Not a blank check? How about carte blanche then?
The Washington Post reports on Attorney General Gonzales testimony before Congress.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush was “acting with authority” both under the Constitution and federal law in eavesdropping on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror.
But his strong defense of Bush’s program was challenged by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who told Gonzales that even the Supreme Court had ruled that “the president does not have a blank check.”
No blank check? Really, Senator? Because the budgets you have been pushing through Congress are virtual blank checks. I think what you meant was “no carte blanche”, but then that would be using French.
So, you are going to put his feet to the fire then, Senator Specter?
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the panel’s senior Democrat, argued that Gonzales should be sworn in like any other witness. At the very least, Gonzales should be asked if he would volunteer to being sworn in, Leahy said.
“It’s not up to him,” said Specter, who was upheld by a quick party-line vote by the GOP-led committee.
Ix-nay on the eet-to-the-fire-fay.
Around the blogs: Gonzales trying to weasel out of answering que
The main theme of the blogs on Gonzales’ testimony is that he is actively trying to weasel his way out of answering the questions about the illegal spying programs that Bush is guilty of launching. So far, he has refused to answer any of the question