mpg

There's a saying in the news biz. "Dog bites man isn't news. Man bites dog is news." Let us know when a politician tells the truth. Then we'll have something to talk about.

__________________
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

Dezaad

I think its amusing that people think that "Serves at the pleasure of the President" gives the President carte blanche.

Really, if Presidents are hiring and firing attorneys who function best (for the good of the country) when they're independent, and the hiring and firing is working against their being indepedent, then Presidents ought to be held accountable.

Congress is in a unique position to help the citizenry watch over the Presidency, and should do so. Sure, its a horrible system that makes it so that the only time Congress seems to want to do that is when Congress is in the hands of the party that opposes the President's, but it's better than nothing.

In this light, it is clear that Congress did have the right to question Gonzales, and that Gonzales was beholden to answer truthfully.

Billo_Really

How many times can a man turn his head,
pretending he just doesn't see?
- Bob Dylan

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

Stinger

I find it amusing that people think it doesn't. Where does the constitution limited it?

U.S. Attorney's very specific ones, not career attorneys of the DoJ.

They are not little kings and they report to the President. We don't just grant the power they have to them and then make them untouchable or accountable to no one.

Equal to the Presidents unique position to watch over them.

And he should.

But it's the constitution that dictates how and in this matter Congress has no say.

They have no right to the private consultations of the President and his advisers. This sudden desire to change this long standing principle JUST to get Bush stupid and dangerous.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Stinger

I find it amusing that people think it doesn't. Where does the constitution limited it?

U.S. Attorney's very specific ones, not career attorneys of the DoJ.

They are not little kings and they report to the President. We don't just grant the power they have to them and then make them untouchable or accountable to no one.

Equal to the Presidents unique position to watch over them.

And he should.

But it's the constitution that dictates how and in this matter Congress has no say.

They have no right to the private consultations of the President and his advisers. This sudden desire to change this long standing principle JUST to get Bush stupid and dangerous.

Stinger

I find it amusing that people think it doesn't. Where does the constitution limited it?

U.S. Attorney's very specific ones, not career attorneys of the DoJ.

They are not little kings and they report to the President. We don't just grant the power they have to them and then make them untouchable or accountable to no one.

Equal to the Presidents unique position to watch over them.

And he should.

But it's the constitution that dictates how and in this matter Congress has no say.

They have no right to the private consultations of the President and his advisers. This sudden desire to change this long standing principle JUST to get Bush stupid and dangerous.

Stinger

I find it amusing that people think it doesn't. Where does the constitution limited it?

U.S. Attorney's very specific ones, not career attorneys of the DoJ.

They are not little kings and they report to the President. We don't just grant the power they have to them and then make them untouchable or accountable to no one.

Equal to the Presidents unique position to watch over them.

And he should.

But it's the constitution that dictates how and in this matter Congress has no say.

They have no right to the private consultations of the President and his advisers. This sudden desire to change this long standing principle JUST to get Bush stupid and dangerous.

Dezaad

In the parts where the President is accountable to the people...

Look, I, one of the citizens that is served by the President, don't want the President, any President, to use the powers granted to him by the Constitution in a way that is inconsistent with his duties to me. Because my Congressional delegation represents me in the Federal government, I want them to try to bring to light any Presidential abuses of his powers, whether specifically illegal or not.

And if you're thinking that I'm only wanting to apply this kind of scrutiny to Bush, I think you're partially right. But, its not because he's a Republican. I have trusted all of his predecessors from Ford on to Clinton with Presidential power. But not Bush. I never have. Alot of people now agree with me, and if we want Congress to keep a special eye on this President, then it is within the purview of Congress to do so.

Stinger

Originally Posted by Dezaad (Gonzales "Scandal" Thoroughly Debunked)
I think its amusing that people think that "Serves at the pleasure of the President" gives the President carte blanche.[/quote]

And I asked where in the constitution is that limited.

Through elections.

Cite the specific article in the Constitution you claim supports you contention vis-a-vis the congress.

That's why you get to vote.

Which does not give them the power nor the authority to stick their noses into the private consultations of the President, never has.

Yep.

and Clinton was the one who abused the office and tried to use the power of his office to protect himself from his personal problems.
So the constitution be damned if you can get Bush.

mpg

That's a good question, but I'm not the one who thinks it's unusual for a politician to lie. Just keep pretending that they're honest.