Comments (104)

Stefan Becket wrote on March 20, 2007 5:42 PM:

It's like watching Nixon and his cronies squirm, except this time I get to watch. I wonder when the Midnight Massacre will be?

Dan Robinson wrote on March 20, 2007 5:44 PM:

Shorter Leahy to Cheney:

Yeah? Your mother!

donna wrote on March 20, 2007 5:48 PM:

Oooh, this is getting fun. Must make more popcorn!

First the subpeonas, then the impeachments! Yay!

Doodle Bean wrote on March 20, 2007 5:49 PM:

I loved Leahy's remark about buying stocks in White-Out since the Bushies had used so much of it on the records they released!

It's good to have a real opposition for a change!

DallasNE wrote on March 20, 2007 5:54 PM:

Sadly, this isn't the only example of the Bush administration stonewalling the legitimite oversight requirements of Congress. The same is happening with Defense appropriations and a request for data on the effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. According to the following site, the Bush administration has turned down this request for information 8 times.

http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/1616#more-1616

Bush has been out on the stump preaching about how Congress needs to pass a clean supplemental bill without also saying that his own stonewalling is the reason Congress has not acted. No surprise here though. Misleading the American public is Job One with Bush.

From the badlands of New Mexico wrote on March 20, 2007 5:56 PM:

Senator Leahy knows he's got them by the short hairs. Subpoena power can be a bitch.

thnerkie wrote on March 20, 2007 5:57 PM:

go for it leahy!

cornyn? can't be trusted as far as he can be seen...believe it, i've known him since he was just a rotten lawyer in san antonio tx.

thnerkie wrote on March 20, 2007 5:58 PM:

go for it leahy!

cornyn? can't be trusted as far as he can be seen...believe it, i've known him since he was just a rotten lawyer in san antonio tx.

Kathleen in CO wrote on March 20, 2007 5:59 PM:

It's refreshing, though, to finally get at least THIS far, when someone actually ASKS "what happened?"

For six long years, that question was verbotten.

EH wrote on March 20, 2007 6:02 PM:

ha ha, how come every story that comes up, someone has to post about some niche affair that has nothing to do with the subject at hand? it's like those people who bring mumia abu jamal signs to breast-cancer celebrations. "well, we all want something to change!"

anyway, i do hope that congress holds themselves up for this one.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 20, 2007 6:02 PM:

I remain skeptical that the reasons for the termination were improper. What's clear to me now, however, is the improper and cynical way that the administration, at the very least in the case of Bud Cummins, sought to use the "PATRIOT" Act to circumvent the Senate's advise and consent function. I really think that's where the focus of the inquires should be directed, because that really does amount to a subversion of the constitutional order.

Catsmeow wrote on March 20, 2007 6:02 PM:

The Dems tend to get us excited and then wimp out. I'm just waiting...impatiently...guardedly...with hope.

Rick in Chicago wrote on March 20, 2007 6:03 PM:

Today's speech very much reminded me of Nixon's "I'm not a crook" statements. If he really wants to cooperate, why didn't he propose that the testimony at least be under oath, but in a closed session? It's a no-brainer: they can't possibly tell the truth.

Big Al wrote on March 20, 2007 6:03 PM:

I sure hope Leahy and Conyers have the balls to move on to subpoenas for the lying lot of them.

workaday joe wrote on March 20, 2007 6:05 PM:

Slow-walk, stonewall, delay and forget. Repeat.

I think this really may be the beginning of the end, though. The A.G. is so pivotal to the whole working of this corrupt administration. If they don't get a Gonzo clone in there, they're done. If you get a real A.G., the stuff that'll come out will make Duke Cunningham look more like Richie Cunningham.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 20, 2007 6:05 PM:

As far as subpoenas go, I, too, hope that the Democrats on the Judiciary go to the mat for them. I wonder, however, if they'd be willing to accept a deal: Gonzales's head in exchange for backing off on the subpoenas.

Mark F. wrote on March 20, 2007 6:07 PM:

God bless 'im. I hope Senator Leahy gets drunk with power and decides to impeach the bastards. It's nice to see the president taking shit from someone again.

workaday joe wrote on March 20, 2007 6:10 PM:

David says:
"Gonzales's head in exchange for backing off on the subpoenas."

It'd be worth it if there was some way to make sure the A.G. role was actually filled. I bet this group could carry emasculated "acting" appointments right up to the 2008 elections.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 20, 2007 6:10 PM:

Impeachments come from the House, not the Senate.

Civics lessons: they're what's for breakfast.

Yellow Dog wrote on March 20, 2007 6:13 PM:

Paaaarrrrttaaaaayyyyyy!

Wonder if Hallmark makes a card "Congratulations on Growing A Set of Testicles."

Mark F. wrote on March 20, 2007 6:13 PM:

"Impeachments come from the House, not the Senate."

What can I say? I just make the wisecracks. I leave the details up to you scholars.

Mark wrote on March 20, 2007 6:15 PM:

Drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip..... The water is getting a little deeper every day.

Mo wrote on March 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

Leahy for President!

Richard Fye wrote on March 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

Its a shame, though, that this head butting isn't taking place, live on the playground, over one of the many more criminally substantive issues.

Diane wrote on March 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

His Decidership had that genuine "deer in the headlights" look during this recent presser.

I also love how the new line will be:

"The democrats are trying to politicize this situation. Why...if they were really interested in the truth, they'd accept this generous offer!!"

Just watch them keep trotting that out, now that "micromanage" is yesterday's news.

cautiously optomistic wrote on March 20, 2007 6:21 PM:

Just subpoena their asses already, enough with this foreplay!

Agathena wrote on March 20, 2007 6:25 PM:

It was fine to force Former President Clinton to testify under oath on TV to very personal, intimate details that had no real impact on the country. But for proven partisan interference in the terms of US Attorneys, it is not necessary for the Bush admin to agree to tell the truth??

I'm baffled.

workaday joe wrote on March 20, 2007 6:28 PM:

Hey, just thought I'd leave you with this depressing piece of news I picked up over at Kos:

"More details later, if necessary. But just for laughs, know this: the penalty for defying a Congressional subpoena is being charged with contempt of Congress. Who prosecutes those charges on behalf of the Congress?

The U.S. Attorney's office.

You think they don't know the game they're playing? [Kagro X]"

Ha. Check and mate. Anyone who's paying attention already can't stand Bush, so what's he got to lose?

majorreno wrote on March 20, 2007 6:30 PM:

No deals on this executive privilege matter. Congress must "bitter end" this process. I listened to the comments by bush, couldn't watch. I heard the same old legend in your own mind mantra. This fool actually is convinced that he can divert the information gathering process that will provide information about this US Attorney s--tstorm. That is, divert it on his terms. It is just unbelieveable.

hang a left wrote on March 20, 2007 6:36 PM:

Right here is where the rubber meets the road. There will be a show down if Leahy sticks to his guns.

Subpoenas will be ignored. That's when all the Yoonitary Presidentin' will come in.

Thank goodness Roberts is on the bench....not!

jhpearman wrote on March 20, 2007 6:37 PM:

Who were the 2 senators that voted not to change the method in which US attorneys are seated?

Uncle Don wrote on March 20, 2007 6:42 PM:

John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, assails Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, alleging that Schumer's spearheading of the investigation into the firing of eight U. S. Attorneys is just politics dictated by Schumber's position as chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

Cornyn said during his campaign in 2002 that he sought election to enact George W. Bush's agenda.
He is still doing that.

[Code word is "shirt," but concerning Cornyn, I would delete the "h".

Uncle Don wrote on March 20, 2007 6:45 PM:

Kit Bond of Missouri and Charles Hagel of Nebraska, both Republicans, voted against S.214 to rescind the authority of the Attorney General to appoint interim U. S. Attorneys.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 6:46 PM:

Uncle Don, don't you mean the "r"?

Friend of J.R. wrote on March 20, 2007 6:49 PM:

Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers,

Please call Jesselyn Radack. She was a whistleblower who discovered they'd destroyed evidence and covered up the crime.

She's published a book, The Canary in the Coalmine; Blowing the whistle in the case of American Taliban John Walker Lindh.

This administration is knee deep in coverups!

http://www.patriotictruthteller.net

John the Revelator wrote on March 20, 2007 6:50 PM:

These people have and will continue to lie, under oath, to the public, to the press, to their wives, kids and dogs. Why bother talking to them? Cut to the chase and get the bastards out!

jhpearman wrote on March 20, 2007 6:51 PM:

thanks,uncle

R.A.C. wrote on March 20, 2007 6:55 PM:

Schumer, who I'm proud to call my senator, is a pit bull. I've watched him for years. He's Brooklyn tough and Harvard smart. No joke, the guy scored a 1600 on his SATs (and graduated from Harvard Law). With his engineering of the Democratic takeover of the Senate and his leadership on this US attorney matter, he has really emerged as an MVP.

It's no wonder that the Republican's escape strategy depends on getting spike strips under Schumer's wheels.

Remember to give him some love.

bp wrote on March 20, 2007 7:13 PM:

Tweety is beside himself because his President is so macho: what a blowhard. Sen Leahy and Rep Conyers need to understand one thing: full steam ahead with subpoenas. These guys only understand one thing: a show of force and being under oath.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 7:22 PM:

Dave, ref:

"Impeachments come from the House, not the Senate.

Civics lessons: they're what's for breakfast."

We all know the constitutional protocols. But, if you don't think Leahy and Schumer, and Co. LLD aren't talkikng to Pelosi, Hoyer, Conyers, Rahm, and the rest of the gang in the House, you're more naive than I think you are. The can of worms Leahy's opening in the Senate, with the insistence on the subpoenas is what's going to nail this bunch and make impeachment possible. Stay tuned pal.

Robert

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 7:28 PM:

Ref the Robert's Court, and what the White House gang knows about what they're doing:

Impeachment is a political process. If the Robert's Court, successor to the Court that put Shrub in the White House, interferes with the Congress, it'll only grease the skids.

Jack Flash wrote on March 20, 2007 7:30 PM:

These are the real crimes here, kids. Using biased intelligence to go to war may be evil, but it's not a crime. Dismissing USA's in order to derail ongoing investigations is a letter-of-the-law crime. And internal White House communications records will show that this is precisely what went down. They can't fire Gonzalez, because he's implicitly (or explicitly) blackmailing them on this. The only thing stalling impeachment is the need to be sure they can take Cheney down at the same time - that and that Pelosi can't look self-serving on her way to the presidency.

stephen wrote on March 20, 2007 7:34 PM:

There is no doubt that there is a lot of dirt hiding in the Oval office. You could make the argument the righties often make regarding the Patriot act and phone tapping etc etc...IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TESTYFING UNDER OATH YOU PILLSBURRY DOUGH BOY PUFF PASTRY PREVARICATOR PUKE!

Brad wrote on March 20, 2007 7:42 PM:

Just remember to watch what their (Congress and the President's) left hand is doing (Iraq, Spying, Torture, Blackwater, etc.) while they have you purposely distracted with their right hand (Gonzales).

Patriot Scholar wrote on March 20, 2007 7:45 PM:

As usual, Mr. Bush is thumbing his nose at the American people. One has to wonder what country he thinks he is President of? There sure must be a lot to hide given this very, very arrogant decision. I am sure a lot of voters will remember this action in 2008, and well that they should.
As I recall, the Republicans during Clinton's administration loved to subpoena often. And that included President Clinton himself. So, unless there are high crimes and misdemeanors at stake here, there is no reason that these people should not be public and under oath. Period.

