Some have asked why I haven't had much to say about it, I dismissed it as BS in a short post and still feel the same way as regards any alleged substantive issues around the whole mess.
I've heard Bush has an announcement on it at 5:45 PM. That sounds like Gonzales is leaving. If so, it's nothing but a sign of the dysfunctional nature in which this administration handles PR. Throwing more blood in the water isn't going to solve anything. It will only increase the blood lust on the part of detestable Dems like Schumer, Leahy and Emmanuel.
The next Republican President better be genuinely conservative and know how to play hardball, not just own a club.
I'll leave it to Patterico's blog for a more substantive response.
"the Libby trial, the Walter Reed scandal, the FBI / patriot act scandal
Do you detectives really beleive the GOP in general and the White House specifically has looked GOOD to the public in the past year and a half
Is asking about the first 100 hours really all you morons have? Are you too dense to realize that the GOP is going down in flames after only 8 weeks of Dem. control? Are you really that obtuse"
no man, like you said it's all about the LOOKS
you want to play political hardball and you have nothing but smoke and mirrors and media driven scandals
and fitz had the white house so freekin caught that frogmarch became a newly coined word - how'd that work out again? you got a new scooter with a built in pardon, how impressive
don't forget that there are leak investigations of actual classified info going on for a while now - can you say nsa, cia airlines, swift banking nyt etc etc?
because those show trials are about to hit the pike and i don't think the dems are going to come out on top there, maybe there'll be like actual convictions?
should be an entertaining time for all
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:26 PM
Good luck if you think the NYTimes is going to go get charged with anything for outing an illegal, unconstitutional government 'spy' program.
Dream on.
Posted by: yyy | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:33 PM
hey look everybody
the poster i don't reply to has picked one word out of a comment again
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:34 PM
--If members of Congress try to get a United States attorney to indict people he wasn’t certain he wanted to indict, or try to affect the timing of an indictment, they may be violating the law.
Members of congress are not part of the executive branch, last time I checked. Just how wide will you throw your "net of accusations." Is Domenici part of your vast right wing conspiracy? Was Rove whispering in his ear? Can we trace this phone call back to Cheney?
By the way, all of the former USA's you are quoting have been FIRED from a very public position. You don't suppose they are a little disgruntled, do you? Would you expect them to remember their dismissal fondly and portray the process as fair? Of course not. They are going to feed the engine that supposes they were wronged, to save face if nothing else. So, we are left with an imaginary scandal based on overblown accusations. Lead on Democrats. 'Investigate if you can't legislate' seems to be your motto.
Posted by: ET | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:44 PM
I seriously hope each and every right-winger on this board, at one point or another, has the opportunity to be subpeonaed and proceeds to give the prosecutor the finger. I seriously hope each and every right-winger on this board has the opportunity to give sworn testimony, and convenently forgets not to lie under oath.
I seriously hope each and every right-winger on this board takes such a callous and ignorant view of state and federal law the next time they are before an appointed or elected executive enforcer.
Maybe then they can go off about taking up arms against the tyranny of the liberal left. I think that gets you an extra 5-10 years in the slammer.
Posted by: Zifnab | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:47 PM
And, for the last time, it's illegal to fire a prosecutor in the middle of an investigation. That's obstruction of justice.
Clinton appointed each of the 93 prosecutors he let go as independent prosecutors, allowed to finish their investigations. Bush has not.
That's your difference. Please stop lying. Thank you.
Posted by: Zifnab | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:49 PM
The fired attorneys did keep their mouths shut until DOJ held a press conference and said they were all fired for poor performance.
You can't really have it both ways, were these guys unprofessional, incompetant louts that Bush appointed the first time around? Or did the just all of a sudden turn into unprofessional 'disgruntled' whackos after Bush fired them for, apparently, no legitimate reason. As far as 'saving face' I don't think a USA needs to worry about saving face, the supposedly incompetant San Diego USA already has a nice cushy corporate job.
This is pointless, you've got your Bush Blinders on and nothing is going to change your mind. It was right and good for these attorneys to be fired in such an unpredented manner for partisan reasons. Hallelujah Amen.
Posted by: yyy | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 06:58 PM
Tom Tancredo - I think the right-wing is familiar with him - has called for Gonzales to go. Looks like it's time to arm the circular firing squad.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070320/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_12
Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo has joined the growing chorus of lawmakers calling for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign — only not for the usual reason.
ADVERTISEMENT
Unlike others criticizing Gonzales over the recent firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the Colorado Republican said the embattled attorney general should go because of "a series of leadership failures" — chiefly his handling of illegal immigration prosecutions.
"Gonzales' legacy at the (Justice Department) has been one of misplaced priorities, political miscalculation, and a failure to enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold," Tancredo said in a statement Tuesday. "I think that it is time for him to move on."
Posted by: Jon G | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:01 PM
"has the opportunity to be subpeonaed and proceeds to give the prosecutor the finger."
and the reason that i shouldn't is because the prosecutor has nothing but my best interests at heart and wants to help me out of my legal troubles because he's such a nice guy right?
and saying i don't remember sure works a lot better than lying under oath - just ask Hillary!
have you ever been in the witness box in court? i have
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:04 PM
he's bush's ag and isn't going anywhere
and yes, they blew it with illegal immigration, not enough deportations
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:06 PM
"no man, like you said it's all about the LOOKS"
The fuck? I said that?
"you want to play political hardball and you have nothing but smoke and mirrors and media driven scandals"
Yes, you're right. The media had everything to do with the firing of 8 USAs because they weren't loyal Bushies; the media had everything to do with Abu Al-Gonzales and McNulty lying to Congress; the media FORCED the White House to lie and change its story a half a dozen times as to what happened here; the media created the conditions at Walter Reed; the media forced Libby to perjure himself; the media, the media, the media, please keep blaming your incompetence on the media. PLEASE.
"and fitz had the white house so freekin caught that frogmarch became a newly coined word - how'd that work out again? you got a new scooter with a built in pardon, how impressive"
You really think anyone cares about Scooter Libby don't you?
"don't forget that there are leak investigations of actual classified info going on for a while now - can you say nsa, cia airlines, swift banking nyt etc etc?"
You mean the ones that haven't been criminally investigated, or tried, because like, no crime was committed?
"because those show trials are about to hit the pike and i don't think the dems are going to come out on top there, maybe there'll be like actual convictions?"
You're absolutely right. I'm totally conviced that the Dems are totally going to lose interest in using their subpoena power any day now, as well.
"should be an entertaining time for all"
The fact that you are too dense not to be petrified by the state of the political right these days is pretty damn entertaining to me, to be honest.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:07 PM
--This is pointless, you've got your Bush Blinders on and nothing is going to change your mind. It was right and good for these attorneys to be fired in such an unpredented manner for partisan reasons. Hallelujah Amen.
This is pointless. You have your Lefty Blinders on and nothing is going to change your mind. It would be right and good for these attorneys to be fired in such an unprecedented manner for partisan reasons, as long as those reasons conformed with your political worldview. You only decry them because you are convinced that Bush is evil.
Halleujah Amen.
Posted by: ET | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:08 PM
"he's bush's ag and isn't going anywhere"
It's "thinking" like this that keeps getting the administration in trouble - over and over. He's not "Bush's" AG; he's OUR AG.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:09 PM
Really, the nerve of those USA thinking they were the ones deciding who to prosecute when all the time it was Karl Rove.
I say, let's just rewrite the job description to make it clear that whomever is the USA their primary job is to make the president and party look good. Enforcing the law is a secondary concern at best.
That means no USA is allowed to indict anyone of the same party and they are to always indict, regardless of evidence, leaders of the other party. They will get an extra special bonus if they are able to indict members of the other party shortly before critical elections.
