You Can't Always Get What You Want

[Lanya]

But if you try sometimes....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Editorial
What People Really Need

   Published: March 21, 2007

In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that “people just need to hear the truth” about the firing of eight United States attorneys. That’s right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for “interviews” did not come close to meeting that standard.

Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.

The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.

Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials’ statements to Congress, which may have been untrue. It needs to question Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s chief political adviser, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials.

It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed.

The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton’s high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.

The Bush administration is trying to hide behind the doctrine of “executive privilege.” That term does not appear in the Constitution; the best Mr. Bush could do yesterday was a stammering reference to the separate branches of government. When presidents have tried to invoke this privilege, the courts have been skeptical. President Richard Nixon tried to withhold the Watergate tapes, but a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against him.

It is no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress. This is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government. Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled.

That would not be “partisanship,” as Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe. It would be Congress doing its job by holding the president and his team accountable — a rare thing in the last six years.

[BT]

Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public.

Haven't they? Why not?

[hnumpah]

Maybe, in the spirit of bipartisanship that the republicans have been crying for since they lost the majority, they wanted to give the parties involved the chance to voluntarily come in and explain their actions, and avoid all that partisan infighting that comes once subpoenas are issued.

Say, a kinder, gentler Democratic Congress?

[Mucho]

Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public.

Haven't they? Why not?

Patience my always wrong friend. They will in the fullness of time I am sure. They just need to let the Bushidiot step on his dick a few more times.

[Lanya]

Judiciary Committee to Issue Subpoenas for Rove, Miers, Sampson and Others
March 21st, 2007

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/

[BT]

Blowback

Last night as I finally made my way back to the Sunshine State, I watched President Bush’s press conference in its entirety. At first I thought, “He doesn’t even care anymore.” The president was unusually feisty. But he was also charmless. I can’t remember any other time in his administration when he’s made a public appearance and been so utterly indifferent to looking and acting nice.


And then I thought, “Shrewd.”


The president understands that, political obsessives aside, no one really cares about this U.S. Attorney thing. Regardless of the reason for the firings, even if it was a low one like the president didn’t like who the terminees were or weren’t prosecuting, he was within his right to fire them. (Impeding a federal investigation is another matter, but even my rabid friends on the left haven’t accused him of that.) Just as my petulant cleaning lady who’s apparently allergic to dusting serves at my pleasure, they serve at his pleasure. Just like me, he may swing the axe any time he likes. In short, there’s no Constitutional crisis to see here – just move along.


But the president understands something about these Democrats who now sit on Capitol Hill. They were elected with a narrow agenda – Get Bush!!! And if you can’t get Bush, be damn sure to get Rove!


Partisan witch-hunts are to be the order of the day. The president also understands that the American public is predisposed to dislike Congress. What’s more, this Congress, once its true colors show, will be uniquely unpopular. Already, Gallup has Congress’ approval numbers sinking to the level the Republican Congress sat at before the November calamity.


SO WHY NOT PICK A FIGHT WITH CONGRESS? Drag the bloody affair out. Let the battle rage so long that it becomes apparent that the only thing this Congress cares about is partisan warfare. What’s best about this little plan is it involves a freak side show in which the performers are Karl Rove and Harriet Miers. It doesn’t involve matters of real consequence such as the war.


So how will it play out? I hate to say it, but Glenn Greenwald is right. The president’s invocation of executive privilege given this set of circumstances is weak. When the matter goes to court, the administration will likely lose. But big deal. The more protracted the affair is, the more apparent it will become that the Democrats’ entire agenda has been reduced to pursuing Karl Rove.


Let me be clear – while the Democrats have the right to subpoena Rove and Miers, that doesn’t mean they should, either ethically or morally. Theoretically, as congressmen, they have important things to do. Attempting to paralyze the government by conducting a craven fishing expedition shouldn’t be their top priority. But it is.


For my friend JG who loves my historical analogies, I’ll provide one that he’ll particularly enjoy. A certain portion of the Republican Party devoted an inordinate amount of energy to “getting” Bill Clinton in the 1990’s. At the time, I cheered these efforts. I remain an aficionado on obscure Whitewater trivia to this day. Ask me “Who is Webb Hubbell?” and I can refer you to several Wall Street Journal editorials on the matter.


But I was wrong then, and so was the Republican Party. Especially after seizing Congress in 1994, it would have been much better if we had focused on matters of high import rather than our feckless president and his wicked, wicked ways.


I make this confession not as an offering of atonement that will serve as a plea to the left to go easy on my president. Quite the contrary - let the Waxmans and Dingells and Conyers come out with all their guns blazing. What we did in the 90’s was dreadful politics, all of which accrued to Clinton’s advantage. And the course they’re embarking on now is dreadful politics.


They ran on a platform of changing Washington. Instead, they’re simply going to indulge their own hostility and hatred, while abandoning any pretense of having a constructive agenda. I plan on enjoying the spectacle.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/370a699c-678e-452b-a4a5-75356807a709

[sirs]

Blowback......They ran on a platform of changing Washington. Instead, they’re simply going to indulge their own hostility and hatred, while abandoning any pretense of having a constructive agenda. I plan on enjoying the spectacle.

That sums things up nicely now, doesn't it

[BT]

Doing the will of the people

Congressional Job Approval   Poll Date                  Approve          Disapprove     Spread
RCP Average                      03/02 - 03/14           30.8%              58.3%          -27.5%


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

[Lanya]

Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now -- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era

By E&P Staff

Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET

NEW YORK With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.

Glenn Greenwald, who now blogs for Salon, has located a Snow column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from March 29, 1998, back in his days as a newspaper pundit. Snow wrote then:

"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.

"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.

"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003560724

[BT]

Posted by: Lanya    blah blah blah......

Yeah the grownups are in charge allright.

Wasn't it Pelosi who promised the this congress would not get bogged down in investigations etc. ? They were more concerned about crafting bills to save the middle class etcs. ?

[Mucho]

Blowback......They ran on a platform of changing Washington. Instead, they’re simply going to indulge their own hostility and hatred, while abandoning any pretense of having a constructive agenda. I plan on enjoying the spectacle.

That sums things up nicely now, doesn't it

Hugh Hewitt is a moron. I remember when he was on LA 's PBS station and made a fool of himself locally . Now he does it nationally. He & his moronic clones think the Congress' poll ratings are as bad as the Pres because they are hard on the poor booboo when in fact the real reason is probly because they are not hard enough on the lunatic.

[Amianthus]

Hugh Hewitt is a moron. I remember when he was on LA 's PBS station and made a fool of himself locally .

Didn't realize that they gave out Emmys for "making a fool of yourself."

[Plane]

"And then I thought, “Shrewd.” "


Hmmmmmm.....


Look Look Look over there !

Look at that molehill!!!!


This is an interesting idea.