Comments (60)

Crust wrote on April 23, 2007 11:36 AM:

Re snickering: A little truth slipped out. AGAG didn't answer a lot of questions, but as the President said he did answer every question he could answer honestly.

FMArouet wrote on April 23, 2007 11:44 AM:

This will be the White House narrative for events in coming months:

"We're not criminal. We're just incompetent and delusional."

Many Republicans in Congress are already parroting this defense. The MSM seem to be falling in line as well.

The obvious strategy is to buy time and "gum to death" serious investigations of real crimes. Clever fellow, that Karl Rove.

Twenty-one more months will pass before we know it.

Sojourner wrote on April 23, 2007 11:49 AM:

There has been considerable speculation about what will happen next. My personal thought is that Mssrs. Schumer and Conyers have given Gonzales and Bush considerable opportunity to comply. In other words, Alberto, you resign and no one gets hurt (well, maybe a little).

I suspect that our congressional leadership already knows what has transpired, and they have the evidence to back it up. I think that things are going to blow up very shortly. The Shrub is going to whine a lot, and make noises about fighting it all out in court, but I suspect that he will not have any traction.

Maybe we can take our country back again!

giark65 wrote on April 23, 2007 11:49 AM:

"One of the things that's important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys."

That is not what we heard at the testimony last week. We have yet to directly hear the name of a physical person who made these recommendations with a sense of responsibility.

Questions I would like to learn more about.

"Tom Heffelfinger, the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota, will testify as well. He helped create the Indian Gaming Working Group, an inter-agency task force that has played a role in the Abramoff investigation."

"One situation in particular related to DeLay may have caught the attention of Chiara's office -- that of Representative Nick Smith (MI-07) and his vote on Medicare D. Smith's home district is split between the Western District and Eastern Districts. Smith alleged publicly he had been coerced to vote along Republican Party line if his son Brad were to receive any aid from the GOP for a run for Smith's term-limited seat; Smith later backpedaled on this claim. Representative Candice Miller of Michigan's 10th Congressional District, located in the Michigan Eastern District, was later reprimanded along with Tom DeLay by the House Ethics Committee for her veiled public threat against Smith."

"The NAIS staff detailee, who is from WDMI, was terminated despite an outstanding evaluation because EOUSA would not renew her detail."

"The National Indian Gaming Commission is holding back information about its possible contacts with the key players in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, a watchdog group said on Tuesday."

All these indicate there is more to the indians and Abramoff. I sure would like to hear from Paulston on Rove and Abramoff.

And I'm sure this mess will have further revelations.

"Samuel Lipari became concerned that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was using the firing of appointed US Attorneys and senior assistant US Attorneys to obstruct justice in investigations involving public corruption on October 18, 2004 when white collar crime prosecuting Assistant US Attorneys Leonard Senerote, Michael Uhl and Michael Snipes were fired from the Ft. Worth Texas office of the US Attorney that had issued subpoenas in an ongoing investigation of Novation LLC and other hospital suppliers for anticompetitive practices. Samuel Lipari was especially concerned over the firings in the Ft. Worth office where the chief US Attorney responsible for Medicare fraud, Thelma Louise Quince Colbert had been found dead in her swimming pool on July 20th, 2004 and the Ft. Worth office Senior US Prosecuting Attorney that had signed the subpoenas, Shannon Ross (formerly of Kansas) was found dead in her home on September 13th, 2004. Shannon Ross's investigation of Novation LLC sparked the New York Times article "Wide U.S. Inquiry Into Purchasing For Health Care" on Saturday August 21, 2004."

crick02478 wrote on April 23, 2007 11:53 AM:

"One of the things that's important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys." But of course Gonzo testified he didn't decide which U.S. attorneys to recommend for replacement. Neither did Sampson.

Around and around we go. That the press accepts answers like this from Chimpy while they stand there bovinely chewing their cud defies belief.

I never thought I would say this, but I am nostalgic for Sam Donaldson.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 23, 2007 11:57 AM:

Say whatever ya want about the boy king George . . . He is a 'Stand by his woman sorta man'.

legion wrote on April 23, 2007 12:02 PM:

This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

3centsworth wrote on April 23, 2007 12:04 PM:

The AG, the "number one crimefighter" gets a vote of confidence and pat on the back, for his "ability to deceive" the Judicial Committee and the American people. I think Sir Walter Scott said "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive".
Heckuva job AG

security code "glass" as it is "break"

Richard L. Adlof wrote on April 23, 2007 12:09 PM:

Sorry. That wasn't polite.

