Quote:
Originally posted by Dan in Pasadena
I don't know why Bush nor his advisors don't see that to the average American not agreeing to come to Congress and testify under oath is tantamount to saying, "we don't want to be obligated to tell the truth". That's the way I take it.
|
That's just another example of Bush and his people (Gonzalez, etc.) being incompetent buffoons and very, very, very poor decision makers.
Creating problems and "scandals" where no underlying basis exists.
There are legit reasons for the Exec Branch resisting Leg. Branch subpoenas. As you point out, there are 3 branches for checks and balances. The balance can go out of whack if the Leg. branch is entitled to subpoena and force the Exec. branch to testify under oath at whim.
Obviously, for many people, this balance is largely politically driven. E.g., if its a repub congress subpoening a dem president (i.e., Clinton), it's outrageous, and vice versa, like in this case.