Skip to comments.
Bush's Guard service may affect Miers nomination
The Austin American-Statesman ^
| Tuesday, October 4
| Ken Herman
Posted on 10/11/2005 7:27:29 PM PDT by counterpunch
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
To: counterpunch
"Are you telling me Ted Kennedy isn't going to make any hay out of this?"
Are you telling me you give a hang what that sot has to say on ANY subject?
41
posted on
10/11/2005 7:53:44 PM PDT
by
decal
(Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
To: counterpunch
"I didn't write the article."
No, you just posted it.
"You need to be asking yourself if you want to have this debate all over again,"
Damn right I do. This is already answered in the minds of the electorate. There's nothing that will boost the popularity of Bush faster than for the Dems to bring this crap up again. Notice that a week ago Barnes said "Talk to me, me, me". There's been not one Senator take him up on it. He's a loon and they know it. You should know too but your Bush hatred blinds you.
42
posted on
10/11/2005 7:54:03 PM PDT
by
KingKongCobra
(The "Donner Party" can just go eat themselves)
To: counterpunch
Of course they're going to dredge it up again.. and Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, and the case for war in Iraq, and the 9/11 PDB... you name it. For the fifteen-thousandth time:These are matters of executive privilege, since she was an attorney in the White House when these matters were discussed. She will not answer any questions about these subjects.
43
posted on
10/11/2005 7:54:43 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: MinuteGal
During the Inquisition, Miers will rightfully claim attorney/client privilege in answer to many questions they'll throw at her regarding GW's NG service, etc.
Then the Democrats will have all the reason they need to reject her.
Half of the Democrats voted against Roberts because they claimed he was evasive and the Bush administration didn't cooperate on documents requests.
The more "I can't answer" replies she gives all week, the worse she will look (and by extension, the President)......
Exactly. And this is why the Democrats have all been so supportive of her. They don't want to do anything that might deprive themselves of this opportunity to really tear Bush a new one when the moment comes.
44
posted on
10/11/2005 7:54:49 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
To: counterpunch
And tell me counterpunch do you want to join the democrat in these utter lies about President Bush National Guard service that they tried many times before and failed so miserably?! I will not be surprised that some conservatives blinded by hate and anger will join the Democrat in this utterly failing endeavor hoping that Miers will be defeated. Hate is a very destructive force, and it will mainly destroy those who hate much more than those who are hated.
45
posted on
10/11/2005 7:54:56 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: counterpunch
You mean to say this Lottery Official doesn't really exist? He does. It will cost him $50,000 to break the confidentiality agreement he signed.
46
posted on
10/11/2005 7:56:42 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: ErnBatavia
Hatch was brutal to Anita Hill. Don't you remember that?
47
posted on
10/11/2005 7:59:02 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: counterpunch
Calling Mary Mapes, please pick up the white courtesy phone
48
posted on
10/11/2005 7:59:04 PM PDT
by
KosmicKitty
(Not too worry - we'll all be united again under the next Clinton presidency!!)
To: counterpunch
You are extremely naive if you think that President Bush and his advisers did not consider all this; extremely naive.
49
posted on
10/11/2005 7:59:10 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: counterpunch
I'm wondering who was the genious that covered up the DUI that almost lost Bush the presidency in 2000. Surely Miers knew about it. Did she advise him wisely, as in get it out early or did she advise him the other way?
50
posted on
10/11/2005 7:59:30 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(you call me a right wing extremist like it's a bad thing.....)
To: sinkspur
For the fifteen-thousandth time:These are matters of executive privilege, since she was an attorney in the White House when these matters were discussed. She will not answer any questions about these subjects.
Yeah, and that's the politics of stupid. Only you would suggest her dodging these question with "Executive Privilege". Bush would be tried and hanged in the media. He and Miers would look guilty as hell if they don't cough up the documents and answer the questions.
Not only that, but Miers would also most certainly be voted down by every Democrat for not cooperating to their liking, "attorney-client privilege" or not. Half of them voted against Roberts for being too "evasive" and because of a lack of cooperation on 15 year old documents from a different administration.
Democrats make up their own rules as they see fit, and in the case of Miers and controversial Bush White House memos, they will demand them and raise holy hell if they don't get them. I don't know why you keep insisting that the rules apply to the Democrats.
51
posted on
10/11/2005 8:00:56 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
To: sinkspur
The day the Republicans pull a nominee because the Dems on the Senate committee might ask him or her stupid questions about stuff they've already raked over multiple times to their loss and thus make themselves look like even more bitter, arrogant pinheads than they already do is the day I quit the Republican Party. That would be a chicken[bleep] move.
52
posted on
10/11/2005 8:02:33 PM PDT
by
RichInOC
(Two-block the Jolly Roger. Set Condition 1SQ. Spin up all missiles. This is not a drill. Arghhhhh...)
To: counterpunch
53
posted on
10/11/2005 8:02:39 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: You Dirty Rats
Just unbelievable. I hope that Jim Robinson is watching what is going on FR. Some people on this site have really lost it.
54
posted on
10/11/2005 8:05:36 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: counterpunch
Only you would suggest her dodging these question with "Executive Privilege". Bush would be tried and hanged in the media. He and Miers would look guilty as hell if they don't cough up the documents and answer the questions. You are stuck on stupid on this. You don't have a clue about public reaction to documents that are "executive privilege."
If the Democrats want to vote her down over that, they'll have to deal with the consequences.
55
posted on
10/11/2005 8:05:59 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: counterpunch
The left wing blogs have a plagerism charge against Ms. Miers too.
I found this Barnes/GTECH thing in a random search ometime last week. And I agree, it is more baggage - uneccsary diversion from discussion of constitutional principles.
56
posted on
10/11/2005 8:07:24 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: counterpunch
where's the "not this s*** again!" picture?
57
posted on
10/11/2005 8:08:32 PM PDT
by
kpp_kpp
To: jveritas
And tell me counterpunch do you want to join the democrat in these utter lies about President Bush National Guard service that they tried many times before and failed so miserably?! I will not be surprised that some conservatives blinded by hate and anger will join the Democrat in this utterly failing endeavor hoping that Miers will be defeated. Hate is a very destructive force, and it will mainly destroy those who hate much more than those who are hated.
Thanks for the advice, Yoda, but I'm just telling you what the Democrats' strategy is going to be, so we can be ready for it, if we decide Miers is even worth wasting our time on these tired battles all over again. I say she's not. I say we deserve a nominee who will inspire a national debate on the role of the Judiciary, not someone who will just inspire yet another debate about George W. Bush.
I'm beginning to think that Bush purposely invites this kind of thing just so we can all talk about him some more. He's starting to turn into our very own Bill Clinton.
58
posted on
10/11/2005 8:08:41 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
To: counterpunch
I support Miers very much because of arguments like yours. They have the same stench of unreason and fanaticism as many of the Dim's arguments against Bush in the last election. In fact this one is just a thinly retreaded version of the very Texas Guard allegation that was beaten to death not so long ago by our mortal political enemies.
59
posted on
10/11/2005 8:08:45 PM PDT
by
claudiustg
(Go Bush! Go Sharon!)
To: warrior9504
National Guard "Scandal". I would give a month's pay to see a NEW attack from the Dems. I mean, it's really just getting boring. How about some creativity? I thought all those Hollywood people were supposed to be good at that? Just take a look at most of the junk coming out of Hollywood. They don't have an original idea anymore. Everything's a rehash of something's that already been done.
This appears to be right along the same vein.
I actually hope they do it again, maybe another MSM blowhard will fall!
I agree wholeheartedly, and they can take Teddy 'the swimmer' down along with them!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson