(Photo of Sens. Pat Leahy and Russ Feingold via Salon.)
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee did its job. No, not the parlimentary propping up of the Administration tap dance to which we have grown accustomed lo these many years...but some meaty, honest to goodness oversight.
Wherein the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzalez, was sworn in to give testimony under oath, and under threat of perjury for any false repsentations made to Congress -- just like any other witness to the Judiciary Committee would have to be sworn. And then was asked a series of tough, detailed questions to give him an opportuity to explainthe rationale behind actions of the Bush Administration that have been awfully close, shallwe say, to the illegality line...if not crossing it outright.
It's tough to know for certain, considering how little fact-gathering and oversight has actually been done for the past six years, and all, but I'm hopeful that some day -- and this always seems to happen that someone starts talking and then all the worms start spilling out of the bait can, doesn't it? -- we'll get the entire story. Until then, there are a whole lot of rocks to uncover and a whole lot of festering, writhing, dark-corner-loving conduct to expose to the sunshine.
Yesterday, Sen. Pat Leahy launched a blistering series of questions and critiques regarding the US treatment of an innocent Canadian man who was whisked to a secret detention facility and subjected to torture for at least a year before they finally released him. Crooks and Liars has the video, and it is well worth the watching.
Leahy: "We knew damn well if he went to Canada he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held and he'd be investigated. We also knew damn well if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured. And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured."
Let me just say this morning, as clearly as I possibly can do so, that I adore Pat Leahy for this one statement alone. But the fact that he, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, set up this hearing and demanded answers? THIS is why I worked my butt off in the last election cycle -- because this is what our nation needs. Robust, honest, fact-based, philosophically examining debate about who we are as a nation -- and how our actions, right or wrong, affect our status in the world around us and speak to what we are, or to whom we wish we were.
If you haven't been following the Arar case, The Reaction blog has. See here, here and here for more information. And our own Selise did a fantastic job of live-blogging yesterday's entire hearing in the comments here. Glenn, as always, does a fantastic job piecing together the ins and outs of the hearing and manages to catch quite a bit of it in live blog yesterday as well (for which I am eternally grateful, having missed most of the hearing on the phone trying to get Jane updates yesterday).
But it isn't just the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's committees all over the Hill, stepping up to the plate to do their jobs. Consider one such committee, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee headed by Henry Waxman of California, dubbed by Karen Tumulty at Time as "the scariest man in Washington." Per Waxman:
The committee has yet to schedule any hearings, but Waxman told Federal Times in an interview last month that his No. 1 priority is to review waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers’ money in order to stop those practices.He said he wants to make sure agencies are doing their jobs in the best interest of the American people.
“Whether it’s the Environmental Protection Agency or the Food and Drug Administration, how are they doing? Are they accomplishing what we want them to accomplish? Are they looking out for the interests of the American people? Or are they serving special interests, which sometimes happens to be the situation,” Waxman said.
And the Senate passed an ethics overhaul yesterday that was pretty far-reaching in terms of shining a whole lot of sunshine on earmarks. (At least, it looks that way in the limited time I've had to read the bill...more later as I get time to nitpick through it.) Sen. Feingold explains why this was pushed through by the Democrats: “Today’s Senate passage of groundbreaking ethics and lobbying reforms was a resounding victory. In November, the American people demanded real change, and the Senate has responded with a strong bill that will bring an end to the status quo. I will continue this fight until these changes become law.”
Ahhh...so they DO remember that they work for us, and not the other way around. Oh yeah, it's January. And the grown-ups are back in charge.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
christy!
JANE!
global warming too
Give us the latest on Jane, please, Christy.
Grown-ups!
was gone most of the day yesterday - news on Jane?
Blessings on Jane - and prayers, can’t get enough of them prayers
The Leahy dressing down of Abu Gonzales for the Maher Arar incident was the leadoff news story on the CBC last night. Lots of sound clips of righteous rage. Very nice.
Canadians are appreciating the moderating influence of the grownups.
