You know this is, once again, a complete whitewash of history. Most of the guys, my father included, was drafted to go to Vietnam. They did not choose to go. And even back then we had people who went and those whose father's got them out of it. I still think it is funny the they can't find Mr. Bush's draft record. I don't blame Mr. Bush for pulling strings, as if anyone in their right mind believes that strings were not pulled. If you had a way to pull them most people did. But it was the guys who did not have the political influence that had to go fight the real war in Asia. It is also the guys who were back home safe that are the most ready to get into a confrontation. I think that those who are ready to cheer to go to war should also have to go fight it. If they did we just might think twice about our options. I wonder just how long this war will continue because we don't have a draft???? This was also a war that was initiated by pure presidential will and had questionable support in the beginning that is now backfiring.

When Congress refers a contempt citation to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Title 2, Section 194 of the U.S. Code requires that it be presented to the grand jury. It is an explicit duty, imposed by statute, duly passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

If this is true, and the Attorney General or President refuse to allow the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to prosecute, aren't they obstructing justice and now subject to impeachment???? Not that I am advocating this as such but is this a possibility???

It sounds like everyone just better look at this process again. Because, while the US Attorneys may be appointed officials, hence political, they do have an explicit duty to perform that they can be fired for not doing.

under Article II of the US Constitution, the principal duty of the President is to execute the law, and if the law specifies a duty on one of the President's subordinates, then the President must "take care" to see that the duty specified in the law is executed. To do otherwise would be not be faithfully executing the law, and thus be unlawful, unconstitutional, a violation of the separation of powers, and ultimately impeachable.

Also Congress has

Inherent Contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited for contempt is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subject to punishment that the House may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment reasons, imprisonment for coercive effect, or release from the contempt citation.)

See the case: Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935)

The Supreme Court upheld this decision. It is a step that Congress may be willing to use in the case of the AG Gonzalez.

If anyone was watching yesterday the current antics of the Attorney General, one would ask "Why would somebody put themselves through all of this?" Well give the latest exercise in Presidential power, I think the guy thinks his boss is still behind him. However, I do not think that Congress, if they vote for a contempt charge, will let this go. It is possible for the first time in over 70 years that Congress may have to have a hearing in the Senate on inherent contempt charges. I do not think that Congress wants to do this, but I think that they may believe they have to do this to show that they are the "check" in the "checks and balances" our forefathers put in place.

When Senator Arlen Spector and Senator Patrick Leahy can agree you know that Congress is not going to let this go. Who ever said Bush would not be a uniter?

Like the car wreck on the highway we just could not resist looking. Let's face it folks she exemplified the 80's. Excessively glitzed up, over poofed hairspray plastered, all done up with smoke and mirrors. They made us feel good. Meanwhile, she and Jim profited from the poverty and lonesomeness of others. What they did was take the name of God and used it to make a quick buck. I think that while she may have rehabilitated herself in the last few years, she may benefit from a forgiving God. Because he is the only one who can.

Like the ghost of Christmas past, the specter of John Mitchell looms in the distance. Mitchell at least knew when his time was up. I have been pondering the images of previous Attorney Generals and their records. As the top law enforcement official, he/she is suppose to be beyond reproach and even appear "apolitical". But I think that Gonzales rates right up there with John Mitchell and Harry Daugherty (the AG resigned in the face of a Senate investigation) At least he had the minimal standard of propriety to resign.

I think that he should go, it is time to end corruption and cronyism in Washington, again.

In order to have faith in our leaders, they have to be worthy of it. Gonzales isn't worthy of that faith because he has been to busy shouting about law and order, but believing he is above the law he is suppose to constitutionally enforce.

This is a scary time folks, I think we all need to march on the Department of Justice?