American Elephants

Karl Rove to Resign by American Elephant

President Bush and Karl Rove

Karl Rove, President Bush’s longtime political adviser, is resigning as White House deputy chief of staff effective Aug. 31, and returning to Texas, he said in an interview with Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. [read more]

Let the speculation begin! Anytime there’s a resignation in the White House, people immediately begin searching for the “real” reason. Is he leaving to work on someone’s campaign? To work for the GOP? Did Bush ask him to resign? Democrats will claim his departure is nefarious in one way or another.

After all, unhinged Democrats want Rove’s head so badly, they’re willing to completely fabricate reasons to subpoena him, knowing full well they aren’t entitled to his testimony—they just want to trip him up then cry “perjury!”. (As evidenced by their refusal to accept testimony off the record.)

I’m inclined to believe that may have something to do with it. I think Rove poses more of a potential distraction at this point than anything.

General Petraeus testifies next month, and from everything I’ve seen, it looks like it may be a rather positive report. If that is the case, Democrats are going to be looking for any opportunity they can to change the subject, create scandal—something, anything to sully the report. Rove is almost always at the center of their fabricated scandals.

At this point, everyone’s political futures hinge on Iraq. If Iraq is a success—more specifically if the American people see the opportunity for victory emerging from Bush’s strategy—then Democrats are toast. Bush may simply be removing as many opportunities for Democrats to change the public’s focus as possible.

Then again, I could be all wet.

3 Comments so far
Leave a comment

“knowing full well they aren’t entitled to his testimony” Yes, they are. If you’re going to comment on American governmental policy, perhaps you should first read the constitution. Ever heard of it?


Comment by Brad

Oh yes, I am quite familiar with the Constitution–and obviously more familiar with it than you, because the Constitution mentions nothing about either Congressional subpoena power or executive priviledge. Those have resulted instead from Constitutional Law which is an entirely different thing.

What the Constitution does provide for are three separate branches of government, each with their own designated powers. The Congress, for example, is given “all legislative power” from which the courts have determined their right to subpoena witnesses **as it pertains to legislation**.

The Constitution also grants the President with the power to make appointments, and once confirmed by the Senate, those appointments serve at the pleasure of the president.

And as even you must know, well, as you probably DONT know, Congress cannot change the constitution without passing a constitutional amendment by a 2/3 majority in both houses and having it ratified by 3/4 of the states.

So unless you are suggesting Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment changing the President’s power in this regard, and then get it ratified by 3/4 of the states–then suffice it to say, Bush’s power to fire US Attorneys is absolute. (without even having to go into the fact that the Democrats accusations are utterly baseless to begin with)

So since the Presidents power in this matter is absolute, and Congress cannot change it with legislation, congress has no legislative interest in the matter and therefore no right to subpoena **ANYONE** on the matter.

Add to that the fact that the Executive branch is a separate and equal branch of government, and that Rove and Meyers are not employed in any of the Departments of the executive branch over which congress has oversight, but are instead the private employees of the Executive branch itself, i.e. the White House–over which congress has *NO* oversight powers, and it is precisely as I said, that Congress is not entitled to their testimony.

Now, you may want to go bone up on YOUR constitution, paying particular attention to Articles I, II and III which establish and delineate the specific powers granted to the three branches of government. (theres three. did you know that?)

You should also pay particular attention to Article II, Sec II which establishes the President, and only the President, NOT Congress, as the SOLE commander in chief of the armed forces. And you should pay attention to the fact that the Constitution grants absolutely zero power to direct troop movement upon the Congress.

You should also pay particular attention to Article II, Section III which places the power of recieving foreign Ambassadors and dignataries with the Executive branch, not with Nancy Pelosi.

Then you might want to familiarize yourself with constitutional law, in particular Marbury v Madison and Curtiss-Wright in which the SCOTUS clarified that it is indeed ONLY the President and those he approves to represent him that is empowered to negotiate with other nations, again, NOT Nancy Pelosi.

You see, it is the Democratic party, not the Republican party that doesnt understand the constitution, and is making unconstitutional power grabs. As usual.


Comment by American Elephant

[…] as I suggested with Karl Rove’s unexpected resignation, I believe General Petraeus’ report is going to be quite favorable, and that Democrats will […]


Pingback by Gonzales Resigns… « American Elephants

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: