Saturday, June 30, 2007

a very-fine editorial in sunday's new york times. . .

as ever, it is worthwhile
to read the entire opinion.
this concluding bit, below, really
captures -- in very few words -- what
is fundamentally wrong with this
administration's distain for the
rule of law. as ever, click on the
wordmark to read the full opinion:

. . .Last week, three Republican senators, including the highly partisan Orrin Hatch, voted to issue subpoenas for records relating to Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the tapping of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails abroad without legally and constitutionally mandated warrants. Only three Republicans actually voted against the subpoenas. (Three others did not register a vote.) Not long ago, those same nine Republicans would not even allow Senator Leahy to hold a roll-call vote on issuing subpoenas connected to the attorneys scandal.

If the White House continues to defy Congress, the Senate and the House could file criminal contempt charges. It’s a strong measure, but lawmakers should not be afraid to take it, as they have done 10 times since 1975 under both parties.

Last week, in a bit of especially mendacious spin, Tony Fratto, the White House deputy press secretary, responded to the subpoenas on the illegal wiretapping by saying, “It’s unfortunate that Congressional Democrats continue to choose the route of confrontation.”

Actually, Mr. Bush chose that route long ago by defining consultation as a chance for lawmakers to hear about decisions he had already made, bipartisanship as a chance for Democrats to join Republicans in rubber-stamping those choices and Congressional oversight as self-serving and possibly seditious. At this point, confrontation is far preferable to the path the Republican majority in Congress chose for so many years — capitulation. . .

now, that is exceeding well-put.

prepare for a busy week after
the coming holiday-shortened one. . .

No comments: