Stonewall Bush

Here we go again. I keep telling Bush to just fire Gonzales and be done with it. Then he’d be out of this mess, but does he listen to me? Noooo. He just plugs away, backing the odious and blood-thirsty Mr. Gonzales (perhaps I’ve been calling the wrong public official El Vampiro? Nah… You know Cheney drinks the blood of virgins in the dark of night).

Yup, it was because of the man’s stubbornness in backing a faithful that has led to a near vote of no confidence against the head of the DoJ, the revelation that in true mobster fashion Gonzo “visited” critically ill John Ashcroft’s hospital bed in the middle of the night in an attempt to strong arm the man to sign off on warrantless wire tapping, and then there was the very recently revealed nugget wherein we learned that one of the prosecutors was fired because he didn’t want to go after the death penalty in a case where authorities couldn’t find DNA evidence, the gun, or even the friggin BODY!

All of this looking VERY bad upon El Presidente, and yet the man STILL can’t manage to find a way to show the Attorney General the door, leading me to believe that Gonzo must be blackmailing Bush with nude photos of him snortin’ coke off a hooker’s ass.

Gonzo’s an anchor… a very very heavy anchor, with a short chain over a bottomless abyss, and even though the boat is going down, The Commander Guy seems ill disposed to figure it out. Water’s coming up around those big ears of his, and he still can’t seem to pick up on the fact that the ship may just be sinking.

And it continues. After months of investigation, Congress has still not gotten to the bottom of this whole mess, and wants more information. They asked for it via subpoena on June 13, and, big surprise, Bush ain’t budgin’.

In what will most likely be a bit of foreshadowing of what’s to come in regards to the subpoena issued about Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program, the White House has declared Executive Privelege, and refused to give Congress neither the documents it asked for, nor the the witness testimony of Harriet Miers or Sara Taylor.

But here’s my question. Considering the government works for us, I think it’s a valid question as one of its employers. How long does this executive privelege extend? To what extent is it useful? I full well grasp the concept of it, you don’t want to tie the hands of the President’s advisors-I don’t necessarily agree with it, I think their advice should be as transparent as everything else (or at least as transparent as it should be). I mean, if the president’s advisors are giving him really bad advice, I kinda wanna know about it, the past six and a half years a great example showing that maybe we should know a little more about what’s going on in the West Wing.

But more pertinent and probably more stable than that, should Executive Privelege be used to cover unlawful activity? Or unethical activity. There’s a difference. Bad advice is bad advice, people get a case of the stupids every once in a while, and it can have disastrous effects but hey, we’re human. But when it comes to breaking the law, or more specifically, say, turning the DoJ into yet another political arm of the White House, does Executive Privelege serve the best interest of us, the employers?

We cut these people their paychecks from our own, we give them their marching orders every election, I understand that sometimes secrets need to be kept, but you know, if someone’s dickin’ the dog on my dime, I want to know so I can FIRE HIS ASS!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook