Something I don't understand about what Bush said today

[Duer 157099]

In one breath he says that it's impordant that people who advise the prezdent have the confidence to speak openly to him, without worrying about someday having to answer to Congress about what they said.

In another breath, he offered those people up to speak to Congress, but off the record and unsworn.

Aren't these mutually exclusive positions?

Don't they inadvertantly reveal his true agenda?

[louis-t]

1. Makes sense to me. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

2. There's also that inconvenient assertion that he wasn't advised

on this matter, thus his executive assertion seems to be a little disingenuous.

[Little Wing]

3. They don't know what Congress has on them, so testify under oath

could be a chance to nail either of his two ratfucks for perjury the minute they lie about something.

[emulatorloo]

5. Clearly they don't want to take the oath because they plan on lying

What other explanation can there be?

[NMDemDist2]

4. what I don't understand is why the President's advisors would ever consider advice that can't stand

the light of day.

Other than for Top Secret, National Security Issues which can still be heard in closed sessions, you have to ask "What can your advisors be advising you on that would not/could not/should not be proudly presented to the public, if you are indeed concerned only with the Nation Interestand not just CYAing your political partisan agenda?"

just saying....... :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

8. Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why the Energy Task Force had to

be top secret hush-hush...............

[razors edge]

12. Short of the

do not call list, I doubt any decision made by this administration could withstand the light of day.

As they definately know this themselves, any daylight on any issue must be shunned like a vampire would.

[Solly Mack]

6. Well, he's saying he is entitled to private conversations with his advisors

and at the same time, he, as President, will control who they will reveal those private conversations to and how they will reveal them

So really, he's saying the same thing both times...He's in charge.

It's still the same old unitary executive/executive privilege arguments

[yardwork]

10. Such a shame that the Republicans wiped out most of the executive privilege

when they forced Bill Clinton, the sitting president, to testify under oath.

[Solly Mack]

13. Oh but they don't see it that way

Clinton got a blow job and everyone knows blow jobs cancel out everything else

[yardwork]

21. Apparently not when they involve Republicans!

Lots of blow-job scandals in the White House and Congress since 2000 - no impeachments yet.

[razors edge]

14. Just more of the old

"Trust me, would I lie to you" BS. (pay no attention to all those other lies)

[Solly Mack]

16. Pretty much...that "honor and integrity" he said he was bringing back

[razors edge]

19. Grown ups

who don't believe in nation building, stuck neck damn deep in nation building, and sounding like a two year old screaming.

[Canuckistanian]

7. A good question

It goes back to the right that the executive has NOT to disclose the deliberative actions that lead to decisions.

What Shrub wants is a sort of "plea bargaining" that will allow for the appearance of disclosure, without legally admitting wrongdoing. AND without having to plead their Fifth Amendment rights, which is publically damaging.

There's actally some history behind this, but that was in the days when honor and integrity existed in government.

It's too late to try that now.

As Reid said, they don't get the benefit of the doubt any more.

[peacetalksforall]

9. Yes, Kg. Bush, it is important that people who adivse the prezdunt

have the confidence. It should work well and without question when you and your staff are NOT plotting against the citizens and trying to cover up your crimes. Openness and honesty fit.

[pinto]

11. The ruse here is that under oath and w/transcript become public documents,

which this Administration clearly wants to avoid.

While seeming to reply to the Senate committee he's playing the Executive privilege card to keep "in house" discussions private. It's a dangerous tightrope to try to tread, given the history, but apparently the political and legal advice in the White House is to go for it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. although the USA's serve at the pleasure of the president, ultimately,

a president serves at the pleasure of the people. OK, our constitutional 4-daddies made it difficult, no, exceedingly difficult to remove even a pathetic waste of space like the boy king from office, we still have that power. We can force our legislators towards impeach-chimp-ment, and prevent puppets from being placed in positions of power. Well, except for the occasional Boltons of Lightning.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. He obviously flunked civics -

each of the three branches is supposed to be a brake on the power of the other two. It is Congress's DUTY to keep the executive branch accountable. That's their job. If a congress does nothing else, doesn't pass a single bill, if it controls the over-reaching of the executive, it is doing it's job. The founding fathers were not overly worried about a parliment run amok.

He is packing the judicial branch with the appointment of RW judges and prosecutors, and now is trying to limit the power of the legislative branch to respond.

"A dictatorship would be easier, if you were the dictator."

[malaise]

18. Face it DUers

No one in the Bush WH can testify under oath. They are all pathological LIARS.

[DawgHouse]

20. It's just a roundabout way for him to say they are going to lie.