Constitutional showdowns rock my fucking socks. Go conflict-based system go!

Still butt-hurt on that 2000 recount shoot down are we?

Bah, screw them all, they are Lawyers. Bush is just proving that the Dems in control are no better now then the Repubs were when they controlled the houses under Clinton in the '90's

They should move on, pass some useful legislation for health and education, instead of wasting money trying to continue smearing a president who can't run in '08.

Love the Tony Snow quotes. Thanks. In all my years in this country, I can't recall any administration where the opposing parties didn't just line up on opposite sides of the aisle and sling the same old shit back and forth at each other. What a nightmare, stodgy old farts preaching to us about adhering to principle, adhering to values, when all they adhere to is loyalty to their party.

The mess surrounding the Iraq War gives the Democrats enough ammunition to hold hearings and investigations. This "scandal" is nothng of the kind. While the dismissals of the US attorneys wasn't handled appropriately, it's not illegal. All political appointees "serve at the pleasure of the president", so they can be dismissed for being ugly if that's what he wants. Their insistence on putting Rove under oath (thereby allowing them to ask him anything about anything) makes this look more like like a partisan fishing expedition. If they were serious about this issue, they'd be looking to hold hearings on ways to shield US attorneys from political pressure.

This combines two arguments that I don't really get.

1. Of course this matters. We elect people to do a job - if they aren't doing that job or doing it badly, they need to be held accountable, if for no other reason than to send a signal to *future* office holders to not screw up.

2. I'm not clear what people mean when they say "Congress should get back to work." Part of what Congress does is check the executive. Further, part of how Congress does it's job is conflict - competing for votes over what *should* be done, and *how* it should be done is how the process operates. A sniping Congress is a working Congress - providing me with information, alternatives etc.

everything you say is truth.

this really IS Congress's job.

Lam and a couple of the other US attorneys were dismissed while heading up investigations into Republican corruption. Lam was actually going after the Vice President himself, so you are totally incorrect in stating it is not illegal. It's called obstruction.

If the reports are true - specifically the one today that came out about Cheney. A mysterious $140,000 that went from the Vice President's office (for computers and office furniture), to a company that had not made a dime all year or ever had a government contract, then said company bought Cunnigham a boat for exactly $140,000 two weeks later, it is indeed a scandal, one we haven't seen since Watergate.

Bush is in the middle of a media feeding frenzy, the kind he has never seen. Plame was nothing compared to the way the media is going after this one. New damning facts are coming from every region of the country every couple of hours.

Here's the link to the LA Times story.

The very next day an email was sent about a "situation" with Lam that had to be addressed. She was soon fired. Yeah, no laws broken there. Seems totally on the up and up. By the way, Cunningham is considered to be the most corrupt Congressman in the HISTORY of Congress.

The President has the power to fire his appointees at any time- they serve at his pleasure. End of story.

I've been thinking a lot about the government and its role, and the more I do, the more I think they should seen and not heard. The government doesn't control the financial market, though they do influence it, at times more and at times less. But their role in it has to be limited to creating boundaries, and to checking. Checking the other branches, and at times elements within the market.

With Health Insurance, we need a complete change, away from symptomic treatment in which pharmaceutical companies and insurance providers hold incomprehensible amounts of determination in the care people receive, to an emphasis on prevention and routine care. The government alone cannot bring this about. It must come from credible science (which exists) and a press on the part of both the citizenry and medical provider establishment. The governments role in this would best be served in re-determining public service and educational campaigns, not legislating.

I've come to believe it is a weak, lazy, and listless population we have. We want everything done for us. Instead of understanding an issue, we want to be told how to feel about it. Instead of taking action and applying ourselves, we want lawyers and politicians to pass laws giving us the world we want.

The government's role should be to do as little as possible, that they don't, and that they fail us, is our fault.

Um yeah, except that the Republican Congress was investigating Clinton's sex life, while the Democratic Congress is investigating the politicization of criminal justice. See the difference?

And since when is investigating the abuse of the Department of Justice "smearing a President?"

Wow. Bush's statement reads like one of those "Gee, I'm sorry YOU feel this way" appologies. I'm rooting for the so-called balance of powers to get back into balance.

scandal!

Yeah, heaven knows there's nothing wrong with lying to Congress.

Under oath.

About using the part of the Patriot Act that does and end-run around the Senate when it comes to appointing federal prosecutors.

And about the reasons for firing those federal prosecutors and replacing them with Bush loyalists.

Nope, nothing wrong with that.

Well, not quite. Traditionally presidents fire and hire at the beginning of their terms. They are political appointments yes. But, again, traditionally, once hired, they are allowed to do their jobs and not "fired" in midterm. And unless and until it is clear that they were fired for cause, it is by no means "end of story."