Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace....we had a system that was checked and balanced by impartial judicial oversight, as a prerequisite for invesitgators to obtain a warrant....and now we have this....and no...."they" are not "us".....anymore.....
Here's a lawyer who claims to still be employed at DOJ, and.....after this is distributed, only because he enjoys some civil service protections against immediate punishment or dismissal:
...and, as of today, the executive branch has declared that it is not accountable....it's time to cut off all funding to the executive branch:
Isn't it odd that more Americans, in recent polls, favor impeachment of President Bush, than favored impeachment of President Clinton, <b>while he actually was being impeached....yet the "liberal" media treats the subject of impeaching Bush as an idea "on the fringe"?</b>
|
O.k., let's assume John Koppel is 100% correct. Let's also assume Pelosi and Reid both agree and also agree with everything they have said about the administration. Let's assume the majority in both houses in Congress agree. And let's further assume 68% of the American public have no confidence in the Bush administration. Let's assume most Democrats knew of Bush's corrupt tendencies from the time he "stole" the election from Gore.
With the above as a given, nothing of merit has happened to make Bush accountable. Absolutely nothing of merit. Why?
My answer is that for the most part Bush is honest and is doing the best he can. That he has made some mistakes but has tried to fix them. That if he did step over the line, it was with the intent to protect American lives.
If you, most Democrats, those on the left, the Bush haters, truly believe what you say you believe and let Bush get away with "it", what does that say?
You have a recurring point in your posts, and I already know your position will never be changed. I have a recurring theme in my posts. If someone would give a good clear answer to my questions, my view could change. So far the answers have been unclear, evasive and off the point.
Here is another question. If Koppel truly believes in a total separation between performance and serving a partisan agenda how can he support any political appointments at DOJ? For example if the next President wins based on a party platform of going after employers who hire illegal immigrants (partisan agenda), and you have people at DOJ not willing to act on that agenda, doesn't the President have a right to fire those people based on their lack of performance relative to the agenda?