Bush: Putting the "lame" in Lame Duck.

To be honest, I wasn't really following this U.S. Prosecutor firing scandal. If I knew where it would end up, I would have.

Apparently, a bunch of U.S. Prosecutors were fired. The reason for some firings might have been political. An investigation has begun in Congress to find out where the buck stops and calls have been made for Attorney General's Alberto Gonzalez to step down (This is a Cliff's Notes version. I'm sure it's more complicated than that.)

Now, Congress wants Bush aides Karl "Darth" Rove and Harriet "My only qualification for the Supreme Court is being a friend of Dubya" Miers to testify under oath before Congress.

For some reason, Bush doesn't want his buddies to testify under oath. So he offers a compromise. He says his friends would looove to have a chat--behind closed doors with no oath and no transcript. And the compromise also came with a threat: if they don't accept the offer, he will fight them testifying under oath by any means necessary.

As for a reason why he's doing this, the Hand Puppet, as per this article, replied: "We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse. There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper"

BWAH-HA-HA! Karl Rove! Honorable!!!

Sorry.

Now, on the surface, for people who take things completely on face value, it appears that Bush is bravely protecting his friends from a witchhunt by those mean bullies in the Democratically-controlled Congress. However, what he is doing, is trying to throw a monkey wrench into the gears of justice.

That statement above smacks of political spin doctoring. It's loaded with buzzwords that are presenting his side in a way make Bush appear in the best light possible. But actually, what he's doing is a bit shady. 

First off, and investigation is by definition a fishing expedition. When you investigate something, you fish around for facts to get to the root of what really happened. Funny that Bush doesn't know that.

Second, if nothing improper was done by these people, then why can't they testify under oath something to that effect. If you have nothing to hide, it would suit you to face any and all questions under oath to clear the record and your name.

Third, Bush presented a reasonable, to him, way to avoid an impasse, which he will cause if he doesn't get his way. However, if Congress is looking to bring anyone who broke to law to justice in this debacle, Bush's propsoal isn't reasonable. I'm not a legal scholar, but I believe any evidence they may get from Rove and Miers probably wouldn't be admissable in impeachment hearings if not done under oath. Which is why Bush is probably fighting for this way so hard.

Congress replied by voting to approve subpeonas in this as a way of saying "IN YOUR FACE, GEORGE!" Bush claims he will use executive priviledge to fight the subpoenas. However, in recent history, presidents used this tactic twice. Clinton tried it but backed down after a federal judge denied his request and Nixon appealed his all the way to the Supreme Court before losing the fight at that level. Funny that it was two presidents facing possible impeachment that used that tactic. Hmmm.

Of course, Bush has stacked the court with right-wing conservatives, so he may think he might end up a little different this time. But regardless. The fact this scandal has come to this leads me to believe that the buck might just stop a little higher than Gonzalez.

 

Bill