Comments (83)

mc mark wrote on March 14, 2007 9:00 AM:

Ah!

“I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

Isn't that quaint.

Henk wrote on March 14, 2007 9:00 AM:

"President Bush had "all the confidence in the world" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

And we all know how much weight this carries. Right Brownie?

aqualung wrote on March 14, 2007 9:07 AM:

This president has credibility? On what? With whom?

izzatxeux wrote on March 14, 2007 9:08 AM:

Alberto Gonsalez is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Noam Sane wrote on March 14, 2007 9:09 AM:

God forbid the President should lose credibility.

dzman49 wrote on March 14, 2007 9:11 AM:

The question is how much of a "standup" (i.e. "fall") guy consigliere Gonzales is willing to be.

logorrhea wrote on March 14, 2007 9:11 AM:

Abu's toast. If Karl has decided he's a liability, he's gone.

Aeneas wrote on March 14, 2007 9:12 AM:

Bush will now let Gonzales fall on his sword.
And why not? Hasn't he been Bush's loyal slave all these years, but serving at the indulgence of his master? Isn't it an honor to die for Mssrs Bush and Cheney -- men without a principle between them? Just ask those young men and women whose lives were taken from them in Iraq. (No, they did not give their lives. Their lives were taken from them.)

skaren wrote on March 14, 2007 9:15 AM:

Writting is on the wall, just has to be formalized.

It will be interesting if he is given the boot, what else he may spill about the whole sorid affair.

Bye bye Gonzo !

playerX wrote on March 14, 2007 9:16 AM:

Can credibility go negative? Or does it just shrink to an infinitesimal small mote of dust?

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 9:19 AM:

Bush had all the confidence in the world in Rummy too... the week before he gave him the boot.

Start cleaning out your desk, Abu Gonzales.

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 9:20 AM:

God forbid the President should lose credibility.

lol... how do you lose something you don't have?

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 14, 2007 9:21 AM:

Trying to look at it from a diff point, if I were the President and Karl Rove was continously involved in one scandal after another, I would question it. Is Bush that dumb or that complicit?

From Rove's point of view, does he seriously do these things (such as a conduit for USAttorney problems and being a leaker in the Plame matter), and then tell the President, "we're doing everthing we can to protect your legacy and your place in the history books," but, hey, "I need to go stick a shiv in someone's back right now that crossed me, so you may personally encounter some public grief over this."

Something about all this doesn't make sense. Someone else is involved here and its not just Karl Rove. Don't take this as defending Karl, but this USAttorney thing is making me question what's not on the surface.

izzatxeaux wrote on March 14, 2007 9:21 AM:

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously ???

how about Hatch and Specter

Leo wrote on March 14, 2007 9:23 AM:

Do I see a trial baloon sent aloft by the WH?
This should now make it OK for some GOP congressmen to denounce Gonzo to the Grand Inquisitors for trial and hari kiri (sp?).

Oh? The security code is "crime." Way cool.

RVM wrote on March 14, 2007 9:23 AM:

Since we are talking about people who apparently just follow WH directions, isn't it also time we get to the bottom of which member of Arlen Specter's staff actually inserted these provisions in the Patriot Act of 2006 supposedly without Specter’s knowledge and whose directions he or she was following, or did this idea just come to them in a dream?

Sam wrote on March 14, 2007 9:24 AM:

It's funny to see this described as "estrangement." Usually that implies disagreement of some sort. But what has Gonzales done other than get caught?

welfarequeen wrote on March 14, 2007 9:28 AM:

“I think Rove and Bolten believe there is the potential for erosion of the president’s credibility on this issue.”

New talking points on the way: 1) Decades old "friend of Bush" (aka, sucker-upper and minion) Gonzales has run amok. 2) we just care about voter fraud (please don't look at Florida).

These guys are rich. When is ROVE going to see it's HIM who has given GW the credibility issue? And he just can't stop because evil's in his genes?

TruthSeeker wrote on March 14, 2007 9:30 AM:

I saw you on Countdown yesterday. Great job Josh!

Waiting in Texas wrote on March 14, 2007 9:30 AM:

and further more, notice how each scandal always involves the ones right at the top, Abu Ghraib-Rumsfeld, Attorneygate-Gonzalez, Plame-Cheney, Dusty Foggo-CIA. That's just off the top my head right now.

A few weeks back, there was an article that the reason the Lam firing was in the works was because her investigation was likely to enter the inner workings of the CIA regarding Foggo and his network and OTHERS, which makes sense about Specter saying yesterday "its what Lam was about to investigate."

So my question is if the DOJ-USAtty stories are going to involve others and info coming out, then who is more powerful than the President?

bakho wrote on March 14, 2007 9:34 AM:

This scandal is reminiscent of the beginnings of Whitewater. RTC employee, Jean Lewis (a GOP partisan hack) filed the original criminal referral against Madison Guaranty (and stretched it to include the Clintons) to the FBI. The FBI and career DOJ lawyers rebuffed Lewis as too partisan.

Then Attorney General Barr ordered the FBI to review the referral 3 weeks before the 1992 election. The USA, Charles Banks, refused to participate in any investigation until after the 1992 election. A more partisan hack (like Griffin) could have gone ahead with the investigation dragging in Bill Clinton just before the 1992 election. This raises serious questions about putting a GOP oppo research hack, in a position to file charges against potential Democratic candidates (with a history in Arkansas) just prior to the 2008 election.

Of course we all know there was no criminal wrong doing by either of the Clintons connected to Whitewater and it was a partisan smear from beginning to end. It starts with partisan hacks abusing our legal system.

DrBB wrote on March 14, 2007 9:35 AM:

"It's like, a really wide rift. I mean this incredible unbridgeable-chasm kind of wide rift. Like here's W over here, and then there's this like huge huge chasm--like the Grand Canyon only it goes all the way from DC to like, Guam or something--and Gonzales is way way over there on the other side of it. Why, just the other day he was reading the headlines on this and he was all like 'Alberto who???' and 'How come I never heard of this guy' 'n' stuff."

I am not Deep Throat wrote on March 14, 2007 9:36 AM:

TPM and Josh have done great work so far, but this thing is still not wide open. Just keep the drumbeat up on the Carol Lam firing. There's no smoking gun yet but the timing stinks worse than a three week old mackerel. This will make Watergate look like a church picnic.

za wrote on March 14, 2007 9:40 AM:

I do believe that logorrhea has it right. Rove's sole purpose for living (besides being a poster-boy for Rogain) is to p-r-o-t-e-c-t t-h-e p-r-e-s-i-d-e-n-t.

I'm convinced he sold out both Libby and Cheney already. Gonzales is chicken-feed compared to them.

DrBB wrote on March 14, 2007 9:41 AM:

RVM: "Since we are talking about people who apparently just follow WH directions, isn't it also time we get to the bottom of which member of Arlen Specter's staff actually inserted these provisions in the Patriot Act of 2006 supposedly without Specter’s knowledge and whose directions he or she was following, or did this idea just come to them in a dream?"

Next up:
"Senior Republican officials speaking on condition of anonymity to preserve their anonymity are saying a 'rift' has developed between Senator Arlen Specter and his own legislative activities."

ebw wrote on March 14, 2007 9:45 AM:

Does anyone seriously believe that there is a "rift" between Bush & Gonzales? ... Don't bet on it! ... Alberto "Torture" Guy is the Bush 43 Crime Family's consigliere-- who has protected Bush & his daughter's criminal records (e.g. DWI in Texas) by getting them expunged, as well as their criminal activities.

Moreover, it is incredible that anybody would be seriously surprised by Bush & Co.'s abuse of the so-called "Patriot Act" to get rid of public servants of integrity, whilst instead installing their loyal lap-dogs willing to do their sordid & squalid bidding.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales, Rove, et. al. are dangerous traitors-- all of whom would be impeached & put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, if we had a Congress loyal to "We the People" ... Instead, Congress is a tool of AIPAC, Israel, the military industrial complex (e.g. defense contractors), corporate power-houses (e.g. Halliburton, Bechtel, Big OIL, the Pharmaceutical industry, etc.)...

Josh & TPM have done a great job-- but, the American people have lost their country and do not even realize it! :(

Larry Johnson wrote on March 14, 2007 9:46 AM:

Credibility? Bush still has credibility? When the hell did that happen? Maybe they're talking about the 30% of Americans who still think Bush is doing a good job.

Larry Johnson wrote on March 14, 2007 9:46 AM:

Credibility? Bush still has credibility? When the hell did that happen? Maybe they're talking about the 30% of Americans who still think Bush is doing a good job.

Tom Betz wrote on March 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

The problem with Fielding and Rove forcing Abu out of the AG office is that he knows too much. I mean, he has first-person dirt on the Shrub going back more than a decade.

Given the history of the Bush crime family, if I were Gonzales, being forced to resign would be the least of my worries.

I'd be more worried about someone giving me two in the hat.

za wrote on March 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

Sorry for this, but I just can't help it.

"And he just can't stop because evil's in his genes?"

Karl Rove on his very first date at the age of 34:

Come ON Betsy, I've got evil in my genes, and my Mom's not home......let's GO!!!!

tim wrote on March 14, 2007 9:47 AM:

"Great job Brownie, my friend Vlad, Don is the finest......." Anyone else see a similarity between praise from GWB and the Judas kiss?

too, too much wrote on March 14, 2007 9:49 AM:

This is hilarious. Anyone falling for this... the "rift" is leaked as soon as Gonzalez is busted for doing Bush's bidding... too funny.

Gonzalez to Bush:

" Buddy, I'm wounded and can't continue... take my canteen, take my supplies, go on without me... "

Bush to Gonzalez:

" Heh, ahhh... heckuva job... ahh ... see'ya in the privit'sectah... Adios! "

PMS wrote on March 14, 2007 9:58 AM:

There's no "rift", but there is "separation" being developed so that when the Albertobomb goes off, W won't get splattered (they hope).

The scenario to watch for in the next few days/weeks:
1) Terror Level Orange/Red upgrade,
2) Joe jumps the aisle with a wad of cash (protection from Senate investigations),
3) Bush 41 has another collapse, but doesn't get up this time (swelling tide of sympathy lifts all Bushes).

PS: Security Code is 'sticky". Indeed.

Fern wrote on March 14, 2007 9:59 AM:

Florida Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat, who voted to confirm Alberto Gonzalez against the wishes of many of the Veterans in Florida, and who then had to continually answer questions as to why he did so among rising questions of Gonzalez's torture memos, hmmm, and I don't seem to see any comment from Sen. Bill Nelson now.

With that said, this must be a torturous moment for Alberto Gonzalez, but not torturous enough for him to feel the pain that was inflicted on many Iraqis and others including Americans who were tortured under Gonzalez's definition of torture. I hope he gets the boot and fast.

the pickle wrote on March 14, 2007 10:06 AM:

Gonzalez makes a good lightning rod. He stays. With him gone the focus shifts exclusively to Rove and the President. Karl will not let that happen.

dalloway wrote on March 14, 2007 10:08 AM:

Whether or not Gonzalez leaves is immaterial. He'll be replaced with another Bush/Rove bootlicker. The more important question is, will the investigations/corruption cases begun by the fired prosecutors be pursued -- or will this firestorm simply serve as a diversion, as they go silently down the toilet?

logorrhea wrote on March 14, 2007 10:10 AM:

Resignation comes 5:00 PM on Friday. You heard it here first.

