[kobi]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070321/...ed_prosecutors

It looks like this is going to be Bush's watergate. I'm going to love watching him go down, slowly but surely it's happening.

Did he forget his basic civics lessons? There are checks and balances for every branch including the executive branch.

First Congress limits Gonzales's power as Attorney General and now the puppet master Rove is going to be subpoenaed. Ol' George's week is off to bad start.

This should be fun to watch.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It looks like this is going to be Bush's watergate.

I always find it interesting that "Watergate" is always brought up. That was like, 35 years and 6 Presidents ago, move on already. Besides, you're dreaming. This, like every other Bush "scandal" is being overplayed by the left and will turn up very little results.

This should be fun to watch.

Interesting and telling that you would find pleasure in what you believe Bush to be guilty of.

[Big Mac]

Could anyone tell me what the legal issue involved here is? Federal prosecutors serve the Executive and presidents fire them all the time. Clinton fired 38, right? So what's the big deal? Why should anyone care where the idea originally came from - whether it's Harriet Miers or Karl Rove - what does it matter? Where's the beef?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Interesting and telling that you would find pleasure in what you believe Bush to be guilty of.

It's not a question of what he's guilty of, that list is long enough. It's a question of what isn't he guilty of?

I'd like to know how you can defend and stand up for someone who has destroyed so much?

Your reply is typical of the Right and small children, you both try and get away with anything you can while no one is looking. While that was true when the Republican rubber stamp Congress was in office, it's not true now.

As far as the pleasure aspect, I will enjoy watching Bush sweat it out. For as much pain and suffering that man has caused this country and the world, his political discomfort is nothing as to what he has caused.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Could anyone tell me what the legal issue involved here is? Federal prosecutors serve the Executive and presidents fire them all the time. Clinton fired 38, right? So what's the big deal? Why should anyone care where the idea originally came from - whether it's Harriet Miers or Karl Rove - what does it matter? Where's the beef?

It's not that he shouldn't be able to fire prosecutors. It's that he fired prosecuters because he felt they weren't investigating Democrats enough. The prosecutors said there was no wrong doing, Bush said not good enough, and fired them. This is not kosher, and is exactly what Nixon did when he was being investigated, hence the Watergate comparisons.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Could anyone tell me what the legal issue involved here is?

The issue isn't that he fired people for political reasons. That is completely within his right.

People testified to Congress that the firings weren't political.

Since it is now apparent that they are, this makes that perjury.

Oui?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Could anyone tell me what the legal issue involved here is? Federal prosecutors serve the Executive and presidents fire them all the time. Clinton fired 38, right? So what's the big deal? Why should anyone care where the idea originally came from - whether it's Harriet Miers or Karl Rove - what does it matter? Where's the beef?

It's true that the President has every right to hire and fire federal prosecutors at anytime. It's very unusual for them to be fired mid term. Typically federal prosecutors are fired at the beginning of a new Presidential term. Clinton fired all the old Republican federal prosecutors from the first Bush administration and replaced them with Democrat prosecutors when he came into power. That's usually how it goes.

The legal issue here is perjury, and Gonzales trying to get around Congressional approval of the new prosecutors. Gonzales told Congress that the firings weren't politically motivated. Also from the emails it looks like Gonzales was trying to circumvent Congressional approval of the new prosecutors, who replaced the 8.

Gonzales knew that if he went before Congress for the new prosecutors approval, Congress would look into why the old prosecutors were fired. Gonzales couldn't tell Congress that they were replaced because some of them were investigating other Republicans, Jack Abramoff or that Rove's buddy needed a job, or that 5 of the new prosecutors had been disbarred, etc.... so Rove, or Gonzales, or Myers made up a story that they were fired for performance reasons.

That's the rub.

[Chuckit]

As I said in the other thread, I wasn't really interested in this before. But Bush's suggestion here is so outlandish, it actually makes him seem guilty.

[subego]

I hadn't seen this offer...

Does anyone find it ironic that they drag out the "I'm the President and can do whatever the **** I want! Ha, ha! Suck my ****!" justification now, when they could have just used that in the first place and made this a non-starter?

