However, I've done some research and there might yet be hope here. It seems that Griffin was only sworn in late last September, after having been appointed to this position by Gonzales under that previously obscure provision in the Patriot Act revision bill passed late year that allowed unfilled USA positions to be filled by the AG, and not each district's chief justice, as was the previous procedure.

I thought Griffin was now the USA for Arkansas, where he can better dredge up specious indictments on the Clintons in time for 2008? No matter, whoever the USA is for DC, it is a safe assumption they are a loyal Bush tool, and will not act to prosecute a high level member of the administration if they can possibly avoid it.

There has been a lot of discussion about this. I think the fundamental flaw is that the setup of Justice requires the Executive branch to prosecute itself. Perhaps congress can revive the Independent Counsels, but given that Bush believes in the "unitary executive" there would still be problems with even a prosecutor having statuatory independence from the administration.

Others have pointed to Congress' other powers. "Inherent Contempt" would allow a chamber on its own to arrest someone, try them (even in committee) and "convict" them on the floor, and actually be able to lock them up in the Capitol building jail. This has been done in the 1920s, and the Supreme Court upheld it as a constitutional power of Congress.

But the spectacle of the Sergeant-At-Arms knocking on the White House to arrest Karl Rove is a bit hard to countenance.

Also, Congress could impeach and remove the DC prosecutor for failing to act on a compelling case, and perhaps even get Judge Hogan to appoint a federal prosecutor before Bush can replace him.

More likely, I think what is ultimately needed is for this scandal to well and truly break in the public conscience. The Saturday Night Massacre resulted in nationwide outrage, tens of thousands of telegrams flooding DC to demand impeachment.

The comparisons in this case and watergate are rife, and in my view, fair. The two events really are quite similar.

The chief justice for the DC District is Thomas Hogan, of sending Judy Miller to jail fame. He presided over the court (but not trial--that was Walton) during the Plame investigation and Libby trial, and appeared to be very supportive of Fitzgerald's efforts to get to the bottom of that matter. While a Reagan appointee, he appears to be a fair, honest and competent justice, and I'm hoping that he would name a like replacement for Griffin.

I agree. I did an analysis of his ruling against Rep William Jefferson's claims of Congressional privilege in trying to have his search warrant overturned. That ruling, applied broadly tells me the Judicial branch does not believe the Executive branch gets to decide for itself what is privileged. I think if the Subpoenas for Rove/Miers go to court, the Courts will rule in Congress' favour. Most likely it will be something similar to Nixon v US, where the Courts acted as a neutral arbiter of what material to give to the investigation, and what was privileged.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/7/15345/52605

IANAL, but that's how I read the ruling, and it looks good as far as I can see.

3) One critic above had a good point -- you can't cite Friday's bomb attacks in Iraq in isolation as proof of failure of "the Surge" (not even obliquely). The events can only be taken as evidence one way or another when viewed with the trend in violence over a period of weeks or months.

Hmm. I have mixed feelings about this statement. Argument by anecdote is not wholly a fallacy. It depends on the idea you are trying to disprove. If you claim it never rains in Antarctica, and I find an instance where it did, my anecdote is proof your statement is not accurate.

In the case of the surge: This is the green zone, and moreso, the Iraqi parliament. The surge is concentrated in Baghdad, and the green zone should be growing more secure now that there are even more US forces in the capital, and it should be even easier to keep vital points like the parliament safe. That insurgents can get a bomb into this most secure facility, in the midst of a surge of US forces is not heartening for the success of this effort.

Juan Cole pointed recently to a new policy from the US Embassy in Iraq requiring staff to wear body armour when outdoors within the green zone. They've been there for 4 years, and only in 2007 is it necessary for US embassy staff to wear protective armour just to move within the green zone.

I would agree neither incident is conclusive, but they are both far stronger examples of argument by anecdote than using the cold weather on a particular day to argue against global warming.

When Global warming skeptics use these anecdotes, they are merely trying to poke holes in the prevailing theory. When we cite examples of grave breaches of security within Iraq's most theoretically secure sites, we are actually citing examples which proove our competing theory about the surge: That a military solution is impossible, and that US forces only serve to exacerbate the situation and provoke even more violence.

It's a key distinction.