Left Wing Lunacy

Oh my, the document gap. That's about the closest thing to a physical non-manifestation of a straw man you'll ever see. The morons on the Left examining the released emails in the DOJ non-story have taken note:

The dismissal of eight United States attorneys has elicited a long and ever-growing list of theories by Democrats on Capitol Hill about ulterior motives and suspicious coincidences. Now there is a new one: the document gap.

Democrats on Capitol Hill were privately urging reporters on Wednesday to press the Bush administration to explain why in the thousands of pages of e-mail messages and documents turned over to investigators, there is almost nothing from Nov. 16 to Dec. 7, the day seven of the firings occurred.

Oooooo, scarrrr-ry:

A little more than a half-hour later, Ms. Miers replied: “Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention. If it does, he just left last night so would not be able to accomplish that for some time.”

It is not known whether Ms. Miers was referring to Mr. Bush.

White House travel records show that Mr. Bush was traveling for most of the next two weeks. Mr. Sampson did not receive authorization for the firings until Dec. 4.

And another moonbat conspiracy theory crashes and burns. How dare Bush not fill up two weeks with pointless emails just to give the Lib-tards another thousand or so to obsess over.

LOL The best part of this silliness is knowing how so many idiots on the Left have spent two days reading every inconsequential line of basically boring ass emails involving the dismissal of eight political hacks. Someone tell TP that if you have two sets of emails from the infamous Gap - there really isn't much of a gap now, is there? Freaking retards.

I looked at a few when they came out. Isn't this grand:

3-19-2007 DOJ-Released Documents 1-10 page 9.
From: Chiara, Margaret M (USAMIW)
Sent: Tuesday, November 07. 2006 8:00 AM
To: McNulty, Paul J
Subject: Re: USA/WDMI

... I am already actively but discretely pursuing self-help options. However, I will need assistance to retain federal gov’t financial security, as stated in my previous e -mail. Know that I appreciate your response and offer to assist. Margaret

From: Chiara, Margaret M. (USAMIW)
To: McNulty, Paul J
Sent: Sun Nov 05 15:13:03 2006
Subject: USA/WOMI

... While I live in hope that this dire prediction is untrue, I am contacting you because I need assistance to remain in federal service with a comparable compensation or, quite frankly, I will lose everything that I have been working toward for the past five years. My chronology will not allow me to recoup from such an unanticipated financial catastrophe. I trust that I can count on you to intervene or provide an alternative. Margaret

Shorter Chiara: Please don't take away the public teat and make me get a job. What nerve. "Federal gov't financial security"? Was she working at DOJ, or in the Welfare division? Too many government workers actually think they're entitled to that which many tax payers don't have.

Back to the NY Times:

“Shades of Rose Mary Woods? An 18-day gap?” said a posting by the blog’s owner, Joshua Micah Marshall, referring to President Richard M. Nixon’s secretary, who found herself on the spot after the discovery that 18 1/2 minutes of crucial White House tapes had been erased.

Shades of Nixon???? LMAO Looks like Ms. Chiara isn't the only one who needs to get a job. Is it BDS or mental retardation that makes the Left look so lame? WIth the way the Democrats in Congress are acting, I've lost all patience with the Left. And I still maintain they will pay a price for their foolishness come 2008.

Comments

[jpe]

So yo're saying the DoJ just shuts down when Bush leaves D.C.? You're a weird one, Riehl.

[tk]

Don't lose patience, these antics only demonstrate to the country that democrats cannot govern. The moderates, both dems and reps. believed them when they said they could, but now they are seeing the truth. The nuts run their show, and what a show, or should I say farce of a show.

[Fred Beloit]

What would Chuck Schumer do if one of his staffers continually wrote speeches for Chuck extolling the advantages of the secret ballot in union elections or speeches about all that is wrong with Government interference in the health care system? He would fire that staffer FOR POLITICAL REASONS, now wouldn't he?

[Zifnab]

Shhhh... Dan's logic is sound. You see, emails don't work overseas. If the President conducts national business from Air Force One, or from a nation outside the US, he writes it all down on paper. Then that paper is shaped into paper aeroplanes and tossed towards its recipient. The idea that there is an 18-day "gap" is a complete fabrication and since this entire investigation is stupid and you're stupid and Congress is stupid (except for Duncan Hunter XOXO!) and the President didn't do anything wrong anyway so stop asking questions I don't even know why we need to have this article except to prove all of the above and because there's nothing new on Al Gore.