John S wrote on April 23, 2007 12:14 PM:

Congress needs to just keep peeling back the layers of corruption. Eventually, Gonzales will be forced to resign. This could take a few more months but it either will happen (resignation) or I suspect there will be bi-partisan support for impeachment of Gonzales. US Attorney decisions not to investigate clearcut Republican corruption while pursuing cases that are "beyond thin" are endemic. Wisconsin is not the only case. Others are out there and have been revealed in the MSM (local, not national).

lisainvan wrote on April 23, 2007 12:20 PM:

Even if it is correct that USAs 'serve at the pleasure of the President', the US is not governed by whims and fancies. USAs, with the sort of prosecutorial responsibilities they have, ought only to be changed for REASONS. We have yet to hear anything about the REASONS were for the AG or the President to want a change in staff. Otherwise, its like its government by how you feel when you wake up in the morning.

Peter wrote on April 23, 2007 12:20 PM:

I think the President means he has confidence that the Attorney General won't help connect the dots to the White House.

What else matters to George

kdh22 wrote on April 23, 2007 12:25 PM:

My question to bush is:

To which "job" are you referring?

profmarcus wrote on April 23, 2007 12:26 PM:

i think that bush firmly grasps just how devastating gonzales' departure would be for him personally... yes, the speculation has it that george is shielding rove, but i think it's got a lot more to do with protecting his own ass...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

giark65 wrote on April 23, 2007 12:29 PM:

And to add to my earlier comment, here is a list of those besides Barbakow have reasons to avoid investigation by USAG members or have Bush remove imposing forces towards there prosecution. Barbakow figures heavily into one of the USAG firings when his company was losing a battle in Missouri. I'm sure you'll here more in the coming weeks about this case. http://www.tpj.org/pioneers/newpioneers/analysis.html

This is really not about politics. It's about Bush calling into favors to protect his corrupt 'white collar' friends and neocons.

And speaking of Bush, are there deeper issues into his dementia, as apparent in his speech last week, that keeps him from more of these 'public' meetings? http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Bush%20Madness

Anonymous wrote on April 23, 2007 12:30 PM:

I'm happy he's staying. I'd be even happier if he spent the rest of his life in prison but there was no way that was going to happen. So now Bush will have yet another cloud over his presidency- another thing he can be relentlessly hammered on. A crooked AG whose only loyalty is to George Bush- someone who doesn't give a damn about the law or the American people. The hatred for Bush will grow.

EdNSted wrote on April 23, 2007 12:34 PM:

I didn't pay a lot of attention to this story until Monica Goodling indicated she would invoke her 5th amendment right if called to testify. But that really got my attention. It was a watershed event and, to me at least, indicates a much more serious problem at the DoJ than simply a lack of good communication or effectve management or political manuevering.

In any normal adminsitration, Democrat or Republic, party leadership would have insisted upon damage control weeks ago and Gonzales would have been gone. It appears to me that the Republicans have been trying to exercise that damage control for some time now but Mr. Bush is simply not listening. I don't know what it means but it can't be good.

Republicans would obviously like to see this investigation dropped or at a minimum, limited. I suspect that until recently many of them sincerely believed that this investigation was simply the same partisan politics that they themselves had engaged in for the past several years.

The problem for the Republicans is this: the time when the resignation of Mr. Gonzales would have served to dampen or limit this investigation has long passed. The investigation is going forward and not in a limited way.

The fact that the White House believes keeping Gonzales now is the best course of action, the best of several bad choices, seems rather ominous.

Nadja S wrote on April 23, 2007 12:35 PM:

Bush is either indifferent, or is mindlessly following the script that Karl Rove hands him each day. He obviously no longer cares about governing (or did he ever care?). What does he do all day in the Oval Office, and how can he be so insulated from the concerns and needs of the American public? What an example of ineptitude he sets.

EvilPoet wrote on April 23, 2007 12:36 PM:

"I emphasize, that is the priority for me as the president. It's my faith, my family, and my country." http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/04/20/bush/index.html

Maybe next time we can get a president that has their priorities straight. Clearly, this one doesn't.

nofltwlt wrote on April 23, 2007 12:44 PM:

This is no surprise.

To Bush, who is stupid as shit, Gonzales must have appeared as though he has a photographic memory.

Bush has a lot of class; unfortunately it is all low class.

My guess is that Laura and the twins laugh their asses off at the stupid shit Dubya comes up with. It must be pure hell being ridiculed by his own family.

georgia wrote on April 23, 2007 12:49 PM:

"the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys."

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. AG AG testified to the fact that he fired these USA's. He didn't pass the list onto the Presient for action, Gonzo acted on it, despite the law that says only the President can do it. (so there's one law browen)

Also, Bertie testified that he used the PATRIOT Act changes because he didn't feel it was appropriate for judges to appoint USA's. He even avoided court appointments before he had the legal right to. Sorry, disapproving with a law doesn't mean you can ignore it. (another law broken, although avoiding court appointment and Senate confirmation may count as 2, so let's call it a total of 3 so far)

Perjury and obstruction? Arguable, so that's 4 and 5.

plenty more I'm sure

phred wrote on April 23, 2007 12:49 PM:

I just want to second what crick02478 commented above, the AG did NOT recommend to the President which USAs to replace. He spent the whole day saying that while he made the decision, it was only a matter of giving the seal of approval to a list of attorneys made by others. So who did make the list of recommendations? And why is President Bush saying that the Attorney General made the recommendations, when the AG himself said he didn't? Why the misdirection from the President -- lets go ask Karl...

Security Code: lock -- as in "lock them up"?

Anonymous wrote on April 23, 2007 12:51 PM:

Very well put EdNSted. Any other administration that had nothing to hide would have gotten rid of the public relations disaster that is Gonzo long ago. It's also obvious that the decision to fire the attorneys came from the White House- and that they (Rove/Miers most likely) also came up with the names. Gonzo knows this and provided cover for Bush with his dishonest testimony (how many times did he say "I don't recall"). But after all these hearings we haven't had anyone say who came up with the final list of names. Sampson says he was just an "aggregator". Gonzo says he doesn't know. So who does know? My guess it's Rove and Bush is going to do everything in his power to protect him- the American people and justice be damned. History will show this administration made Nixon look like a choir boy. And they might get away with their crimes. But maybe, just maybe Monica Goodling is the key and her testimony can bring 'em down like a house of cards. I do think this could happen. I've dealt with the uber religious before and the bottom line is they always look out for themselves first- I do not think she will fall on her sword for the White House.

Anonymous wrote on April 23, 2007 12:59 PM:

"I'm going to assume his comment that Gonzales answered all the questions he could "honestly answer" is just yet another of Bush's infelicitous phrasings. But that didn't stop me from snickering"

It shouldn't, expecially in light of how the alternate entendre affects "his ability to the job." Part of the job is simply not answering questions he would have to lie to answer. :)

Dave

EdNSted wrote on April 23, 2007 1:17 PM:

I hope you are correct about Ms. Goodling not falling on her sword. I am concerned about offering her immunity because of the way in which that power was abused during Iran-Contra. Others here have stated that they have more faith in this committee to proper exercise its authority to grant immunity. I hope so, but somebody has to be paying Ms. Goodling's legal fees and I doubt that those people are doing that for strictly charitable reasons.

Unless George Bush and his inner circle are all suffering from lead poisoning, then there has to be some reason why they believe keeping Alberto on as AG at this point, in the face of overwhelming opposition from their own party and an utterly dismal performance while testifying, makes sense. That's the part of the puzzle that's got me.

Yes, George's entire administration has valued loyalty over competency. And yes, neocon and religeous dogma tends to win out over pragmatism. But I think this goes beyond that.

mayan wrote on April 23, 2007 1:21 PM:

Bush/Rove/Cheney's response to adversity has always been to up the stakes. Under attack? Come up with something even more outrageous and in the public's face. One could see the stiff-third finger salute coming on this months ago. It's what has gotten them this far. Perhaps the change in party governance will create a different calculus.

Waxman? Leahy? Conyers? What do you say about this?

Anonymous wrote on April 23, 2007 1:22 PM:

georgia,

So is it illegal for say, Rove to come up with the list to fire, and pass it onto the hacks in DOJ to execute. The Hacks execute and get the AG to 'sign off' on the plan (not that he has the authority to dissent against Rove). The USA's get canned.

Ignoring the subsequent coverup, if Congress can prove that Bush never was involved in the least bit, who can be charged? Everyone involved?

Node of Evil wrote on April 23, 2007 1:32 PM:

I've gone back and forth over whether Gonzales will actually resign or be forced to resign. My pro-resign view is based on the idea that he can't be any good to the Administration while he's still in office. There's no question that he's caused damage; if nothing else, people are now going back through the record to see what, exactly, the Justice Department has done. And they're combing through other USA ressignment/resignations/retirements to see if those might have been politically motivated. I don't think that would have happend if Gonzales had already resigned.

The anti-resign view considers Gonzales to be the gatekeeper. He has control of the Justice Deparment, and since the Executive branch relies on the Justice Department for much of its power, then removing Gonzales opens the Administration up to all sorts of problems. This Congress would never approve someone like Ted Olson (a name that has apparently been floating around). More importantly, Congress would watch anyone appointed like a hawk. They'll do this regardless of whether or not Gonzales resigns, but as long as he's there Bush has a sympathetic voice. The main problem is Gonzales may be the only one who truly believes in the power that Bush claims to have. I don't think anyone, short of Karl Rove or someone out of Cheney's office, holds the same sort of viewpoint.

And so I'm stuck; I think Congress should impeach Gonzales. I think the President wants that because he thinks it will harm the Democrats politically. In fact that seems to be the operating principle behind this White House -- let's force the Democrats to impeach. I believe, however, that if it comes to that then this Congress will lay out a damning amount of evidence. They're proceeding cautiously on purpose, I think, so that they can gather as much as possible before pulling that trigger. In the end, I don't think it would hurt them politically if they make a good enough case.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 23, 2007 1:32 PM:

"the decision to fire the attorneys came from the White House- and that they (Rove/Miers most likely) also came up with the names"

Let it not be forgotten that this plan would not have moved forward without the complicity of the senior Senator from Pennslvania, the distinguished author of the Spectre Amendment.

phil james wrote on April 23, 2007 1:35 PM:

Gonzo is beside the point. Stay or go makes no difference. He is in there to stall. His testimony was all blather, all stall. He is buying time for the WH. So far no one has laid a glove on the real criminals...Rove and Dubya. It's their scheme. Gonzo is a patsy. STOP wasting time on Gonzo. We've already wasted enough time on Scooter. It's like you're wasting time dealing with the drunk who's trying to break into the parking meter. Look behind him at the guys looting the bank.

powkat wrote on April 23, 2007 1:51 PM:

My guess is Laura laughs her a** off over almost anything, since she appears to be in a Xanax haze most of the time.

mbbsdphil wrote on April 23, 2007 2:03 PM:

Sadly, Mr. Bush's confidence is not based on Mr. Gonzales doing a good job, but on his doing the right job.

anon wrote on April 23, 2007 2:29 PM:

Assuming the AG doesn't resign, what's the endgame? Impeachment? And if he does resign? A couple of perjury charges?

I'm still confused about how this whole mess is going to proceed. Yes, I know we don't know nearly everything about what happened but we do know, at a minimum: 1. the AG and his staff have been lying to Congress, 2. the WH fired USA who were investigating GOP/WH corruption, 3. all of the above are sitting on paperwork that's probably quite ugly.

I just don't see that the Dems have the votes to force the WH to clean house. They don't have enough votes for impeachment unless more material comes out. And if the AG and the WH continue to drag their heels, they can stretch this out until Bush is out of office. I don't see what Conyers and Schumer are aiming for, other than a bunch of GOP black eyes. (Which is nice and all but it doesn't solve the problem.)

phil james wrote on April 23, 2007 2:34 PM:

It may be starting to dawn on the Democrats in Congress that they will get nothing--no cooperation, no information, no compromise on anything of substance, from here on out. Of course this has been operational for a long time now anyway. But now its more or less official. I'm sure most have known this for quite a while, but they've had to watch it play out and take all the proper steps along the way so at least they can claim they have been acting in good faith. The White House is not and will not. They are done. Short of impeachment, nothing is going to happen that isn't forced to happen by Congress. Other than impeachment, what cards do they have to play? Screwing with appropriations other than Iraq disaster funding I guess, but that could be a serious problem too. The whole thing is almost too painful to watch.

bordersmuggler wrote on April 23, 2007 2:37 PM:

EdNSted wrote:

"somebody has to be paying Ms. Goodling's legal fees and I doubt that those people are doing that for strictly charitable reasons."

