It's amazing how many every day situations can be answered with a Star Trek quote... :D

Michale.....

I've been out of the political loop for a while (concentrating on my bread and butter, Cinema Styles) but I thought I'd add my two cents as I always enjoy Chris and Michale's comments (the two of you should think about some kind of Odd Couple site. I'll be the moderater.)

Anyway, I wrote about Executive Privilege from the Bush/Nixon standpoint in June Privileged Executives and argue for Congress to step up to the plate, so to speak. While I am not as inclined to give Bush and company the benefit of the doubt as Michale is I do agree that it is congress that needs to either do something or shut the hell up.

I also agree a transparent government would not work but argument against that transparancy is the cover used by Nixon and Bush. The nation isn't going to collapse if we find out what shady b.s. Bushco is up to but he, and Nixon, try (and tried) to make us believe it would. When investigating a cover-up and everyone withholding information from you starts talking about National Security immediately get suspicious. If I'm asking for Bush to reveal operatives in the field in the Middle East infiltrating regimes to get information I fully understand if he says, "I can't tell you that." But please don't try and make me believe that revealing the details about politically motivated firings is going to harm our national security unless the freedom of the nation hinges on some secret domestic lawyer black-ops program I don't know about.

Again, I agree with Chris that it's the cover-up, not the "crime." When Travelgate happened I remember thinking, "Why are the Clinton's bending over backwards to come up with crap on these Travel Office employees? Why not just admit that as a new administration you were getting ridding of people and replacing them with your own?" They seemed hell-bent on covering up something and that immediately raised red flags for many people including myself. Those same red flags are raising again for me.

Jonathan

P.S.

Michale, thanks to you, while typing this I couldn't help but think, "A keyboard, how quaint."

>do you really think Gonzales has
>been completely honest in his testimony
>before Congress?

Probably not. No more than I think Reno was completely honest in the Ruby Ridge or Waco
hearings.

It's a case of CYA-itis.. A malady that strikes all politicians.. :D

Do I think that Gonzales and Bush should fry for it??

Nope... There are far more important issues that this Congress needs to address. They refuse to do it, which is why their polling numbers are lower than the presidents. Not that I put any faith in polls, as I have often said.. :D

Michale.....

>Interesting. If I read you right,
>you're advocating repealing the AUMF?

Spock: "Fascinating. There is a certain scientific logic about it."
Anan 7: "I am glad you approve."
Spock: "I do not approve. I understand."
Star Trek: A Taste Of Armageddon

That is to say I do NOT agree that Congress should revoke the AUMF.

I feel it's vital to keep our country and our citizens safe.

What I AM saying is that Congress in general (and the Democrats in particular) should quite whining and moaning about how Bush is USING the AUMF and simply revoke it.

Crap or get off the pot, so to speak...

If Congress doesn't support HOW Bush is using the authorization that they gave him, they should revoke said authorization.

If they don't have the cojones to do that (as you and I and everyone else here KNOWS they don't), then they should get behind the President.

Congress(and I include both Democrats AND Republicans in this) are doing this country a grave disservice by their constant partisan attacks on each other.

As I mentioned before...

"meQtaHbogh qachDaq Suv qoH meH."
Old Klingon Proverb...
Translation: "Only a fool fights in a burning house"

Michale.....

Interesting. If I read you right, you're advocating repealing the AUMF? I'd go along with that option, personally -- although I don't 100% agree with your legal reasoning for doing so, I agree for other reasons.

In your second post, you argue with the underlying cases, which I didn't do you'll notice. Because (1) those aren't the only two investigations coming down the pike, and (2) remember the Nixon lesson -- it ain't the crime, it's the coverup.

No matter what you think about either of the investigations I mentioned, do you really think Gonzales has been completely honest in his testimony before Congress? And that could just be the tip of the coverup iceberg. The only way to find out is to press the investigations harder.

jonahstein -

heh heh. Yeah, Nixon could at least speak the language, I'll have to agree. He could masterfully use subjects, verbs, even the occasional adjective and adverb. More than our current occupant can say!

Stan -

I'm researching it. I'll get back to you. I don't think Clinton argued EP with the Secret Service, but then I could be wrong, I know he did do so on other occasions and for other reasons.

Thanks to all for commenting!

-CW

You mention two major issues..

1. The firing of the US Attorneys

2. The Alleged Warrantless Wire Tapings...

Addressing #1... There is ample precedence set that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the POTUS. Clinton fired ALL of the US Attorneys during his tenure without a reason given at all... Like the Presidential Pardons, this is a "perk" of the presidency and should not be attributed to partisan scrutiny.. Unless you want to scrutinize ALL presidents that used this "perk", you should not single it out for this administration...

Looking at #2, it can be reasonably argued that Congress (with the passage of many laws and acts since 9/11) has given the Bush Administration unparelled leeway in the prosecution on the war on terror. Now, we can argue the merits of this until the cows come home.. But the simple fact is, CONGRESS DID GRANT THESE POWERS... So, in THIS regard, Congress really has only one option... Congress needs to REVOKE the authorization that they gave the president...

Rather than bitch and moan about HOW the POTUS is using the powers that Congress gave, Congress needs to simply SUSPEND or REVOKE those powers...

Make no mistake about it.. The US system of Checks and Balances is alive and well... The US Congress freely gave the authorization... If they (Congress) has a problem with how the POTUS is using that given authorization, then they need to revoke it or modify it.. Let them do that and stand on their record...

Michale.....

>I think that government should be transparent.

Let me ask you something... Seriously...

How do you expect a "transparent" government to function?

Let's put it in the vernacular of a football game..(Since I just watched THE REPLACEMENTS for the upteenth time)

The United States is a football team.. Now, how do you expect that the US "team" could "win" against the teams of Iran and North Korea if they broadcast their "plays", IE be "transparent"???

Like it or not, a country (like a football team) MUST have it's secrets... It could not survive any other way...

We elect our representatives (Congress, President, etc etc) so that THEY can know the things we don't WANT to know... So they can make the decisions we don't want to make...

A completely "transparent" country (like a completely transparent NFL Team) will last exactly 1 quarter... Then it will be crushed by the opposing team(s)...

If you can't trust the elected representatives, then they should not be elected...

It's really as simple as that...

Conversely, if you DO elect them, then let them do the job that you elected them to do...

Again... It's as simple as that..

Michale.....

Come on, Nixon was a liberal republican who spoke in complete sentences and had enough sense of shame to at least LIE.

Bush doesn't even bother to lie, he just says god told him to do it.

I agree that this is a battle worth fighting. I think that government should be transparent.

I have one question - When Clinton was in office did it go to court about the secret service answering questions or did Clinton end up waiving E.P. over that?

... Stan