So why bother? Well,it covers two very current situations. First is regarding the lies Alberto Gonzales told Congress in his position as Attorney General.
When Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wanted the USA Patriot Act renewed in the spring of 2005, he told the Senate, “There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse.” But The Washington Post reported yesterday that just six days earlier, the F.B.I. had sent Mr. Gonzales a report saying that it had obtained personal information it should not have.Then further down the NY Times editors move on to Bush's demand that "Executive Privilege" be expanded to cover what Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Sara Taylor, a former top aide to Karl Rove know about the potentially criminal behavior of Attorney General's office in the case of the purge of the U.S. attorneys.
Mr. Bush’s claim is baseless. Executive privilege, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is a judge-made right of limited scope, intended to create a sphere of privacy around the president so that he can have honest discussions with his advisers. The White House has insisted throughout the scandal that Mr. Bush — and even Mr. Gonzales — was not in the loop about the firings. If that is the case, the privilege should not apply.This is a pretty important statement for the newspaper of record to make on the day that Miers and Taylor are set to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify and yet have been directed by Bush not to testify. The Bush administration is an out-of-control runway Presidency making Unconstitutional demands of Congress and of the American people.
Even if Mr. Bush was directly involved, Ms. Miers and Ms. Taylor would have no right to withhold their testimony. The Supreme Court made clear in the Watergate tapes case, its major pronouncement on the subject, that the privilege does not apply if a president’s privacy interests are outweighed by the need to investigate possible criminal activity. Congress has already identified many acts relating to the scandal that may have been illegal, including possible obstruction of justice and lying to Congress.
The White House argues that its insistence on the privilege is larger than this one case, that it is protecting the presidency from inappropriate demands from Congress. But the reverse is true. This White House has repeatedly made clear that it does not respect Congress’s constitutional role. If Congress backs down, it would not only be compromising an important investigation of Justice Department malfeasance. It would be doing serious damage to the balance of powers.
It is only the Republican Senators and Congressmen who are placing loyalty to their political party above loyalty to America and the Constitution which is holding up the totally necessary action of impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and as became very clear when his lies to Congress were just exposed, Alberto Gonzales.
It is the anti-Constitutional and anti-American behavior of the Republican politicians which is extremist, not the totally appropriate demands for impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales. The behavior of these self-serving Republican politicians must be considered for retribution when the next election occurs in November 2008 (and later for those Senators not up for reelection until 2010 and 2012.
This New York Times editorial demonstrates the need to remove these cancers on the body of American government and politics as rapidly as possible.
See also:
- Gonzales lied under oath to the Senate
posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment