Anything that makes the Congressional Republicans break with this White House is a probably a good thing politically. Bush can bash Congress all he likes, but eventually even Bush loyalists who can't see that it is important to have three co-equal branches of government, will see that Bush is alienating everyone except the hardcore 30% of the population who make up his base.

Maybe out of self-interest they will start think about overturning threatened vetoes. Maybe Bush will continue to push things further and furthermore from the majority of the US population and Congressional Republicans will actually check and balance him out by siding with the majority.

It could happen.

So, let's welcome everyone and anyone who calls for the AG's resignation and forces Bush to put up a new AG for Senate confirmation.

wouldn't it be a lower burden of proof, not a higher burden of proof? the appearance of illegality would not be enough to convict, but the appearance of impropriety should be enough to cause a resignation. wouldn't that be a lower not higher burden of proof?

Elephantman, thank you for your reasonable posts, but I really must disagree. The endlessly repeated talking point that there is nothing wrong with these firings because they serve at the pleasure of the President simply doesn't make sense to me. The Commissioner of the IRA serves at the pleasure of the President as well. He is confirmed by the Senate as well.

What would you think if a Democratically appointed commissioner started auditing every Republican congressional staffer and right wing think tank employee in Washington? That would tie up a lot of time that might otherwise be spent doing their regular work. Or just wealthy donors to Republican causes and candidates?

How about if in particularly close races, the IRS begins to audit the Republican candidates and this "leaks" out? Even if the audit ended up not finding anything illegal, it would be politically beneficial to his opponents to have him tarred with an audit and to be required to answer questions about it. Resources would have to be spent to defend against the audit. Would that be okay?

I have no idea what restrictions on IRS audits exist. To my knowledge they don't require a legal level of probable cause, which means techincally everyone is fair game. Undoubtedly, the IRS would probably find some people guilty of something, but that would just be icing on the cake.

What if IRS division heads who wouldn't go along with this scheme were fired? What sort of pressure would those firings put on the other division heads? Would that be a problem?

Or, would we all think that that was an unacceptable politicization of the IRS?

What if when asked about all of these things, the commissioner simply couldn't remember a single conversation about anything? Would you believe him? I wouldn't.

So Arlen doesn't think it's appropriate to call for a resignation of a cabinet level appointee, because this is obviously a decision for the President and the apointee alone.

Funny thing is that he didn't feel that way in 1996 when, as the Times-Picayune reported on 9/19/96: "At least one senator - Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican - had called for Perry's resignation" after a terrorist attack killed 19 US airmen in Saudi Arabia.

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Specter's a Washington politician and therefore by definition a complete whore who only pretends to be principled when it suits his current needs.

But the real question is why doesn't the press call him on this. They have lexis-nexis too, right? If I can find a quote in 30 seconds of looking, shouldn't a reporter be able to find it as well?

Elephantman writes: What you are saying is that we should very soon expect that Alberto Gonzalez will be indicted for perujury? Or that he will somehow be cited for contempt of Congress? You let me know when that happens.

Should we? Yes.

Will we? Probably not.

I'd like to remind Elephantman that misleading Congress -- even by telling someone you know is going to be in front of Congress a lie so that they will pass on incorrect information -- was an impeachable offense when Clinton said to Betty Currie about Lewinsky ""We were never alone, right?".

We were told by loud voices that this sort of obstruction of justice was a threat to the very foundation of the republic. Yet when Libby and Gonzales lie to federal prosecutors or Congress under oath, that's just fine. When they claim a near amnesiac memory about anything whatsoever, that's fine.

Again, while recognizing that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, I will sally forth once again to say that I thought it was wrong when Clinton obstructed justice and perjured himself and think it is equally wrong when this administration does it.

There is clearly more evidence of lies and misleading statements to Congress, not to mention the destruction of evidence in the form of emails, in this matter than there was in the whole Lewinsky scandal. If there were an Democratic party hack independent prosecutor analagous to the Grand Inquisitor Starr, impeachment proceedings would be apace already. I guess a cum stained blue dress is more salacious than a deleted email, but any objective observer can see which is more a threat to democracy.

Remember there was no crime in Clinton's case either. No whitewater crime. Just a consensual relationship between adults and a civil contempt of court for Clinton in the Jones case.