In a signal that the White House is, at the moment, holding steadfast to its support of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, they sent the AG out to meet with a number of US Attorneys. Gonzales sought to capitalize on the exposure by reaffirming the numerous issues that he continues to pursue on behalf of all Americans. I don't know about anyone else but I've always been suspicious of the guy that seems to go out of his way to tell you he's "got your back covered".

_______________________________________________________

From The Associated Press:

Under fire in the Justice Department's botched dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is trying to leave the furor behind him - literally.

The embattled attorney general is reaching beyond Washington over the next week to try to soothe his remaining prosecutors and show the public he's still working hard to curb crime. He'll also talk with local media in dozens of cities Friday about keeping kids safe from sexual predators.

"There's a lot of work that needs to be done around our country," Gonzales said.

Gonzales' travels also will include stops to highlight what aides call the Justice Department's a long-planned ad campaign on safeguarding kids from sex abuse. Friday's media blitz, with Gonzales participating in about 40 short interviews with local TV and radio reporters, is also dedicated to that campaign. Aides said he will refuse to talk about the firings during the five-minute segments except to briefly reiterate what he said before and again on Thursday: that none of the firings were improper.

"There's a lot of work that need to be done around our country," Gonzales said in St. Louis. "I'm staying focused on that."

_______________________________________________________

This current issue with the allegedly questionable firing of eight US Attorneys is not unlike many of the other situations that leave one circumspect about the propensity of the Bush administration to stretch the parameters of propriety in its efforts to push its agenda.

I decided to have a little fun with the "got you back covered" metaphor...and nothing seemed to capture my sentiment better than the following Snapshot Thought.

In the wake of another scandal, President Bush has once again embarked upon a familiar path. He has drawn a line in the sand and challenged his detractors to force his hand. Despite the likelihood that his Attorney General (and no doubt others) is headed for dismissal or what will be characterized as his unfortunate resignation, the President's penchant for loyalty over substance is clouding his already questionable judgment skills in much the same manner as with the Rumsfeld departure. Frankly, he may be facing this dilemma because of the weight he places upon loyalty...regardless of propriety.

________________________________________________________

From The New York Times:

“Once executive privilege is asserted," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in a 2004 Supreme Court decision, “coequal branches of the government are set on a collision course."

And the White House and Congress seemed headed for just such a confrontation yesterday.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding public testimony under oath from White House aides about their role in the dismissals of eight United States attorneys, threatening to issue subpoenas.

The new White House counsel, Fred F. Fielding, offered a compromise yesterday. He said the White House would make several aides — including Karl Rove, the president’s chief political strategist, and Harriet E. Miers, Mr. Fielding’s predecessor as counsel — available to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for informal private interviews. But the interviews would not be public or under oath, and no transcripts would be prepared.

As they continued with their public and private negotiations, both sides were mindful that Mr. Fielding possesses a powerful but dangerous weapon, the invocation of executive privilege, which is the constitutional equivalent of a declaration of war. In a letter to the two committees, he only alluded to it, in a reference to “the constitutional prerogatives of the presidency."

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Democrats voted Wednesday to give their leaders the authority to force White House officials to testify on the firings of U.S. attorneys.

The House Judiciary subcommittee vote was to authorize subpoenas. It does not mean that subpoenas will be issued; only that they could be if the four White House officials Democrats want to question do not voluntarily testify under oath.

But the act puts congressional Democrats on a collision course with President Bush. He said Tuesday that the four -- top political adviser Karl Rove, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and their two deputies -- could be interviewed in the matter, but no oath could be administered and no transcript would be taken.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said later Wednesday that the administration's offer for interviews would be pulled if subpoenas were issued.

"The moment subpoenas are issued it means they have rejected the offer," Snow said.

[...] The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the authorization of subpoenas Thursday.

The committees are considering issuing subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.

Bush said sworn testimony by White House officials would breach executive privilege -- the right of the president to have confidential communications with his staff -- and vowed Congress would face a legal fight if subpoenas are issued.

_________________________________________________________

At some point, it is no longer possible to give this President the benefit of the doubt. Time and again he finds himself...by virtue of the actions of his appointees...in difficult straits. In my opinion, each time this happens, his credibility and his believability diminish and the polls seem to suggest that a large majority of Americans concur. Many have sought to portray President Bush as a man of limited intellectual capacity.

One could argue either side of that debate but more important is the fact that he remains fixated upon conducting his affairs as he sees fit...even if those actions blur the lines of authority...or even more concerning...breach the intent of the constitution. Unfortunately, for a man of his ilk...when confronted by such assertions...he simply believes his interpretation of his authority and that document far exceeds the worthiness of all others. Such is the conundrum we face until his second term expires. Here's hoping time flies!

Perhaps I'm just confused...but some affiliated with the religious right have endorsed the notion of altering a fetus in the womb in order to insure that the child isn't gay. Now I may be wrong...but if being gay is a choice (as is argued by many who oppose homosexuality), then just what would a doctor be altering in a fetus? Frankly, when the religious right begins endorsing the argument to genetically alter a fetus, the suggestion that being gay is a function of nurture over nature is no longer valid...and being gay is therefore clearly not a matter of choice.

From Biblical Recorder News:

The president of a prominent Southern Baptist seminary says he would support medical treatment, if it were available, to change the sexual orientation of a fetus inside its mother's womb from homosexual to heterosexual.

The idea was floated by R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, on his blog, almohler, March 2.

"If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin," Mohler wrote in advice for Christians.

Mohler's view, in some ways, could signal a shift away from traditional evangelical thinking on homosexuality, from a condition that is changeable to one that is actually determined by genetics. Mohler said there is "no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof" that sexual orientation is based in biology, yet "the direction of the research points in this direction."

The fact that members of the religious right would endorse such medical intervention proves once and for all that the oft heard accusation that being gay was an immoral choice was merely their nuanced effort to characterize their homophobia and bigotry behind the assertions that being gay is wrong, abnormal, and not a naturally occurring sexual identity. Notwithstanding, the moment they believe that science can remove homosexuality through genetic manipulation, they jump to endorse such procedures. Excuse me but I can't help but see this rush to endorse the genetic prevention of a gay child as utter hypocrisy and proof that they will attempt to snuff out homosexuality at all costs. Thank goodness we have the religious right here to implement God's will.