Vincent wrote on March 20, 2007 7:48 PM:

Hurray hurray if Robert is correct. I am so weary of the bush junta, and so accustomed to being disappointed in the spineless Dems, that I probably won't know how to react if the Dems finally fulfill their constitutional obligations and put the junta in the dock where they belong. If Hallmark hasn't yet made a card saying Congratulations on Growing a Set of Testicles, then they ought to make one specially for this occasion.

Mike wrote on March 20, 2007 7:50 PM:

TOMORROW'S HEADLINE...............President Bush declares martial law at noon Eastern Standard Time. Dissolves Congress.............Capital Building locked down..............All Congressional Democrats placed under house arrest..............President will address country from the Oval Office at 8:00 P.M. tonight................Gonzales to stay on as Attorney General.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 8:07 PM:

Can Rove legally claim executive privilege? I figure that, even if he can't, Bush will sign an executive order giving it to him.

Jim wrote on March 20, 2007 8:10 PM:

Mike, That's not funny.

David wrote on March 20, 2007 8:12 PM:

The likelihood that either Conyers or Leahy will back down is somewhere between nil and naught. I didn't know just how much mental horsepower Senator Enforcer (D-NY), although I suspected it was substantial. 1600, huh? A portent of the shitstorm that is about to be visited on the occupant of residence bearing that address?

The security code is loss, at which POTUS seemed to be today, preprogrammed bluster notwithstanding. Oh, to see that bastard finally in the dock for one of his crimes.

Marple wrote on March 20, 2007 8:18 PM:

You know I remember back in the days of Watergate there was a poster put out with the photographs of all the Administration players. As each one was fired, resigned, went to jail, an X crossed out their faces. I loved going to the local book store and seeing the number of X's grow as time passed and the truth came out. Including the big X on the Big Boy Nixon himself.

This administration screams out for just this kind of poster (upgraded to on line, of course)

Mike wrote on March 20, 2007 8:19 PM:

Jim, unfortunately it was not meant to be humorous. My point in posting that comment is this:

"Can you say that waking up tomorrow to a headline such as this would really come as an absolutely complete surprise?"

Right now, Jim, I don't think anything is beyond the pale of reason. I'm not a tin-foil-hat kind of guy. But I have to say that after watching our President today and watching his reactions of late when he feels the true pressure of accountability bearing down on him, that nothing.......and I mean nothing, would surprise me.

That is how far down we have come in this country.

EH wrote on March 20, 2007 8:21 PM:

"Gonzales's head in exchange for backing off on the subpoenas."

No doubt there are a ton of people in DC who would be relieved if the problems stopped there.

jennifer wrote on March 20, 2007 8:26 PM:

stephen said: IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TESTYFING UNDER OATH

As much as I'd love to see Rove squirm, this is not the argument to get us there. This is regularly the authoritarian argument that would invalidate all of our fifth amendment protections. Rove needs to show up, or face Contempt of Congress. Then, if he wants to take the fifth, that's up to him.

Robert wrote on March 20, 2007 8:34 PM:

One more thing subpoenas do. When people get them, they usually hire a lawyer to give them a lift down to the place where they're deposed. Once people are in legal jeopardy, as they might be if they have knowledge of crimes and conspiracies, their lawyers usually tell them to do whatever they have to and so avoid being charged with obstructing justice. That advice always includes telling some part of the truth. Great things, subpoenas. Trust me- there will be sufficient leaks and leads, and the requisite number of little guys who know big secrets, so that the crimes will become clear; and the path must inevitably lead to Shrub in his Oval Office. Now if history is any guide, and with a little more luck than this country has had since he started waving the flag after 9/11, he'll be sufficiently stubborn and obtuse, so this will come out in the form of a dam break, and then we'll watch the first act of this show in the House Judiciary hearings; Act II will be on the floor of the House: Act III in the Senate; and Act IV on the ramp of Marine I, as he's waving good bye.

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 8:35 PM:

John Conyers (D-MI):

"While we appreciate the White House's gesture, we will work with the Senate Judiciary Committee to create a counteroffer.

