The scandal surrounding eight terminated US Attorneys is on its way to becoming one of the biggest political and constitutional showdowns since Watergate. In fact this similarities between this scandal and Watergate are becoming too obvious to ignore (just like the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam).
I hypothesized yesterday that the Bush administration clearly has a lot to hide by refusing to let Rove and Meyers testify under oath. Bush’s statements on the subject not only support that idea, but also raise deeply alarming concerns about what else may be lying under the surface. In reaction to this whole disaster Bush said:
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said Tuesday. "The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows that some are more interested in scoring political points than in understanding the facts. ...
That’s just it Mr. Bush, Senator Leahy IS trying to understand the facts. Clearly Bush would prefer a secret meeting (since that is how he and Cheney spoke to the 9-11 Commission) but truth is evasive when the only explanation offered is done in a dark room with no windows, no promise to tell the truth, and no record of what was said. But wait, for this administration truth and facts are two completely different things. Here is a little passage from Nixon regarding the refusal of a White House Counsel to testify....tell me if it doesn't sound familiar.
The White House managed to prevent Watergate’s political fallout from affecting the 1972 election. But Nixon had hardly begun his second term when the dam broke. In February 1973, L. Patrick Gray, Nixon’s nominee to succeed the late J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI, revealed during his confirmation hearings that he had allowed John W. Dean, a White House legal counsel, to sit in on FBI interviews of Watergate suspects. Nixon refused to allow Dean to testify before the Senate Watergate committee chaired by Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), citing the doctrine of executive privilege. Gray’s nomination was all but dead. “Let him hang there,” John D. Ehrlichman said memorably. “Let him twist slowly, slowly, in the wind.”
The Justice Department released 3,000 documents to Congress in an attempt to show transparency. However, according to Leahy redactions in the documents make them unworkable. "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day," he said. Can anyone say 18 1/2 minutes of missing tape?
Bush claims that it is extraordinary to think that one of his aids could testify under oath and in public. This is simply not true. Click here. This is also not an instance where executive privilege is relevant. National security is not at stake here, although national integrity (or what's left of it) is.
Senator Leahy will get his subpoenas which will no doubt lead to a long and bitter court battle over what executive privilege means, and ultimately it will be a thorough examination on our system of checks and balances. If Rove and Meyers are not forced to testify it will be nothing less than the beginning on an executive monarchy in our country in which the executive branch has the final say on the powers of the legislative. Bush has already been America's scariest nightmare, and our worst President. If he gets his way on this he will have finished off our way of governing completely. If only the founding fathers could see us now, they would probably just head back to England.
In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that the administration and some republicans conspired through the justice department to strong arm US Attorneys into prosecuting democrats to shape the outcome of the 2006 Congressional elections. There is also no doubt in my mind that Bush knew about this, and in fact was an active player. So I suppose that Bush has every reason to fight Leahy and the Democrats tooth and nail, because once the public really understands what this whole scandal is about Bush will finally be seen for what he is, a crook. (And I didn't even write anything about the abuses of the patriot act)
I hypothesized yesterday that the Bush administration clearly has a lot to hide by refusing to let Rove and Meyers testify under oath. Bush’s statements on the subject not only support that idea, but also raise deeply alarming concerns about what else may be lying under the surface. In reaction to this whole disaster Bush said:
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said Tuesday. "The initial response by Democrats, unfortunately, shows that some are more interested in scoring political points than in understanding the facts. ...
That’s just it Mr. Bush, Senator Leahy IS trying to understand the facts. Clearly Bush would prefer a secret meeting (since that is how he and Cheney spoke to the 9-11 Commission) but truth is evasive when the only explanation offered is done in a dark room with no windows, no promise to tell the truth, and no record of what was said. But wait, for this administration truth and facts are two completely different things. Here is a little passage from Nixon regarding the refusal of a White House Counsel to testify....tell me if it doesn't sound familiar.
The White House managed to prevent Watergate’s political fallout from affecting the 1972 election. But Nixon had hardly begun his second term when the dam broke. In February 1973, L. Patrick Gray, Nixon’s nominee to succeed the late J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI, revealed during his confirmation hearings that he had allowed John W. Dean, a White House legal counsel, to sit in on FBI interviews of Watergate suspects. Nixon refused to allow Dean to testify before the Senate Watergate committee chaired by Sam Ervin (D-N.C.), citing the doctrine of executive privilege. Gray’s nomination was all but dead. “Let him hang there,” John D. Ehrlichman said memorably. “Let him twist slowly, slowly, in the wind.”
The Justice Department released 3,000 documents to Congress in an attempt to show transparency. However, according to Leahy redactions in the documents make them unworkable. "Instead of freely and fully providing relevant documents to the investigating committees, they have only selectively sent documents, after erasing large portions that they do not want to see the light of day," he said. Can anyone say 18 1/2 minutes of missing tape?
Bush claims that it is extraordinary to think that one of his aids could testify under oath and in public. This is simply not true. Click here. This is also not an instance where executive privilege is relevant. National security is not at stake here, although national integrity (or what's left of it) is.
Senator Leahy will get his subpoenas which will no doubt lead to a long and bitter court battle over what executive privilege means, and ultimately it will be a thorough examination on our system of checks and balances. If Rove and Meyers are not forced to testify it will be nothing less than the beginning on an executive monarchy in our country in which the executive branch has the final say on the powers of the legislative. Bush has already been America's scariest nightmare, and our worst President. If he gets his way on this he will have finished off our way of governing completely. If only the founding fathers could see us now, they would probably just head back to England.
In conclusion, there is no doubt in my mind that the administration and some republicans conspired through the justice department to strong arm US Attorneys into prosecuting democrats to shape the outcome of the 2006 Congressional elections. There is also no doubt in my mind that Bush knew about this, and in fact was an active player. So I suppose that Bush has every reason to fight Leahy and the Democrats tooth and nail, because once the public really understands what this whole scandal is about Bush will finally be seen for what he is, a crook. (And I didn't even write anything about the abuses of the patriot act)
(03-22-07 Post Script Courtesy of CNN)
• No e-mails released on firing of U.S. attorneys during a 16-day period
•Investigators interested in period between November 15 and December 2, 2006
• Last e-mail before gap asks whether issue should be raised with the president