..just wanted to point out that the only two senators to vote AGAINST the Senate ethics bill were rethugs Coburn (R-OK) and Hatch (R-LDS)
I want congress to re appoint the judges that were removed, and I want any judge the president wants removed to go through a hearing before he accomplishes his goal which is clearly intended to stop prosecuting the criminals that he happens to like
then I want the patriot act rescinded, and rewritten according to our law and signed on by politicians AFTER they read it not before they read it
Prof at 4 — Well, I would if I had some. But since she’s on West Coast time, and her visitation doesn’t start fo another hour, I don’t have anything new to tell you guys until I hear from Digby or John Amato or someone else who will be in to see her today. Soon as I get anything, you know I’ll share it with everyone.
Alison @ 7
I’m sure it didn’t feel like it to Gonzales, but the Leahy dressing-down felt like a blast of fresh air to me.
“Sen. Feingold explains why this was pushed through by the Democrats: “Today’s Senate passage of groundbreaking ethics and lobbying reforms was a resounding victory. In November, the American people demanded real change, and the Senate has responded with a strong bill that will bring an end to the status quo. I will continue this fight until these changes become law.”
If/when it reaches the pResident’s desk, can we expect a veto?
I’m Peterr, and I approve this message too.
as for global warming, Surge in carbon levels raises fears of runaway warming
(The story is being updated, and the numbers are less than the Guardian first published, but the corrected numbers that I have included above are also quite worrisome.)
Long live Russ Feingold
Christy certainly speaks for me.
thanks.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 10
They have visiting hours? Ah, for the joys of small-city hospitals where you can visit your friends any time.
Oh, I forgot. She is still in ICU, right?
By the way, I may be off on this, but the reason for an 8-hour surgery for breast cancer is not for the cancer itself normally. Rather, Jane talked of reconstructive surgery, which does, indeed, take longer.
Just sayin’, so people aren’t freaked out by the length of the surgery.
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi news conference on cspan2
Prof at 17 — Indeed. She had a wonderful surgical team, which took very, very good care of our Jane. I cannot say enough how grateful I am to them. But it will likely be a wait for the pathology on everything — most likely Monday at the earliest, if then. I say we all take a deep breath, and just be very grateful that the surgery portion of things went so well.
Our Jane is a fighter, and that’s more than half the battle right there.
CNN - Sec. of Def. Gates is back in (southern) Iraq
Prof, thanks for reminding us of the reconstruction part making the surgery so lengthy. Another reason for the length is that they send tissue samples off for preliminary testing to see what exactly they are looking at and they keep the patient under while those tests are being done in case they need to do further tissue removal.
Our news last night had a clip of Leahy with hand raised, demonstrating to Abu (hand raised), teh “how to” of “under oath.”
Even though I have heard Abu in the past saying , “it’s all under oath.” As if the swearing in part is optional, maybe like misrepresenting the potential juror’s prior statements, ala Wells.
Reading the first post this AM, I was thinking that all of the behaviors of this admin are like a bratty child who has never been given any boundaries. Incredible. They all act just like Bush. Not the least, Mr. Truth-to-Tell, on the
electionspolls.January came with a bluster all right.
Wooh! Selise! Leahy!
Boy, that Leahy really mopped the floor with Abu Gonzales, as any sane person *should* do with a Bush apparatchnik.
And of course Jane!
I wish I could agree that the U.S. has “always been a beacon of human rights,” but I think I can overlook that bit of hyperbole in the face of some good old-fashioned Capitol Hill grilling.
perris @
9
Hi Perris,
Don’t think any judges have been forced out, the problem is US Attorneys, as here.
The catch here is that Abu G is now able to appointappointing to ‘fill vacancies’, which is for indefinite terms rather than std 4 years (eg, coincides with Presidential term), and congressional confirmation is not required, as it is for regular presidential appts.
Result: the next admin even if Dem (watch those voting machines, dammit!) will be stuck with permanently appointed BushCo hitmen with subpoena power. They must have prizes for thinking these things up.
The head of the RCMP (”The Mounties”) resigned because he lied to an inquiry about the Mahar Arar fiasco.
Imagine that, a high ranking official taking personal responsibility for their improper actions.
EvilDrPuma @ 25
Well you know the stated goal of some of us idealists.
HotFlash @ 26
ya, that’s what I was talking about, thanx for pointing out I meant attorneys, and especially thanx for pointing out the gravity of what is being done
mui @ 28
And I endorse it fully. As a matter of history, though, the sad truth is that the American government has never been that committed to equal human rights for all.
Redd,
That’s great news on the Senate’s ethics bill. I didn’t get the news yesterday — last I’d heard, McConnell had successfully planted a poison-pill amendment in the bill.
The amendment granted the Shrub a line-item veto on certain spending. New York v. Clinton made it pretty clear that SCOTUS is going to require a constitutional amendment to allow that.
And best wishes to Jane for a speedy recovery. It’s never easy, and going through it a third time? My hat’s off to her!
BC
Pretty decent editorial in NYT on Stimson’s goose-steppingness: “Apology Not Accepted”, linking the whole fiasco directly to shrub.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....9fri2.html
The Times editorial page is just blazing of late.. guess they’re still ticked off about that censorship thing a few weeks ago.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2....._0119.html
Link to the full Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01511.html
Christy Hardin Smith @
10
thank you christy, i’m hanging around the computer this morning waiting for an update. very glad that there are plenty of friends to visit jane today. no matter how good the doctors are, it is helpful to have an advocate around to make sure she is getting enough pain meds and support (at least that has been my experience).
And in any event, we are now a beacon of its abuse.
I have always supported the Salvation Army. But this is outrageous.
The Salvation Army, the second-largest charity in America, is quietly evicting nearly 200 women, many of them elderly and low-income, from a pair of 18-story Manhattan buildings.
http://www.nydailynews.com/fro.....2756c.html
EvilDrPuma @ 30
That’s why we gotta keep plugging. look what the civil rights era folks had to go through. We should do justice to their memory.
– and yet, while we’re cheering for Leahy, Pelosi appears to be back to her old game: “Exclusive: Pelosi Won’t Block Funding to Stop Iraq Troop Surge, Even Though Situation Is a ‘Tragedy’” from ABC News just now.
Wonder what fired NSA employee/willing whistleblower Russell Tice is up to these days?
He was basically shunned by the rubber stampers in the wiretap hearings last spring.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 36
They are also unashamedly homophobic.
Re Jane - I was wondering and hoping that reconstruction was one reason why the surgery was so long. (Yesterday certainly was tense and brought back some bad memories - of my mother having 14 hour laser surgery at Yale New Haven to remove a spinal cord tumor when I was pregnant with my second child and couldn’t be there - the waiting was horrible. And waiting at Children’s Hospital in D.C. while my one year old was having major surgery to correct a stomach valve problem.)
Thank goodness for the many excellent and dedicated surgeons we have in our country (even if many of them could improve their bedside manner)
thingwarbler @ 38
she better
that is not acceptable
From the WaPo story on the Senate’s ethics bill:
This question has been around forever: qui custodiet ipsos custodes? In the vernacular, who watches the watchers? Our Senators and Congresscritters have proven time and again that the answer for Congress is not “an ethics committee composed of sitting members.”
Is it Constitutional Amendment time?
BC
I’m taking a wait-and-see-attitude about what exactly that means, though. Pelosi and Reid both have long employed a tactical approach where they understate their bite right before a political offensive.. They tend to talk bipartisanship and compromise right before they chop your head off. It’s when they promise to chop your head off that they end up just rolling over.
thingwarbler @ 38
dab from CT @ 41
*especially* at Yale New Haven.
EPU’d
rumi @ 152
christine @ 150
Rayne @ 66
christine (63) — oh, certainly that’s a real option.
I think this is the kind of question we should put to a wider blogging audience with technical background, like that on Slashdot. Maybe pose the question: If you were going to park a massive monitoring system offshore, where would you put it? And do you know of any outfit that’s made massive storage and processing buys recently (besides Google)?
