What Do They Have to Hide?

[Baptist in Richmond]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17702224/

Interesting that this is a not a big deal, but the Administration will not allow them to be under oath.

Of course, Congress could simply issue subpoenas.....

Regards,
BiR

 

[Bro. Curtis]

If I was Bush, I'd put a gag order on the whole staff. After Delay & Libby, who would want anyone to play into the DISPICABLE partisian games the dems play, of late.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

If I was Bush, I'd put a gag order on the whole staff. After Delay & Libby, who would want anyone to play into the DISPICABLE partisian games the dems play, of late.

What do they have to hide?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

What do they have to hide?

Evidently they have a lot to hide, but don't worry, the Democrats will get to the bottom of it soon enough! :thumbs:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What do they have to hide?

I dunno, probably something like Sandy Burglar was trying to hide. Oh wait, I probably just parroted Rush. Sorry.

 

[Jeff Weaver]

If I was Bush, I'd put a gag order on the whole staff. After Delay & Libby, who would want anyone to play into the DISPICABLE partisian games the dems play, of late.

Would those partisan games resemble those DISPICABPLE Republican ones?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I dunno, probably something like Sandy Burglar was trying to hide. Oh wait, I probably just parroted Rush. Sorry.

I agree with you concerning Sandy Burger. As far as I'm concerned he and Rove can share a cell.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

I dunno, probably something like Sandy Burglar was trying to hide. Oh wait, I probably just parroted Rush. Sorry.

You have used that one before in another thread, but it still was funny.
:laugh:

If Karl Rove has no cause for concern, then he shouldn't have any problems with testifying under oath. After all, what does he have to hide? If he is going to tell the truth, what is the problem with testifying under oath?

It must be so rough losing Congress to the Democratic Party.....

Regards,
BiR

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

You have used that one before in another thread, but it still was funny.
:laugh:

If Karl Rove has no cause for concern, then he shouldn't have any problems with testifying under oath. After all, what does he have to hide? If he is going to tell the truth, what is the problem with testifying under oath?

It must be so rough losing Congress to the Democratic Party.....

Regards,
BiR

Kind of like the Dems shouldnt be concerned with interviews of fox if they have nothing to hide.

 

[saturneptune]

Now isnt this quaint, Democrats investigating Republicans, and vice versa in the past in pursuit of truth and the American way. That would be kind of like Saddam Hussein on trial with Adolf Hitler as the judge.

 

[777]

If Karl Rove has no cause for concern, then he shouldn't have any problems with testifying under oath. After all, what does he have to hide? If he is going to tell the truth, what is the problem with testifying under oath?

It must be so rough losing Congress to the Democratic Party.....

Regards,
BiR

Well, maybe you should be put under oath as well - if you have no cause for concern, of course. If you're going to tell the truth, what is the problem with making you testifying under oath for no reason?

You sounds just like Rush Limbaugh with the loaded question.

Part two, is it?

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Lieberman_considering_support_for_GOP_0319.html

So far they've done minimal damage, but they're investigating that, too.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Kind of like the Dems shouldnt be concerned with interviews of fox if they have nothing to hide.

This does not answer the question.
What do they have to hide?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Well, maybe you should be put under oath as well - if you have no cause for concern, of course. If you're going to tell the truth, what is the problem with making you testifying under oath for no reason?

That is an easy answer: I was not involved in the dismissal of these attorneys.

You sounds just like Rush Limbaugh with the loaded question.

It is not a loaded question. If they have absolutely nothing to hide, then there is no cause for concern if they must give their testimony under oath. Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any problem with being sworn in by a Republican Congress when he was testifying about Monica, and by his own admission he was lying. They shouldn't be afraid if they are going to tell the truth.


BTW, do you listen to him? How would you know that I "sounds" like him?

Regards,
BiR

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

By the way,

Here is your signature line:

Lenin's political slogan wasn't "Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!" It was "Bread, Land and Peace."

This isn't attributed to anyone. I hope you aren't claiming that as your quote.....

Regards,
BiR

 

[poncho]

What do they have to hide? Um, three trillion dollars 'missing' from the Pentagon?

 

[Pastor Larry]

What do they have to hide?

Perhaps nothing. The president does not have to answer to anyone for firing attorneys. It is his right under the consitution. It seems to me that the Congress is overstepping its bounds by inquiring about something that is none of their business.

Under the idea of separation of powers, the Congress has no authority to call these people as witnesses and Bush is within his rights to refuse to make them available.

To me, it's not about hiding something (when there is nothing to hide ... he can fire them when he wants for whatever reason he wants). It is about separation of powers.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It's about not wasting any more taxpayer's money on a DISPICABLE Drive-by Media manufactured issue.

 

[777]

That is an easy answer: I was not involved in the dismissal of these attorneys.

That is an unsatisfactory answer, I'm afraid. We really won't know that you weren't involved in the dismissal of the attorneys until you are put under oath. You are aware of the consequences of perjury, are you not?

It is not a loaded question. If they have absolutely nothing to hide, then there is no cause for concern if they must give their testimony under oath. Bill Clinton didn't seem to have any problem with being sworn in by a Republican Congress when he was testifying about Monica, and by his own admission he was lying. They shouldn't be afraid if they are going to tell the truth.

His perjury stemmed from depositions he made from civil sexual harrassment charges, not to Congress. This will never avenge that, you know.

BTW, do you listen to him? How would you know that I "sounds" like him?

Regards,
BiR

No, but I'm on my way to Chicago tonight, I know his show airs there.

Finally, Bush looked presidential when he made a statement on this today. No more fishing.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Why does anyone expect that the President needs to give an explanation? We all know that the Dems are an a constant witch hunt. And the far left media is willing to provide plenty of fodder.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

By the way,

Here is your signature line:


This isn't attributed to anyone. I hope you aren't claiming that as your quote.....

Regards,
BiR

Nope the quote is pretty well known but the originator is unknown.