The pissant can't take a leak? - Democratic Underground

Ron Green

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:27 PM
Original message

The pissant can't take a leak?

The RW cyber-assertion is now that since this guy is the President, any release of classified information by him is automatically OK. In other words, he's incapable of leaking.

:wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NYC

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message

1. But he hired a criminal lawyer at the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=860958&mesg_id=861438

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

valerief

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message

2. Duh, what's a Congress?

That's a Freeper question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bryant69

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message

3. Yeah I've heard that argument too

Right up there with "The President does it, it must be legal."

And "I am the state!"

And "Let them eat cake!"

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tyler Durden

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3

11. Does that mean we can buy a GUILLOTINE???

Forget I Said that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:31 PM
Response to Original message

4. Just because he CAN, doesn't mean it's not an abuse of power.

Which is an impeachable offense.

Which is why he didn't declassify it, since he'd be signing his own death warrant.

Which makes the leak illegal because even the President must first sign a declassification.

Memo to goose: You're cooked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Virginia Dare

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

5. Then why did he lie about it?

Why did he stand up on national television and say he wanted to get to the bottom of it as much as anybody and he'd fire anybody on his staff who was found to be involved?

Let's see them try and answer that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ron Green

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. My guess is that they'll be able to

spin a successful disconnect between his "wanting to get to the bottom of it" and declassifying information.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Virginia Dare

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. They can try it, but I don't see the public buying it...

Bush's plain speaking is finally going to be his undoing. It's one thing when you use all sorts of fancy legal talk and parse your words every which way, but Bush made a very plain black and white statement that the public will remember.

He might get out of this legally, but no way he'll get out of it publicly.

I've been wrong before though.:-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ron Green

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. We've all been wrong before . . .

all of us who hoped that finally, upon discovery of yet another abuse of power, harmful euphemism or flat-out lie, this gang of sorry sacks of shit would finally be run out of their offices and appointed jobs, discredited and imprisoned for what they have done to the very ideas and ideals of this nation. But Noooo! Somehow the People in their exquisite ignorance have allowed the corporate message of fear and security to blind them to what America is supposed to be about.

Maybe this time it's different, huh? I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hoping you're right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

EstimatedProphet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message

9. I'm sick of that idea

They've been fronting that for a while now-that what the president does is legal, because he does it. That is NOT how the Constitution works!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ron Green

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #9

12. That's why the bogus War is such a brilliant stroke.

Whether it's the "war for Iraqi freedom that our brave troops are fighting" or the vague "war on terror," this guy gets called the "Commander in Chief" and has all kinds of special powers, never mind the Constitution, 'cause we're at WAR!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sinkingfeeling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message

10. I'm sure are duly elected (by Diebold, ES&S, etc.) GOP Congress

will immediately revise the laws so that outing an undercover spy is no longer treason or illegal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pacalo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Apr-06-06 02:19 PM
Response to Original message

13. If the release of classified information puts a big neon sign around

a CIA operative & her ability to continue investigating WMD on behalf of the U.S., that's okay?

Nevermind his lies to the public about "getting to the bottom of it" & withholding information from the investigators. It's not as important as a blue dress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 08:20 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.