Executive Privilege
The over-reach on the part of hate-filled Congressional Democrats, more interested in political theater than actually resolving anything, to issue contempt of Congress citations against White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Joshua Bolten, and former Chief White House Counsel, Ms. Harriet Meirs, is so ridiculous that reciprocal ridiculous commentary should satisfactorily rebut.
When will the liberal extremists who control Congress issue a subpoena to First Lady Laura Bush demanding to know what she and the President talk about in bed? And, knowing the First Lady will refuse to appear when issued such a subpoena, when will the Democratically-controlled Congress vote a contempt of Congress citation against the First Lady?
You see, if Executive Privilege does not protect political conversations between a President and his Chief of Staff or his Chief White House Counsel then there is no such privilege. My goodness, these two positions are about as close as you can get to the Office of the President. Is there a closer advisor to the President on political matters than the Chief of Staff? And Congress wants access to these discussions?
Recall, President Clinton invoked Executive Privilege to shield his staff, all the way down to his secretaries, from testifying in a PERSONAL matter. At the time, hate-Bush extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (Democrat, VT) defended President Clinton’s use of the privilege in a PERSONAL matter.
Today, the privilege is being invoked exactly as it is intended to be invoked: to protect communications of a POLITICAL matter between the President of the United States and his most senior POLITICAL advisors.
Anyway, the President has offered both witnesses to Sen. Leahy provided there is no transcript and no sworn testimony and the Senator has rejected the offer. Is the Senator more interested in getting answers or generating headlines that the liberal media is all to willing to publish?
If Sen. Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008 (God help us!), does anyone doubt she’ll be sending President Bush a thank you note for so strenuously defending the Privilege?
And, just quickly on another matter, my (news)paper is claiming that a “memo” contradicts Hispanic-American, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony before Congress earlier this week; the “newspaper” accepting the “memo” is accurate. Strange the headlines weren’t calling into question the accuracy of the “memo”; it was just easier to believe what was necessary to tar General Gonzales. I don’t know the names of the militant, liberal, Hispanic-American organizations but any time they want to make themselves known is fine by me. Where’s their outrage against the spectacle of rich, white men attacking a Latino? Oh, he’s a conservative Latino, now I understand the color-blind treatment. And please, no comments on my playing of the “race” (and, yes, I know Hispanics can be of either race, I use the word figuratively) card; I play admitting the silliness only to point out how silly it is when it’s played against Conservatives (see Charles Pickering for the most recent glaring example).
The over-reach on the part of hate-filled Congressional Democrats, more interested in political theater than actually resolving anything, to issue contempt of Congress citations against White House Chief of Staff, Mr. Joshua Bolten, and former Chief White House Counsel, Ms. Harriet Meirs, is so ridiculous that reciprocal ridiculous commentary should satisfactorily rebut.
When will the liberal extremists who control Congress issue a subpoena to First Lady Laura Bush demanding to know what she and the President talk about in bed? And, knowing the First Lady will refuse to appear when issued such a subpoena, when will the Democratically-controlled Congress vote a contempt of Congress citation against the First Lady?
You see, if Executive Privilege does not protect political conversations between a President and his Chief of Staff or his Chief White House Counsel then there is no such privilege. My goodness, these two positions are about as close as you can get to the Office of the President. Is there a closer advisor to the President on political matters than the Chief of Staff? And Congress wants access to these discussions?
Recall, President Clinton invoked Executive Privilege to shield his staff, all the way down to his secretaries, from testifying in a PERSONAL matter. At the time, hate-Bush extremist, Sen. Patrick Leahy (Democrat, VT) defended President Clinton’s use of the privilege in a PERSONAL matter.
Today, the privilege is being invoked exactly as it is intended to be invoked: to protect communications of a POLITICAL matter between the President of the United States and his most senior POLITICAL advisors.
Anyway, the President has offered both witnesses to Sen. Leahy provided there is no transcript and no sworn testimony and the Senator has rejected the offer. Is the Senator more interested in getting answers or generating headlines that the liberal media is all to willing to publish?
If Sen. Hillary Clinton is elected President in 2008 (God help us!), does anyone doubt she’ll be sending President Bush a thank you note for so strenuously defending the Privilege?
And, just quickly on another matter, my (news)paper is claiming that a “memo” contradicts Hispanic-American, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn testimony before Congress earlier this week; the “newspaper” accepting the “memo” is accurate. Strange the headlines weren’t calling into question the accuracy of the “memo”; it was just easier to believe what was necessary to tar General Gonzales. I don’t know the names of the militant, liberal, Hispanic-American organizations but any time they want to make themselves known is fine by me. Where’s their outrage against the spectacle of rich, white men attacking a Latino? Oh, he’s a conservative Latino, now I understand the color-blind treatment. And please, no comments on my playing of the “race” (and, yes, I know Hispanics can be of either race, I use the word figuratively) card; I play admitting the silliness only to point out how silly it is when it’s played against Conservatives (see Charles Pickering for the most recent glaring example).
posted by Zack at 8:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home