A dangerous dare

[babylonsister]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-ed.subpoena22mar22,0,7314928.story?track=rss

A dangerous dare
Originally published March 22, 2007

Amid all the bluster and claims of high principle, President Bush's refusal to allow aides to publicly testify before Congress on the U.S. attorney firings suggests either that he doesn't recognize the weakness of his position or that he has something awful to hide.

snip//

Does President Bush, like Mr. Nixon, have a "smoking gun" piece of evidence to cloak? So far, there's no clear indication of criminal wrongdoing, such as obstructing justice. A botched job of dispatching federal prosecutors deemed insufficiently loyal to the Bush administration, while appalling, doesn't rise to that level. But Mr. Bush's standing with the American people is so low that they aren't likely to defend him for cashiering his own appointees, apparently for failing to prosecute Democrats or moving too aggressively against Republicans.

The president's legal case doesn't look much better than his chances in the court of public opinion. He says he wants to ensure that presidential aides will be able to speak freely to the boss without fear of being "dragged" before Congress. But the disputed material in this case is mostly communications between aides that don't involve Mr. Bush directly. Nor does it involve security considerations to which the courts have been sympathetic.

Mr. Bush should head off these legal and political battles by adopting the course of most of his modern predecessors of both parties, who sent nearly three score White House aides to testify before Congress without raising the shield of executive privilege.

If he doesn't, the president risks losing whatever credibility his tarred and tired administration has left.

[rodeodance]

1. This distinction is very Important---yet it seldom gets mentioned!

.....The president's legal case doesn't look much better than his chances in the court of public opinion. He says he wants to ensure that presidential aides will be able to speak freely to the boss without fear of being "dragged" before Congress. But the disputed material in this case is mostly communications between aides that don't involve Mr. Bush directly. Nor does it involve security considerations to which the courts have been sympathetic.