The ONLY counteroffer Conyers better be insisting on is a full complice with the subpoenas.

Mr. Fielding is no place to be making any offers.

AND What "bribes" is Conyers selling the American people out too?

And here we thought that only GOP members were a bunch of corrupt a-holes.

OCPatriot wrote on March 20, 2007 8:37 PM:

I have siad it before, and I'll say it again: Bush & Co. only understand a metaphorical whack on the side of the head with a 2x4. Until that is administered, he will stonewall.

David P. Lyons wrote on March 20, 2007 8:39 PM:

Robert,

I'm not naive at all, and as the poster himself conceded, he did not understand the constitutional particulars. Those, and not the obvious point that Leahy, et al., are talking with Pelosi, et al., were what I was speaking to.

And, can I just applaud jennifer's cool-headed observation about the need to restrain power in all of its instantiations, and not only when it works against our own little polical agendas. Well done.

1970cs wrote on March 20, 2007 8:45 PM:

wait for it... Lieberman again threatens to cross the aisle.

Rule NYC wrote on March 20, 2007 9:02 PM:

Subpoenas????? I say let's waterboard them all, it's faster, cost efficient and we know that we'll get such good results.... Cheney first!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous wrote on March 20, 2007 9:15 PM:

Rove cannot claim executive privilege, he's not an elected official.

Tuli wrote on March 20, 2007 9:16 PM:

It is all about Lam, etc., and the insertion of that pesky legalese in the Patriot Act which by passes the regular confirmation process by the Senate which says it all. Notice how Tolman inserted it and then got the USAttys spot that Sampson wanted. I am sure that this didn’t make Sampson a happy camper or testifier! This was well thought out and planned. This is not just incompetence in explaining what they did, they can’t explain it, under oath that is. So, yes the Executive’s folks need to testify under oath as they aren’t, ostensibly, testifying about conversations with the “Executive” but testifying about conversations with the DOJ. It is about the timeline folks. Emails on Lam and Cummins, etc., seem to lead us to the promised land. I’m just saying!

vox clamantis in red state wrote on March 20, 2007 9:19 PM:

Classy folks, these texans. High heels, low morals. God awmighty/is the end beginning?

some dude named steevo wrote on March 20, 2007 9:30 PM:

1970cs is right. After Sen. Leahy's comment, you can bet that Bush is on the phone to Lieberman tonight with the following message:

"Ok, time for you to switch parties now!"

paul Miller wrote on March 20, 2007 9:33 PM:

notice bushie didn't mention social security when he said there is work to do - Miers isn't any kind of official at all. Bye, bye criminals, suck ups and sick o phants

starwheel wrote on March 20, 2007 9:40 PM:

This is encouraging. And the President's bluster this afternoon after his pathetic offer just seems to underscore how very nervous he is.

If Spector was heading this up, he'd already be issuing apologies to the administration by now. I just truly hope the Democrats do not buckle or waiver on this.

In fact, in defiance of the President's shot across their bow this afternoon, perhaps the Democrats should issue a subpoena for HIS testimony before the committee.

osage wrote on March 20, 2007 9:45 PM:

The Bush administration has always hoped that this inevitability would take place later rather than sooner. Moving from the political arena into the legal arena eliminates their ability to hide their malfeasance, incompetence and crypto-fascist form of governance. All honest people need to do to bring down evil doers is expose the truth. Lying has always been the Bush administration's approach to hiding their corruption. Without the option of lying with impunity, they know their illegal and abusive actions will become undeniable and indefensible. At that point, infamy and impeachment are inevitable.

spero wrote on March 20, 2007 9:49 PM:

No swipes at the Men In Black, anonymous, Conyers' counter-offer entails subpoena.

pilgrimspring wrote on March 20, 2007 9:54 PM:

I've noticed that David Lyons said "civic lessons, that's for breakfast"; so, i have a question for David Lyons: It is my understanding that only someone from either the House or the Senate is authorized to work on the "actual Bill" that is before either the House or Senate. After the Bill is voted on and approved by the House it goes to the Senate; the corresponding committee of the Senate. If it gets out of the Senate committee and is approved on the floor of the Senate it then goes to a committee of both House and Senate members, and their staff members, for the final drafting of the bill. After the final language is drafted it goes to the printer to be printed and disturbited back to tht House and the Senate amd the President. It is obvious that if the originator of the Bill is the Presidential Office then the President may want to send some "staff" to the committee that is going to rectify the language of the proposed Presential Bill to over see the final writing of the Bill under consideration. It is also known that the staff of either menmber of the House or of the Senate might well be authorized to write portions of this Bill under consideration, but, is it legal for someone on a staff, outside of the House or Senate, to have the authority to write something and then slip it into a bill that the House and the Senate are finished with and is supposed to be on the way to the printer for disturbution? Has the "staff" of the President of the U.S. the legal "right" to do this. If so, it seems to me that the President of the U.S. need not worry about "signing statements" any longer, all that he really need do is go to the Rectifying Committee hearing and slip in what he wants to sign into law.
Thus he has drafted the Law and Signed it...?

Gabriel F wrote on March 20, 2007 10:09 PM:

We won't be able to convict them in the senate if they're impeached but it doesn't really matter. The trial will be enough to get to the bottom of things and to show the voters the truth.

Sempringham wrote on March 20, 2007 10:12 PM:

Georgie, Georgie, remember:

It wasn't the crime that got Nixon, it was the cover-up!

It wasn't the crime that got Libby, it was the cover-up!

On second thought, Georgie, never mind.

pny wrote on March 20, 2007 10:17 PM:

When is someone going to ask Bush directly why he would allow his staff to be interviewed but NOT under oath? Does he himself not want the assurance that the truth is being told?

Jim C. wrote on March 20, 2007 10:19 PM:

President: I will not be put in the position of putting my people in the position of having to tell the truth. It will ruin my record.

I'm after a slot in Guiness (its all I have left): President who told the most lies in two terms without breaking into a sweat.

MaxGowan wrote on March 20, 2007 10:57 PM:

It was the coverup that sank Nixon. We are firml on that road now. I wonder if Time magazine, as they did after the Saturday Night Massacre, published it's first (well, obvious) editorial for Nixon to resign, do the same at some point this year? I wonder if the Republicans of conscience will say enough is enough?There were more Republicans of conscience in '73. This is like Nixon getting away with it.

KY3 Democrat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:18 PM:

Robert said: "...Act III in the Senate; and Act IV on the ramp of Marine I, as he's waving good bye."

Robert, you wish, and I wish, but Bush will never never never see conviction in the Senate. He might see impeachment, but never conviction. It would take 60 votes to convict him in the Senate, and I can assure you and everyone else, the 'pubs ain't gonna let that happen. Bush would have to be caught publicly raping Nancy Reagan on the Mall, and she would actually have to press charges, for the Senate 'pubs to put him away.

Keep in mind, there is one court we've not heard from yet: the court of the streets. THERE is where the matter of Bush v. United States will have to be settled.

KY3 Democrat: "He's our Presidential Chimpanzee until 20 Jan 2009; learn to love it."

KY3 Democrat wrote on March 20, 2007 11:34 PM:

pilgrimspring writes: ...all that [Bush staff] really need do is go to the Rectifying Committee hearing and slip in what [Bush] wants to sign into law.

My God, pilgrimspring! What a question! But it needs to be answered: Just how did the revision to the USA Patriot Act get inserted, at what stage? Did Bush staff subvert the will and powers of Congress? Was Sen Specter actually awake at the time? Did Specter do a deal with the White House? Was some House/Senate staffer hot-dogging it? You notice how quickly the DoJ used the powers granted them to appoint w/o Senate approval, they must have been complicit, or at least expecting the change. This was all rigged somehow, and we don't know how! We know why, though: to turn the offices of the USA's into pure patronage posts, and to subvert the rule of law to the political will of El Presidente.

