AG or not AG - is that really a question?

ThinkProgess is linking to this report that says

In a court filing, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said the indictment violates the Constitution because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was not appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.

The defense attorneys also said Fitzgerald's appointment violates federal law because he was not supervised by the attorney general or approved by Congress.

Obviously, I'm no lawyer. But this one strikes me as the Mary-est of Hails. Here's the body of the December 30, 2003, letter James Comey wrote to Fitz when Comey appointed him to the position of Special Counsel:

By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.

Comey was Acting AG at the time due to John Ashcroft's recusal. I'm guessing that Libby's filing would mean that you couldn't have Acting AG's at all, since any person serving as Acting AG would ex hypothesi not have been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the Senate as non-acting AG. Thus I don't see how AG recusals would ever be possible under Libby's theory of the law.

Let's assume it turns out that Comey cited real and controlling statutes in his letter to Fitz, so that Fitz was legitimately appointed Acting AG. Then it's obvious that the contention that Fitz "was not supervised by the attorney general or approved by Congress" is worse than a non-sequitur: Fitz is the AG for purposes of this investigation, and he was made AG by (someone who was made AG by) the AG who was indeed nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate.

So either this is a Hail Mary or, more likely, it's meant to stall while throwing red meat---however maggot-infested---to the talk radio denizens.

Cheney Shoots Man....Accidentally

Who knows if he was being negligent or just short-sighted, so to speak, but Dick Cheney shot a man over the weekend. This report says it was an accident, so I assume it was. But you have to wonder if Cheney would be able to pass an exam on the NRA's gun-safety rules.

Murtha, Terrorists Win: Bush Plans Cut, Run

The budget President Bush released yesterday includes no money for the war in Iraq after FY2007. That means that the President has no plans to spend money on the war starting on October 1, 2007. Since President Bush's budgets always have been honest, forthright declarations of his fiscal and other policy intentions, the most obvious explanation for omitting Iraq funding is this one: the President plans to start leaving Iraq soon, just as Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) proposed recently.

What was the point of electing George W. Bush in 2004 if he's going to go around appeasing like Murtha and other anti-military cowards?

The President's plan to cut and run means the terrrorists win!


Note for the tonally and contextually challenged: Everything above was sarcasm. I do not think the President plans to start leaving Iraq soon, just as I do not think he really plans to spend nothing on the war in Iraq (or the situation in Afghanistan) after October 1, 2007.

In fact, this President has a long and virtually uninterrupted record of releasing works of fiction (albeit rather dry ones) with a piece of paper declaring "Budget of the United States" tacked on top. In 2001 he started with the dishonest tax-cut stuff --- cuts that would "sunset" within a decade in order to mask their costs. Now---surprise, surprise---he wants to make those cuts permanent. So, you say, he's finally coming clean, right? Wrong

. In order to make the old cuts look "affordable", the President simply ignores the looming crisis in the Alternative Minimum Tax, which he knows Congress will have to deal with soon. So the tax cuts in this budget are actually very costly add-ons that no reasonable person (or even, possibly, Republican moderate) could support if the true budget situation were publicly understood.

And then there's the war funding, which every year has managed to be understated and/or ignored come budget time. Remember that inexpensive little jaunt Rummy, Wolfy, Bushie and Cheney promised? It's into several-hundred-billion-dollars territory now (and the explicit figures ignore all sorts of additional war expenses.

As for Murtha, well he's no one's anti-military guy, having supported DOD funding for decades. He's also no chicken-hawk, having served in Vietnam (though unlike the President he didn't risk flying training missions in the Texas skies).

And lastly, in case it needs to be said (after AG Gonzales's testimony yesterday, it might): no, criticizing the President's miserable performance---in fiscal policy, in prosecuting the war on terrorism, failing to catch Osama Bin Laden, on civil liberties, respect for the law, and so on---does not mean aiding terrorists.