November 13th, 2008
04:56 PM ET

Should Dems begin investigations of Bush Admin.?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/13/art.bush.flag.gi.jpg caption="Congressional Democrats will move forward with investigations of the Bush administration in January."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The New York Times reports that congressional Democrats are going to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration even after the president leaves office in January. That could prove to be quite a task.

Where to begin... Abuse of the power of the Executive Branch... Torture of detainees... The role of former White House aides Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firing of federal prosecutors... Eavesdropping without a warrant. It's a very long list.

The rub is that President Bush may be able to block subpoenas long after he leaves the White House.

In 1953, Harry Truman blocked a congressional subpoena almost a year after he left office. Truman told Congress the Constitution still empowered him to do so. Then Congress backed off.

If the last eight years are any example you can bet the Bush administration would do everything it could not to cooperate.

Here’s my question to you: Is it a good idea for the Democrats to begin investigations of the Bush administration?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Bush Administration
April 8th, 2008
05:02 PM ET

Will you see Oliver Stone’s movie about Pres. Bush?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Coming to a theater perhaps even before he leaves office: "W”, Oliver Stone's upcoming movie about President Bush.

A draft of the script describes our president as, quote "a foul-mouthed, reformed drunk who is obsessed with baseball."

"The Hollywood Reporter" sent a draft of the screenplay to four biographers of the president to see how accurate they thought it was. Reactions were mixed; they say specific scenes are largely based in fact, but the screenplay shows inaccurate and over-the-top caricatures of President Bush and his inner circle.

One biographer says it "really misses the mark" of how the White House is run, leaving the impression that it's similar to a fraternity house, with everyone using nicknames and casually chatting about going to war. Another biographer was skeptical about Stone's claim that he wants to make a "fair, true portrait" of the president... saying that's "like Donald Trump saying he is going to be modest." Also, several of the experts say the script inaccurately depicts the president as being manipulated by White House staff when it comes to policy decisions.

Stone had no comment, but one screenwriter says he's read 17 books on the president, and a producer says, "We've done our homework."

Stone's previous movies "JFK" and "Nixon" were controversial. It remains to be seen how much of an appetite the American public will have for a movie about a lame duck president, especially when there's so much interest in who the next president will be.

"W" is set to start filming in Shreveport, Louisiana, this month. It already has foreign distributors, but no domestic deal is in place yet.

Here’s my question to you: Are you interested in seeing Oliver Stone's movie about President Bush?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Bush Administration
March 19th, 2008
02:35 PM ET

Bush administration making long-term plans for Iraq?

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and the top US commander in Iraq David Petraeus talk at Baghdad airport Monday, March 17, 2008. (PHOTO CREDIT: AP)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Today of course marks 5 years since the United States invaded Iraq, but if it's up to the Bush administration, our involvement there will stretch far beyond the 5 years.

Vice President Dick Cheney has been in Iraq this week playing let's make a deal when it comes to our nation's long-term role in a country we now occupy. Cheney came away from two days of private meetings with promises from Shiia, Sunni and Kurdish officials to firm up a new blueprint for relations between the two countries.

The deal would replace a U.N. Security Council resolution that expires in December – you know, the same time that President Bush leaves office. The administration insists the deal will not create permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, set terms for U.S. troop levels or tie the hands of future presidents.

And in keeping with the arrogant, unilateral way it has conducted business for more than seven years, the administration says it probably will not get Senate approval for this plan. Why should the American people have anything to say about it?

The administration says that's because it's not a treaty that provides Iraq with specific security guarantees. Democrats in Congress aren't happy. Some lawmakers have proposed legislation that would make the administration's agreement null and void without Senate approval. Given the Democrats' overwhelming lack of success in stopping President Bush from doing anything, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Here’s my question to you: Should the Bush administration be negotiating long-term agreements in Iraq without the consent of the American people?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Bush Administration • Iraq
newer posts »