————-
Sorry to take so long to reply - work…
Yes, I agree that another forum may be a better place to ask this. But, as a mainframe programmer myself, I know that it wouldn’t take a whole lot to do it. Especially with satellite technology. Servers are getting more powerful by the day, as are mainframes. In case you don’t know, many of the on-line gaming sites have to use mainframes to manage the traffic (volume). Then there’s the servers that are used, and are backups, for places like ebay and netflex. So trying to figure out by finding an outfit that’s bought volume hardware will be extremely tricky, because it’s so common.
—————
Wouldn’t it be easier to just access each entity’s database(archives) when needed and save that accumulated information as a profile for future use?
—————
Actually, it would be a whole lot easier to just do a data xfer on T3 lines. When the credit card info collection bs started up with the Homeland Security Act, most of us programmer types were saying that the CR companies were supposed to scrub their data of ‘identifing info’ most likely wouldn’t happen because it would be ‘too much of an expense’ for the CR companies. The CR companies are most likely doing one of two things: when they create their vault files, they’re just making an extra copy and sending them off to the Pentagon, or second, they gave remote access to their mainframes to the pentagon. The remote access is the scariest option from my point of view.
But, setting up one of these types of operations wouldn’t be conspicious to the outside world. It’d look like a dotcom startup enterprise. Mainframes don’t take up a whole lot of room any more. The mainframe that sent us to the moon fits on an Ipod Nano, or smaller unit now. Serious mainframes talk in terrabytes, not gigabytes and a one terrabyte hard drive is not much bigger than a current laptop machine.
This thread reminds me of poputonian’s post over at Digby’s place earlier this week. Give it a read if you have the time, it is very moving.
Bush is a picture of defeat
The mountain labored and gave birth to a mouse.
The president’s apocalyptic descriptions of Iraq after ”we” leave are transcriptions of neo-conservative memos. The neo-cons are high-level thinkers and brilliant memo writers. They provided the ideas that the president and his aides (none of them high-level thinkers) needed to justify the war. Although many of them are distinguished graduates of the University of Chicago and similar institutions, they seemed to know very little history. None of them anticipated what a cursory reading of Winston Churchill’s book on Iraq would have predicted: the present civil war.
The most pathetic part of the president’s talk was the peroration, a listless reprise of all the neo-con cliches from the last six years: war on terror, enemies who want to destroy our way of life because they fear our freedom, global cultural confrontation, the crucial battle of our time. For motivation to support his “new strategy,” the president had to fall back on the conventional wisdom of talk radio hosts, conservative editorial writers, and the gurus of the Fox network.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/g.....19.article
Blub - I’m with you… Pelosi is very strong on tactics - I’m waiting to see what she does, not what she says… she’s very agile and very shrewd in the way she works.
One of the many jaw dropping moments in yesterday’s hearing was this.
Gonzales:”…the Constitution doesn’t say that every individual in the United States or every citizen is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus. It simply doesn’t say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus will not be suspended.”
Article I, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Can you believe this man is the Attorney General of the United States?
Yawnnn… good morning.
Christy,
Did you catch that email I sent you last night?
-Monk
I caught a bit of the Judiciary Committee hearing on tape on C-Span, which included the questioning by new Democratic Senator, and former United States Attorney, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. The first thing Senator Whitehouse did was to emphasize to Gonzales the chilling effect the administration’s recent unexplained removals of United States Attorneys will have on the remaining USAs and especially on those among them who are prosecuting the technically and otherwise difficult public corruption cases that Carol Lam and others were pursuing (and which Whitehouse had a lot of experience with as well). Very well done for a new senator.
Whitehouse didn’t stop there, though. He proceeded to ask the master of the tactic how a senator should go about getting a straight answer to their direct question, from Executive Branch witnesses who prefer to “bob and weave” instead of answering what was asked (since no judge is present to force them to, as in court)… Gonzales did his best bob and weave to assure Whitehouse that cooperation is his middle name, and that answers in hearings are but one part of that cooperation, etc.
I was impressed - my first sighting of Whitehouse, and he struck me as favorably as Jim Webb did on the Foreign Relations Committee. Whitehouse, like Webb for Foreign Relations and Armed Services, will be a very valuable, competent, and informed member of the Judiciary Committee, and far more of a contributor than his rookie position as a senator would indicate (light years ahead, for example, of Kohl of WI, in my opinion).
OT - CNN - house voted unanimously to overhaul House Page Program. both parties will have equal say in matters concerning the program
Monk at 51 — Not yet, but then I’m wading through a mountain of e-mail this morning. I’m sure I’ll find it at some point…
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 33
Cheney knows about the BS in Washington firsthand, yes? Seeing that he spreads it nearly as freely as Abu Gonzales and Tony Snowjob? [snark, but I couldn’t resist]
Someone needs to pin him down on the difference between an election and a poll: Darth seems to think they’re interchangeable.
Any word on when the intelligence report is going to come out? I’d like it soon, but I’m willing to wait until after Libby is convicted, just so they can’t say it had an impact on the trial.
old gold @ 50
In modo snarko:
But the word “right” isn’t there, Old Gold. Habeas corpus isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. The words are right there in the text.
If it was a right, it would have been in the Bill O’Rights? Right?
In modo sane-o:
Obviously, Abu’s understanding of history is shallow. Habeas corpus was considered so important by the Convention that it was included in the text of the original document. How did that clown get into law school?
BC
Prof @ 3
Exxon’s solution to global warming: spin and do nothing (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1985327,00.html)…
In an article in the NYT entitled “U.S. General Expects Troop Increase to End by Summer”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....r=homepage
Idiot or liar? You choose. Somehow the headline misses that little caveat I put in bold. Casey by the way will be the new Army Chief of Staff, a case of promoting somebody upward because you don’t know what else to do with them. It is also so Bush Administration.
OT:
Ney got 30 months.
old gold @ 50
One can only, then, interpret Abu’s comments as saying that we are facing a rebellion or an invasion at the present time… the invasion of pinko libruls and their blogs, perhaps.
old gold @ 50
More General than Attorney, IMHO. As Jonathan Turley said on KO on Wednesday,
Bringing back the grownups was such a nice idea. We really ought to have more of them in DC, don’t you think?
HotFlash @
26
the prize most probably goes to david addington. this action has his creepy fingerprints all over it ……
catching up….
[gotta see scarecrow’s prev…]
Jane is in my thoughts.
Here’s how he opens his chat today [couple min left there; gotta get cspan steaming for NPC.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01288.html
and MA-02 Neal (D):
local:
http://www.masslive.com/chicop.....amp;coll=1
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277275.stm
Natives are restless. YAY!
edit: streamed Judiciary late last night. It was gorgeous. Hope Leahy is talking w/Conyers is all I can say. oh. Maybe I can say the ‘I’ word…Impeach.
That’s better.
perris, thingwarbler — we’re over a barrel right now, because Bush called up those troops for the surge BEFORE the 110th Congress began its work.
Somewhere between SecDef Rumsfeld’s departure/SecDef Gates’ approval, and the alleged signing of a secret executive order for direct action against Syria and Iran, the plans for 20K-plus troops were hatched and set in motion. When Bush gave his speech, it was a done deal.
This is why Bush did not respond to the ISG’s recommendations; he’d already set the escalation in motion.
WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.
If Pelosi and/or Reid were to come out and say they were cutting funding to troops already in the field, whether deployed legally or not, it would be havoc for those troops. What needs to happen right now is to change the the deployment, and that can’t be done with a change to funding alone. We need to change the AUMF and ban action against any other nation in the Middle East without clear and present danger. The change needs to be written in such a way that the DoD can be held in contempt if they violate the change, no matter whether Dubya is the CinC. Heck, make violation of the change jointly and separately punishable, with upper most officers of DoD and the CinC liable for any violation.
Did Leahy ever get his “number” after lunch?
kristinejoy @ 59
OT:
Ney got 30 months.
That sounds about right. It’s a long time for someone who’s never done time.
Those first few holidays spent locked down, as opposed to being spent with family and friends, hurt - a lot.
Yes, apparently Gonzales reads the Constitution this way: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus [IF IT EXISTS] shall not be suspended, except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Well, he is consistent. He not opposed to torturing prisoners or the language of the Constitution.
old gold @ 50
Gonzalez is here using “strict constructionism” as a crutch to distort an authorial intent that has never been questioned in 218 years, and he should be smacked silly for having the unmitigated gall to pull such a pointless stunt.
From a new diary at DailyKos by ‘Troutfishing’:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....112219/912
Is it too much to ask for the Attorney General of the United States of America to familiarize himself with the governing documents of the nation?
Harvard Law School must be so proud. Any Harvard alums around here might want to make their pride known to the Harvard Alumni Office the next time they ask for a donation.
How far off can this be? *wink
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....under.html
Also in the NYT is an article entitled “Perhaps Thinking of Legacy, Bush Has Rice on the Move”. OK, it’s a stupid title. Bush’s legacy is Iraq, period. The article conveys the following meme couched as insight.
Bush et al are going to do this anyway but let’s be clear. It was Bush who lost Iraq and it has already happened. You don’t blame the cleaning crew who comes in to clean up after a wild frat party. You blame the frat boys, in this case, the frat boy in chief. As I said above, Iraq is Bush’s legacy.
The article does end on an unintentionally comic note:
Condi has a reputation? Who knew?
SWEET!!
I wanna see Leahy and Feingold take turns kickin Abu in the nuts until his nose bleeds.
[CHS notes: In the metaphorical, rhetorical sense, I’m certain, since we don’t advocate any physical violence on this blog. Thanks.]
EvilDrPuma @ 69
Is he really, Dr. P? I thought the idea behind strict constructionalism was the words mean exactly what they meant in 1786?
Or was that a snark at Abu G?
BC
Found interesting stuff of US Atty’s here at wiki and here, their own website. Powerful office, US Atty. There are 93 of them, 7 or 8 is a lot. We are looking at 10% of them converted to BushCo PermaWarriors.
And if you’re missing your Fitz-fix for the day, here is a look at what his office is up to these days — busy guy, looks like his Fridays ‘off’ are booked.
Clearly government is broken.
We the people shouldn’t have to wait for the dems to get control of the congress for them to do the “people’s” business… This is crazy.
We life in a government completely corrupted by corporate interests and the pursuit of wealth (and power) by a select few…
We, the people, need to seriously decouple corporate interests from government whose purpose is to protect and benefit the people.
An opnion letter writer in the NYTimes had a great quote of Dwight Eisenhower… which I paraphrase very poorly as…
Every dollar spent on armaments and war is a taken from the labor of the people of this nation and does nothing for them.
We have been bled by corprate greed. A trillion for Iraqw they now predict… and what could have been accomplished with a trillion… and all the suffering this has caused. This is beyond criminal… Why are these fuckin bastards getting away with these atrocities?
Why?
Our system is completely broken and an illusion of equity, justice and democracy. That’s why.
Deep change
old gold @ 50
Of course it’s snark, but I would fully expect Gonzales to defend his statement as strict constructionalism. He’s using the most restrictively literal interpretation of the passage in question to say, gee, it doesn’t actually state in so many words that everybody has habeas rights. And that literalist reading is completely and utterly mendacious. No, the Constitution doesn’t set forth the premise that habeas is universal–that’s because habeas as a universally applied right was already such a bedrock principle of the legal tradition of the Constitution’s writers that it probably never occurred to any of them that it needed to be made explicit or that any supposedly trained attorney could challenge the assumption with a straight face. And that’s exactly the response Gonzales deserves for his ridiculous, mendacious, offensive assertion.
Some guy has a beta version diary kinda treatment an U.S atty firings and resigs.
http://www.maclife.com/forums/topic/92293
Ya don’t need to be a Mac user to read. But if ya are, that’s doubleplusgood.
For purposes of an ongoing discussion I’m having with some people who are defending Bush in this US Attorney deal, was the replacing of all 93 US-A’s by Reno/Clinton different than this situation? Better, worse, or no comparison?
In re Crooks & Liars video: Bush’s toady Gonzales is one smug thug, n’est-pas?
