http://www.abc.net.au/lateline…..927334.htm

According to Hitchens, Wolfowitz tried to recuse himself from the situation, and then when that was denied was punished for arranging Ms. Riza’s exit from the World Bank in a manner amicable to all.

Of course, all of this coming from the enigma Hitchens, who has a flair for the dramatic and a penchant for protecting neocons, especially architects of this war, at all cost.

This is not an endorsement or a condemnation of Wolfowitz (seems to be plenty of that on both sides, as usual, and for more than just the World Bank fiasco) but just another perspective into the story.

Monica’s testimony this week – Gonzo won’t flinch.

No confidence vote this week – Gonzo won’t flinch.

I actually think the Senate will have Gonzo arrested in June.

Impeachment takes too much time, given that Gonzo’s overall mission is to Obstruct Justice.

Taking out Gonzo and propelling McNulty into the AG’s job would open the sluices on every currently stalled White House investigation as well as untold new ones.

It’s not too bold to say – As goes Gonzo, so goes Bush. In chess, you would say Bush the King is pinned behind Gonzales the Pawn.

“I think it’s sad that President Carter’s reckless personal criticism is out there,” White House spokesman Tony Fratto responded Sunday from Crawford, Texas, where Bush spent the weekend.

“I think it’s unfortunate,” Fratto said. “And I think he is proving to be increasingly irrelevant with these kinds of comments.”

Carter made the comments to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a story that appeared in the newspaper’s Saturday editions.

Carter has been an outspoken critic of Bush, but the White House has largely refrained from attacking him in return. Sunday’s sharp response marks a departure from the deference that sitting presidents traditionally have shown their predecessors.

In the newspaper interview, Carter said Bush had taken a ”radical departure from all previous administration policies” with the Iraq war.

“We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered,” Carter said. link

AMEN

If Carter was so “irrelevant” why is the White House bothering to attack him? Sounds like just the opposite tio me…unless the WH attacks the irrelevant and ignores the important?

egregious @ 23

A pro forma session of Congress every 10 days…I wonder if that is to get around recess appointments.

Absolutely. I found an old case which said that a recess appointment made during a recess period of 6 to 10 days is suspect, but Bush appointed a judge to the Ct of Appeals on day 7 of a 10 day recess, and it was upheld.

That’s because the full period was eventually attained. It doesn’t matter what day the appointment is made as long as the recess does, in fact, exceed ten days.

Then somebody yesterday found on a senate site (I think) that a “recess” is an absence of more than *3* days.

I’m doubtful of that. But the Constitution states that a President can only make APPOINTMENTS during recesses of more than 10 days.

so I’m thinking that Harry’s strategy needs re-tooling, and that there should be a pro-forma every day, just to be on the safe side.

I don’t know whether a recess is a recess if it hasn’t been officially *called* a recess, or whether the actual absence of members constitutes a de-facto “recess”.

At any rate, I think his ten-day plan isn’t sound.

egregious @ 56

cbl @ 54

Adie – there is some inside the beltway debate whether it’s 10 days or 3 days – looks like Reid has it covered either way

and we hippies advised him to keep Whitehouse and Webb in DC (they can drive home @ night) w/ Tester guarding the door

That would be a mighty long drive for Whitehouse. Perhaps you are thinking of Cardin-MD.

An interesting possibility is that the House can refuse to accede for an adjournment of the Senate for more than three days. Thus the House can essentially provide the legal foundation for challenging any “recess appointments” by Bush.

The Constitution states that the other House must approve any adjournment of more than three days.

In addition, there is considerable debate about whether the original intent of interim appointments were even a) applicable to cases where the vacancy occurred BEFORE the recess, and b) whether such appointments were meant to deal with adjournments while the body was still in a regulation Session. Periods of a few days adjournment would seem to require the “advise and consent” protocol to occur…and even most “interim appointments” made by earlier Presidents went to the Senate for confirmation upon their return.

This was the apparent application as intended as the Constitution clearly states that the appointment is in effect UNTIL the next SESSION of Congress when confirmation will be determined. Thus the appointment/advise and consent function move smoothly. There was no intent of the Founders to introduce an “escape clause” for the Executive to avoid confirmation…rather it was to allow an emergency, and temporary, appointment until the Senate COULD fulfill its function.

Some good news for a change, even though I just figured out we’re on a new thread:

dems outpaced Gop for the first quarter in Georgia,North Carolina, Alabama,Mississippi,Louisiana,Kentucky, Virginia and Florida.

Gop outpaced Dems in:

South Carolina,Tennessee,Arkansas and Texas
JOSH HAS IT HERE.

God, I am so sick of my state being so slap full of ignorant people.

From the Raw story article comes a comparison to fishing:

“Some serious questions remain unanswered. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves. In an L.A. Times poll last month, 63 percent of Americans believed that Congress is pursuing this matter to gain partisan advantage,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Ranking Republican on the committee, in the May 10 hearing. “If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.”

Oh, yeah. That’s like weeding your garden without pulling out the roots. Would they rather we used Weed-Be-Gone?

TiredFed @ 204

its exactly this scenario that Bush would want to avoid. If Gonzo resigns, McNulty is acting AG, but Bush can recess appoint a new AG any time he wants (as a long as the Senate is recessed). So I dont see how it matters that McNulty is there or not. I must be missing something.

unless of course McNulty has time to appoint a special prosecutor.

That could get interesting.