KY Democrat: "We want Nixon back, at least he was not a crook!"

elrapierwit wrote on March 21, 2007 1:04 AM:

KY

This was indeed rigged. Rove wanted Sampson, (just resigned as Asst Dept to AG) and Hatch, McConell, Frist, Spector wanted Brent Tolman to be the USA in Utah. So it was a political showdown with Karl and the Senators. Tolman had been their Chief Deputy on the Crime and Terorism subcommittee under Hatch and then Spector, and he was Mr. Tolman that inserted that change in the Pat Act, for the Atty General, to make interim appoints.

I think it is ironic, that Rove hatched the idea to get another one of his minions, sampson an USA job, they used Tolman to execute it and Tolman ended up with the USA job. lol

Tolman is really crafty.

ron roston (humbug) wrote on March 21, 2007 1:04 AM:

Kudos to all congressional representatives and senators who press to supoena the Bushies. Their arrogance and evasive tactics will be even more clear to the American public. Respond to their claims the Democrats are only playing politics by pointing out they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions by demanding secrecy and no consequences for their perfidy and incompetence.

Humbug

motorjoe wrote on March 21, 2007 1:40 AM:

A true bipartisan committee would gladly accept the republic offer to meet privately away from prying eyes and ears.

WH has indicated that waterboarding is not torture or even unreasonable and may in fact produce reliable information.

sybelia wrote on March 21, 2007 8:10 AM:

God bless Sen. Leahy and Rep. Conyers for their courage and integrity.

Read two weeks ago on FireDogLake that Rudy Guiliani owned the anthrax cleanup firm that destroyed all the archives at the National Enquirer - this batch of military grade anthrax that could only have come from Ft. Belvoir killed the National Enquirer reporter who had just printed photos of the bush sluts rolling around on the floor drunk and was said to have had other photos of the bush crime family in compromising positions.

Bush sent a threat to Sen. Daschle and Sen.Leahy just after he did 911 when these patriotic Senators would not sign the unPatriotic Act to enslave Americans. Sen. Leahy stated to gonzo in his last appearance that he wanted information on how the FBI investigation was going - its only been 5 years. Sen. Harkin also stated on his website that he and other dems were fighting with the FBI since they refused even at this late date to let Congress know the status of the anthrax investigation. Then John Edwards received white powder in the mail.

I think that our Congressperson should have the same kind of protection the president receives since they are of equal importance according to the Constitution and the bush crime family has killed too many members of Congress including Paul Wellstone who refused to sign the Authorization for bush to invade Iraq and bush has managed to intimidate the rest of congress with threats.

Does the FBI ever solve anything or do they just cover-up? There needs to be an investigation into why the FBI cannot solve the anthax murders, 911, Paul Wellstone's murder, Jeb Bush shredding 911 documents a few months ago, Flight 800 and Admiral Boorda's suspicious death and unsolved major cases going back decades.

kathleen wrote on March 21, 2007 8:36 AM:

pray that leahy and conyers stand firm and that under subpoena rove actually tells the truth. st. jude is the patron of impossible hopes.

Northern Mike wrote on March 21, 2007 8:36 AM:

If Bush blocks even one supoena, impeach the bastard

Hugo Z Hackenbush wrote on March 21, 2007 8:57 AM:

With all apologies to the late, great Hunter S Thompson, whom I am quoting here:

"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world, a nation of bullies and bastards who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are not just Whores for power and oil, but killer whores with hate and fear in our hearts. We are human scum, and that is how history will judge us. No redeeming social value. Just whores. Get out of our way, or we'll kill you. Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush? They are the same ones who wanted to have Muhammad Ali locked up for refusing to kill gooks. They speak for all that is cruel and stupid and vicious in the American character. They are the racists and hate mongers among us; they are the Ku Klux Klan. I piss down the throats of these Nazis. And I am too old to worry about whether they like it or not. Fuck them."

Randy Orton wrote on March 21, 2007 9:53 AM:

Luckily, and thank GOD, true patriots and Americans can get factual and non-secular progressive news from Fox News Channel. Clinton did the same thing and no one (including the liberal media) jumped down his throat. I pray to God every night and thank him for sending George W. Bush to do his work.

Chico B wrote on March 21, 2007 10:01 AM:

Leahy may be bucking for the AG job himself in a year-plus if this goes well.

I too hope the Congress has his back and doesn't cut some kind of deal. It's time.

harmonika wrote on March 21, 2007 10:31 AM:

Seven years ago, when W stole the first election, I could have told you THEN where
this 'presidency' was headed. I grew up in Texas and learned from experience what stupid white trash with a lot of money behind him can do.

But Bush IS a Uniter. Before his imcompetent ass stole the election, a woman or a black man would not even have a chance at this race.

I suggest that we apologize to Iraq for destroying their country, rebuild it for them, then we parachute Bush, Cheney, Rice & Rumsfeld weaponless into their country and let them do as they wish with them.

Maybe we can call the whole thing 'even'.

ruby wrote on March 21, 2007 1:51 PM:

"Right now, Jim, I don't think anything is beyond the pale of reason. I'm not a tin-foil-hat kind of guy. But I have to say that after watching our President today and watching his reactions of late when he feels the true pressure of accountability bearing down on him, that nothing.......and I mean nothing, would surprise me."

There are a lot of people here in Gawd's Country that agree with you, Mike. My husband and I are waiting for it every day.

Or it could go down with Lieberman crossing the aisle. In which case, maybe the American people would finally get off their asses and/or the keyboard and start a real revolution.

Let's hope it's neither. We're waiting with baited breath.

gc_wall wrote on March 21, 2007 5:54 PM:

There is no right to executive privilege for lesser human beings than the almighty one and his sidekick Lurch. Before there is privilege there must be proof of harm to intelligence agencies, the military or national security. Removing a criminal from office is not a national security threat. Executive privilege was not intended to protect suspected criminals from investigation and prosecution if warranted by the evidence.

Impeachment does not have to reach the level of a crime. Ethical violations are enough to remove a person from office. The meme that the GWOT precludes the use of impeachment, because of the distraction it would cause is completely false, or at least, someone believed that it was false when the republicans went after Clinton while the battle in Bosnia was fought.

It would be healthy to rid ourselves of the current regime, since most of them are in the service of the wealthy and corporate interests, while ignoring the needs of the majority of the American people. Selfishness is not a virtue no matter what Ayn Rand said; it is a sin, according to those who say that they believe it is. I don't really care whether it is or is not, but I do care when duplicitous deceits permit our representatives to steal from us.

rose@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 5:50 AM:

Generic Cialis. Buy Generic Cialis

kriss@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 8:08 PM:

hello

kriss@gmail.com wrote on April 30, 2007 8:09 PM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:30 AM:

hello

black@gmail.com wrote on May 1, 2007 8:30 AM:

hello

Jonglly wrote on May 2, 2007 7:34 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Jonglly wrote on May 5, 2007 7:32 AM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 6:57 PM:

hello

sophy@gmail.com wrote on May 5, 2007 6:59 PM:

hello

dennis@gmail.com wrote on May 6, 2007 7:45 AM:

hello

Jonglly wrote on May 14, 2007 1:33 PM:

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:28 AM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:29 AM:

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

igeyvnb kgwxihrvo wrote on June 6, 2007 7:20 AM:

fxnobhki iaymsb ixrs owxq bxiyhve uhxyfj aborjwql

igeyvnb kgwxihrvo wrote on June 6, 2007 7:21 AM:

fxnobhki iaymsb ixrs owxq bxiyhve uhxyfj aborjwql

free music downloads wrote on October 7, 2007 10:37 PM:

Hi, there!..665be59010673832522691a2d52eaa1f