[OldManMac]

I'm certainly no Bush fan, although I don't hate him like some here suggest, but the more he stalls and says he won't allow Rove, et. al., to go before Congress under oath, the guiltier it makes him look. It certainly makes him look like someone underneath him has something to hide, and that should raise a red flag the size of the state of Texas. This latest offer, of Rove and Gone-zales going before Congress, but not under oath, and no transcription of what they say, is utter nonsense, and I would say the same if it were a Democratic administration! It's time to clean the garbage out of the nation's capitol.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It's not a question of what he's guilty of, that list is long enough. It's a question of what isn't he guilty of?

I don't know. The last time I checked, an accusation did not a guilty person make. What has he been convicted of again? Or, is it ok for us to throw out the constitution (as so many seem to think Bush is doing) and just assume that he is guilty without due process?

I'd like to know how you can defend and stand up for someone who has destroyed so much?

I'm not defending Bush, I am Offended by the constant rabid, politically motivated yammering by those in power in opposition to him, who are themselves just as politically motivated. People like you are just as guilty of sucking up the lies and spin that the left dishes out about Bush as those who are accused of being Bush apologists.

Your reply is typical of the Right and small children, you both try and get away with anything you can while no one is looking. While that was true when the Republican rubber stamp Congress was in office, it's not true now.

And your posts are typical of those on the left who oppose this President without actual rational thought. Your statement; "you both try and get away with anything you can while no one is looking." is rather partisan and naive. This is a trait of politicians, left, right and everyone in between. BTW, I'm not on the right, I choose to occupy the pivot.

As far as the pleasure aspect, I will enjoy watching Bush sweat it out. For as much pain and suffering that man has caused this country and the world, his political discomfort is nothing as to what he has caused.

If you truly believe that he is guilty of these things then you should be very sad, because little or nothing is going to come of all this political grandstanding. I think that we've gotten to the point where it is nearly impossible in the current political climate to actually get something of substance done about ANYTHING. Please, stop fooling yourself. This and everything else your party is foaming at the mouth about right now is about ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY…2008.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It's time to clean the garbage out of the nation's capitol.

That would mean sacking everyone.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That would mean sacking everyone.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That would mean sacking everyone.

No, it would not. You're assertion that it would is just as naive as those who assert that only their side can do no evil, while the other is pure evil. There are politicians who do a reasonable job and who aren't corrupted by the garbage that comes out of the leadership of both parties, and who vote their conscience. Saying that everyone needs to go would be no different than me telling you that everyone that does what you do for a living is corrupt and dishonest, which obviously isn't the case. It's much easier to extrapolate to some bad apples in the whole bushel, and throw the bushel out, than it is to pick through the bushel and throw the bad apples out. You've apparently fallen for the sensationalistic news media's spin, which causes otherwise rational people to run around like maniacs, extrapolating what they hear to everything concerning the subject at hand, because it's easier than getting at the truth. As an example, every time a youngster gets abducted or turns up missing, people work themselves into a lather and pressure their congressmen to enact some new law to "prevent" this from happening again in the future, without anyone bothering to check that the truth is that child abductions have declined steadily in the last decade, and high school shootings are a rare occurence. The same applies to news about politicians, lawyers, teachers, and any number of other professions. There are bad politicians, policemen, lawyers, doctors, etc., but the majority try do an honest job. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone castigating what you do for a living as being dishonest and corrupt, just because there are some in your field who may be so. People need to stop being sensationalistic for the sake of convenience, and simply to satisfy their egos.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

No, it would not. You're assertion that it would is just as naive as those who assert that only their side can do no evil, while the other is pure evil. There are politicians who do a reasonable job and who aren't corrupted by the garbage that comes out of the leadership of both parties, and who vote their conscience. Saying that everyone needs to go would be no different than me telling you that everyone that does what you do for a living is corrupt and dishonest, which obviously isn't the case. It's much easier to extrapolate to some bad apples in the whole bushel, and throw the bushel out, than it is to pick through the bushel and throw the bad apples out. You've apparently fallen for the sensationalistic news media's spin, which causes otherwise rational people to run around like maniacs, extrapolating what they hear to everything concerning the subject at hand, because it's easier than getting at the truth. As an example, every time a youngster gets abducted or turns up missing, people work themselves into a lather and pressure their congressmen to enact some new law to "prevent" this from happening again in the future, without anyone bothering to check that the truth is that child abductions have declined steadily in the last decade, and high school shootings are a rare occurence. The same applies to news about politicians, lawyers, teachers, and any number of other professions. There are bad politicians, policemen, lawyers, doctors, etc., but the majority try do an honest job. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone castigating what you do for a living as being dishonest and corrupt, just because there are some in your field who may be so. People need to stop being sensationalistic for the sake of convenience, and simply to satisfy their egos.

Ahem…

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

No, it would not. You're assertion that it would is just as naive as those who assert that only their side can do no evil, while the other is pure evil.

It was an exaggeration, a joke. Jeez lay off the coffee.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You've apparently fallen for the sensationalistic news media's spin, which causes otherwise rational people to run around like maniacs, extrapolating what they hear to everything concerning the subject at hand, because it's easier than getting at the truth.

On the contrary, I pay very little attention to these people at all.

As an example, every time a youngster gets abducted or turns up missing, people work themselves into a lather and pressure their congressmen to enact some new law to "prevent" this from happening again in the future, without anyone bothering to check that the truth is that child abductions have declined steadily in the last decade, and high school shootings are a rare occurence.

You've apparently missed my posts about how people seem to be pathologically inclined to "do something" about everything. Usually to the detriment of our society.

I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate someone castigating what you do for a living as being dishonest and corrupt

Perhaps.

People need to stop being sensationalistic…simply to satisfy their egos.

Like posting knee-jerk rants in the form of a hideous, long-winded, "run-on" paragraph? I couldn't agree more.

[monkeybrain]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I always find it interesting that "Watergate" is always brought up. That was like, 35 years and 6 Presidents ago, move on already.

I think you read to much into how people use this term. Even in the UK we make comparisons of scandal's with Watergate: "This is Blair's Watergate" etc. This is even though most Brits don't know anything about Watergate, or even what party Nixon was a part of. It has become a yardstick for comparing political scandals, and should not be judged to imply comment on the original Watergate.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

It's not that he shouldn't be able to fire prosecutors. It's that he fired prosecuters because he felt they weren't investigating Democrats enough.

..which is sufficient to legally fire them. He doesn't have to have a reason to fire them at all. Bush is warning them, because he knows and they know that this is something that would be covered under executive privilege. Especially since they don't have evidence that anyone did anything illegal.

This is nothing but a negative PR campaign over a tempest in a teapot.

The prosecutors said there was no wrong doing, Bush said not good enough, and fired them. This is not kosher and is exactly what Nixon did when he was being investigated, hence the Watergate comparisons.

BZZT. The guys who were sacked weren't investigating him, and there's nothing not "kosher" about getting rid of attorneys, especially ones who refused to prosecute criminal behavior that the Justice Department prioritized, as the guys fired did.

Sorry. You're going to have to find better scandals that "Libby Lied" or "Bush Fired Bums" to get him out of office. Watergate, it ain't.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

People testified to Congress that the firings weren't political.

Since it is now apparent that they are, this makes that perjury.

I'm still waiting to hear how it was "apparent". The guys in question refused to prosecute cases that where prioritized by the Justice Department. I guess it's "apparent" because ONE was ALSO investigating a Republican. Some evidence of perjury you got there!

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Interesting and telling that you would find pleasure in what you believe Bush to be guilty of.

Watching Bush squirm? Bring the popcorn.

(Nice sig btw kobi)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

I think you read to much into how people use this term. Even in the UK we make comparisons of scandal's with Watergate: "This is Blair's Watergate" etc. This is even though most Brits don't know anything about Watergate, or even what party Nixon was a part of. It has become a yardstick for comparing political scandals, and should not be judged to imply comment on the original Watergate.

The word "Watergate" has pretty much come to mean "political scandal". Republicans are guilty of it as well, of course, comparing Clinton's Whitewater issue with Watergate. Apparently, they only complain about it when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Dork.]

I don't want to wade through the knee-deep partianship in the other thread, so lets hope it doesn't pile up so much here.

I understand why Bush is making a big deal about not having his people testify under oath about this -- it's a matter of Executive Privlege, and traditionally members of the Cabinet who are confirmed by Congress (like Gonzalez) have a different relationship with Congress than Presidential aides who so not have to be confirmed (like Rove). Bush is trying to continue the precedent that these aides should not be subject to Congressional scrutiny, because it could result in these aides getting subpoenaed whenever the Executive does something Congress doesn't like. And IMHO, there should be some deference given to these personal advisors (Yes, even Rove), because anything they say will be misconstrued and twisted by the other side.

But even though I think some of the firings were under questionable circumstances, you can't get away from the fact that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and that the wonderful Patriot Act enabled the President to appoint replacements without Congressional oversight. The whole process was perfectly legal. We should be asking why Congress ceded so much power to the President. Either they're inept and didn't read the damn thing before passing it. or they knew exactly what they were doing and knowingly gave Bush the authority to derail any investigation he didn't like by sacking the prosecutor without having to confirm a replacement.

Those of you who are salivating at the thought of impeaching Bush (and I don't like the man myself) need to settle down, because he didn't do a single thing that was illegal. Congress gave him the authority to do it, and the damage is already done. It's likely the Abramoff scandal was far worse than the few prosecutions we've seen, but now we'll never know because the investigations were terminated along with those attorney's jobs. It makes you wonder what else is in the PATRIOT act that will screw over the American People.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kobi 

It looks like this is going to be Bush's watergate.

I've heard this being said about 10 different instances about Bush over the years.

I'm going to love watching him go down, slowly but surely it's happening.

That says more about YOU than it does Bush.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Interesting and telling that you would find pleasure in what you believe Bush to be guilty of.

Indeed. Even when Saddam was finally brought to justice I found no pleasure in hearing about it. As a matter of fact, I don't think I watched any TV or read any news pages that or the next day.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That would mean sacking everyone.

I should be crying, but that never gets old.

[kobi]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Please, stop fooling yourself. This and everything else your party is foaming at the mouth about right now is about ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY…2008.

I fully agree. This is about the future of America. Everything that is being investigated right now in Congress is about 2008 and the years beyond that. That something that obviously you don't understand. What this administration has done to this country and the world is going to take some time to make right. That is why the Democrats hold power in both Congress and the Senate, most americans are sick and tired of situations like this. BTW You'll see bigger Democratic gains in the 2008 elections. What you call "political grandstanding" is what most of us on planet Earth call investigations.

With Bush's first congress he had a rubber stamp, anything that he said or did wasn't questioned. The store was open, but nobody was watching it.

Now that the Dems are in power and now that he can't get away with anything, Bush is acting like Baby Huey. He's stomping his feet and crying and trying to pull executive privilege; it's not going to work this time.

You can claim that your not on the Right all you want, but with all the projecting and spinning that you do in your posts it hard to tell that your anything but from the right. At least stand up for any issue instead of spinning it into a "I am Offended by the constant rabid, politically motivated yammering by those in power in opposition to him, who are themselves just as politically motivated." BS speech.

Next.

[Chuckit]

I'm not sure what "side" people think I'm on, but I agree with smacintush that to believe the Republicans are all these evil tyrants while the Democrats are these plucky heroes is ignoring obvious fact: It's not Democrats and Republicans in Washington, it's politicians and politicians. You have not magically managed to select the one political party in the world that tends to do things because they are right rather than because they help perpetuate that party's power. If the Democrats believed that challenging Bush on this issue would make them more likely to lose in 2008, you know they'd be keeping quiet.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

I fully agree. This is about the future of America. Everything that is being investigated right now in Congress is about 2008 and the years beyond that. That something that obviously you don't understand. What this administration has done to this country and the world is going to take some time to make right. That is why the Democrats hold power in both Congress and the Senate, most americans are sick and tired of situations like this.

You're delusional. Democrats have a slim hold on power because:
A. There were a number of incumbent Republicans last election who had ethical problems in states that are strong Republican and seldom go Democrat and probably won't in the future.
B. The party opposite the President normally DOES win a lot of seats in the preceding election. The only time this really hasn't happened in recent times was in 94

You'd have some credibility with your idea that people are sick of Presidents apponting their political favorites to political positions if the previous administration had somehow been any better, and not have gotten elected twice as well. You're hoping and projecting that a pissing contest will make your guys look good and the other guys look bad, when in fact both parties will come out with piss all over themselves.

Now that the Dems are in power and now that he can't get away with anything, Bush is acting like Baby Huey. He's stomping his feet and crying and trying to pull executive privilege; it's not going to work this time.

Then you know nothing about the law and how executive privledge works. It most certainly WILL work because the Presidents advisors do not answer to Congress, they answer to the President and how they advise him on who to appoint to political appointments - even if it's a matter of them putting their guys in and the others out - is most definitely covered under exec. privldege. Unless they can find that Rove or any of the others involved that they want to supoena have engaged in criminal activity, and so far they haven't even alledged any, they aren't going to be able to get the Supreme Court to side with them. The White House knows this, and this is why they are so forcefully calling their bluff.

Sorry to disappoint.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

I think you read to much into how people use this term. Even in the UK we make comparisons of scandal's with Watergate: "This is Blair's Watergate" etc. This is even though most Brits don't know anything about Watergate, or even what party Nixon was a part of. It has become a yardstick for comparing political scandals, and should not be judged to imply comment on the original Watergate.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The word "Watergate" has pretty much come to mean "political scandal". Republicans are guilty of it as well, of course, comparing Clinton's Whitewater issue with Watergate.

Yes, I know. I think this is a tradition started by the press. They call everything "watergate". I just don't like it. Oh well…

Apparently, they only complain about it when the shoe is on the other foot.

Am I a "they"? I don't think I have heard anyone else make the same complaint.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by monkeybrain 

You can claim that your not on the Right all you want, but with all the projecting and spinning that you do in your posts it hard to tell that your anything but from the right.

It's ok, I don't mind. I have been arguing for the right much more than I do for the left for some time now. I guess the irrational, political hatred of the left inspires an irrational reaction in me. From an emotional standpoint, if I must be mistaken for one side or the other then I would prefer to be associated with right over the miserable, self-loathing negativity of the left.

At least stand up for any issue instead of spinning it into a "I am Offended by the constant rabid, politically motivated yammering by those in power in opposition to him, who are themselves just as politically motivated." BS speech.

Hmmm… I thought I did.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't want to wade through the knee-deep partianship in the other thread, so lets hope it doesn't pile up so much here.

I understand why Bush is making a big deal about not having his people testify under oath about this -- it's a matter of Executive Privlege, and traditionally members of the Cabinet who are confirmed by Congress (like Gonzalez) have a different relationship with Congress than Presidential aides who so not have to be confirmed (like Rove). Bush is trying to continue the precedent that these aides should not be subject to Congressional scrutiny, because it could result in these aides getting subpoenaed whenever the Executive does something Congress doesn't like. And IMHO, there should be some deference given to these personal advisors (Yes, even Rove), because anything they say will be misconstrued and twisted by the other side.

But even though I think some of the firings were under questionable circumstances, you can't get away from the fact that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and that the wonderful Patriot Act enabled the President to appoint replacements without Congressional oversight. The whole process was perfectly legal. We should be asking why Congress ceded so much power to the President. Either they're inept and didn't read the damn thing before passing it. or they knew exactly what they were doing and knowingly gave Bush the authority to derail any investigation he didn't like by sacking the prosecutor without having to confirm a replacement.

Those of you who are salivating at the thought of impeaching Bush (and I don't like the man myself) need to settle down, because he didn't do a single thing that was illegal. Congress gave him the authority to do it, and the damage is already done. It's likely the Abramoff scandal was far worse than the few prosecutions we've seen, but now we'll never know because the investigations were terminated along with those attorney's jobs. It makes you wonder what else is in the PATRIOT act that will screw over the American People.

If this really is all legal and within boundaries of executive privilege and all that (which I don't disagree with), what's with all the secrecy? Why don't they just come out and say that they fired the prosecutors because they don't share the same political philosophy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm not sure what "side" people think I'm on, but I agree with smacintush that to believe the Republicans are all these evil tyrants while the Democrats are these plucky heroes is ignoring obvious fact: It's not Democrats and Republicans in Washington, it's politicians and politicians. You have not magically managed to select the one political party in the world that tends to do things because they are right rather than because they help perpetuate that party's power. If the Democrats believed that challenging Bush on this issue would make them more likely to lose in 2008, you know they'd be keeping quiet.

I agree! They all feed from the same trough, and that is a part of the problem.

[besson3c]

I always chuckle when I see some local protesters with signs that say "impeach Bush!"... Nice to shoot for the stars, but how about a slightly more modest goal?

Besides, he's basically done anyway...

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If this really is all legal and within boundaries of executive privilege and all that (which I don't disagree with), what's with all the secrecy? Why don't they just come out and say that they fired the prosecutors because they don't share the same political philosophy?

Because not only is that not politically expedient, but you've conflated two issues here.

Issue #1 is whether or not what the President and the Justice Department did was illegal. Thanks to the Patriot Act, it was not. Perhaps unethical, but not illegal. And even under the old rules, there's nothing preventing the President from firing prosecutors, but their replacements would have to be confirmed, and I'm sure the issue of why the first guy was let go would come up in the hearing. Under the old rules, it would be legal, but politically damaging. The new rules (which are about to be specifically repealed, BTW) enabled the President to do it quietly, without any oversight whatsoever.

Issue #2 is whether or not Congress ought to compel the President's advisors to testify. Whether or not they did anything wrong, I think the President is right to complain about that Congress is doing. It is quite easy for Congress to hamstring a President they don't like by continually investigating him until they find something that sticks -- I think the Republicans know all about that tactic. Since his advisors are not confirmed by Congress, subpoenaing them can be construed to be like subpoenaing the President himself, which would be an interesting constitutional problem indeed. (And one that we don't want to pursue, lest we get lectured on what "is" means again.) I would argue that the secrecy among his close advisors is actually necessary for the President to do his job correctly, and should only be compromised when it's clear that someone has broken the law in office.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I always chuckle when I see some local protesters with signs that say "impeach Bush!"... Nice to shoot for the stars, but how about a slightly more modest goal?

Besides, he's basically done anyway...

All the cars I've seen with "Impeach Bush' bumoer stickers now have "01-20-2009" stickers....

[Dakar²]

Ugh, thankfully I haven't seen those yet.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I always chuckle when I see some local protesters with signs that say "impeach Bush!"... Nice to shoot for the stars, but how about a slightly more modest goal?

Shouts & Murmurs: The Wisdom of Children: Humor: The New Yorker

[Dakar²]

Very McSweenyish.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Ugh, thankfully I haven't seen those yet.

01.20.09 Bush's Last Day Buttons, Magnets, Decals, Hats, Mugs and Bumperstickers, T-shirts and Countdown Clocks

They also sell these....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Because not only is that not politically expedient, but you've conflated two issues here.

Issue #1 is whether or not what the President and the Justice Department did was illegal. Thanks to the Patriot Act, it was not. Perhaps unethical, but not illegal. And even under the old rules, there's nothing preventing the President from firing prosecutors, but their replacements would have to be confirmed, and I'm sure the issue of why the first guy was let go would come up in the hearing. Under the old rules, it would be legal, but politically damaging. The new rules (which are about to be specifically repealed, BTW) enabled the President to do it quietly, without any oversight whatsoever.

Issue #2 is whether or not Congress ought to compel the President's advisors to testify. Whether or not they did anything wrong, I think the President is right to complain about that Congress is doing. It is quite easy for Congress to hamstring a President they don't like by continually investigating him until they find something that sticks -- I think the Republicans know all about that tactic. Since his advisors are not confirmed by Congress, subpoenaing them can be construed to be like subpoenaing the President himself, which would be an interesting constitutional problem indeed. (And one that we don't want to pursue, lest we get lectured on what "is" means again.) I would argue that the secrecy among his close advisors is actually necessary for the President to do his job correctly, and should only be compromised when it's clear that someone has broken the law in office.

I meant what is up with the secrecy now - now that all of this has been brought to the fore, people are all worked up, etc.? There is nothing left to be kept secret as far as the president being able to do his job since this has been exposed to daylight. Why don't they just admit that this was about politics and be done with it, at this point? All of the shifting and squirming is only making things worse for themselves, no?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Besides, he's basically done anyway...

People will probably continue to complain about Bush and blame him for all that is wrong for as long as people have complained about Clinton and blamed him for all that is wrong. It's nice to have scapegoats.

[besson3c]

I'm also happy, in a way, that the patriot act is being challenged in this way, although I'm not sure about how far to exploit this particular medium. Like Dork. said, the bill was passed, although with a house and senate controlled by the Republicans. Maybe it is time to challenge the patriot act, but why not do so in a more direct way that would address the broader picture?

[stupendousman]

^ What Dork Said.

If the Democrats want to spend their legislative time with what will clearly be a fruitless investigation and after all the hooha without much to show for the CIA "leak" situation, they're going to have a hard time making a credible claim that they are doing important work for "the people" (other than their Bush hating constituency) with their time.

...and it appears that the Bush Administration has upped the ante by telling them if they go ahead and issue the supoenas (instead of just authorizing them), they won't get SQUAT. No private interviews, no nothing. Bush just called their bluff, then swatted them on the nose. Don't think that the guys in charge don't know that Bush is the one in the position of strength here, since this is clearly a valid executive privledge exception.

Now, if you want to see what happens when the executive branch bluffs, you have to go no further back than the Clinton administration. Congress was going to supeona documents related to an investigation into illegal meetings and the White House counsel Jack Guinn said not to, or they'd fight it via executive privledge. Of course, what they were trying to protect wasn't something that would be covered - the documents showed that they had in their possession (and knew it) thousdands of raw FBI files on their political enemies. They stonewalled until it became clear that they'd actually have to falsely claim executive privledge, then finally relented once they had their story straight that it was some goof they'd hired and no one else knew anything about it (forget the fact that higher-ups stonewalled for months and knew the files where there). On the other hand, executive privledge was designed specifically for what Bush is now doing in calling their bluff.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

People will probably continue to complain about Bush and blame him for all that is wrong for as long as people have complained about Clinton and blamed him for all that is wrong. It's nice to have scapegoats.

Well, people love those loaded, emotional statements, but it actually will take several years to repair many of the mistakes this administration has made - foreign policy, balancing budget, scientific/social issues, education, etc.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

01.20.09 Bush's Last Day Buttons, Magnets, Decals, Hats, Mugs and Bumperstickers, T-shirts and Countdown Clocks

They also sell these....

Looks like something a nerd would use waiting for a Star Wars movie to open.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

^ What Dork Said.

If the Democrats want to spend their legislative time with what will clearly be a fruitless investigation and after all the hooha without much to show for the CIA "leak" situation, they're going to have a hard time making a credible claim that they are doing important work for "the people" (other than their Bush hating constituency) with their time.

...and it appears that the Bush Administration has upped the ante by telling them if they go ahead and issue the supoenas (instead of just authorizing them), they won't get SQUAT. No private interviews, no nothing. Bush just called their bluff, then swatted them on the nose. Don't think that the guys in charge don't know that Bush is the one in the position of strength here, since this is clearly a valid executive privledge exception.

Now, if you want to see what happens when the executive branch bluffs, you have to go no further back than the Clinton administration. Congress was going to supeona documents related to an investigation into illegal meetings and the White House counsel Jack Guinn said not to, or they'd fight it via executive privledge. Of course, what they were trying to protect wasn't something that would be covered - the documents showed that they had in their possession (and knew it) thousdands of raw FBI files on their political enemies. They stonewalled until it became clear that they'd actually have to falsely claim executive privledge, then finally relented once they had their story straight that it was some goof they'd hired and no one else knew anything about it (forget the fact that higher-ups stonewalled for months and knew the files where there). On the other hand, executive privledge was designed specifically for what Bush is now doing in calling their bluff.

I agree, but this is about 2008, and bringing all off these unsettling issues to the fore. It's been FAR FAR too long where these sorts of issues have been kept from the public, I look forward to other Democratic attempts to force accountability, so long as these issues actually are of concern to the public and not just political hatchet work.

I think that the idea of these legislators not having checks and balances of confirmation *is* unsettling to the public, at least to me or any other person naturally distrusting of the government and desiring as many checks and balances as possible.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Looks like something a nerd would use waiting for a Star Wars movie to open.

I've attached one of these to my nose!

You're a nerd, nerd.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've attached one of these to my nose!

You're a nerd, nerd.

You're not the first man who Hillary is leading around by the nose, I suspect....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You're not the first man who Hillary is leading around by the nose, I suspect....

Or the butt.