Executive Privilege

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007.

  1. President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege
    Bush bowels reject efforts to be probed

    20 July 2007

    WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's colonoscopy, scheduled to take place
    on Saturday morning, hit a snag this afternoon when the organ in
    question refused to submit to an investigation. Speaking through their
    attorney, the president's ileum, duodenum and jejunum rejected all
    attempts to examine them, claiming their contents were protected by
    executive privilege.

    However, senior advisers believe a compromise can still be reached where
    the colon would submit to a probe, provided it was not under sedation
    and no records were kept.

    If the scheduled procedure does take place, Vice President Cheney will
    temporarily assume the reins of command under the 25th Amendment, one of
    three Constitutional amendments not yet violated by the Bush
    Administration.

    Cheney has secretly urged the president to undergo a much more extensive
    examination, saying that the scheduled four-hour procedure barely gave
    him enough time to position his solar death ray over Iran. White House
    spokesman Tony Snow said he could not comment on an ongoing
    investigation, but was confident doctors would find no evidence of wrong
    doing.

    Snow confirmed that the president's anus was under strict orders to not
    leak classified information. If true, it would become the only asshole
    in this administration to not reveal state secrets.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. That was so good, I just HAD to repost it in its entirety.

    You could have given some kind of warning with that one!!!!

    I just bought a new monitor.

    ;oþ

    Rôgêr <> wrote
    news:eek::

    > President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege
    > Bush bowels reject efforts to be probed
    >
    > 20 July 2007
    >
    > WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's colonoscopy, scheduled to take
    > place on Saturday morning, hit a snag this afternoon when the organ
    > in question refused to submit to an investigation. Speaking through
    > their attorney, the president's ileum, duodenum and jejunum rejected
    > all attempts to examine them, claiming their contents were protected
    > by executive privilege.
    >
    > However, senior advisers believe a compromise can still be reached
    > where the colon would submit to a probe, provided it was not under
    > sedation and no records were kept.
    >
    > If the scheduled procedure does take place, Vice President Cheney
    > will temporarily assume the reins of command under the 25th Amendment,
    > one of three Constitutional amendments not yet violated by the Bush
    > Administration.
    >
    > Cheney has secretly urged the president to undergo a much more
    > extensive examination, saying that the scheduled four-hour procedure
    > barely gave him enough time to position his solar death ray over
    > Iran. White House spokesman Tony Snow said he could not comment on
    > an ongoing investigation, but was confident doctors would find no
    > evidence of wrong doing.
    >
    > Snow confirmed that the president's anus was under strict orders to
    > not leak classified information. If true, it would become the only
    > asshole in this administration to not reveal state secrets.


    --
    @}-}--}------Rosee http://www.cangogh.net/pix.html
    www.givemeals.com www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Aug 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege
    > Bush bowels reject efforts to be probed
    >
    > 20 July 2007
    >
    > WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's colonoscopy, scheduled to take place on
    > Saturday morning, hit a snag this afternoon when the organ in question
    > refused to submit to an investigation. Speaking through their attorney,
    > the president's ileum, duodenum and jejunum rejected all attempts to
    > examine them, claiming their contents were protected by executive
    > privilege.
    >
    > However, senior advisers believe a compromise can still be reached where
    > the colon would submit to a probe, provided it was not under sedation and
    > no records were kept.
    >
    > If the scheduled procedure does take place, Vice President Cheney will
    > temporarily assume the reins of command under the 25th Amendment, one of
    > three Constitutional amendments not yet violated by the Bush
    > Administration.
    >
    > Cheney has secretly urged the president to undergo a much more extensive
    > examination, saying that the scheduled four-hour procedure barely gave him
    > enough time to position his solar death ray over Iran. White House
    > spokesman Tony Snow said he could not comment on an ongoing investigation,
    > but was confident doctors would find no evidence of wrong
    > doing.
    >
    > Snow confirmed that the president's anus was under strict orders to not
    > leak classified information. If true, it would become the only asshole in
    > this administration to not reveal state secrets.