Ian wrote on March 14, 2007 10:15 AM:

I'm not convinced that Rove will weather this storm. I think he might be joining Harriet and Berto back in Texas.

the pickle wrote on March 14, 2007 10:17 AM:

And which corruption cases were those? Except for the indicted ones, they were flushed a long time ago. Acting USA's have already been installed. It is really all just theatre; the mission was long ago accomplished.

MichaelW wrote on March 14, 2007 10:17 AM:

Question: Why is it that Dan Bartlett can say that Karl Rove will not be testifying in public before a congressional committee? Is Rove not subject to a subpoena?

dc wrote on March 14, 2007 10:19 AM:

President Bush had "all the confidence in the world" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."

"... now if we could just pry his fingers loose from the gunwale, maybe this boat won't sink"

dc

Richard L. Adlof wrote on March 14, 2007 10:21 AM:

Any truth to rumor that a tour bus drove by Gonzales while he on sidewalk and he frantically started looking about then broke down crying hysterically?

It is good to see Republicans eating their own.

DB wrote on March 14, 2007 10:38 AM:

"Dan Bartlett can say that Karl Rove will not be testifying in public before a congressional committee" WHAT??? When did he say this? has Leahy responded?

book em crocka wrote on March 14, 2007 10:40 AM:

My question is, ... what credibility? And I'd like to suggest people stop referring to this abomination as the president, when NinComPoop-N-Chief is such a more accurate identifier.

Old Larry wrote on March 14, 2007 10:44 AM:

I have a drean. Everyone within fifty feet of the Oval Office is queuing up for their symbolic kool aid.

BlogBlind wrote on March 14, 2007 10:49 AM:

It says quite along about the "alternate-reality" that Rove et al. are in when they're so grievously concerned about the President's credibility. At 29% in the polls, I didn't think one could, statistically, get any lower than that!

foggylady wrote on March 14, 2007 10:49 AM:

Notice the one name that is not mentioned in all this...the secretive one, Darth Cheney.
Who is more powerful than the President someone asked a few posts back.
Push comes to shove between Rove and Cheney, guess who loses.
The rats in the spotlight have much to lose, but not as much as the ones working behind the scenes.

JHickey wrote on March 14, 2007 10:52 AM:

get this.Brett Tolman is the culprit who inserted that into the Patriot Act.Worked for Specter.Three guesses where he is now. US Att for Utah.

jeffgee wrote on March 14, 2007 10:52 AM:

Step one of the White House kicking Alberto to the curb. Loyalty runs only one way with the Bushies. Guess which way that is?

seenos wrote on March 14, 2007 10:57 AM:

How is stacking the Justice Department with "loyal" prosecutors any different than bribing the cops to look the other way while you run a crime syndicate?

The Democratic motto in 2008 should be simply this:

A Vote for Republicans . . . Is a Vote for Organized Crime!

kentuck wrote on March 14, 2007 11:02 AM:

The only reason Alberto would resign is to save the ass of George W Bush. It could very well happen.
But, Alberto might be pushed for the truth before that happens? The cockroaches, Bush and Rove, cannot bear the daylight of truth.

As Josh has pointed out, they were after Lam. The trail was getting too hot, once Chairman Jerry Lewis became subject to her investigation and the "hookergate" story broke in Washington. We still don't know the facts of that story.

However, it would have been too obvious to just go after Lam, so they had to throw in a few more USA's just to make it appear like a "normal" firing. But, at the base level, it is obstruction of justice and the termination of a criminal investigation. This is serious. This is big.

SocraticGadfly wrote on March 14, 2007 11:02 AM:

Alberto V-05, don't get your hair mussed up!

For those of us who saw Shrub in action as Texas gov, and Berto as his gofer (consigliere does him too much credit), this isn't surprising.

C 92 wrote on March 14, 2007 11:05 AM:

"... get this.Brett Tolman is the culprit who inserted that into the Patriot Act.Worked for Specter.Three guesses where he is now. US Att for Utah.

