::waves back at Amy::

I reviewed your book on my blog--did you see it?

Horses are to be ridden, and to save the day, and all that.

cough! *glue* cough!

Hillary writes a pissy letter: [link]

In an unusual challenge to a Defense Secretary from a sitting Senator, Hillary Clinton has just written a sharply worded letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, demanding that he personally account for a Pentagon official's assertion yesterday that Clinton's public questions about the U.S.'s troop withdrawal plans were aiding the enemy.

"I request that you describe whether Under Secretary Edelman's letter accurately characterizes your views as Secretary of Defense," Clinton wrote to Gates, in a reference to Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman's criticism of the Senator yesterday.

"I would appreciate the courtesy of a prompt response directly from you," continued Clinton in the letter, which has been obtained by Election Central.

I reviewed your book on my blog--did you see it?

::hangs head::

I didn't! Because I am lame like that, and have been very scattered the past few weeks. But I'll go look now!

I still have pictures and squeeing about paperdol's book to post, which I've had for, oh, TEN DAYS NOW.

It's here. It's pretty brief--I think I was in a hurry that day--but I thought it was a fun book and tried to say so.

tommyrot, the language might be a little stronger than average. But it isn't unusual for members of Congress to send that kind of letter.

The Bush administration has just announced that if Congress holds anyone in the administration in contempt for their refusal to obey a subpoena, the Bush administration will not allow the Justice Department to pursue contempt charges. This is a rather extreme stance, which most mainstream pundits have said, "They wouldn't dare do that." However, many progressive bloggers are not surprised.

[link]

Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."

"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."

eta:

But Stanley Brand, who was the Democratic House counsel during the Burford case, said the administration's legal view "turns the constitutional enforcement process on its head. They are saying they will always place a claim of presidential privilege without any judicial determination above a congressional demand for evidence -- without any basis in law." Brand said the position is essentially telling Congress: "Because we control the enforcement process, we are going to thumb our nose at you."

Rozell, the George Mason professor and authority on executive privilege, said the administration's stance "is almost Nixonian in its scope and breadth of interpreting its power. Congress has no recourse at all, in the president's view. . . . It's allowing the executive to define the scope and limits of its own powers."

Hi Susan good to see you!

My hands are shaking in anger due to another post in which she says I think I am bigger than I really am.

Please walk me away. Please. I'm no longer in a position where I can rip someone up.

Paperdol, I have taken your car keys.

Seriously, she's batcrazy. She's NOT WORTH IT.