Serious attention needs to be paid to this tiny fact. There is no doubt that the WH recognizes this huge vulnerability in Ms. Goodling, as do the many TPM posters. She is the weak link that could provide the evidence to bring down the house.

Time to remove the gloves. Question her about her personal relationship with John Ashcroft. Of the recent Regent U. grads employed at DoJ, why wasw she singled out to be the WH/DoJ liaison? Answer the questions, Monica.

Jon wrote on April 23, 2007 2:41 PM:

AGAG has perjured himself and should be indicted. This will help the DOJ regain solid footing.

As for whether it helps or hurts a party politically should not be part of the calculation. Our government is broken and needs to be fixed.

danius wrote on April 23, 2007 2:41 PM:

In my humble opinion, many of the above posts attempting to explain Bush's stubborn refusal to cut Gonzales loose are based on a false premise --that Bush is (capable of) acting rationally.

In the face of outside pressure, and shrinking Presidential power, I have expected Bush to dig in his heels, so that he can prove that he is the "decider." Not only is he not facing reality, he is fortifying his determination not to face reality. In other words, he's insane.

Fasten your seat belts. This flight going to get mighty weird before the plane lands.

monicawatch wrote on April 23, 2007 3:11 PM:

Did you notice during the AG's testimony how he downplayed monica's role in the firings. As if he was slipping that in ahead of time, to lay some kind of groundwork.

TheraP wrote on April 23, 2007 3:12 PM:

Is it possible that AG has so much dirt on bush, that he can basically blackmail him into staying?

Just wondering....

phil james wrote on April 23, 2007 3:17 PM:

I'm not sure I buy the idea of this particular behavior being irrational. If you are a criminal and you know you will go to jail if you give yourself up, is it irrational to stonewall and lie to stall for time? Especially when you know that there is a get out of jail free card waiting for you in Jan 2009? Rotten? Yes. Irrational? No.

eugene debs wrote on April 23, 2007 3:18 PM:

Bush has absolutely no respect for anybody who is not one of his sycophantic repig bootlickers,
therefore he should not get it from anyone.
i think there should be an investigation of the press as i find it really hard to believe that every member of the press corps is incapable of asking questions that cut to the heart of the matter and exposing this sub humans motives and intents unless they have been coerced by thier bosses or have been vetted upon hiring to ensure repig loyalty.
btw do not apolgize for anything. this creep on the weekend says we shouldn't joke cause of the episode at virginia tech, but how many servicemen and women had been killed when he looked under the sofa for the wepons of mass destruction.
he is a physcotic and truly unfit to lead

anon wrote on April 23, 2007 3:26 PM:

After watching that video clip where Bush focuses on "honestly" I want to say "Whoa!" Yikes, it's hard to make assumptions since it's Bush but I'd say the most likely way to read that "honestly" is that the AG's hands (or lips, in this case) are tied. Perhaps, there was a National Security-related EO about the USAs and, well, the AG just can't say any more. IIRC, the AG said "that's all I can say about that" over and over when he was questioned in a recent surveillance hearing. It might be interesting to watch parts of that testimony back to back with the USAs testimony. Stuff like this makes it really hard to avoid screaming "conspriracy!" Honestly.

trippin wrote on April 23, 2007 3:51 PM:

This is the death knell for Gonzo. His "heckuvajob" moment. Stick a fork in him: he's done.

ignoreland wrote on April 23, 2007 4:50 PM:

I'm starting to wonder if Abu pulled out a folder containing Shrub's TANG records and said, "Mr. President, I took advantage of the copier before I used the shredder. If I should find myself with time on my hands, well, one never knows what one will do."

James Norton wrote on April 23, 2007 5:18 PM:

The President and the Administration have no
choice but to demand that the Attourney General
stay. He knows too much about what has been
going on at the White House,starting as Council
then AG. Who can the President find to replace
him that the Judiciary Committee will accept?Not a loyal Bushie, that's for sure.

RandyR wrote on April 23, 2007 5:23 PM:

The problem with giving Goodling immunity is that she will immediately take the blame for everything. And then she will walk until she can be proven to be lying, which is more difficult then proving the truth. I would be interested in how people like her can justify their political career with their religion. Onward Christian soldiers.

I believe that Gonzolas really, really wants to quit and the president won't let him. Gonzolas's problem is that there is no reasonable replacement for him. If the president brings another politico to be AG then the Senate will reject him. If the president appoints someone who is fairly straight, he will be compelled to dismantle the whole Bush government and leave it in ruins. The only solution is to hold on to Gonzolas until there is 67 votes in the Senate to impeach him.

What I found interesting is that Gonzolas said under oath that all of the AG's will come to the Senate for approval. There are 21 unconfirmed AG's currently and because of public focus on their actions confirmation will be difficult for many of them.

Every day we find more dirt that has been swept under the DOJ carpet and frankly its getting hard to walk across the room.

Karen Johnson wrote on April 23, 2007 5:28 PM:

What Bush has let slip here is the part where he says,

"In other words, we have named them, and I have the right to replace them with somebody else."

Who is we?

As we all know Gonzo & Sampson say they didn't add names. The "we" must be the White House or of course Goodling.

So who is we?

He is either, contridicting the testimony of Sampson & Gonzo, or he is implicating himself,Rove,Cheney,Meirs.

Sheila Casey wrote on April 23, 2007 5:40 PM:

Why d'ya suppose that Bush loved this testimony that everyone else thought abysmal? Because it accomplished the only thing Bush cares about: covering the trail that leads to himself, Rove and Miers.

Never mind that the whole world thinks Gonzales is as dumb as a box of hair, he took the bullet for his Lord and Master, and that's one heckuva job.

pre ameriKKKan wrote on April 23, 2007 6:21 PM:

He did his gum job, the rest of the "plan" will simply play itself out. Wonder what the "plan" said about impeachment proceedings brought about by an ordinary citizen? Hope it doesn't get referred to black ops or a bunch of us are in BIG trouble 8-)

code word: public

anon wrote on April 23, 2007 6:35 PM:

...I would be interested in how people like her can justify their political career with their religion...

Esther Kaplan's With God on Their Side is a good place to start.

One refrain I hear over and over is that because Dems are "responsible" for the "genocide" of zillions of unborn babies--a horror more horrible than any other horrible evil--a few little white lies are acceptable. You can pray a bit extra, or say a few extra Hail Marys, or whatever, but basically the "argument" is that Jesus will forgive you a few small sins for ridding the world of the greatest evilist thing ever and forever more. I've met more than a few people who would lie through their, um, noses if placed in Ms. Goodlings position and feel absolutely justified, rightgeous, and blessed to do so. If you say "But, my goodness, lying like that destroys the rule of law, not to mention, it's illegal." They will say "Any system of 'law' or government that allows a genocide isn't a legitimate government or ruled by any law known to Jesus so acts of 'rebellion' like covering Dear Leader's butt are Godly acts."

Oddly, even though I feel people like Ms. Goodling have no business in the DoJ and, yes, she probably deserves her day in court as well as an orange jumpsuit, I have some sympathy for the arguement above. I feel quit similar about, say, torture. Because of my Christian beliefs, I feel torture is not allowable at all and, yes, I'd probably lie if I felt I could stop it from happening. I feel somewhat justified because torture, for the most part, orginates with the state and it's the state that should be held accountable. Abortion, OTOH and IMO, is, for the most part, the responsibility of the person(s) who created the kid. I don't think the state has anything like absolute say in either the conditons that create abortions or abortions themselves so I don't think it does much good to legislate it. But that's just me and I'm definitely not Ms. Goodling.

