Breaking: Bush will oppose congressional subpoenas of White House staff; Update: Video added
posted at 6:23 pm on March 20, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
He’s willing to let Gonzales testify before Congress about the U.S. Attorneys matter but the most he’ll allow for White House staff like Rove and Harriet Miers is an off-the-record interview for factfinding purposes. No dice, says Leahy, who wants Rove on the hot seat and under oath. So Bush called the presser and told him to get bent, insisting that he’s not about to forfeit executive privilege to serve the Democratic interest in “show trials.” Which means we’re looking at a separation-of-powers showdown, probably in the Supreme Court, unless one or the other side blinks first and relents.
He had little choice here but to stand on principle given Henry Waxman’s promise to let a thousand investigations bloom. Precedent is not on his side, though, either politically or, perhaps, legally. The leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, which famously found that executive privilege is not absolute:
[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
The firing of the U.S. Attorneys doesn’t fall under any of those headings. The question for the court, probably, will be whether the Nixon holding (assuming it’s still good law, which I’m reasonably sure it is) applies only to subpoenas issued in the course of criminal investigations — which this isn’t yet — or whether it applies to any federal investigation.
I’m going to cut video of the presser, which was quite intense in parts. Standby.
Update: Here’s the vid. “I hope they don’t choose confrontation.”
Update: Probably right:
Just like has happened a dozen times before, Bush will huff and puff and pound the table, and drag the confrontation out as long as possible, and then … after having sustained the maximum possible political damage, he will then cave in to reality.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
He did pretty good in his announcement. If he hadn’t taken any questions, I would have called this press conference a success.
db on March 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Time is. By the time this gets to the SC, if it even goes that far, Bush will be building his library.
JackStraw on March 20, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Is that a spine I see growing in the Administration?
Troy Rasmussen on March 20, 2007 at 6:34 PM
More of Democrats showing their love for America. If they can keep hyping “scandals” day after day in the media, it wouldn’t matter if a single one had an ounce of truth, it divides the country, implies an administration “buried” in scandal, they can get away with never finding any wrongdoing in all of these “scandals” but just saying they were investigateing and wanted to get to the bottom of it, when in reality they’re trying to win elections by default. This is so sickening. It’s done for the same reasons they want and need us to lose in Iraq, because failure in Iraq means victory for them at the polls.
The sad part is, there’s really nothing anyone can do. Because the “we’re just asking questions/investigating” is always their excuse, while the media hypes non-stories (every few months some more Abu Ghraib photos pop up, a recycled story about “domestic” spying pops up, allegations of torture, bogus Plame situation, ignoring years of booming economic growth on all fronts but pump the hell out of the necessary housing slowdown, pump the tiny majority of Iraq vets complaining about the war (even when many have been proven to be lying), while ignoring the extreme majority who support the mission, pump the anti-war demostrations in DC which were substantially smaller than the 30k strong GOE, while calling the GOE “hundreds”, toss out a misleading and partly totally lying story about obtaining phone “records” from phone companies, etc. etc.)
RightWinged on March 20, 2007 at 6:35 PM
I am glad to see the President take a stand against these Donks. They are desperate to get anything to stick against him and they are wasting our time and tax money. Mark Levin had Ed Meese on his show yesterday. They both expressed their opinions that the President is on solid ground to resist the Donks attempt to erode the separation of powers of the Executive Branch.
Mallard T. Drake on March 20, 2007 at 6:36 PM
I am NOT looking forward to the gloating in my law classes about how bush will get what’s coming to him
Defector01 on March 20, 2007 at 6:38 PM
It’s about time they started standing on their hind feet! As time goes on..people are getting scandal fatigue..it’s like the scream of the week and the old main stream media is being totally ignored more and more…the people I know watch local news for the weather…it’s the only thing they can believe and where I live it’s iffy. lol
Alilshy on March 20, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Plus, this has the benefit of provoking full blown BDS rash blooms. The Dems are gonna make themselves look so ugly over this inside baseball “scandal” nobody will vote for them. I think he’s betting on classic Dem overreach. Give ‘em just enough rope to hang themselves. It’s classic Bush. Make yourself the target and the American people will take your side, so long as you’re the rational, sympathetic, and defiant one and the other guys are the screaming hordes. Classic Bush. But it only works if you can keep your guys in line. Like McConnel played the Dems on the Iraq vote in the Senate.
The Apologist on March 20, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Et tu little too late?
Kid from Brooklyn on March 20, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Shoot. I cut off the T at the beginning of the quote. “Time is.”
The Apologist on March 20, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Very possible, more like probable.
Wade on March 20, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I agree, if Bush can hold is own long enough, the case will be moot.
Free Constitution on March 20, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Pinch me.
Did Bush just show some backbone?? Did W. reach down twixt his legs and realize he’s got a pair before this presser took place???
Somebody tell me I’m not hallucinating. Please.
thirteen28 on March 20, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Its nice to see some fight in him, but I wish it was for something a little more important.
Iblis on March 20, 2007 at 6:55 PM
I don’t care anymore. I’ll be just fine watching Bush fall on his face, along with all of his open borders a$$es.
Gregor on March 20, 2007 at 6:58 PM
I’m glad Bush isn’t going to knuckle under to the Democraps.
As for executive privilege, Bush is on solid grounds on this one. This isn’t involving the coverup of a crime, nor is it involving an impeachable offence. Hence, I don’t think Nixon applies.
In any event, the ability of the Supreme Court to enforce a Senatorial subpoena runs up against the doctrine of separation of powers and the 3 equal branches of government.
On the strategy, The Apologist has it right, I think: “Give ‘em just enough rope to hang themselves.”
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 7:02 PM
for Fun I wish he would fire Fitzgerald and open an investigation into Nifong by the Justic Department in NC.
jp on March 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM
A good start at growing a pair – but not enough and way too late. Bush should have mentioned the Attorneys that Clinton fired.
He should announce an overhaul of the Criminal Justice system.
He should fire Gonzales and appoint an Attorney General who won’t waste his time with frivolous show trials on behalf of the Democrats, but will pursue real cases.
uptight on March 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I hope this veers into the Sutton prosecution of Ramos and Compean. Mexico’s involvement in our Justice department’s prosectutions needs to be examined.
CitizenJim on March 20, 2007 at 7:15 PM
And people say I’m an extremist when I say the two greatest enemies America has is Radical Islam and the Democrat party.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 20, 2007 at 7:16 PM
There’s also a question of the Legislature’s interest/need/right to conduct, as Bush correctly noted, fishing expeditions into acts that are wholly within the Executive’s power, especially when there is not so much as a hint of illegality. Does Congress have a legitimate oversight function here?
Pablo on March 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM
I’m waiting for the video of Bush beating Leahy to a pulp right before he opens up a big can of whup ass on Chris Matthews.
jaleach on March 20, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Now THAT is a REAL Scandal!
It will never see the light of day……….
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 7:27 PM
Incredible! I haven’t seen Dubya worked up this much in a long, long time. THIS version of Dubya is the one that earned my vote. I wish he would apply that energy to more relevant causes.
thedecider on March 20, 2007 at 7:38 PM
Who finally lit the fire under Bush’s a$$? It’s about damn time he woke up from that deep sleep he’s been in since the ‘04 elections.
Rick on March 20, 2007 at 8:14 PM
Alright, I’ll stick my neck out here. AP has it right, he doesn’t have a leg to stand on legally. I’m not sure how scandalous this case may be, but if there is nothing to worry about, why doesn’t he just let this run it’s course?
I found the whole energy policy advisers thing with Cheney to be fishy, but I agreed that allowing a public outing of these meetings would do more harm than good, but I don’t think this is quite the same thing. In my most humble opinion, I just think he doesn’t want Rove under subpoena for fear of some perjury charge.
SouthernDem on March 20, 2007 at 8:18 PM
And as far as it going to SC, they’ll fast track that mother before y’all can turn around, if it comes to that.
SouthernDem on March 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM
From a comment by another person on another blog:
Wonder if the Congress Critters will claim “privilege”.
crosspatch on March 20, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Allahpundit,
Thanks for the link and excerpt. But check out KagroX’s post at dKos.
He says Bush wins.
commissar on March 20, 2007 at 8:44 PM
On a side note…
The New York Times reports that Secret Agent Austin Powers was seen entering the White House this morning carrying a strange looking tube…. speculation about a Mojo injection has spread throughout the Left Wing Blogosphere.
BREAKING NEWS…
Iranian President Awannakillajew’s Presidential Motorcade was “buzzed” by a squadron of F-22 Raptors on Supercruise… He later decided “in the interests of peace” to suspend Uraranium Enrichment…
Further Breaking News…
Vice President Dick Cheney has challenged Hugo Chavez to a shoot out on main street at High Noon… He was quoted as saying “El Gorge wanted to do it, but I told him if he gets Amajadadidiwadidi, that I get Chavez…”
Film at 11
Romeo13 on March 20, 2007 at 8:46 PM
This from the scumbags who won’t allow a legally issued search warrant to be executed on a congressional office – bring on the mattresses!
TheBigOldDog on March 20, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Extremist? Hell, saying that just means that you’re paying attention.
ReubenJCogburn on March 20, 2007 at 8:59 PM
And not necessarily in that order Jay. I’ve completely had it with the faux scandal machine of the democrat party. Gonzales is beside the point for me. Think this ends when Bush leaves office? Anyone who stands between them and the acquisition of power will face one baseless charge after the other. Clinton looked the entire nation in the eye and lied about “sexual harassment” in the workplace. This, the same trumped-up charge they tried to “Bork” Clarence Thomas with. And they had the nerve to cry foul. Now they’re selling out our national security. They will stop at nothing: Not elections, not the people, not the Constitution. Wait and see.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I think Bush deliberately let all this come to a head so that he would have something to draw his line in the sand for. Waxman, Schumer, and others made it clear that there would be investigations galore if the Dems won, and this is the best way for Bush to try to nip that kind of thing in the bud. Pick something he can win on (his right to hire and fire US Attorneys at will), get the Dems all in a lather about it, and threaten to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. They just might back down. And if they don’t, Bush and co. can run down the clock in court. Dems just might end up looking sillier and sillier every time they bring up yet another investigation/witch hunt like this. It’s clear to the American people that they are not focusing on what’s really important and are instead pursuing vengeance and show trials.
aero on March 20, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Whoot, whoot!
I hope you’re TIVO’ing Hannity & Colmes tonight Allah. Laura Ingraham had a short spot on immigration and brought up Pres. Fred–she likes him and says there’s a lot of excitement about him.
But the BEST was good old Mark Steyn lambasting CAIR over a dithering Alan Colmes who “just wants dialogue” with everyone. It was classic.
IrishEi on March 20, 2007 at 9:21 PM
Sorry about the previous OT–but it was a great 10 minutes of TV.
If anyone can stand the stench over at DailyKos, the moonbats are planning on starting impeachment proceedings if the President doesn’t “submit.” And, if he drags it out to run out the clock, well then they can just prosecute him as an ordinary citizen where he “can’t hide behind executive privilege” and he can be “tried as the common criminal that he is.”
IrishEi on March 20, 2007 at 9:27 PM
I’ve begun to believe the “Bush is a rube” meme. He comes late to every fight – well after first blood is drawn. Then when he finally shows up he blusters until he wins a little ground back only to capitulate, throw in a scalp or two, and run back to his quiet corner.
He blew the political capital of his re-election a long long time ago. This term has been all but a total collapse.
The Ritz on March 20, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Jeeeez I just want him to stand UP FOR SOMETHING against the democrats. I voted for him twice so he could look these twits in the eye and tell them off.
Stand your ground, George.
wryteacher on March 20, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Bush finally going nukeeler on the Dems.
Rick on March 20, 2007 at 9:57 PM
I hear what you all are saying about Bush taking it to the democrats, (or not). He’s busy fighting the greatest threat to western civilization since the dawn of man. Sorry if he has to put it in PC terms so the MSM won’t freak out more than they already have. A PC rope around Saddam’s neck still has a knot in it. He should not have to worry about this political BS with two years left to go. So many jihadis to kill…so little time. No offense to my HA brethren, but I wish everybody would get off his ass.
Buck Turgidson on March 20, 2007 at 10:02 PM
I think President Bush was watching the “Scooter” Libby trial, thinking, “he didn’t do anything wrong, there was no crime committed, this will all play out and it will be over, and we will have our victory…….”
Then the verdict came in, and someone handed him the warehouse of e-mails that we have been sending him.
Time to take the gloves off, the Democrats are just as leathal as the terrorists, and they will never stop, unless you stop them first.
Late in the game, yes…….. Game on? Definately!
Time to Unleash “Rooooovvvvvvveeeeeeee”!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 10:26 PM
He needs to answer more forcefully… As in:
REPORTER: Mr President, Why don’t you just clear the air…
BUSH: Because if we just send people to the hill to testify under oath everytime the opposition throws a political temper tantrum, it will harm the presidency for generations. We will not allow partisan political games being played by certain senators to be used to usurp the Constitutional authority of the executive branch. They have grossly and irresponsibly overstepped their bounds, and I will see them in court if they choose to continue with this juvenile charade.
There. He needs to learn that sometimes you MUST match their rhetoric, especially when the truth is on your side. The new tone doesn’t work. He needs to learn to play hardball. Those pansies–who really ignorantly already think he is a ruthless politician–wouldn’t stand a chance.
DaveS on March 20, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I don’t know what “political precedent” is, but whatever it is, it doesn’t matter as long as legal precedent is on Bush’s side, and I think it is. I don’t believe you have to go all the way back to the Nixon case. The court proceedings, which went all the way to the U.S Supreme Court, concerning Vice President Cheney’s Energy Task Force may supply some answers. The White House won that case, of course, and if nothing else it showed that the White House is not obligated to give up information just because of accusations of wrongdoing.
Maxx on March 20, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Pardon me but NOW he quotes the Constitution?
I hope it doesn’t take another six years before he has a use for the document.
Actually let the Dems try to get all over this and any other kind of knucklehead political conquest, it’ll just blow up in their faces in 08.
They ran in 06 on the promise of cohabitability with the Administration,let’m make asses of themselves, again.
The voting public isn’t going to tolerate joyriding Democrats.
Speakup on March 20, 2007 at 10:53 PM
One more note that I should have mentioned about the “Energy Task Force” case. In deciding that case in favor of the White House, the Supreme Court said, by a 7 to 2 vote, that:
This action by the Democrats is clearly within the realm of “vexatious litigation.”
Maxx on March 20, 2007 at 11:22 PM
He’s talking about the democrat party as if they are rational beings. That’s his first mistake! The second mistake is caving in this far…
SouthernGent on March 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Bush, finally showing some Malkins. Barnes is right, he should have told the Dems to shove it weeks ago, actually on other things, months ago.
Forcing the Dems to carry this through will only hurt them and help the Republicans. The mantra of Bush fired 8, Clinton fired 93, is a loud drum beat.
I think the attitude of “just because they won congress, that doesn’t give them the right to be a bully”, is one that the citizens get.
right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 12:24 AM
This is the “We Know Bush Is Lacking The Killer Instinct, And Reacts As Slow As An A.D.D. Elephant, So Let’s Drive Him Crazy With Meaningless, Trivial, Overblown Harassment B.S. Nonsense -Over Anything We Can Get The Supine Media To Go Along With- Until He Cracks” Strategy of the Democrats.
The only response to this idiocy is ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!
And do it FAST!
If you do not call the accusers out, and mock their partisan, time-wasting silliness -while the security of the nation is being dithered away- then they gain the advantage.
Is what they are talking about (the right of the President to fire anyone from these positions he wishes) is utterly irrelevant to the pressing needs of the nation’s survival, then they are merely frivolous, fatuous fools.
ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK!
It’s never to late to regain your testicular fortitude
profitsbeard on March 21, 2007 at 2:10 AM
In the Nixon case, the SCOTUS was extraordinarily careful in recognizing executive privilege is valid but that it is limited when the courts are concerned.
The case was US v. Nixon and it was Sirica’s court that wanted the tapes not Congress.
This is an excellent outline of privilege as it has been used since the end of WW II.
rick moran on March 21, 2007 at 5:54 AM
I’ve begun to believe the “Bush is a rube” meme. He comes late to every fight – well after first blood is drawn. Then when he finally shows up he blusters until he wins a little ground back only to capitulate, throw in a scalp or two, and run back to his quiet corner.
I read that and it made me sick because it is so true.
TheBigOldDog on March 21, 2007 at 7:44 AM
Bush is the POTUS. If he is not capible of doing more than one thing at a time then all of us need to be on his ass.
He can not sit ‘on his ass’ while other important issues happen in this country viz immigration education healthcare social security etc.
I back the president on the war but want him to find the balls he lost since the “Wanted Dead or Alive” and “”either you are with us or against” days. If that means ‘get on his ass’ then ‘on his ass’ I shall be.
Wade on March 21, 2007 at 8:55 AM
Pretty soon Dems will accuse Bush of abusing power by flying on Air Force one somewhere. Bush will try to appoint appellate judges, Dems will cry bench-stuffing and fire off more media-backed hysteria over legitimate Executive branch authority as defined in that silly Constitution thingy.
Anyone remember the firestorm over that Senator from Louisiana who went into the flooded New Orleans to retrieve bribe cash, stuffed said cash in his office and the FBI served search warrants? Whoa! Separation of Powers! You can’t investigate the Congress with the Executive branch’s police force!!!!! Where was the outrage over the non-compliant Congress in the media then?
Neo on March 21, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Wade, I understand, and to an extent, share your feelings. The unprecedented hatred and partisan attacks against the Prez beginning with the ludicrous recount to today engenders sympathy and protectiveness in me. I know he’s not perfect. How much more effective might he be if not under constant attack? The legitimate criticisms get lost in the witch hunt.
Buck Turgidson on March 21, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Agreed, but that assumes that the Supreme Court actually cares about precedent. There are countless examples of reversals (can you say, “Separate but equal”) and “clarifications.” The bottom line is that this Supreme Court is different than the one Nixon had to endure. And, unfortunately, the court does not seem to be constrained by any document or principle.
If this goes to the Supreme Court, nobody can predict what they will divine. And even if they decide that Executive privelege doesn’t apply here, what’s to stop Bush from telling them to shove it? In the end, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over the Executive or Legislative branches. The only way they’ve exercised this power in the past has been through the unwillingness of the other branches to defy the oligarchy.
cmay on March 21, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Buck, you have it correct and until he takes a stand and fights our enemy’s within (the media and the democrats) the constant attacks will continue.
Wade on March 21, 2007 at 10:24 AM
I don’t really know, but don’t think this is right. The notion of exec priv covering all the President’s aides was pretty much invented by Nixon. Up until then, the Congress would subpeona Presidential staff and aides and they would come and testify–famously Louie Howe.
For all that, I think this is a tempest in a teapot, more bread and circuses. What a bunch.
honora on March 21, 2007 at 10:30 AM
You really think a president with a 30-35% approval rating wants to be the first to defy a SCOTUS ruling? You want to give the far left a reason to impeach Bush?
My prediction: they’ll be a deal made before it comes to this.
honora on March 21, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I don’t buy the approval rating as worth any consideration, but I certainly don’t see the connection between one’s presidential approval rating and how it relates to a sitting President’s aim of preserving the powers of the office and of the Executive branch.
The far Left doesn’t have a reason to impeach Bush, but that doesn’t mean they won’t try, SCOTUS or no SCOTUS.
But they are not endearing themselves with the electorate with this witch hunt and show trial (BTW, that’s what the American people heard the President say, too).
