Politics:US Attorneys Fired, Congress Issuing Subpoenas

So Bush has already said dem's should accept his offer for the top white house aides to testify privately, not under oath, with no transcript.

The congressional committee said they will pursue subpoenas, and i just heard they approved going ahead with issuing subpoenas today.

Showdown is set between Bush and congress.
Lets see how the balance of powers prevails.

If there was no illegal/unethical conduct involved with the firings why would bush refuse to allow them to testify before congress under oath?

Because Clinton fired 83 juctises under the same conditions and it was understood by everyone that this was just the ebb and flow from the two parties while they hold the Executive office.

Bush does 10% of what Clinton did and it's a major debatable item. This is just further proof that the primary goal of Dems is not the stated ethics reform and repair of America but rather a witch hunt so that in the post Monica-Gate era the Dem's can say "Gotcha Back"

so the pressure on the attorneys to push charges on Dem's prior to the election and their failure to rush things has nothing to do with this?

and why must they testify in private?
i'm curious what they'll have to say
transparency should not be an option when it comes to a democratic gov't

From the Link said:

Bode praised the new President's judicial record: "Clinton's first public office was Attorney General of Arkansas. He was aggressive, high-profile, populist...If the Justice Department will reflect President Clinton's policies, expect the new Attorney General to be much stronger on civil rights enforcement, pay attention to environmental laws, support the rights of children, and a continued emphasis on crime and public safety." Bode did note Reno's unprecedented decision to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys "has become a highly visible test of how political the Justice Department will be under Bill Clinton and Janet Reno." But Bode let Reno declare herself non-political in three soundbites -- while GOP officials never appeared in the story

Click to expand...

But somehow the media nor the congress felt like we needed an under oath hearing

anyways here's the link if you want to read it. IMO this debacle is just another example of partisan policis running away with our government during a time when our Nation's security on several fronts needs severe attention.


Media Reality Check -- 12/03/1997 -- Clinton's Apolitical Justice Department?

the testify in private not under oath thing stems from Janet Reno being allowed to do the same after her firings

look dood if your actually making a call to arms on this I'm not going to debate you, this entire thing in lunacy