F&%# you and the horse you rode in on

Oh yeah. I like that. And I'll vote against any Republican that doesn't grow balls...quick.

Let's all line up and kick p'p''s cut and run whinny ass one after the other.
Just try not to miss and hit his nose.

And while we're at it, let's kick a little ass on Iraq, too.

Gen. Patraeus is winning the war in Iraq, to the horror of the lunatic fringe, i.e. the Dems and the MSM.

I will enjoy watching both melt in pain, as I, and the country, are united in the country's interest.

"to fight back against the ridiculous and baseless attacks coming from Democrats determined to destroy the President"

Which ones are you talking about? We know that Gone-zales lied under oath and that Bush is protecting him currently - but which "baseless" attacks have you so upset that you have gone feral?

Libs have no ethics, and Repubs have no balls. Cant understand why the GOP doesnt streetfight like the Dems, but then, they dont have the national media carrying water for them.

When Dems get around to finally being the party of honesty and ethics, then they can act like they are honest and ethical. Until then, anyone with a brain knows the Dems are all hypocrites.

Lorie,

Please the last Republican President-Reagan didn't have near the media to contend with that Bush has had to cut through.

The media has changed and evolved. It's 24/7 news cycles now-and add to that fact that the big player CNN is more concerned with it's foreign audience and that revenue-just like Hollywood.

Plus once upon a time in Reagan's era it would have been considered gauche to show enemy propaganda beheadings, GIS getting shot in the head, and threats from our enemies getting broadcast directly to the American public.

Osama and Saddam have been granted access to the American public that would have made Breshnev, and Nikita Krushev drool.

Plus -the enemy has changed the rules and you barely get it. You barely get that Bush has had to go through absolutely catastrophic historical events the likes of which this relatively young country has never gone through before.

I'm glad Bush is finally taking a page from Clinton's politics book and fighting the good fight. Y'all didn't seem to whine too much about the Mainsream media tin-foil hat conspiracies between 1992 and 2000 did ya? ie: the $200 haircut that almost crashed planes. Total BS but your tin-foil hat conspiracy MSM ran the story anyways. How about that wonderful Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr? Spen $50 million tax payer dollars to convict the Clinton's in the MSM and the only evidence the guy came up with was a semen stained dress. A $50 million dollar semen stained dress. And how about the damn dirty "Liberal" Supreme Court aboloshing the Congressional "Special Prosecutor" privalege right after the 2000 elections after handing the election over to that damn dirty Liberal, George W. Bush? How "Liberal" of them. Blows that tin-foil hat conspiracy. And what about the list, and it is a large list of Republicans demanding accountability for this scandal. Attack the Dems and conveniently ignore the Repubs? Live on this planet much do ya?

November 7th, 2007!!! You're the minority now! The street fight for the past 6 years has shifted gears and you pussies better pucker up cause its gonna be a long one! Too bad you elected idiots. It makes things considerably easier when the best you had to offer was a spoiled-rotten, draft-dodging, pink-team pansy (AKA Bush). Boo hooo!

A.G.A.G. does not represent conservatism. I see no reason to save him. President Bush kindof supports conservatism; we need to support him for 18 more months.

Judiciary Committee to Meet on Subpoenas for White House and Justice Department Officials

An announcement from the Judiciary Committee:

Conyers, Sànchez to Issue Subpoenas for White House Officials

WHEN: TOMORROW, March 21st, 10:15 am

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=147

I would be quite happy for Bush to push this and allow it to get to court. For too long he has feigned legal justification for his actions, and then done everything he could to get legal challenges thrown out. Or, he would give in at the last minute and then insist the challenge was then moot. You on the right think he's just a big pussy for giving in, but he knows the reason is because his "justification" would never hold up in the light of day. I applaud the intent to let the court decide. Then the American people will know with authority whether the law is being violated. But we all know that will never happen. Let's look at the update added to that post you cited:

Just like has happened a dozen times before, Bush will huff and puff and pound the table, and drag the confrontation out as long as possible, and then ... after having sustained the maximum possible political damage, he will then cave in to reality.