Posted by: yyy | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:16 PM
He's not "Bush's" AG; he's OUR AG.
oh please you know exactly what i mean
and check this, i think all politicians are bufoons ALL
every last one of them - bufoons, i've held this opinion for years and the current crop is doing nothing to dissuade me
both sides of the aisle bufoons- bush is doing only one thing i want him to do, and the rest is politics as its always been
"The fact that you are too dense not to be petrified by the state of the political right these days is pretty damn entertaining to me, to be honest"
you seem to think the govt is worse now than its ever been in history don't you?
well, you just ain't been around long enough
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:17 PM
He's not "Bush's" AG; he's OUR AG.
"oh please you know exactly what i mean"
Yeah, I do know exactly what you mean. What you mean is that he's Bush'd AG, just like you said - in that Bush is the Decider, and if he wants people prosecuted or not, for partisan reasons, that is ok, because Abu Gonzales is "Bush's AG."
"and check this, i think all politicians are bufoons ALL
every last one of them - bufoons, i've held this opinion for years and the current crop is doing nothing to dissuade me
both sides of the aisle bufoons- bush is doing only one thing i want him to do, and the rest is politics as its always been"
Apropos of what exactly?
"The fact that you are too dense not to be petrified by the state of the political right these days is pretty damn entertaining to me, to be honest"
"you seem to think the govt is worse now than its ever been in history don't you?"
Uh, no, I seem to think that the state of the political right in this country is pretty shabby these days, which is why I mentioned the state of the political right.
"well, you just ain't been around long enough"
Riehlly?
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:23 PM
"in that Bush is the Decider, and if he wants people prosecuted or not, for partisan reasons, that is ok, because Abu Gonzales is "Bush's AG."
heh, i guess you don't know exactly what i mean, or are being willfully obtuse
oh, and i should be petrified that the political right is pretty shabby?
are they "petrifying"? or just "shabby"?
ok - no added drama supplied there eh
"well, you just ain't been around long enough"
yeah, really
if i knew what you think i'm being "appropo of" i might answer
" leak investigations of actual classified info going on for a while now - can you say nsa, cia airlines, swift banking nyt etc etc?"
You mean the ones that haven't been criminally investigated, or tried, because like, no crime was committed? "
ah, patience young grasshopper investigations of ACTUAL leaks of ACTUAL classified govt information have been ongoing for a while now, and there will be trials and i would not be surprised if there are convictions
those trials should prove quite entertaining for the righties
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 07:36 PM
"every last one of them - bufoons, i've held this opinion for years and the current crop is doing nothing to dissuade me
both sides of the aisle bufoons- bush is doing only one thing i want him to do, and the rest is politics as its always been"
I shed a single tear of grief for the burden you must bare in supporting our President. I imagine that you and Rush Limbaugh both have sore backs and stiff spines from carrying oh-so-much water for oh-so-many-miles for this administration. Truly, you are a martyred saint of a man.
Posted by: Zifnab | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 08:00 PM
"the burden you must bare in supporting our President"
haha - i "bare" my "burden" for NO man!
"I imagine that you and Rush Limbaugh both have sore backs and stiff spines from carrying oh-so-much water for oh-so-many-miles for this administration"
you've got quite an imagination there ziffy, and you're a lousy mind reader as well
and i see you mention a radio entertainer,,, meh
"Truly, you are a martyred saint of a man"
why thank you ziffy, that's the nicest thing anyone's ever said to me in riehlworld
and because you are so generous, and the milk of human kindness,,,
i know you'll forgive me for not being in the mood to reciprocate in kind
bwahahahahahha
thank you folks, i'll be here all week
don't forget to tip your waitron and try the veal -
milkfed, it's outstanding
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 08:12 PM
Anoer WLS quote for you leftards.
