Let me take a different tack on it:
Bush and Cheney have a responsibility to the American people to ask their subordiantes to tell the truth. They have a responsibility to the American people (who can be seen as the shareholders in America INC) to run the country as best as possible, and lies are not the way an upstanding country is run.
Upon asking Rove and Libby if they were involved with this case, there are only a few options:
R&L lied to Bush and Cheney, which means they are liars and should go.
R&L didn't lie to Bush and Cheney, which means that B&C knew that R&L were involved in this thing from the get-go and then lied to the American public about it.
R&L didn't tell B&C anything about it, which means B (&maybe C) lied when they said they were assured that noone had anything to do with it.
Either way, someone is lying. It's only a matter of finding out who it is, and getting rid of them.
If B&C don't get rid of liars, they are failing to perform Due Dilligence; ie, they are not representing the country in an apporpriate and sound manner to the detriment of the stockholders.
If B&C somehow didn't know that R&L were lying, then they have a responsibility to can them as soon as they find out.
If it turns out that B&C did know that R&L were lying, and then made statements contrary to that effect/supported the case that they weren't lying publicly, then B&C are accessories to the lie and guilty themselves.
Hee hee! There is no good outcome anymore for the incumbent crew. Serve's em right.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Either way, someone is lying. It's only a matter of finding out who it is, and getting rid of them.
You might be leaving out another possibility. We might soon be arguing over the definition of the word "involved," or some other highly technical parsing of language that avoids strict characterization as a lie. If that is the case, the Administration can simply say it was following the Clinton model.
You will be unhappy, and cry foul ... and you still won't believe Clinton lied.
If the admin has to fall back on a 'Clinton did it' defense, you guys are in big big trouble.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:If the admin has to fall back on a 'Clinton did it' defense, you guys are in big big trouble.
Cycloptichorn
I don't know what "you guys" is supposed to mean. You may not realize it, but I'm not a member of the Bush Administration.
Not a member of the admin, but a supporter of the party; and the party is in trouble. Surely you don't need me to point out the logic of saying 'you guys' in that case, as a decline in power for the party would undoubtedly not be looked upon favorably by you.
Really, though. It's hard to look for the shining point for the Republican party; between Frist and DeLay being under indictment(well, Frist is getting there) and senior WH officials under indicment, there isn't a lot of positive leadership going on.
This is all before the Jack Abramoff trial really gets going as well; that ought to be super interesting!
Cycloptichorn
Well, on the bright side, there hasn't been anything real positive in the Democratic party for years.
True enough. The only real positives I've seen from the Dems these days are the advent of Democracy Bonds and a shift away from the Kstreet-style money game. And even that is in the early stages.
Some sort of branding research and unified national message will be key to a Dem victory in '06, and it will be interesting to see if they can come up with one. But, hey, this is all off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.
Cycloptichorn
tico, Trying to shift the issues from the repubs to the democs ain't gonna help this administration out of their problems. That much you should know and understand.
cicerone imposter wrote:tico, Trying to shift the issues from the repubs to the democs ain't gonna help this administration out of their problems. That much you should know and understand.
I'm pretty sure nothing I do on this site is going to affect either the R's or the D's.
Or do you know something I don't?
tico, That goes without saying. Don't you have anything better to say?
"Well, on the bright side, there hasn't been anything real positive in the Democratic party for years."
Why even bother?
cicerone imposter wrote:Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Well, on the bright side, there hasn't been anything real positive in the Democratic party for years.
tico, Trying to shift the issues from the repubs to the democs ain't gonna help this administration out of their problems. That much you should know and understand.
I'm pretty sure nothing I do on this site is going to affect either the R's or the D's.
Or do you know something I don't?
tico, That goes without saying. ...
Well, I
thought it went without saying too .... but then you chided me for "
trying to shift the issues from the repubs to the democs," saying it wasn't going to help the administration out of their problems. As if my "trying to shift the issues" here would have any effect on the Republican party.
c.i. wrote:Don't you have anything better to say?
Of course I do. I always have something better to say.
You couldn't prove it by me!
Tico
Yes. You always have something to say. However as for it being better. Only if you are talking to yourself.
cicerone imposter wrote:Tico wrote:c.i. wrote:Don't you have anything better to say?
Of course I do. I always have something better to say.
You couldn't prove it by me!
That's because I don't say it. :wink:
The position that Clinton's impeachment has nothing to do with the Bush Administration is palbably false. Some people believe that History stops when a new president is elected and ALL the events preceding his tenure mean nothing to his administration. How ridiculous!!!
First of all, the position that Clinton took on Dec. 18th regarding Saddam and Iraq HAD TO BE noted by the Bush administration- Clinton stated that:
"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world"
Secondly, the fact that Clinton was indeed impeached did give impetus to the numbers who voted for President Bush.
If the Democrats really believed that President Bush lied, they would be united against him. As a matter of fact, there is NO Democratic Unity. Senators Edwards and Obama, no right wingers, both have indicated that US troops have to remain in Iraq until the country is stablized and the new government can look out for itself. Senator Lieberman, another Democrat, has gone on record to say that there is NO Senatorial outcry for immediate withdrawal.
kuvasz wrote:btw i do recall that none of the 911 hijackers were iraqi, while 17 of them were saudi
Are you saying we should've attacked Saudi Arabia?
