Bush Guilty of Obstruction of Justice

I've been sitting here reading about and listening to this whole debacle with the US Attorneys and Bush and Congress and questioning and not questioning and subpeonas and the whole nine yards.

Can someone please tell me, in plain English, why Bush can not be held accountable for obstruction of justice here? 

What gives him the right to say who can be questioned and how they can be questioned?  Where in the Constitution does he get that kind of privilege?  I know there is Executive Privilege, but this just feels like he's fucking breaking the law. 

And smirking the entire time.

Can't we hold him accountable for his actions on ANYTHING? 

Someone explain this to me, please?  Because I'm making myself crazy.

Comments

[Naomi]

The mills of the gods grind slow but exceeding fine.

The Constitution is much the same. The Opposition has only been in place for 75 days, and they have essentially found a new impeachable offense. And there is no way White House official can avoid subpoenas after Clinton.

The question is, will they ever be delivered to the Hague, as they truly deserve?

[basykes]

because being (this) president means never having to say you're sorry.

Believe me, I share your frustration. I understand the desire to strange somebody...anybody...to make this administration accountable for SOMETHING.

[Paul Ding]

This is much ado about nothing. Bush has the power to fire those attorneys for any cause whatsoever, or fire for no cause at all.

The GOP took their eye off the ball when they impeached Clinton. The focused on cheating on his wife, which is not an impeachable offense. If they'd focused on perjury, they'd have nailed him. After all, after this all was over, the courts lifted his license to practice law for a couple of years.

What the Democrats should be focusing on is the authorization to send troops to Iraq. It is strictly limited to the purposes of defending the US, and enforcing the UN resolutions. The UN was satisfied, and went home a couple of years ago, and with no hostile ruler in Iraq, and Iraq without WMDs, Bush has no authority to have the troops in Iraq.

If Nancy Pelosi were smart, she'd point that out - and introduce a bill declaring war on Iraq. Instead of the anti-war folks failing to decide on bringing the boys home, we'd have the pro-war folks failing to agree on the declaration of war.

Bush is veto-proof, so it's important to make peace the default...