99% of the public is either bored out of their minds by this mess or doesn’t understand it and don’t won’t to.
So charge on, Democrats! Nancy’s already blown that first 100 hours thing, so why not waste time doing this?
Jen the Neocon on March 21, 2007 at 10:48 AM
So the Democrats lied about actually wanting to govern and not just subpoena and hold hearings. Big surprise. This isn’t why Americans voted for them and it will be their undoing. What I really want to know is how did Chucky Schumer get off after he illegally delved into Lt. Gov. Michael Steele’s credit report? Did he pay off an intern to take the fall? Why didn’t we go after him when we had the chance? This guy is a proven crook. He’s got some cajones.
foxforce91 on March 21, 2007 at 10:54 AM
As expected, the house dems have authorized the issuing of subpoena’s for Rove et al.
“Dissapointing” because Schumer will be denied the political fodder he wants. “Minimal” because the President wont help Schumer with his witch hunt. “The truth” that Schumer wants to ignore just to get someone on record that can be charged with purjury and by association, weaken the president and the GOP.
csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 11:23 AM
This is calculated. Give the Leader of the Free World a little credit. His silence while this whole thing went on was clearly a trap for the hordes. I’m sure Rove had him in a full nelson for the past week to keep him from speaking up. He wanted America to see them in full shrill before Bush laid the smack down.
Great vengeance and furious anger….
unamused on March 21, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I see. So the plan is wait til Bush’s ratings are in the tank, the Rs lose both houses of Congress, Libby is convicted and Gonzo critically wounded.
Cue the Guinness guys: BRILLIANT!!!!
honora on March 21, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Again with the ratings, honora…Sigh.
And we didn’t “lose” both houses–we’re still there.
You Dems can’t do anything without our half of both houses and there’s the Blue Dog Conservative Democrats, too.
(By the way, the Dems don’t really have a majority in the Senate: there’s the ailing Sen. Johnson and Independent Lieberman.)
Libby was wrongly convicted and is appealing and the President is standing behind AG Gonzales.
It may not be brilliant, but you fight the war you have.
Jen the Neocon on March 21, 2007 at 12:11 PM
This is best thing that could have happened to Bush. He will clobber the dems on this, and America will see the true ugly faces and seething hatred of the Nancyboys.
JackM on March 21, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I’m not a politician, but I’d say that there are a couple of reasons that Bush’s numbers are sagging: MSM has accentuated the negative for 4+ straight years; calling American workers lazy good-for-nothings who need to be replaced by criminals. . .uh, I mean “undocumented workers”; the long, drawn out war against terror, militant Islam, Islamofacism. Two reasons that get little attention, in my non-political opinion, are that he communicates ideas poorly and he only fights hard for a couple of things (e.g., tax cuts, the War in Iraq and for illegal aliens).
If Bush actually took a strong, principled stand on the Constitutional privileges and responsibilities of the Executive Branch, his own base might come back to him (forget about the nutroots, they’re lost). Reagan took bold stands (just ask the air traffic controllers, Gorbachev and the Libyans), communicated ideas and earned the love and respect of the American people.
Bin Laden was right when he said that when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they automatically want the strong horse. Right now, Bush is the weak horse and it’s his own fault. Make a stand, fight the Dems and your own party will come back.
cmay on March 21, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Honora, liberal troll, wrote: “You really think a president with a 30-35% approval rating wants to be the first to defy a SCOTUS ruling? You want to give the far left a reason to impeach Bush?”
Point 1: Leftists intend to try to impeach the President anyway. They don’t need a reason.
Point 2: Only stupid liberals believe that rating numbers should determine the actions of the President. They call that “triangulation.” That’s what serial sexual predators like a former President did, and why he wouldn’t pull the trigger on Osama when he had the chance.
Real men act from principle. Girlymen liberals (and serial sexual predators) act from popularity ratings.
POINT 3: I guess that’s why we’re better than you.
georgej on March 22, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Thanks. I was wondering why.
honora on March 22, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Comment pages: