Loyalty, hm?

[jsbowden]

I'm curious, once the subpeonas start flowing come January and Junior starts finding himself being held accaountable by Congress, is the loyalty he demands from his staff gonna flow both ways when it becomes obvious what the personal cost for protecting his underlings is gonna be?

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I thought he signed a law that exonerated him from all wrongdoing. So no problems!

[mjschaef.livejournal.com]

No laws were signed, since he doesn't have any use for them... at least that's what Cheney told him before he died. Hm, wait... did Cheney die?

[texas-tiger.livejournal.com]

Last October, my sources say. Since then he's been running the show via Ouiji board.

Oh, and that person who keeps appearing in the news pics is a robot mannequin with Kenny Baker inside.

Just so's you know.

GD&R

[dilickjm.livejournal.com]

No.

This has been brought to you by the Easy Answers To Easy Questions(TM) service.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

So will the subpoenaes start flying?

(I mean, I know that by any earhtly logic they need to. But I'm not very certain at all anymore that that place about 15 km to my south is bound by any earthly logic.)

[mjschaef.livejournal.com]

First there will be hearings... lots and lots of hearings... not that Bush will be attending any of them since he is privileged... err... has Executive Privilege.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

Yes, but... well, I have the same question aboute hearings, too. There have been things, many, important things, that have been messed up. Hearings, subpoenas, all of those depend on someone wanting to keep the people who were responsible for those messings-up accountable. Is that will in place? Or will it be "oh, well, another election in two years?"

I'm having a bit of a crisis of faith here. I guess you can tell.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

Hearings are the easiest thing that can be done, and subpoenas being either ignored or outright refused makes for Good Press. The hearings will happen; whether anything comes of them is another thing entirely.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

I'll be the different one and say yes, here. The thing that has separated Bush from Clinton more than anything else is his loyalty to his friends. I don't see that changing, no matter what, with this election.

[jsbowden.livejournal.com]

I don't think he will.

So far, staying loyal hasn't cost him anything. Congress has been a rubber stamp for the last six years, and he's had no oversight. All that's about to change, and there are a whole lot of things the Dems want answers on (as well as a whole lot of us in the middle and quite a few of the more moderate Repubs).

He gets testy and throws a tantrum whenever he's been challenged up to now, and I just can't see his entitlement complex surviving a real check on his powers as cheif exec. He's a spoiled kid who's about to have his toys taken away if he doesn't fess up.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Had no oversight, and called for no oversight. Maybe I'm being charitable, but I suspect that five or ten years from now, as it all comes out in the public eye, Bush will be shocked to find out much of what his minions were doing in his name. His chief minion will be in the ground by then, from semi-natural causes, but Rove may not have gone into hiding yet.

The thing I don't get about some of this stuff is, haven't these people noticed that eventually, people talk, and secrets come out? A conspiracy of three people can keep the secret. The more people know the secret, the faster they share it. Especially in politics, where people's loyalty does change, and the other side is actively hunting for scandal.

[selki.livejournal.com]

as it all comes out in the public eye, Bush will be shocked to find out

Bush doesn't read the papers or watch the news himself; he lets other people filter the information before it gets to him. He bragged about this to reporters his first year in office -- news is so *biased*, saves time, don't you know.