Frankly, I haven't even seen proof that the White House was in existance for those "alleged" 18 days, or that those "alleged" 18 days even actually occurred. Calanders have a notorious liberal bias.

[benrand]

Well, if no one ever gave a shit about Berger stuffing sensitive documents in his socks and destroying them, why care about this nonsense?

Oh yeah, because the media is biased to the right.

[Fred Beloit]

This is simply the latest in a long list of baseless attacks on the President. It helps take the left wing heat off the Dems in Congress. They are busy "investigating" the scandal about nothing at all so the nutroots will be placated. Meanwhile nothing much is what is also going on with regard to their promises to their voters.

[Roderick]

So Dan can't come up with a good explanation either so he goes out of his way to insult those who question why there were no emails for 18 days.

[Zifnab]

The cross Mr. President bares is a heavy one. I'm sure one day, many years in the future, he'll be remembered for his courage against a treasonous, viper-Congress that hates him for his freedom.

[Hi]

Okay wingnuts, what was it?
The Attorneys were fired for:
1.Poor Performance...oops, that one doesn't wash.
2.Political incompatibility...oops, that one Bush denies.
3.Obstruction of Justice...oops, that one is, uh, well, um...EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!

[Fred Beloit]

Zif and Rod can't see the forest because there is a tree in the way, actually a very little tree.

[Telly]

You cons should be thankful. This new Watergate deflects attention from your lost war in Iraq.

[BillT]

In the future he'll be remembered by the prisoner number stitched on his back and for the video on Youtube of his whining, bleating calls of "DADDY!!!!!" when he's handcuffed and taken to the slam. We hate him because he's a criminal and a moron and is destroying our country.

[Fred Beloit]

The President "fired" the Secretary of Defense for political reasons, but I don't recall any of the commenters here wanting to investigate that action. Why is that?

[Zifnab]

"The President "fired" the Secretary of Defense for political reasons, but I don't recall any of the commenters here wanting to investigate that action. Why is that?"

I think the Sec. Defense got canned because Iraq devolved into a civil war under his watch, i.e. very, very, very, very bad performance reviews.

Do you dispute that Rumsfeld was a bad Secretary of Defense?

[Fred Beloit]

I see there is a new group of logical thinkers on the site. Dan may soon have more Lefties in residence than Kos has. Did you bring all these folks with you yyy? I always suspected you were an organization, not just a citizen.

[vetter]

I live in a bastion of lib lunacy and even, by my baseless and un-scientific poling of locals, no one cares about this non-story, and most even think it's a crock of crap and are getting annoyed with the Democratics. Yet ziffy et alia continue to just pound their sand here at Dan's site day in, day out, hour in, hour out. The smallness of the Democratic brain here gives me great succor...

[Fred]

I give you bad performance reviews for logical thinking in this case, Zif. The Secretary was fired for political reasons. Hey, don't be so modest, you and your friends helped.

[Fred]

Zif, old friend, how about answering the question I posed in the third comment above? Would appreciate your thoughts.

[madmatt]

You do realize that govt tit sucker you are badmouthing is a rethugnican like yourself. Exactly who replaced her...somebody willing to do political dirty work.

[Fred]

Welcome, madmatt. Wazzup, Kos's site down? Zif must be busy. Perhaps you would like to take a crack at answering the question asked in the third comment from the top. You would get firsties.

[ME]

"The President "fired" the Secretary of Defense for political reasons, but I don't recall any of the commenters here wanting to investigate that action. Why is that?"

Why do you right-wingers need basic civics lessons? How come you can't tell the difference between firing someone because they've lost the respect of the public, and firing someone because they refuse to engage in political hackery while holding a non-political post?

I love that Riehl offhandedly dismisses the fired USAs as "political hacks"... it's telling for a few reasons:

1. Riehl basically admits that these USAs didn't act in accordance with his politics, and that by not engaging in what _everyone else_ considers political hackery, they are actually guilty of political hackery.

2. But the Bush admin could have just said as much, right? Unfortunately, there have been no emails released where anyone is calling these USAs political hacks, and if you argue that "loyalty to the Bush agenda" is required to NOT be a political hack, then you yourself would be enagaging in political hackery.

