Leahy: Bush Not Involved in Firings

Brain not keeping up with keyboard. Big reading and thinking problems here, mm. Read it again.

You got, to be exact, everything wrong.

1) you claim that "many on here were adamant that Bush KNEW about the firings." I suspect you will not be able to find even one such claim. "Many"...not a chance. Who is going to claim that they 'know' what they cannot know? Of course, it is an entirely reasonable assumption that Bush was well aware of the firings and why they happened but it is also possible that specifics didn't land on his desk.

It probably wont be very difficult to find some quotes from people on here who were admanat that Bush knew about the firings.
I will see what I can find.


2) which is all quite irrelevant in terms of responsibility anyway. Bush is responsible for what his senior staff do Particularly where more than a single one of them are engaged in a co-ordinated effort to carry through with a policy.

I 100% agree, he is responsible for what his staff does.
I have never said otherwise.


3) Leahy cannot "know' that Bush was unappraised of this matter. Leahy making such a statement doesn't provide you with any greater level of truth or fact than had Leahy said, "Soup is my favorite dish".

So, you are holding me accountable for what Leahy said?
I posted the link, I highlighted a couple of his quotes.
Are you saying that its my problem that you think he misspoke?


4) As the piece indicates, Leahy has advanced this "admission" of a truth he cannot possibly know to be true in order to remove a potential legal obstacle to forcing the testimony of several witnesses.

Again, he made the statement, I didnt.
I just quoted him AND posted the link to the AP story.
Just because you dont like what he said, that isnt my problem.
But, you still havent shown how I got it wrong.
Maybe Leahy did, and if he did you should take it up with him, not me.

Please stop being such a purposeful dunce, MM.

Can Leahy 'know' that Bush was unaware of these things?

So, Leahy finally admits that Bush was NOT involved in the US Attorney firings.

But, many on here were adamant that Bush KNEW about the firings.
Turns out he didnt.

So since Leahy himself says Bush didnt know,

Attorney Generals serve at the pleasure of the President.

The argument has been made repeatedly that Bush can fire the AGs whenever he wants to...

Now we find out Bush did NOT even know they were being fired.

And somehow this makes their firing OK?

Attorney Generals serve at the pleasure of the President.

The argument has been made repeatedly that Bush can fire the AGs whenever he wants to...

Now we find out Bush did NOT even know they were being fired.

And somehow this makes their firing OK?

You need to think about this stuff more clearly, mm.

It doesn't matter what Leahy says. You, nor anyone else, is further along in your 'knowledge' regarding what Bush knew or was involved in.

More importantly, you need to re-read that piece and understand why Leahy has made this statement. And that is to allow him to continue with investigation through bypass of the 'executive priviledge' legal impediment.

To get past that, Leahy MUST say what he has said, even if, logically, he has no grounds on which to make that truth claim.

If you know a bank robbery is being planned, and you do nothing to warn the police, then legally you ARE involved and can be tried as an accessory.
Even if you did not participate.

Knowing that,it is a logical assumption to say that Bush didnt know about it.
Am I assuming facts not in evidence?
Yes I am and I admit that.
However, it is a logical assumption based on what Leahy said.

Also, I do NOT think that any of the people involved should be allowed "executive priveledge" as a defense or as a way to get around testifying.

How do you know that Leahy doesnt believe what he saying?
I understand he is saying it to bypass the priveledge claim, but it is also quite possible that he really does think Bush wasnt involved.

You dont "know", just as I dont "know".

One who knows and knows that he knows is a perfer man.
Follow him