Refusal to submit documents subpoenaed is definitely a nono. I don't know the whole story, but the only way to avoid submitting documents is the documents not existing or the documents not being in your custody or control. Give them the documents, Bush. You're the President. You can get 'em.

On another note, I can't believe I just agreed with COL Gene.

don't listen to dictator gene

bush is refusing to give documents to the congress that they don't have a right to

the documents are on the firing of the attorny generals. and the president may fire them at anytime and for any reason he wants to.

so as i said the congress doesn't have the right to those documents.

however congress does have the right to documents on the new hires.

How about Fienstein? Or any other congress person? He who is without sin throw the first stone. Col, you continously show a bias as you mention nothing from the other side. The Dems won't impeach Bush. TOO many of them have made too much money off of him and this war. hehe and you thought it was only the GOP.

Impeachment won't happen.

How many attorney generals did Clinton fire?

I don't know what congress has a right to in the way of documents, but if they don't have a right to subpoena them, then it should go to court and let a judge decide who has a right to what.

all of them once and i think he did it twice

"Bush is refusing to give documents to the congress that they don't have a right to "

The President does NOT have the authority to determine what Documents Congress has a right to. That is what Congress decides NOT the President. The documents in question also relate to the wire taps used by Bush. If the President has the power to decide what he will release then he can HIDE anything he chooses!

that is called top secret

No it isn't. Congress is a check/balance on the president. There should be no top secret, and if it is, Congress can handle it. They can keep a secret, and they should. But if it's bad enough, they should impeach, and privately. No president should be able to hide things from the other branches. From the public, yeah. From the other branches, no.

“that is called top secret”

NO THAT IS CALLED A DICTATORSHIP! It is an abuse of power!

it doesn't matter this thread is just another excuse to bash bush

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
" it doesn't matter this thread is just another excuse to bash bush"

No it is the truth. You are the one that said it is anti Bush. If the Shoe fits wear it!

the only reason that the congress has to question whether or not they were fired is if they were investigating the admin. They weren't they were investigating the democrat leaders

No actually they can't. Usually "top secret" is a matter of National security. And they aren't allowed access to all of that. So if he claims it top secret, he does not automatically have to provide the documents to congress. Although in this particular case I don't see how he can say that. He "should" give up the documents. He doesn't have to, but should anyway. If for no other reason than to shut them up.

I think he's keeping them because he know if gives the documents to the dems, they'll just twist it up and try to start yet another shit storm. Just like they have on "every" other thing he's done during his tenure. Personally I don't think he should. Clinton was not asked for documentation when he fired all of his. Turn about is only fair.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2007
“the only reason that the congress has to question whether or not they were fired is if they were investigating the admin. They weren't they were investigating the democrat leaders”


The subpoenas also cover the wire tapping done by the Bush Admin in violation to FISA. It is not just the discharge of the U.S. Attorneys. The issue is that Bush can not tell Congress what information they require. He can not selectively obey the subpoena power of Congress!