I'll repeat an oft-heard Republican slogan: "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear". Granted, that was used to justify an increase in government surveillance on the citizenry, but I'd say it's equally apt for citizen surveillance of the administration.

Note that I said "apt", not "true". But then, I figure that an administration that doesn't trust me can't be trusted itself.

The executive order's most revealing words come at the end. Its final section states that the order creates no rights enforceable by any victim against the United States or its employees, while expressly offering CIA employees a defense against any attempt to hold them liable for abuse.

How convenient, I guess that Executive Orders can contain their own signing statements. See how easy it is when you get to write your own laws.

if (choice == myGuy)

{

myGuyCount += 1;

print (myGuy);

}

else if choice == theirGuy)

{

myGuyCount += 1;

print (theirGuy);

}

else

{

myGuyCount += 1;

print (noGuy);

}

OK, so it won't be that blatant in real life, but it will be there. Too bad we don't really get a choice.

... he praised the "100,000 dedicated public servants" working in the Justice Department

And the best thing that he can do is to resign and let them have an effective leader. I get the feeling Satan will skate to work before that happens. I also believe that if he does resign, Junior will manage to find someone even worse to replace him.

Gee Nancy, I guess the Constitution doesn't really mean that much. It seems that the "now" as in " ... now let's pay attention to these issues..." will come sometime after November, 2008.

If the actions and crimes of Junior, Darth Cheney, Gonzo, and the rest of the gang don't rate impeachment, the bar has been lowered to the point where I guess we can kiss our democracy good-bye and just get used to the kleptocracy of the "permanent Republican majority".

Thanks Nance, you've shown beyond any doubt that the underlying rule of this Congress is "Don't Rock the Boat".

As you've quite correctly pointed out, there's a big difference between impeaching and failing and and dismissing the possibility in advance because it's deemed "impractical".

In the first case, Congress would be telling the Administration that their actions have been noted and that a majority in the House believe that those actions are worthy of the actors being removed from office. The attempt may not succeed, but at least it will have been made. Not to make the attempt to impeach is to give a tacit pass to those actions.

The Democrats are not responsible for the actions of the Republicans in the Senate. I would fully expect them to obstruct. It's what they do, the poor dears just don't seem to be able to help themselves. As we've seen, their first priority is to protect Junior.

I have come to expect nothing but contempt for the Constitution from this Administration, after all The Decider himself described it as just "a goddamn piece of paper". I do, however, expect a bit more from the Democrats than "we've got great respect for the Constitution, except when it might cost us votes". The current course advocated by Nancy Pelosi is akin to polishing the ship's bell while ignoring the rip in the hull.

Blumenthal has hit the nail on the head. If as little as one brick is removed, the wall of silence crumbles.

From an earlier War Room:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asked at a breakfast this morning if she supports a move to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: "Well, I would like us to stay focused on our own agenda for this week."

and next week, she'll find another excuse. At some point enabling becomes abetting. When the corporate-left party helps cover for the corporate-right party, they become its accomplices.

While I don't really know if I'll be able to stomach pulling the lever for "the lesser of two evils" again for President, least, I'll be able to vote for my Congressman (Jay Inslee) who has decided that Congress really does need to move towards showing Gonzo the door in a serious fashion, even if his leadership won't support him until it's clear to them that doing the right thing will get them more votes than sitting on their hands.

"... if a court ultimately determines that Congress' need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege, I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions on the U.S. attorneys matter."

Boy, what a concession! It's especially generous as he knows that his boss has forbidden the relevant US Attorney to prosecute any contempt citations related to this matter. Although as Mr. Jennings did at least have the decency to show up, I suspect that he'll get a pass on any possible contempt citation.

But ya' know a court order trumps any welcoming feeling that J. Scott may, or may not, have.

OK, Gonzo told the literal truth. A matter of interpretation, sure, but as long as there's one interpretation, no matter how implausible, that's literally true he can skate.

This may be enough to save him from a perjury charge. But, last time I looked intentionally misleading Congress was still a felony, doesn't require that the person have been placed under oath, and doesn't have a "literal truth" defense.

I'm so glad that we've restored honesty and integrity to the White House.