Look at his expression during Leahy’s dressing down. “Before you get any more upset, perhaps you should wait to receive the briefing…”
That kind of piss-ant arrogance sets my teeth on edge. It could only be cultivated under the protection of his patron, otherwise he would already have had his ass beaten and chased back to Laredo. The man is as corrupt as a south Texas sheriff.
Muzzy @ 79
Muzzy,
BIG diff. US Atty’s are appt’d by the pres for 4-yr terms and serve “at the President’s pleasure”. It would be normal for an incoming Pres to appt all new US atty’s. I mean, doesn’t a Pres appt his own cabinet?
These resigs are a crock to create an ‘interim appt” which can be filled by the AG under the Pat Act. The *HUGE* things here are these interim appts are *indefinite term* and *not subject to Cong approval*.
Muzzy at 80 — All of the replacements went through Senate advice and consent — through the Judiciary Committee and then onto the Senate floor for confirmation vote. The Bush actions, via the Patriot Act insertion, allows a provision for them to do this by fiat, in the dead of night, with no oversight — so that they can insert political cronies with agendas and take out prosecutors who may have found criminal conduct of this or that Republican elected representative or donor — to squelch the investigation with a now-appointed prosecutor who will have had no questions asked of him o her by anyone, including by Republicans in the Senate, some of whom are LIVID about this because THEY didn’t even know about it.
This is unilateral executive action, bypassing a Constitutional prerogative of accountability and oversight with Congressional check and balance on this. And yet another attempt at building the power of the Executive branch at the expense of the other two. They are skewing the Constitutional balance, and they know it. This is far from anything a true conservative or libertarian should support — look for Bruce Fein, Bob Barr, and other legal scholars of that conservative/libertarian bent to say so as well.
ahhh - great work by the new chairman and MY choice to run for the white house - russ feingold! its good to know the adults are back! hey christy and gang keep it up cuz jane’s watching.
P J Evans @
55
there has never been a more ruthless cynic to hold executive office in this country. his very existence is an offence to the idea of democracy.
Leahy just banged the gavel.
Much appreciated, HotFlash and Christy.
As Jane would say “I’m going to use that” ;)
I was talking to a mouth breather the other day when I made my usual desparaging remarks about BushCo.
Of course he gets all offended and starts defending Chimpy.
(Sometimes, it’s just too easy)
He starts in with the usual fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here crap.
I looked at him and said,” You actually think camels can swim that far?”
LMAO
He didn’t know what to say.
Muzzy @
80
I’m finding that these covos with rethugs (and I have many of them) are starting to get frustrating. I mean, this president has a track record of success that’s about as long as blade of finely-mowed grass on his country club golf course, and still they insist on giving him the benefit-of-the-doubt on each and every new controversy, as if each new situation may be the first one he actually handles correctly or on which he has less-than-duplicitous motivations. How gullible are these (otherwise intelligent) people? These are not wingnuts or koolaid drinkers.. they’re people I grew up and went to the same schools and colleges with. Some of them are experienced political operatives and policy analysts. What IS their hang up?
In my final foray into the NYT online, there is an article entitled “Fed Chief Warns That Entitlement Growth Could Harm Economy”. In it, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warns in testimony before the Senate about problems in Social Security and Medicare. Well, that is laudable. These programs do have funding problems, but these have been known for years and will be discussed for years and even decades into the future. The question that is left unasked is why is Bernanke talking about all this now. The article describes as Bernanke staying about the “political fray” with regard to tax cuts and spending although he does admit that tax cuts “usually do not pay for themselves.” Note that this is not the headline: “Fed Chief Warns Tax Cuts Do Not Pay For Themselves”. What gets me about all this is that talking about entitlement programs but staying above the fray with regard to Bush’s tax cuts and wasteful spending habits is a political choice. Hello, NYT, that big thing over there is a broadside of a barn, in case you were wondering.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....19fed.html
The link btw to the Rice article I mentioned above is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....9rice.html
Bustednuckles @ 88
Somehow I am reminded of an old Johnny Carson joke.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 83
I want to underscore the important distinction that Christy is making here by using the term unilateral Executive. These are not the actions made by