Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why Wasn't Alberto Gonzales sworn in today?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 6, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The republicans unanimously voted to not force Gonzales to be sworn in today. It seems they may be a little afraid that he might perjure himself. Of course, brainiac bubba Jeff Sessions said there's no need to swear him in as he's a man of impeccable integrity (this is the Gonzales who first condoned the use of torture- impeccable integrity). So, if he's so honest and forthright, surely he would have no reason not to spend 10 seconds of his time to swear in as is customary in investigative hearings.

    But no. The republicans will do anything to protect their buddy Bush. Shameful shills.
  2. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    This is BOGUS. The Republicans did the same thing at the energy hearings: the executives who testified didn't testify under oath. When a few Democrats objected that time, Ted Stevens from Alaska shouted them down and called them out of order.

    I want to see someone here defend this disgusting trend, unless this is the one thing we can all agree on.
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23

    If you are not sworn in, you can lie and perjury does not apply. So it goes on and on, this by line will not be reported by any of the media except it will be defended by Rush, Hannity, Savage and crew. It will be compared to some obscure Clinton happening, which had absolutely no bearing on anything.
  4. FreeTedWilliams

    FreeTedWilliams pfadmins PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    40
    Ratings:
    +97 / 31 / -3

    #75 Jersey

    Thank God they didn't swear him in! They were protecting America. Did you watch the hearings? Did you see how many times he was asked to reveal how we are hunting terrorists? Are we reading their mail? Are we intercepting their e-mails? What if he was under oath? The Dems would have given the terrorists more information about how we are trying to catch them! It's called counter-intelligence and the Democrats are providing it in spades for the terrorists! Shameful!
  5. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Being under oath doesn't mean he has to answer what they ask. He can still invoke all the same immunities as before. Being sworn in only keeps somebody from lying. Now why would you want your elected officials to lie?
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Some people apparently enjoy being lied to. It thus fits with their preconceived notions of "reality". Its what Karl Rove was referring to when he said that while you are trying to figure out THAT reality, they are busy creating THIS reality.

    In other words, its faith based governance. It has no basis in reality. It is a political construct to fit preconceived ideas of the ignorant masses.
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Err, rather "appointed officials".
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    You have got to be kidding! Do you really think that terrorists are not aware of the fact that email can be and is openly monitored? How long have you been using email?

    But the question of whether the first class mail can be opened should be something we the people need to debate. Would you mind if Hillary opened your mail?

    I did watch the hearings and it was obvious that he simply wants to play a game of dodgeball. It is a complete waste of time if you can't swear him in. And no, it doesn't force him to answer sensitive questions, but it does require some answers to very basic questions defining the limits of presidential power in general.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>