BushCo: It's not the law unless WE say it is. If you tell us it is a law, that's preposterous because WE say what the law is, by definition!

Obama wants to take this one step further: "WE used to say what the law is. Therefore, you cannot tell us what the law was because you were not in charge of the law. WE were. Therefore, what the law was and what the law now is is not for you to say, because WE may have changed the law."

Also, by corollary: Eric Holder is a fraud, and Obama is a buffoon - well-liked, well-polled, well-groomed, and, well..., he's popular as hell.

Pure Moliere farce - wherein the breaker of laws cannot ever be prosecuted on the basis of those laws. WE, the people, simply have to make a better arrr-gyoo-mint. I have one. Here's what Obama's up against: Cheney and the shadow government have him posing under threat. BushCo will not go down for their better, uber-adult, motives. Obama can only make Leahy and Conyers want to hold investigations by toeing the Cheney line. But that's okay because Cheney doesn't give a shit about politics or politicians or laws - if subpoena'ed, he'll merely invoke state secrets privilege and tell Leahy, "Go f**k yourself!" again.

Obama is stuck, but he's also a great chess player. And Cheney has no fear of a Church Committee or a Tower Commission or a Leahy-headed Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Fourth Branch and unitary executive? puh-leez - this is all so silly, so grand guignol and stupid.

Obama just doesn't want to be the spoiler. He has a political sandbox to play around in, and that suits him just fine. Time is on his side.

He's an orthodox and absolutist centrist who will go out of his way to support cheap labor conservatives domestically and follow the doctrines and imperatives of the CFR internationally.

The nation would be better off without his immaturity in the same way that we would have been better served without a Karl Rove.

How Axelrod can use him is beyond me - my point being that we need grown-ups running the country who are unafraid of taking a position of responsibility and acting with authority in the face of Republican "obstruct and destroy" politics. Rahm doesn't want to destroy the Republican Party at all. Their extremism gives him good cover for what he thinks is best for the country. It makes him look progressive. And if he screws over Jack and Jill Sixpack, that's okay with him, too.

If it's good for big businesses, it's good enough for Rahm.

ways to restore the rule of law and the moral authority we have absolutely lost.

...speaking of straw men...

These people are the very pillars of Republican governance, epitomizing their party's failures over the past eight years, in every way, and on every single issue worldwide! It is shocking and breathtaking, and I can only clear away a little of the dross to assess one of their reasons.

There is nothing that even a moderate or Blue Dog Democrat should agree with. There is nothing there but straw men, hollow men, people who would do the citizens nothing but harm. Why is this?

These are the true elitists and oligarchs for whom the battle for population control justifies the most abhorrent policies. There is absolutely nothing these authoritarians will not lie about or distort in order to accomplish their evil and wicked ends, and those ends would be our demise...a thinning out of the population.

It is literally a battle to the death, and it should not go unnoticed. These are not simple policy differences. They want as many dead as possible.

Sadly, they are quite right about the overcrowding that is projected to develop over the next forty years. It is unsustainable. But it is their overt hypocrisy and dishonesty that will defeat them. Rather than educate and lead, they would simply maim and kill.

So it is with steadfastness and no small rhetorical flourish that I say unflinchingly, "Karl Rove: Drop dead with all the other Republican sinners. Truly, you should die!"

If you think me a fool and an extremist nutjob, please review the United Nations projections for the year 2050.

I have faith that a Constitutional scholar like Obama, who has taught law, and knows history and politics very well, will move these issues to the stark light of day.

There was no way Holder could oust the entire corps of Dead-Enders. And there are many tactical advantages to knowing the sources of corrupt legal opinion within one's agency.

Watch, keep the faith, and look at the policies and procedures that are being deployed, i.e., Gitmo to close; al-Marri to proceed through the courts.

It's going to take a while. Above all, read the headlines and watch them raise the stench to a higher level.

I do not think I am being paranoid when I suggest that slow-walking this stuff after 8 long years of BushCo corruption is the safer way to discover who Obama's enemies are within the bureaucracy.

But if the President refuses to disclose evidence in it, that may be illegal....that is called

Obstruction of Justice.

Jenny S.Martinez in WaPo from a while back

[ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081601771.html]

offers a plain-language analysis of the breathtaking depths of ...(tada!) ....Obama's Holder DoJ, to date:

The Bush administration has claimed since Sept. 11 that the federal courts cannot be trusted with terrorism matters. It has argued that we should scrap our centuries-old constitutional protections and replace our system of checks and balances with one awarding the executive complete discretion to lock up whomever he wants, for however long he deems appropriate. The Founders rejected that kind of arbitrary and oppressive power. And the federal court in Florida has shown how weak the administration's case for abandoning the Constitution really is.

Will Holder relent in al-Harramain? The jury is in: NO, HE WILL NOT!