Impudent Bush : I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials

The Bush Administration recently purged eight U.S. attorneys, a move that has caught the attention of the mainstream media and Democrats, many of which feel the firing of several attorneys who had preformed well on the job, was at the very least, suspicious.

The American public is starting to catch on, especially when the Los Angeles Times and others are reporting that

"Senate Democrats signaled Sunday that of the eight U.S. attorneys abruptly fired by the Bush administration, the case in San Diego is emerging as the most troubling because of new allegations that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired in a direct attempt to shut down investigations into Republican politicians in Southern California."

A DoJ official commented that "real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." when it was learned that "Lam notified Washington of search warrants in a Republican corruption case"

It doesn't help either when The Washington Post is reporting that David C. Iglesias, who was one of the other attorneys was fired after he had been "heralded for his expertise" by the Justice Department "which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes."

Which blows to pieces the Bush Administrations original claim that the attorneys were purged because of poor performance.

Iglesias alleged crime? Apparently Republicans were not happy with Iglesias because he failed to prosecute Democrats for voter fraud because “we didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt,” Iglesias stated on FOX.

“Prosecutors can’t just prosecute on rumor and innuendo. I set up only one of two election fraud task forces in the country. In fact, the Justice Department asked me to speak at an election fraud seminar as a result of those task forces.” Iglesias also says that his firing was a "political hit" and wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times "Why I Was Fired"

The Bush Administration and it's apologist have supplied a steady stream of various excuses regarding the ouster of the attorneys.

First the Administration claimed the attorneys preformed poorly. Then it was within it's right to purge the attorneys, however suspicious and politically motivated the circumstances appeared. Then they pointed fingers at each other "Harriet did it" or "Rove did it" and "Gonzales did it". Finally they pledged accountability, right before they said they had nothing to be accountable for.

So, one would reasonably assume that if the Bush Administration was not participating in lecherous partisanship and trying to steer investigations when it purged the attorneys then it should not have any objections to going under oath and explaining themselves, should they? If the Bush Administration did nothing wrong then they should have nothing to hide and going under oath should not be a problem, right?

Wrong. Someone is hiding something.

The Politico is reporting that “In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.”

That's pretty damning, it reminds me of the 18 1/2-minute gap in the Nixon audio tapes about the Watergate break-in.

Not only that, now the President is refusing to allow implicated members of his Administration to go under oath.

The audacity of this President never ceases to amaze me, he could have cookie crumbs on his lips and he would still try to make a convincing case that he really wasn't eating cookies from the cookie jar.

The President now claims that the Democrats are just being "partisan" because they want answers regarding the attorney purge. Does he really think we are all that ignorant than we buy that nonsense? If he does, then I guess we can see who the ignorant one is.

It was the Bush administration that chose to purge attorneys for what clearly appears to be political reasons, and this is what the President seems to be choosing to ignore when he claims the Democrats want partisanship and impasse rather than truth and justice.

President Bush has a warning for those nefarious Democrats...

“We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants. The initial response by Democrats unfortunately shows some appear more interested in scoring political points than in learning the facts. It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials. And I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available. I proposed a reasonable way to avoid an impasse, and I hope they don’t choose confrontation. I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”

"A partisan fishing expedition"?!? Ooh, I get it, like the "partisan fishing expedition" the Bush Administration went on when it purged the eight attorneys?

"Honorable public servants"?!? The President is talking about the same Alberto Gonzales that said the US constitution prohibited taking away habeas corpus but that doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to habeas corpus? I'm sure Gonzales is an honorable servant, but he is not a servant to the public, obviously.

Democrats "scoring political points"? That may be so, but that is only because they are doing the right thing, what the public would want them to do, which is investigate. I am referring to the same public that Gonzales is an alleged "honorable servant" of, lest there be any confusion.

It will be "regrettable if they [Democrats] choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas"?!? Someone needs to tell Bush that it is normal procedure, if one refuses to cooperate and refuses to talk that the next step is a subpoena.

"I hope they [Democrats] don't choose confrontation." But essentially it is Bush who chose confrontation when he decided to refuse to allow members of his Administration go under oath and on record to explain the events surrounding the attorney purge.