So Bush called the presser and told him to get bent, insisting that he's not about to forfeit executive privilege to serve the Democratic interest

Nice little fantasy you have there, Lorie. But it ignores sense and precedent, and shows a complete lack of awareness of the history of executive privilege. Notably, the SCOTUS told everyone from Thomas Jefferson and Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton to shove their executive privilege up their collective asses.

And for an additional bit of fun, you can go read what Republicans had to say about executive privilege when Clinton trotted it out.

Brian, it is you who are ignorant of the history and purpose of executive privilege.

I'm glad Bush is giving Leahy the bum's rush. Leaky Leahy should be in prison, not the Senate.

I recall having a debate on a message board some years back as to whether Leahy was a "blithering idiot" or a "drooling moron." Can't recall how it was resolved - both sides presented compelling arguments.

If the Dim leadership? would pursue the fight against terrorism and terrorists as avidly as they pursue bringing down the President we would all be better served.

With any luck, in the run-up to the election, Ropublicans may get the chance to have the conversation with themselves that the Dmocrats seem intent on denying to themselves.
==============================

Does make a person wonder:

For example, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, who approved the firing of one of the prosecutors, said in an e-mail that he hadn't read the attorney's job review to assess his competence. In other messages, officials defended and sometimes praised other prosecutors they were preparing to dump.
To tamp down controversy, McNulty and other high-ranking officials carefully crafted a response to possible criticism of the firings and secured the approval of the firings from then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, according to the documents.
But the documents point to conflicting statements administration officials made in the months before the firings.
McNulty acknowledged to Justice Department officials two days before six of the firings that he still felt "a little skittish" because he hadn't looked at the job evaluations of Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, before his termination.
In a Feb. 1, 2007, memo, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' then chief of staff, weighed how to deal with escalating congressional inquiries into the firings. Sampson informed colleagues that ousted Arkansas U.S. Attorney H.E. "Bud" Cummins had called to say he was asked to testify before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee. "I don't think he should," Sampson wrote. "How would he answer: `Did you resign voluntarily? Were you told why you were being asked to resign? Who told you? When did they tell you?'" The Bush administration used the new power as a means to fire U.S. attorneys who were not "loyal Bushies" -- a phrase used by Gonzales's top aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who has since resigned, in crafting the dismissal proposal -- and then to circumvent the Senate in the confirmation process.

McNulty set Gonzales up, but overplayed his hand, and shot himself in the foot.
==============================

Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide? I mean, since they don't lie, they don't have anything to hide, etc., shouldn't be a problem.

"without the need for an oath" and without a transcript.
Justice Department emails appear to contradict Alberto Gonzales' congressional testimony, in which he said that the administration intended to seek Senate approval for every U.S. attorney appointed to replace those who had been fired. Recently released emails provide evidence that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and other high-ranking Justice Department officials gave false testimony to Congress, including testimony about the administration's intention to seek Senate approval for appointees replacing the fired U.S. attorneys and about the Justice Department officials' motivations in dismissing them.

This will play out through the remainder of GW's term. This will benefit the republicans because the dimmers have wasted so much time with this that they will look childish. ww

Mike, don't you see McNulty's finger in the pie. You sure write about him.
================================

There are a great many unanswered questions in this whole affair. The only people who can answer these Qs are the members of the administration who are currently being shielded by "executive priviledge". Why shouldn't they be compelled to testify under oath? If there really wasn't any malfeasance, then what have they got to hide?

Kim,
This has Nixon and Watergate written all over it. Nixon, as you may recall, lost his pissing match with Congress. And when the Congress subpoenaed the Clinton White House over any number of things and there was initial resistance, the Republicans screamed like banshees about obstruction of justice and partisan politics.
For an excellent backgrounder on how the Republicans viewed Bill Clinton's claims of executive privilege, read Glenn Greenwald's posting here. It includes this rather interesting cite from the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon (1974):
The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the court. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.

Mike:

Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide? I mean, since they don't lie, they don't have anything to hide, etc., shouldn't be a problem.

Why?

Mike just one quick question: Do you know what the criminal penalty is for lying to Congress while not under oath?

When you discover the answer you will, if honest, realize dems whining about taking an oath is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Oh...then there is that little matter of being on TV. Gee...wonder why they want that?

"Why not have them testify under oath if there is nothing to hide?"

Because this has nothing to do with the truth. This is a show trial by Democrats to damage the President. This is an act of treason by the enemy. Bush should hold a press conference at noon today, firing every US attorney currently in office and then turning the podium over to Dick Cheney so he can repeat his "FU" to that seditious collaborator Leahy.

The Democrat party doesn't believe in terrorists. Their enemy is the GOP. So it's time to treat them like the enemy. Hang 'em all.

Heh, Felt kept his fingerprints off Watergate; McNulty left his all over this.

But nice try. Hope springs infernal in the BDS heart.
==================================

This is a vehicle for impeachment.

Just watch.

The Democrats will send subpoenas, Bush will resist them, and arguing that this violates the Constitution, Dem's will being the proceedings.

It's the end game.

In Nixon's case, their was a crime being investigated. A felony. Almost solid evidence. With Clinton, same thing. There is nothing solid here, no crime. The SCOTUS will see this for what it is: Politics. Not crimes. ww

Mike, it looks like Bush has offered the 'in camera inspection' called for in your Supreme Court decision. The Dems don't want it 'in camera'; they want it 'on camera'.

They ought to pick their photo ops, better. Val with 'I don't know the meaning of covert', and Bill with 93 fired US Attorneys sort of make the Dems look ridiculous, however. What do they think we are? Dumb as journalists?
===========================

Posted by: drjohn

I smell bovine scatology.

The end game would be the Supreme Court. At that point Bush complies with the ruling.

But is nice to see you remember your dreams upon waking, some people forget them a soon as the eyes open.

It is bluff, DrJ. As soon as the Dems figure out that the documents point out McNulty is the guilty party, they'll drop it. Bush already figured this out, but they had to go on with the bluff so as not to appear pusillanimous; but this was a failed coup against Gonzales, and don't you mistake it.
================================

Marc,
No I don't know if there is a penalty for lying while not under oath. If there was one, shouldn't every damn one of all politicians be charged?

cmd,
Because this has nothing to do with the truth. If a honest poll was taken across the US, I just wonder what the answer would be. You may be correct on this, however, like Nixon, it wasn't so much the action, it was the coverup. And that is what is happening, and many many people, including some leading Republicans are included in that thinking. And your comment about "hang 'em all." is letting your emotion rule instead of the grey matter.

You are catching on. McNulty made it appear that Gonzales was covering up. But he wasn't; McNulty's the dirty one, here. Watch the record. And watch the Dems cave as they get through the documents.
================================

i'll be laughing when this country ends up a police state and you're all crying about where YOUR particular freedom of choice has gone. haha. silly sheep, freedom is for smart people.

Your 'police state' is far more likely with a party that believes more government is the solution to our problems.
====================

5 years in a Federal pen Mike. And I believe that's the same for committing perjury while under oath.

So what's the bloviating Schumers point?

There is none other then a fishing expo looking to hang Rove, as the prime target and others.

This seems like a rather harsh reaction to the Democrats use of their oversight powers. Would you rather that no branch of government had oversight over the executive office?

"And watch the Dems cave as they get through the documents."

They will hiss , piss and moan and then a light will pop on in their heads. Yes, lets get Sandy Pants in hear, we'll just say he's coming to deliver Chinese and just throwing away the empty pizza boxes from lunch. HE HE no is smarter than us Dems He he he. (Intercom) ahem , FU Leahy , we heard every word you said. Ahh Damn!