    Rôgêr,

    We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention that
    the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush administration hasn't
    broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other two as he was only elected
    President once. What was the other one? I can't think of any amendment
    from slavery to states rights that he hasn't broken.

    --
    Brian J. Whiting

    Brian Whiting, Aug 2, 2007
    #3
  4. Brian Whiting wrote:

    > We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention that
    > the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush administration hasn't
    > broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other two as he was only elected
    > President once. What was the other one? I can't think of any amendment
    > from slavery to states rights that he hasn't broken.


    As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it
    was repealed in the 21st amendment.
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007
    #4
  5. "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brian Whiting wrote:
    >
    >> We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention
    >> that the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush
    >> administration hasn't broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other two
    >> as he was only elected President once. What was the other one? I can't
    >> think of any amendment from slavery to states rights that he hasn't
    >> broken.

    >
    > As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it was
    > repealed in the 21st amendment.


    Actually, given the opportunity, it would probably be the other way around.
    Remember he's an alcoholic who "claims" to be in recovery.

    --
    Brian J. Whiting

    Brian Whiting, Aug 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Brian Whiting wrote:
    > "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>
    >>> We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention
    >>> that the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush
    >>> administration hasn't broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other two
    >>> as he was only elected President once. What was the other one? I can't
    >>> think of any amendment from slavery to states rights that he hasn't
    >>> broken.

    >> As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it was
    >> repealed in the 21st amendment.

    >
    > Actually, given the opportunity, it would probably be the other way around.
    > Remember he's an alcoholic who "claims" to be in recovery.


    Straying off course, a news article you may be interested in looking at:
    http://tinyurl.com/32pa2s
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007
    #6
  7. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=

    Mara Guest

    On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:25:06 -0400, Rôgêr <> wrote:

    >President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege
    >Bush bowels reject efforts to be probed


    I'm not at all surprised, since his brain has always rejected anything
    resembling thought.

    <snip>

    --
    Og thought there was such thing as "evolution". How all these stupid
    people still alive? Og boggle.
    --Caveman Og, nanae, 5/11/2000
    Mara, Aug 2, 2007
    #7
  8. It was on, or about, Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:25:06 -0400, that as I was
    halfway through a large jam doughnut, Rôgêr wrote:

    > President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege Bush bowels reject efforts
    > to be probed
    >
    > 20 July 2007
    >
    > WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's colonoscopy, scheduled to take place
    > on Saturday morning, hit a snag this afternoon when the organ in
    > question refused to submit to an investigation. Speaking through their
    > attorney, the president's ileum, duodenum and jejunum rejected all
    > attempts to examine them, claiming their contents were protected by
    > executive privilege.
    >
    > However, senior advisers believe a compromise can still be reached where
    > the colon would submit to a probe, provided it was not under sedation
    > and no records were kept.
    >
    > If the scheduled procedure does take place, Vice President Cheney will
    > temporarily assume the reins of command under the 25th Amendment, one of
    > three Constitutional amendments not yet violated by the Bush
    > Administration.
    >
    > Cheney has secretly urged the president to undergo a much more extensive
    > examination, saying that the scheduled four-hour procedure barely gave
    > him enough time to position his solar death ray over Iran. White House
    > spokesman Tony Snow said he could not comment on an ongoing
    > investigation, but was confident doctors would find no evidence of wrong
    > doing.
    >
    > Snow confirmed that the president's anus was under strict orders to not
    > leak classified information. If true, it would become the only asshole
    > in this administration to not reveal state secrets.


    LMAO!
    William Poaster, Aug 2, 2007
    #8
  9. It was on, or about, Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:56:14 -0500, that as I was
    halfway through a large jam doughnut, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:

    > That was so good, I just HAD to repost it in its entirety.
    >
    > You could have given some kind of warning with that one!!!!
    >
    > I just bought a new monitor.
    >
    > ;oþ


    SOO! LAWSOOT! Shoulda given prior warning, etc.. <g>

    > Rôgêr <> wrote
    > news:eek::
    >
    >> President's Colon Claims Executive Privilege Bush bowels reject efforts
    >> to be probed
    >>
    >> 20 July 2007


    <snip>
    William Poaster, Aug 2, 2007
    #9
  10. "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Brian Whiting wrote:
    >> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention
    >>>> that the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush
    >>>> administration hasn't broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other
    >>>> two as he was only elected President once. What was the other one? I
    >>>> can't think of any amendment from slavery to states rights that he
    >>>> hasn't broken.
    >>> As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it
    >>> was repealed in the 21st amendment.

    >>
    >> Actually, given the opportunity, it would probably be the other way
    >> around. Remember he's an alcoholic who "claims" to be in recovery.

    >
    > Straying off course, a news article you may be interested in looking at:
    > http://tinyurl.com/32pa2s


    An interesting account. But I wouldn't raise the Defcon level just yet.
    They point out that one would have to introduce it before the polls open
    (when "inside" people are the only ones to have access to the machines)
    which still means conspiracy to commit treason by people who are very aware
    of their importance in the electoral process. I think that what all these
    doomsday seekers should do is demonstrate how they can wirelessly attack
    these systems during the day. Then you can talk about increasing security.
    I've never seen that. Talking about contaminating the cards beforehand is
    pointless. The quality control process is in place to make sure that
    doesn't become an issue (again the people involved do not want anything to
    go wrong which would make them be arrested for treason). And yes, they can
    tell the name of each person responsible for each individual card.

    --
    Brian J. Whiting

    Brian Whiting, Aug 2, 2007
    #10
  11. Brian Whiting wrote:
    > "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You mention
    >>>>> that the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush
    >>>>> administration hasn't broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other
    >>>>> two as he was only elected President once. What was the other one? I
    >>>>> can't think of any amendment from slavery to states rights that he
    >>>>> hasn't broken.
    >>>> As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it
    >>>> was repealed in the 21st amendment.
    >>> Actually, given the opportunity, it would probably be the other way
    >>> around. Remember he's an alcoholic who "claims" to be in recovery.

    >> Straying off course, a news article you may be interested in looking at:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/32pa2s

    >
    > An interesting account. But I wouldn't raise the Defcon level just yet.
    > They point out that one would have to introduce it before the polls open
    > (when "inside" people are the only ones to have access to the machines)
    > which still means conspiracy to commit treason by people who are very aware
    > of their importance in the electoral process. I think that what all these
    > doomsday seekers should do is demonstrate how they can wirelessly attack
    > these systems during the day. Then you can talk about increasing security.
    > I've never seen that. Talking about contaminating the cards beforehand is
    > pointless. The quality control process is in place to make sure that
    > doesn't become an issue (again the people involved do not want anything to
    > go wrong which would make them be arrested for treason). And yes, they can
    > tell the name of each person responsible for each individual card.


    That's how I understand it's *supposed* to work, but there are
    evil-doers in the world sometimes. And I don't trust these evil-doers to
    do the right thing. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/061
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007
    #11
  12. William Poaster <> wrote news:85t8o4-4r6.ln1
    @wp.kubuntu704.eu:

    > It was on, or about, Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:56:14 -0500, that as I was
    > halfway through a large jam doughnut, @}-}-------Rosee wrote:
    >> That was so good, I just HAD to repost it in its entirety.
    >>
    >> You could have given some kind of warning with that one!!!!
    >>
    >> I just bought a new monitor.
    >>
    >> ;oþ


    > SOO! LAWSOOT! Shoulda given prior warning, etc.. <g>


    <guffaw>...am on the phone with my solicitor as I type. He's assured me,
    my worry is pointless.

    <schnippen more>

    > <snip>


    --
    @}-}--}------Rosee http://www.cangogh.net/pix.html
    www.givemeals.com www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
    @}-}-------Rosee, Aug 2, 2007
    #12
  13. "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Brian Whiting wrote:
    >> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>>> "Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Brian Whiting wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> We finally find some agreeable area. I am curious though. You
    >>>>>> mention that the 25th amendment is one of three amendments the Bush
    >>>>>> administration hasn't broken. Obviously the 22nd is one of the other
    >>>>>> two as he was only elected President once. What was the other one?
    >>>>>> I can't think of any amendment from slavery to states rights that he
    >>>>>> hasn't broken.
    >>>>> As far as I know, he hasn't broken the 18th amendment, even though it
    >>>>> was repealed in the 21st amendment.
    >>>> Actually, given the opportunity, it would probably be the other way
    >>>> around. Remember he's an alcoholic who "claims" to be in recovery.
    >>> Straying off course, a news article you may be interested in looking at:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/32pa2s

    >>
    >> An interesting account. But I wouldn't raise the Defcon level just yet.
    >> They point out that one would have to introduce it before the polls open
    >> (when "inside" people are the only ones to have access to the machines)
    >> which still means conspiracy to commit treason by people who are very
    >> aware of their importance in the electoral process. I think that what
    >> all these doomsday seekers should do is demonstrate how they can
    >> wirelessly attack these systems during the day. Then you can talk about
    >> increasing security. I've never seen that. Talking about contaminating
    >> the cards beforehand is pointless. The quality control process is in
    >> place to make sure that doesn't become an issue (again the people
    >> involved do not want anything to go wrong which would make them be
    >> arrested for treason). And yes, they can tell the name of each person
    >> responsible for each individual card.

    >
    > That's how I understand it's *supposed* to work, but there are evil-doers
    > in the world sometimes. And I don't trust these evil-doers to do the right
    > thing. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/interviews/061


    I agree that is disturbing. I always believed that Scooter Libby was put in
    as a scapegoat in order to deflect the attention away from Rove and his
    purposeful attempt to out Wilson's wife (with the intent being to have her
    killed without it being traced to the neocons). And Rove has been in the
    center of all kinds of BS (some we hear of and some we don't). But the
    fight for registration has always been a class problem and will always be
    there until we wise up like Australia. They have a mandatory voting law
    that just makes sense. You aren't required to vote for any particular
    person or party, but you have the requirement to, in effect, attest that
    your voice has been heard (even if that voice is a blank sheet). If you
    don't, you pay a fine. People get this ridiculous idea that it's the
    government forcing you to vote. Forcing a car to be registered, insured and
    safe hasn't stopped anyone from getting around. What it does stop is
    situations like in 1980 when 24% of the electorate decided for the other 76%
    who the President would be. It may not stop stupid people from being
    elected, but I would be much more comfortable knowing that 51% of the
    population MEANT 51%.

    --
    Brian J. Whiting

    Brian Whiting, Aug 2, 2007
    #13
  14. Brian Whiting wrote:

    > I agree that is disturbing. I always believed that Scooter Libby was put in
    > as a scapegoat in order to deflect the attention away from Rove and his
    > purposeful attempt to out Wilson's wife (with the intent being to have her
    > killed without it being traced to the neocons). And Rove has been in the
    > center of all kinds of BS (some we hear of and some we don't). But the
    > fight for registration has always been a class problem and will always be
    > there until we wise up like Australia. They have a mandatory voting law
    > that just makes sense. You aren't required to vote for any particular
    > person or party, but you have the requirement to, in effect, attest that
    > your voice has been heard (even if that voice is a blank sheet). If you
    > don't, you pay a fine. People get this ridiculous idea that it's the
    > government forcing you to vote. Forcing a car to be registered, insured and
    > safe hasn't stopped anyone from getting around. What it does stop is
    > situations like in 1980 when 24% of the electorate decided for the other 76%
    > who the President would be. It may not stop stupid people from being
    > elected, but I would be much more comfortable knowing that 51% of the
    > population MEANT 51%.


    I didn't know that about Australia. Other than that, I can safely say
    "me too".
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=, Aug 2, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. bigal
    Replies:
    273
    Views:
    35,408
    bigal
    Dec 27, 2011
  2. kapil [MSFT]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    kapil [MSFT]
    Jul 12, 2006
  3. kapil [MSFT]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    603
    kapil [MSFT]
    Aug 30, 2006
  4. Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    524
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Nov 17, 2006
  5. Edward

    Chief Executive

    Edward, May 6, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    684
    Edward
    May 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page