 |
|
Add to My Group
|
March 21, 2007 at 07:28:45
The Democrats Can't Back Down on Attorneygate by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
So far this has been a good thing for the people of this country. If the Democrats hold firm and don’t cave in to White House pressure to keep Rove and Miers out of testifying under oath, it will be a very good thing but I believe that they will cave. So far, on almost every issue, the Democrats have shown the nation that you can still walk and talk, even hold a full time job, when you are missing a backbone. It must be a miracle of science, but the Democrats are proving everyday that a backbone is something a human being can live without.
If the Democrats do indeed refuse to go to court and negotiate everything away on another trip to the White House, then this nation will be in a worse position than before the firings. It will finally prove that the Democrats do not need to be taken seriously and that there is nothing stopping this administration from doing exactly what it wants. While certain members of the Democratic Party might make some political points in the process, if they don’t carry this ball all the way, they will do so at the peoples expense.
This is an issue that has to be addressed. For this President, or any President or his staff, to be allowed to fire Federal Attorneys for political reasons smacks of dictatorship. Once installed they should be given the right to investigate breaches of the law, regardless of where the chips may fall. A Federal Prosecutor can not have his or her hands tied when it comes to prosecuting crimes. A crime is a crime, whether I commit it, or the President commits it. They should not serve at the will of the President. Already there has been far too much leverage on the Attorney General’s office by this White House. The Attorney General once confirmed should be an in dependant voice of the law, not a personal attorney to the President.
What I truly dread is that politicians from both parties will politicize this issue, but when push comes to shove, they will lie down and claim that they are “doing it for the good of the people, to spare them the spectacle of defying the President in court”. They could claim that they have sufficiently made their point and a court case would not be in anyone’s best interests.
This would be a complete surrender by the Democrats. The last thing this nation needs to see is them backing down on this. They chose this time, and this place to stand up to White House bullying. It’s now time to see if they have the moral convictions of their claims. If they do back down they will be effectively telling this President that he has a green light to do exactly as he wishes. This cannot happen. Already this President has claimed way too much power with his “Unitary Powers” theory. He has used this so-called “War on Terror” to give himself the right to go where no other President has ever dared to go; from the power to try civilians by courts-martial, to invading and searching residences without a warrant. The American people have naively given him anything he has requested. It has to stop somewhere. Let it stop here.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the (more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
| 6 comments |
|
On Backing Down
But Democrats will back down. To not back down is to be willing to impeach and impeachment is off the table. by Mark A. Goldman (81 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 243 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:13:04 AM  (0+)
|
|
back down?
The dems have no leg to stand on regarding this. The President (any Pres.)can fire these attorney's at his discretion. Always been that way. by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 147 comments) on Wednesday, Mar 21, 2007 at 5:54:07 PM (0+)
|
|
We'll see soon enough. My prediction: they will announce a
"compromise" with Bush, but it will be the kind of compromise that gives Bush everything he wants. By the way, the previous comment by 'sbaker' is ridiculous & ill-informed. Though it's standard for a new incoming president to dismiss all 93 US attorneys, firing any of them in the middle of a presidential term is almost unheard of, let alone firing 6 in one day, all apparently for partisan reasons. Anyone who wants details about this can find them in Amy Goodman's interview today with NY Times reporter Adam Cohen. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Mar 21, 2007 at 9:48:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Opinion/Fact
Sorry RichM. While My first sentence may have simply been an Opinion. The second and third sentences are Fact. It seems YOUR statement is ridiculous & ill-informed. by sbaker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 147 comments) on Thursday, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:14:30 AM (0+)
|
|
sbaker - your 2nd & 3rd statements miss the point. While
it's true that the president is technically permitted to appoint & dismiss US prosecutors, it's unprecedented to dismiss a bunch of them at one time, in the middle of a president's term, & to do so for blatantly partisan reasons. Your statements (& conclusion) imply that this break with precedent is immaterial. It's hardly immaterial. Legal disputes often hinge on differences between the letter of the law, and the spirit or intent of the law. In this case, Bush could defend himself by arguing narrow compliance with the letter of the law. But he clearly violated the spirit/intent of the law, which was obviously not adopted to enable a president to fire as many US attorneys as he pleases, on mere grounds of insufficient partisan loyalty & obedience. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:13:00 PM (0+)
|
|
As of Thursday, the Dems are backing down.
They are not planning to subpoena; rather, they are using the threat of subpoena as a bargaining chip. Arlen Specter offered a "compromise" Thurs. which (as I predicted above) basically gives Bush everything he wants -- including no testimony under oath. The Dems have not officially responded to this yet. Even if the Dems went ahead to subpoena, the R's could deflect it, tie it up almost indefinitely, & the issue would (ironically) be decided by the US attorney in DC, Jeffrey Taylor, a former aide to Orrin Hatch, who is listed as "loyal to Bush." See "Democrats seek to evade a confrontation" by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:51:58 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
