IMPEACH BUSH

The attempts of the Congress to obtain information from the White House are worthy of respect and, if subpoenas or stronger measures are necessary to achieve testimony or documents, they should be used and enforced.

A Congress led after the 2006 elections by a Democratic majority has worked hard since then to try to restore the normal constitutional relationship between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

This relationship, which includes congressional oversight of executive branch activities, had fallen into some disuse during the previous six years when Republicans controlled both the White House and the Congress. It is an almost sacred relationship that is essential to the functioning of government in the United States. The executive usually initiates and carries out policies, the Congress then funds or does not fund those activities, and provides commentary and modification along the way based on its oversight function.

Presumably based on reluctance to move on to the new post-November 2006 status quo, the administration of President George W. Bush has showed a tendency to kick and scream when the 110th Congress has attempted to play its oversight and inquiry role, particularly with respect to seeking information from White House staff.

With regard to querying its officials on deliberations within the administration regarding, for example, the dismissal of the regional district attorneys or the legality of Mr. Bush's domestic surveillance program, the White House has sometimes simply refused to make relevant officials or documents available to the relevant Congressional committees. (Those committees include Republican and Democratic members, of course.) The list of those whom the Congress wants to talk to but the White House is refusing to send up to Capitol Hill now includes political counselor Karl Rove, former White House legal counsel Harriet E. Miers, and White House aide J. Scott Jennings.

The Congress has now subpoenaed them and held two people, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt of Congress. The White House has so far stonewalled the Congress on their requests and suggested as well that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's Department of Justice will refuse to enforce any contempt actions the Congress might institute against the officials in question.

This matter is thus about a whisker away from becoming a constitutional crisis. Apart from the fact that White House officials work for the American government the same as any other civil servant does and are thus accountable to America's elected officials and the American people, this kind of "We are above the law" lack of accountability on the part of Mr. Bush and his administration has now gone far enough.

Even the "executive privilege" argument that the president has a right to the confidential counsel of his advisers doesn't wash in this matter: some of those being protected from Congressional questioning are relatively low-ranking and, at least in the case of the district attorney firings issue, Mr. Bush's subordinates have claimed all along that he himself was not involved in the firings.

In any case, the Congress and the American people have a right to know what federal officials have done and are doing in their name. Telling them it is none of their business is unacceptable. The Congress will need to pursue this problem to the end.