« Lies.com Podcast 21
Philosoraptor: OBL + GWB »

Bush: Oversight? What Oversight?

From the WaPo: Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings.

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

It’s really pretty remarkable, even for Bush. As Fein and Nichols would say, he’s asserting monarchical powers.

Impeachment has to go back on the table. Yes, I realize that the two-thirds majority of senators required to convict probably will not be findable. But Nancy Pelosi is wrong to view the process as a waste of time. It is her duty; as Patrick Leahy would say, her paramount duty. Nothing trumps preserving and defending the Constitution. If Bush and Cheney are not convicted, every senator voting to acquit who is up for re-election in 2008 will have to defend that vote.

This entry was posted by jbc on Thursday, July 19th, 2007 at 11:19 pm and is filed under george_w_bush, the_law, the_usa. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Bush: Oversight? What Oversight?”

  1. knarlyknight Says:
    July 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am

    Wait a second. This is simply a continuation of the same. The only difference is that you Americans are starting to wake up.

    Here is something for SHCB. A self-proclaimed conservative having some revelations. The video is not about 911, it is not about the erosion of freedom, it is not about tax evasion, it is about Respect and you won’t understand anything he is saying in the video unless you watch part 1 and 2 in its entirety.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51LJcGvBCFo

  2. shcb Says:
    July 26th, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    I watched some of each of the parts, the second was more 911 conspiracy nonsense, nothing much there, the first was the old “I’m too cheap to pay my taxes, I’m going to claim it is unconstitutional.” It’s not. The founding fathers discussed how to fund the federal government, whether it should be funded by the states, or the states by the feds, that type of thing but few of them didn’t think their should not be taxes. They talk about it in Federalist 56. People like him have this mistaken idea that if it isn’t in the constitution it is unconstitutional, but it is just the opposite, the constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights limits congress, but only in those areas referred to in the bill of rights… but I lost you at “more 911 conspiracy nonsense” Anyway, this guy is you on the conservative side, in fact you may have found the center of the universe, the place conspiracy nuts on the left and right converge.

  3. knarlyknight Says:
    August 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am

    “Conspiracy nuts” refers to you and your rwnj’s:

    In the light of these … challenges to the official
    account, we can reflect on President Bush’s advice not to
    tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks
    of 11 September.”57 This is excellent advice. But it
    deflects attention from the fact that the truly outrageous
    conspiracy theory is the official theory, according to which
    a band of Arab Muslims conspired to defeat not only the most
    sophisticated defense system in history but also, in the
    attacks in both New York and Washington, some basic laws of
    physics. The problems in the official account, moreover, do
    not end there. … p.18

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DavidRayGriffin911Empire.pdf

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.