Posted by
on Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:54:14 PM
That is, he does if he is serious, and it certainly sounds like he is; at least from this story:President Bush warned Democrats Tuesday to accept his offer to allow top aides to testify about the firings of federal prosecutors only privately and not under oath, or risk a constitutional showdown from which he would not back down.
"We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants," Bush said in a statement from the White House. "I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse."
He added: "There's no indication ... that anybody did anything improper."
Democrats' response to Bush's offer was swift and firm. "Testimony should be on the record and under oath. That's the formula for true accountability," said Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Bush gave his embattled attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, a boost during an early morning call to his longtime friend and ended the day with a public statement repeating it. "He's got support with me," the president said.
Honestly speaking, we are in favor of him sticking to his guns today, and should the Democrats push the issue. This is a perfectly amicable solution to the problem, and the fringe nuts need to keep silent on this. The president could cite executive privilege, and end the debate entirely. The firings of these eight attorneys is an executive branch matter alone.
The Congress has no say in the hirings and firings of regular attorneys for the Justice Department, and a minimal role for the attorneys assigned to the various districts in the United States. Their role is advise and consent, provided that it does not interfere with the law amended by the Patriot Act in Section 502. In those regards, then their role is even more miniscule; that being virtually nonexistent.
The president was well within his bounds in approving of the firings. Alberto Gonzales's sole mistake in this whole, overblown fiasco is that he bungled it along the way. But calling for his head is inappropriate. He committed no crime, nor serious mistake that is a removable offense. I know that many conservatives are not happy with him, and that is understandable given some of his more controversial stances such as immigration, and even some of his own judicial philosophies. (Let us thank all that is holy that he was not nominated to the high court.)
The deal is one the Democrats should take. They wil get their answers. If they do not, then they are in for a fight that they wil surely lose provided the president stands his ground. The law is on his side, not on the Democrat's, and it is high time he puts Congress back in it's proper place. If they push this, the president needs to look at them and say, "Fine, roll the dice, take your chances, and call your mommies. It will be a long ride, and you wil not like it."
Marcie
UPDATE: Marcie just relinquished the computer, missing this, I picked it up from NRO's Corner. Byron York just posted up a conversation he had with Tony Snow about the offer from the White House. I'm not going to cite the whole thing, but I will touch on the last two paragraphs:
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid "hearings or the trappings of hearings" when White House officials talk to Congress. "They're looking for hands up, cameras on," Snow said of Democrats. "They're talking about a show trial."
Finally, I asked whether the White House believes this is a battle the president can win. "Yes," Snow said. "In terms of presidential prerogative, in terms of preserving confidential communications with your staff — yes."
For the nutters out there who think they know what they're talking about, and believe this is a "gotcha" moment for the White House, think again. Tony Snow is correct in asserting that their defense will revolve around "confidential communications" among White House staff and their superiors. And the Democrats are definitely looking for a show trial. They're still ticked that Fitzie-boy didn't get Rove, which is why they want him testifying before them.
It won't be under oath, and if they file subpoenas, they're going to be disappointed because the Constitution -- Executive Authority, specifically -- supports the president and not the Democrats.
Publius II