Fire Me?? Fire You!

Now I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that firing a U. S. Attorney to prevent the indictment of political cronies is at the very least impeding justice, if not downright destroying it. I’m not sure exactly what statute this violates, but if the executive branch can wantonly screw with the judicial system like this, then we’re all in trouble and if the law doesn’t exist that covers this malfeasance, someone should start writing it tomorrow.
We understand that the Bush regime has no respect for the Constitution and even less for the rights it protects, but for God’s sake, when is enough enough? The enemies of freedom aren’t just in Pakistan and Iraq, they are on Pennsylvania Avenue and have to be stopped. I don’t think this scandal will actually reach Bush – I am confident he just signed off on the firings ordered by Rove, Meier, and Gonzalez, and has the deniability set up already – “they told me these people weren’t doing a good job and I believed them.” But they’d better do something to someone in the executive branch, because while they have the right to replace U. S. Attorneys, that right needs to stop when it interferes with justice itself. And contrary to what Fox News, continuing to show less balance than Al-Jazeera, says, this is not the same as replacing all the prosecutors when you get elected. Bush had that option and exercised it, but this is a whole different thing, because they were doing their job too well and the Bushistas knew it. Firing Federal prosecutors for prosecuting seems beyond the pale, don’t you think?
Yet as of this moment, Alberto Gonzalez, the latest in a line of W enablers, still has his job. Fredo, as W likes to call him, must be doin’ a heck of a job. Still, Bush knows Fredo did it, and if I were Fredo, I’d stay out of small boats.
Then Bush came on TV to tell us of the “unprecedented” access to documents he was giving Congress. The speech was made from the White House Library, a room W probably needed written directions to find. And as Bush stood there in front of the books, talking about the sanctity of the Executive Branch and how Congress should be grateful for the amazing amount of information he was letting them see, I couldn’t help but flash back to Richard Nixon making almost the same exact speech, sitting next to a pile of bound selections from taped White House conversations. Of course Bush lacks Nixon’s sense of propriety and accountability, so he hasn’t fired anyone over this. Bush also lacks Nixon’s respect for the Constitution – and that may be the most astonishing sentence I have ever typed. The overwheming ignorance of this man is matched only by his unrelenting insolence. When he talks about how Presidential aides can’t testify under oath before Congress because it would hurt their ability to give advice to the President, he is so full of shit that it’s coming out of his ears (not just it’s usual exit point, his mouth.) Throughout our history Presidential aides have testified before Congress. During WWII, FDR’s closest aides testified -- I know that war wasn’t as important as the “war on terror”, and that it represented “pre 9/11 thinking” but it seemed important at the time.
Bush, Cheney, et al, think they are above the law. Hell, like all other fascist leaders, they think they are the law. It is up to Congress to show them they aren’t.