And of course, that's what this actually is: the political hackery of Dan Riehl, and nothing more. Dan Reihl is so out of the mainstream, is so blinded by partisanship, that when imagining an explaination to push (because that's what political hacks do, they imagine things to avoid coming to conclusions about reality that would cause a psychic break...like that the Bush admin is bumbling political hacktitude incarnate), he actually comes up with "the USAs were political hacks" ... which is such a stupendously WRONG assesment that the white house itself didn't bother pushing that angle.

Because you have to be more of a political hack than the whitehouse itself to believe what Dan Reihl is trying to tell you above.

[Fred]

Greetings ME. Don't believe we've been introduced. Any chance you could shed some light on the question posed in the third comment from the top? Oh, and try to be a bit more succinct, if it pleases you.

[tk]

They were fired because they were not doing the President's business and that was their job. They are not independent agents but political appointments. Keep it up lefties you are making Americans see you for what you are, nuts.

[Zifnab]

"What would Chuck Schumer do if one of his staffers continually wrote speeches for Chuck extolling the advantages of the secret ballot in union elections or speeches about all that is wrong with Government interference in the health care system? He would fire that staffer FOR POLITICAL REASONS, now wouldn't he?"

That depends. Would Chuck's staffer be involved in the investigation and prosecution of, say, William "Fridge-Full-Of-Money" Jefferson? If so, then there would be some serious questions raised over firing said staffer who was in the middle of a criminal prosecution of a fellow party member. Again, its worth noting that Clinton's March Massacre victims were all appointed as special prosecutors to the cases they were already involved in. Meanwhile Carol Lam will be replaced by a prosecutor sympathetic to Foggo and Cunningham, effectively killing the investigation.

I think there would be a great deal of disgust among the general public if Schumer dismissed a staffer with such political power. I doubt the disgust would lessen if it was announced the staffer happened to be pro-life or against government healthcare.

[Fred]

tk, have you noticed that ME writes just like yyy?

[Devil's Advocate]

Looks like our Dan is apoplectic that Democrats noticed that 18 DAYS worth of e-mails were missing from the batch that was turned over to Congress. It's a tough one to explain, hey, little Dan? So, go ahead, Dearie, come up with more expletives and gratuitous insults. We are all laughing at you.

"Is it STDs or mental retardation that makes the Right look so lame? With the way the Republicans in Congress are acting, I've lost all patience with the Right."

[Fred]

Zif, I'm so disappointed and afraid your answer, while verbose, doesn't directly relate to the question. You are blowing smoke. aren't you? You are creating a phalanx of persiflage, you dog you.

[Devil's Advocate]

Dan is sputtering with impotent rage today. The Democrats have noticed that 18 DAYS worth of e-mails are missing from the batch turned over to Congress. Fancy that!

This one is a little tough to explain, is it not, Dan dear?

So, please keep us entertained and come up with more expletives and gratuitous insults. We love to see right-nutters undergoing a meltdown.

[Hard Right]

Looks like the lefties couldn't take getting their asses kicked repeatedly and called for backup.

So the mentally ill left thinks they are entitled to the President's e-mails. This is based on....... anyone? Anyone?

[Hi]

Hard Right...Have your guardian read the Constitution for you regarding 'Executive Privilege.'

It's doesn't exist.

[Fred]

George's major flaw is he has tried hard to get along with the you-know-whats. He should have given them nothing, nothing, nothing at all. It is really none of their business how he manages his officials. Above all, no more special prosecutors. If they think he has committed a crime, let them just try to impeach him. There wouldn't be another Dem majority for twenty years.

[Fred]

You know someday our opponents are going to realize that they are badly weakening the Presidency with their hate-filled and blind attacks. It will slowly dawn on Obama and the rest of the Dem candidates that this is happening. Hill, for all her faults, seems to sense this already. Probably the result of her having been close up and personal to the office.

[Hi]

TK: "They were fired because they were not doing the President's business and that was their job. They are not independent agents but political appointments."

Hey TK, you're not up to speed with Bush&Co 'story."

"Gonzales has said he would never have supported firing any prosecutors for political reasons."

