Which leads to my final point: it is very risky to call a career employee like Mr. Tanner before this committee and to question him the way he was this morning. At the end of the day, the responsibility for these problems lies with the AG and the AAGfCR – no problem with bringing any political appointee before the committee and calling them on the carpet for their actions and their priorities. But it is a dangerous precedent to bring in a career employee to take the heat for the political decisions being made above him. [CHS notes: I happen to agree with that point, although I thought Tanner had been appointed to his position when Sclotzman resigned. Perhaps he’s just an acting head? Anyone know for sure?] Thinks this can be a very useful panel discussion.

This is one of the few bits I caught sort of live. He would have won me over if he hadn’t snidely inferred that the Senate is responsible for approving the political appointee that Bush likes to ram down their throats and/or they lie through their teeth to secure appointment.

just sayin’

I also feel that career employees have as much duty to uphold the law as political appointees? And we all know how hard it is to do the right thing under this kind of leadership, but still, if you are going to cave, you need to know there are consequences for that as well. Choose your poison.

Armchair quarterbacking here, I know.

Phoenix Woman @29 says:

So the FIRST story was via an anonymous official, and so is the SECOND.

What does that tell you about how BushCo runs things?

It’s brilliant strategy…the wingnuts can assert that they were given immunity if you argue that Blackwater should be prosecuted, or they can argue that Condi and the State Dept. denizens didn’t offer them immunity if you argue that they gave them “a license to kill”.

And no named official actually has to take the heat, since neither can be checked for lying, and the reporters don’t have to give up their sources anymore in criminal investigations.

And presumably, since such “sourcing” is supposed to have TWO supporting sources (one confirming up the other unnamed source)…TWO people say that immunity was granted…and two say it wasn’t!

Hill. will oppose Mukasey nomination.