Al in Austex wrote on April 23, 2007 8:47 PM:

To giark 63.
There are many good questions that I believe will be answered in due time. The massive corruption of BushCo, Delay and the KStreet Shakedown et al will soon mushroom into one large all consuming RICO-esque corruption scandal,
Why -because TurdBlossom & the Merry Band of Neo Thugs have now managed by their collective systemic incompetence & corruption to cause the whole DC Govt employees infrastructure to standup in open Rebellion. Go ask former USA David Iglesias how he feels about BushCo, or maybe go ask Micheal Scheuner former Spook in Charge of Killing UBL what he thinks about going to Iraq instead of to the Tribal Areas outside of Paktia.
My belief is the Committees of Congresss have all the hard evidence -testimony & documents that are needed to bring this entire criminal enterprise known as Bush Co to the docket of Justice. Its not smart to mess with the careerist in the DC departmental infrastructure- they will drop the dime on you .
Stay tuned this is going to be really big fun - Civics 101 - checks & balances that in the end will save We the People & Our Ship of State.

Shag wrote on April 23, 2007 9:46 PM:

Bush is incompetent, so how would he know if someone is doing a good job?

giark65 wrote on April 24, 2007 1:58 AM:

Al In Austex,

I agree. We have too many lips flapping and the cracks in the dike are quickly adding up. I would say that the DOJ is the wall waiting to break. I'm not so concerned with the AG, since the entire DOJ is permeating political practice and that will continually unveil itself, as I am to know about Abramoff, plus we still have Paulston.

There has to be officials shaking in their boots that they'll be next to be implicated and knowing they have unrighteously ousted US Attorneys with more to the truth then we've yet to hear...just wait till they really starting talking.

Barbakow and Novation LLC, being a personal friend of Bush, is going to open up eyes with the Missouri dismissals being revealed again. No surprise Gonzalez ran out there last month...it wasn't even celebrating Meth Day. :)

Please tell me more about Micheal Scheuner and UBL. I may have missed it. thanks

giark65

Al in Austex wrote on April 24, 2007 5:41 AM:

giark65
I hope I have the name right , my one true tells me I might have "sometimers" (sometimes I don't remember ) I think its Micheal Schuener- he was the Falls Church guy responsible for killing UBL -you can google him on the"internets" .He has been on many MSM programs ,very critical of both Clinton & Dubya's efforts to get Bin Laden.Most recently -it seems -he was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

PSP wrote on April 24, 2007 10:14 AM:

I think this means that the "I don't knows" were the questions he couldn't answer honestly and his job is to snowball Congress.

FMArouet wrote on April 24, 2007 10:26 AM:

giark65 and Al in Austex:

One letter off in the spelling.

He is Michael Scheur, a former CIA analyst and the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America."

Scheur seems to understand bin Laden's movement and radical Islam in general as well as anyone. He refuted Douglas Feith's and VP Cheney's baseless claim that there was an operational linkage between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, for example.

Scheur's reality-based views were unwelcome in the alternative universe of Bushworld, so he left the CIA to become a freelance researcher, writer, and TV resource.

The Skeptical Cynic wrote on April 24, 2007 2:29 PM:

Since it has been reported the the Chimp in Chief did not watch the proceedings, it is not unreasonable that he would have more confidence in Gonzo. It is consistent with Bush's "cognitive skills" (!!!Projectile vomiting alert!!!). The less he knows about a subject the more confident he is. Now that is just plain college freshman stupidity. On the other hand the less confident he is about a subject the bigger the lies concerning the same lest he appear to be not so confident. Is there anything he can say upon which anyone with the I.Q. higher than a slug could rely. If Bush declared that the sun was coming up tomorrow, I'd be up before the &%^#$@! rooster just to make sure.

The Skeptical Cynic wrote on April 24, 2007 2:45 PM:

Well, Duh! It occurred to me when I glommed georgia's post - Bush appointed Alberto Gonzalez
with initial A.G. to the post of Attorney General (Same letters - A.G.)so he wouldn't have to learn any more letters. Attempting to learn anything obviously creates considerable "brain pain" for this doofus. Accordingly, he has avoided doing so all his life.

Hammer wrote on April 24, 2007 5:24 PM:

"I don't recall" could be an honest answer if he indeed did not recall, but then the question would be is the Attorney General really good at his job if he recalls absolutely nothing?

jepatt@kscoxmail.com wrote on April 24, 2007 6:36 PM:

How can we stall thee?
Let me count the ways...