Please post a clear and unecquivical Bush&Co explanation why the Attorneys were fired....it might be a little hard because none exists.

[Hard Right]

Seems that is to be determined, Hi.

[Zifnab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvOugoeztB0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecrooksandliars%2Ecom%2F

Conservative Honesty Inaction!

[Robert]

Why the lies about their performance?

[Zifnab]

"Zif, I'm so disappointed and afraid your answer, while verbose, doesn't directly relate to the question. You are blowing smoke. aren't you? You are creating a phalanx of persiflage, you dog you."

Perhaps you need to reread your question. If Schumer fired his staffer for POLITICAL REASONS while the staffer was involved in an APOLITICAL INVESTIGATION then he would be OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and be in voilation of both ethics and law. Hell, if Chuck was to go down to one of his staffers - who happened to be working as a prosecuting attorney - and was to suggest that maybe his staffer should go easy/hard on a rival politician currently under investigation, that would also qualify.

The President can fire his USAs for wearing the wrong color shoes or looking at him funny. He can throw darts at a board and fire his USAs completely at random. But he can't do any of that while the USAs are conducting investigations without very good reason - say, because the USAs themselves had committed some crime or were otherwise in breach of ethics.

Likewise, Chuck Schumer cannot remove his staffers from criminal investigations for likeminded reasons.

But I'll give you another situation. Let's assume President Clinton were to have had the power to fire Ken Starr in the middle of Monicagate. If, upon subpeonaing the President's sworn testimony, Clinton were to have axed Starr... because of Starr's position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell... would you support Clinton's right to hire and fire prosecutors at will?

[Fred]

Well, Zif, I watched. Two strong politicians disagreeing with each other, like, well Like Obama and Hill. So?

[Hi]

Hard Right "Seems that (reason for attornys dismissal) is to be determined."

Exactly.

By Congres

With sworn testimony.
And transcipts.
It ain't rocket science....

[Fred]

Well, Zif, I watched. Two strong politicians, Armey and Delay disagreeing, like, well Like Obama and Hill. So?

[Fred]

My question didn't say anything about any investigation. You must have made up your own question, you sly dog you.

[Fred]

OK, Hi, I'm finally beginning to understand your position. If the next President wants to fire a USA for not following the priorities he sets, he better go to Congress first to avoid their swarming all over him later. Or, he should fire anyone he wants to and give absolutely no reason, that would be fine. Wouldn't it be easier to just let Congress manage the USAs?

[Hard Right]

"Exactly.

By Congres

With sworn testimony.
And transcipts.
It ain't rocket science...."

Hi, we shall see. BTW, only ONE attorney was fired for political reasons. No one lied about performance other than you lefties. They were fired for not "performing" the duties expected of them. It ain't rocket science. Keep stroking yourselves over this. It will just fizzle then backfire.

[Hard Right]

BTW, my post was about the President's Exec priv.

[Hi]

Fred: "If the next President wants to fire a USA for not following the priorities he sets, he better go to Congress first to avoid their swarming all over him..."
Keep up, Fred. The Senate is in the process of reinstating that into law. It passed 94-2 which I think includes a few Republicans.

"Or, he should fire anyone he wants to and give absolutely no reason..."
Or, at least, not lie about it.

Fred, who's more infallible, Bush or the Pope?

[Hard Right]

"...The President can fire his USAs for wearing the wrong color shoes or looking at him funny. He can throw darts at a board and fire his USAs completely at random. But he can't do any of that while the USAs are conducting investigations without very good reason..."

WRONG! There is one reason he can't. He cannot fire them to influence an investigation. That is exactly what Clinton did, yet you lefties had no problem with it.

[Hi]

Hard Right: "WRONG! There is one reason he can't. He cannot fire them to influence an investigation. That is exactly what Clinton did, yet you lefties had no problem with it."
You really need to go beyond Bill OReilly for your informantion...

[Hard Right]

Hey Hi, you claiming and wanting to believe they lied doesn't make it so. In fact the proof simply shows you are suffering from BDS.

[Hard Right]

Hi, you need to go beyond KOS and DUNG. Here's an idea, think for yourself. Or will that get you get out of the hive?

[Devil's Advocate]

Hmmm... Looks like Hard Right is in the latest stages of syphillis. His -- already tiny --brain has turned into Swiss cheese.