"The reasons for dumping Lam were well known to Feinstein. In the transcript of Sen. Sessions questioning of AG Gonzalez about the removal of Lam, Sessions mentioned that he was aware that 14 California House members had written to DOJ to complain about Lam not aggressively prosecuting border crimes. FOURTEEN."
Posted by: Hard Right | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 08:24 PM
The next thing I know charles, you will be serving sour grape sauce to our favorite liberal commenters. Yum...yum...they say! They've developed a taste for sour grapes over the past few years.
Posted by: templar knight | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 08:41 PM
Fitzmas fizzled for them. Now they are trying for Gonzalesmis. This is another example of the left saying someone is guilty because THEY say he is. This will prove to be a waste of time--again. :)
Posted by: Hard Right | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 08:52 PM
BTW, I don't see any of you posting on Patterico's blog (at least not under the same names). What's wrong? Afraid you'll get embarrassed there too?
Posted by: Hard Right | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 09:00 PM
"Now they are trying for Gonzalesmis."
Actually, with all these document dumps its less like Christmas and more like Easter. All this seems appropriate, since so many have compared Bush to Jesus.
Posted by: Zifnab | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 09:11 PM
and Gonzales and McNulty likely purgured themselves before Congress. It's more deplorable behavior from these skunks and it's not considered a big deal by the administration's cultish supporters.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 04:51 PM
Check out how our resident counselor, LEGALIZE, spells the past tense of what it is to lie under oath. ha ha...
Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 09:41 PM
...since so many have compared Bush to Jesus.
Links, please.
Posted by: templar knight | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 09:56 PM
ha good one
try the veal, now with sour grape sauce
Posted by: charles | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 10:11 PM
and Gonzales and McNulty likely ____purgured____ themselves before Congress. It's more deplorable behavior from these skunks and it's not considered a big deal by the administration's cultish supporters.
Posted by: Legalize | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 at 04:51 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, Mr. Psycho-Crack rock smokin' Lawyer:
What exactly is a "purgury"?
Is that like Purgatory for leftist socialist whackjobs like you and your lot?
Posted by: seekeronos | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 09:41 AM
"Links, please."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CgvgjfwyPs
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/
http://religiousleft.bmgbiz.net/bushandjesus.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushjesus2.htm
:-p Of course, not all of them are positive comparisons. And the Jesus Camp one was just creepy.
Posted by: Zifnab | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Crap, nabby, it's the Left who is doing the comparison. I didn't hear a single Christian compare Bush to Jesus, and I never have.
You reached way up your ass, all the way into your head, and grabbed absolutely nothing. Way to go.
Posted by: templar knight | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 10:54 AM
ha ha... TK. That last line is so damn fine. Do you mind if I use it sometime now that I've turned troll?
hahahaha...
Posted by: Phoenix | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Funny. Legalize said they are "likely" guilty of perjury...evidence? Because he said so!
Posted by: Hard Right | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Gotta love how the leftards always trot out "JesusCamp" to try to peg our nation as a theocracy or Bush as the Messiah.
Ok, leftards. One more time:
Jesus is the Messiah, Not Bush.
Worshipping Bush as God/Jesus is idolatry: ergo, not something that a Christian who obeys God's word does.
That "church" sponsoring the Jesus Camp is very unscriptural, and is in rebellion against God's Word - a female preacher/teacher/pastor (forbidden by the Bible), praying in tongues without an interpretation, (in fact, that she is praying in tongues is suspect, since we have the completed, preserved, written Word of God --- tongues was a spiritual gift that filled a gap before the Bible was completely written), and the mindless indoctrination of those kids.
No!
True, Bible-based Christianity calls upon sinners to fall upon Jesus's mercy and be saved; it calls the saved to use their free will, and to think for themselves, using God's word to judge their actions and guide them.
But will you leftists even begin to see this? I reckon that I might be a fool to hope so, but I'd rather be a "fool for Christ's sake", than the most worldly-wise man in hell.
Posted by: seekeronos | Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 12:29 PM