Posted by: JHickey..."

And, JHickey, don't overlook the fact that Tolman got the job OVER the White House's pick D. Kyle Sampson (R-Resigned).

And that Spector, Hatch, McConnell and Frist were pushing HARD for Tolman to get the job over Sampson.

logorrhea wrote on March 14, 2007 11:13 AM:

kentuck - I don't think Al can be pushed to rat on Bush & Rove. He'll stay loyal to the end. A plum job at a lobbying firm or some such place awaits him...SHOULD he keep mum.

Sagopalm wrote on March 14, 2007 11:13 AM:

Resignation comes 5:00 PM on Friday. You heard it here first.

Posted by: logorrhea
Date: March 14, 2007 10:10 AM

I had been thinking 7:00 PM on Friday. The Foggo is the key element in ex-post gonzo.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on March 14, 2007 11:16 AM:

"The two Republicans... were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales’s credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions."

As "va" said in comments at ThinkProgress.org's post on this story, "White House turning on Gonzales?":

***
Isn’t “advancing the White House agenda” what started this mess in the first place?...

Comment by va — March 14, 2007 @ 2:05 am
***

Along these lines, I found it ironic that on Page 2 of the Sampson-Miers email exchange, OAG000000035, Kyle Sampson wrote:

***
By not going the PAS route, we can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.
***

Yet another case of a Bush Administration official not thinking things through.

DB wrote on March 14, 2007 11:20 AM:

Brilliantly succinct explanation, hope you don't mind if I borrow it for a letter to my Senators -

"How is stacking the Justice Department with "loyal" prosecutors any different than bribing the cops to look the other way while you run a crime syndicate?

The Democratic motto in 2008 should be simply this:

A Vote for Republicans . . . Is a Vote for Organized Crime!"

r€nato wrote on March 14, 2007 11:28 AM:

considering the incompetence of the GOP, it might be better phrased as, "disorganized crime"...

Nat DeWitt wrote on March 14, 2007 11:32 AM:

"Credibility" here is simply a euphemism for political effectiveness. Goodness knows why the White House thinks Gonzales had any credibility on national security issues anyway, although perhaps the pro-torture contingent in Congress is really jazzed by the notion of an AG who is willing to give them some cover for our unilateral abrogation of solemn treaty obligations (and violation of implementing statutes). But I think they rightly reckon that whatever "credibility" he had is now down the drain, and rather than providing cover he's providing a tempting punching bag for Democrats who are still too timid to take on the President and Darth Cheney directly. So the "rift" is just a more poetic way of saying that Gonzales's usefulness is coming to an end. While he'll no doubt be disappointed, he won't start blabbing -- he's in too deep himself, and unlike Bush he has a law license he needs to try to keep.

sJ wrote on March 14, 2007 11:37 AM:

I would at least like to see Alberto lose his law license.

sJ wrote on March 14, 2007 11:38 AM:

I would at least like to see Alberto lose his law license.

KMJ wrote on March 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

Can the AG be impeached (if the 5:00 PM Friday prediction doesn't pan out)?
I am just heartsick over what this administration is doing to our nation.
KMJ
security code "fact"

rumpole wrote on March 14, 2007 11:54 AM:

What a complete misuse of anonymous sources. Those two sources are trying to protect the president. There's no chance of a backlash for that. If the President is losing confidence in his AG, or even remotely concerned, let them say so. On the record.

bdbd wrote on March 14, 2007 12:29 PM:

I thought the NY Times claimed that it doesn't use anonymous sources any more. I guess that rule applies in all situations except those when they decide to use anonymous sources.

bdbd wrote on March 14, 2007 12:30 PM:

I thought the NY Times claimed that it doesn't use anonymous sources any more. I guess that rule applies in all situations except those when they decide to use anonymous sources.

kentuck wrote on March 14, 2007 12:31 PM:

"Mr Attorney-General, I would like to remind you that you are under oath and what you say can and will be held against you...You have already stated that the White House had input into the firing of the US Attorneys, just how much input did they have? Did they order you to fire them? Did they order you to come up with a larger list? Was Carol Lam the primary target of the firings?...?

Dietmar wrote on March 14, 2007 12:46 PM:

AG AG's lack of a podium at the press conference seemed to suggest a lack of confidence/support. In the middle of the room with just a tiny microphone in front of him and no place to rest his wringing hands. . . .

Mooser wrote on March 14, 2007 12:54 PM:

The Bush administration, where the stand-up guys all fall down.

LEO A BOYLE III wrote on March 14, 2007 1:43 PM:

What credibility does Bush have? He lost it in March '03.

mbbsdphil wrote on March 14, 2007 1:43 PM:

It is Mr. Bush's reputation that is further tarnished.

Mr. Gonzales, like Ms. Miers, has obsequiously done his bidding since their relationship began. He did it at the White House; to no one's surprise, he continued to do it at Justice, even though that meant violating his oath of office and, quite likely, federal laws.

Mr. Gonzales should, indeed, go. He should never have been appointed or confirmed. But he does not initiate policy, or make controversial new appointments, or implement detailed plans for retribution that take years to come to fruition. All characteristics of the US Attorney scandal. All characteristic of Mr. Rove or Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Gonzales' resignation should be the beginning of the investigation, not its conclusion.

pj wrote on March 14, 2007 3:04 PM:

Question: Is Bush that dumb or that complicit?

Answer: Both.

Who did we really elect?

Answer: Rove and Cheney. They do the actual thinking (aka scheming) such as it is. Cheney does foreign policy (Mr. Outside) Rove does national (Mr. Inside)

Question: You mean everything done by the Bush Administration is for raw political advantage?

Answer: Correct nationally. Also correct internationally except for the Hallibuton move to Dubai. That's purely to lock in their bottom line by escaping Congressional oversight.

Question: OK but then what does Bush actually do?

Answer: Take up space.

Mark wrote on March 14, 2007 4:33 PM:

president’s credibility = oxymoron

Or, simply,

Moron.

hibiscus wrote on March 14, 2007 5:15 PM:

geez, the poor people. they must be wondering, "how much skin do we have to SHED before people stop thinking we're snakes?"

gary1 wrote on March 14, 2007 7:27 PM:

"oxymoron" defined: "President[ Bush]'s credibility"

Duckman GR wrote on March 15, 2007 1:00 AM:

Rift is the wrong word for this. Abu is a liability because as often happens in extended criminal enterprises, some of the crooks get caught, one way or another. Abu has been caught under the weight of one too many criminal conspiracies.

But there's no rift, but he is a liability against Bush/Cheney so go he must. As for spilling the beans?

Hahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, right, that soulless monster, just like Scooter, ain't spillin nothin. Knowing what he knows after 20 years or whatever it is leeched onto Bush's ass like a faithful tick, do you think that a) he'd want to talk about it and implicate himself in all sorts of moral turpitude, and b) he would live to talk about it?

Yeah, I didn't think so either.

black@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 2:31 PM:

men playing with their penis

black@hotmail.com wrote on April 26, 2007 2:31 PM:

men playing with their penis

willy@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 2:55 PM:

hello

richard@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 3:16 PM:

hello

witney@aol.com wrote on May 22, 2007 6:07 PM:

free viagra

FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS wrote on September 30, 2007 3:21 AM:

Hi, there!..e71a3c762413f13204b40e974ab86aae

download free music wrote on October 7, 2007 10:52 PM:

Hi, there!..79d4daafff47c9557ad83bbf8755389f

epenisa wrote on January 11, 2008 12:56 AM:

Hi all!
Nice work from your side... have a nice time with yoru blog :)
Bye