watched both of them. It was pathetic. For being hailed by Bush as a bright man, the AG looked incredibly stupid.
I can't recall....
I don't remember...
I'm not sure...
And other variations of the same stuff.
After the hearings it came out that he had a sit-down conference with a lady who's being subpoena'd. Tried getting the story right before his hearing.
There's just a lot to the DOJ stuff that stinks - most of it deals with the AG. He needs to go, but Bush is stubborn and would rather have his approval numbers bottom out and people be angry with him than to fire a friend for being incompetent.
This second term has been a disappointment. I voted for Bush both times. The first time I was happy about some things, a little concerned about the stupid prescription drug bill and unwillingness to have guts and veto bad bills, but I voted for him again because anything was better than John Kerry. This term has been a huge disaster. And it's not getting any better.
Hello! Whitewater!!! Foster is dead! What was that all about?
Gonzalez didn't do anything that anyone else hadn't done.
Sandy Berger! Hello!
:killinme
chaotic_resolve
06-29-2007, 11:19 AM
Hello! Whitewater!!! Foster is dead! What was that all about?
Gonzalez didn't do anything that anyone else hadn't done.
Sandy Berger! Hello!
:killinme
Yah, Whitewater, Foster, Sandy Berger . . . President Bush protected all Clinton's Presidential records . . . some of which could have shed some light on one or more of those.
Gonzalez . . . whatever. I see you're a koolaide-drinker so I'm not going to bother with it. I bet anything I say will be countered with a " . . . but Clinton . . . "
Get off what Clinton did. I didn't like the guy either, but he's been out of office for almost two terms now. Let it go already.
Pressing-On
06-29-2007, 11:44 AM
Yah, Whitewater, Foster, Sandy Berger . . . President Bush protected all Clinton's Presidential records . . . some of which could have shed some light on one or more of those.
Gonzalez . . . whatever. I see you're a koolaide-drinker so I'm not going to bother with it. I bet anything I say will be countered with a " . . . but Clinton . . . "
Get off what Clinton did. I didn't like the guy either, but he's been out of office for almost two terms now. Let it go already.
Not going to let it go. If you accuse the Bush Admin, you have to also accuse the Clinton Admin.
At least Bush smoked his cigars. That's all I'm saying.
I find it troubling that there is a pattern of secrecy in the Bush Admin. There is, like it or not. There's a definite pattern of President Bush making the WH and the office unaccountable to anyone. He angered conservatives by blocking efforts to access Clinton WH records; he's overruled the greatest President in my lifetime (Reagan's) OE that gave American's access to Presidential records. He consistantly tried and has largely succeeded to make the Oval Office a separate power, unquestioned and unaccountable.
Re congressional subpoena, I believe there have been threats made by Congress do subpoena documents, but a compromise has been made. This would be the first time, if Congress follows through, that it's gone this far.
I never liked Bush's choice in Attorney General . . . neither did many other conservatives. Gonzalez was a poor choice, but he's been a Bush friend and loyalist for years so he got the job.
I don't get information from liberal news outlets, I watched the hearings, read the news on FoxNews and read transcripts from Tony Snow and others.
The whole DOJ firings reek. The AG shouldn't still be in office. The facts can't be changed.
Records are there, it's been admitted, that they wanted "Bush loyalists" in those positions.
Did you watch the Senate or House hearings with the AG? I watched both of them. It was pathetic. For being hailed by Bush as a bright man, the AG looked incredibly stupid.
I can't recall....
I don't remember...
I'm not sure...
And other variations of the same stuff.
After the hearings it came out that he had a sit-down conference with a lady who's being subpoena'd. Tried getting the story right before his hearing.
There's just a lot to the DOJ stuff that stinks - most of it deals with the AG. He needs to go, but Bush is stubborn and would rather have his approval numbers bottom out and people be angry with him than to fire a friend for being incompetent.
This second term has been a disappointment. I voted for Bush both times. The first time I was happy about some things, a little concerned about the stupid prescription drug bill and unwillingness to have guts and veto bad bills, but I voted for him again because anything was better than John Kerry. This term has been a huge disaster. And it's not getting any better.
CR, we agree on one point. Bush's second term has been a disappointment.
But the rest of what you’ve said here is just generalities that reflect a "feeling" of what you think about things. You’ve given no specifics as to why what GWB has done in the area of secrecy is wrong.
Specifically the EO that Bush overturned regarding Presidential papers dealt with 2 things 1. his desire not to have to deal with what would be done with his FATHERS papers while he was still in office. Good grief, don’t you see the benefit in that?
Secondly that order, gave a good cooling off period over the Clinton years to move the country back to the business of doing the peoples business instead of going after every president full tilt. Gotcha politics is bad stuff. It has hurt America for the last 20 years or more. That move by Bush was a good one.
As far as the AG office firing these 8 people. IT IS THE PRESIDENTS PEROGATIVE! Clinton requested the resignation of all Attorneys General. ALL bro. he did it just because he could. And it was completely lawful and something that had been done before.
The president can fire any Attorney General for any reason or no reason at all.
So what I am wondering is why do you think this is some kind of fiasco? What are these facts that can’t be changed? So what if this was political. Political is a perfectly valid reason to fire an attorney who works for DOJ.
And I for one am Glad that GWB has stone walled Congress. Congress is acting like they are the boss of the executive branch not a co-equal branch with a different responsibility.
Pressing-On
06-29-2007, 11:56 AM
CR, we agree on one point. Bush's second term has been a disappointment.
But the rest of what you’ve said here is just generalities that reflect a "feeling" of what you think about things. You’ve given no specifics as to why what GWB has done in the area of secrecy is wrong.
Specifically the EO that Bush overturned regarding Presidential papers dealt with 2 things 1. his desire not to have to deal with what would be done with his FATHERS papers while he was still in office. Good grief, don’t you see the benefit in that?
Secondly that order, gave a good cooling off period over the Clinton years to move the country back to the business of doing the peoples business instead of going after every president full tilt. Gotcha politics is bad stuff. It has hurt America for the last 20 years or more. That move by Bush was a good one.
As far as the AG office firing these 8 people. IT IS THE PRESIDENTS PEROGATIVE! Clinton requested the resignation of all Attorneys General. ALL bro. he did it just because he could. And it was completely lawful and something that had been done before.
The president can fire any Attorney General for any reason or no reason at all.
So what I am wondering is why do you think this is some kind of fiasco? What are these facts that can’t be changed? So what if this was political. Political is a perfectly valid reason to fire an attorney who works for DOJ.
And I for one am Glad that GWB has stone walled Congress. Congress is acting like they are the boss of the executive branch not a co-equal branch with a different responsibility.
Thank you!!!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.