Comments (90)

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 2:36 PM:

"I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing."

Exactly, Mr. Gonzales, we know the fix is in. We know even the most loyal of Bushies probably couldn't continue the efforts to bamboozle Congress and the people of America as effectively as you.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 2:37 PM:

Of course, Gonzales does not admit to "creating" the problems -- also, the U.S. Attorneys were fired in December of last year, but that did not hit the fan until March -- I would be willing to compromise and support legislation that no U.S. Attorney can be fired if they are investigating any politician of the President's same party, and only then for good cause.

nofltwlt wrote on July 23, 2007 2:49 PM:

Dump this windbag. Leopards do not change their stripses. This is simply a ploy to prevent congressional oversight in the appointment of a competent and honest AG. He butchered the law, the constitution and ethics in support of our little woodenhead president Pinocchio who has an approval rating of 25%; which means that the majority of republicans no longer support him.

Gonzales must go.

Dan wrote on July 23, 2007 2:53 PM:

Wow, Jake "the troll" D. -- thanks for compromising! That means a lot to the rest of us. Especially those of us who have been following the attorney purge from the get-go, and do not need the man caught with the red hands to admit he has red hands.

Jane wrote on July 23, 2007 2:54 PM:

If, as we believe, Gonzales is not acting in good faith but simply attempting to advance the Rethugs he is the problem.

If, on the contrary, he is acting in good faith he lacks the skills not only to see how something will resonate politically or how it will play administrative but also the damage it will do to the cause of a non-political DOJ. If Gonzales has been too blind to see any of that until now
(Let alone lacking the capacity to remember how these USAGs got on the firing list in the first place), he is the problem.

He should never have been confirmed in the first place and should go now before he brings more disgrace on this country.

Gonzales is still lying, possibly to himself and certainly to others: " And I will continue to ensure that the Department attracts and hires highly qualified individuals from the broadest base possible without reference to their political affiliations." First, the Department was clearly not doing this under his watch -- look at the high proportion of Regent graduates and secondly, the currently high level of vacancies and lack of applicants show that the Department he cannot 'continue to ensure' highly qualified invidiuals are hired. The most he could honestly promise is that he seeks to clean up the mess he created and make the DOJ AGAIN a place where principled people wish to work.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 23, 2007 2:55 PM:

...but that did not hit the fan until March

Except here at TPM Muckraker where it hit the fan January 12th, 2007. And as for the proposed legislation, it wouldn't be necessary if the White House could be trusted to not politicize the Dept of Justice. Simple, not new laws required.

I've been amazed how eager small government Republicans are to grow government and propose legislation willy nilly.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:03 PM:

Well, Dan and Mike, it may have hit the fan here in January, but you are going to have to admit that it did not hit the NATIONAL fan until later -- as for my proposed compromise, what would be YOUR amendment(s) -- I am a registered Independent, so I could care less about small government or even if the GOP and/or Democrats don't like it. I think ethic reform should be pushed through as well.

Mike Conwell wrote on July 23, 2007 3:15 PM:

what would be YOUR amendment(s)?

Articles of Impeachment against Alberto Gonzales. No new rules/laws be written. Existing rules and laws must be followed, and there's no faith remaining that AGAG is the man to enforce those rules.

Registered Independent = Embarrassed Republican Voter.

I left the GOP a long time ago, and don't hide behind the label of Independent.

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 3:19 PM:

Dan--

You knowingly broke the standing, yet unspoken, credo:

"Please Do NOT Feed The Trolls".

It only provokes them and allows them to beg for 'more'.

jw1

Glenn wrote on July 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

Gonzo's just a product of his administration. After all, that's their argument on Iraq isn't it? We fucked things up so badly that we can't afford to try it another way?

Mark Richards wrote on July 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

No emesis basin is large enough for the amount of hurl the words of this pathological liar can evoke.

Translation: he makes me want to throw up.

Long Memory wrote on July 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

I believe leopards have spots, nofltwlt, but your instincts are right on. Gonzo is a rat, a disgrace to lawyers, sycophants and even Republicans everywhere. I believe the reason he hasn't been jettisoned already is that the moment they do that ol' Gonzo will play the victim card.

TheraP wrote on July 23, 2007 3:28 PM:

Now that he has effectively destroyed DoJ, he's going to start a PR campaign to fix its reputation.

That would be like Campbell's Soup deliberately putting botulism in its cans. And then hiring someone to make people think it's ok to eat it now!

TheraP wrote on July 23, 2007 3:31 PM:

DoJ Botulism: It's Good for You!

Mad Dog Rackham wrote on July 23, 2007 3:35 PM:

"Well, honey, upon first learning of rumors that I was having an affair with my secretary, I was shocked and immediately set out to investigate them.

Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing. Particularly during lunch on Wednesdays.

And I will continue to ensure that I attract and hire highly qualified individuals.

Really, I have your best interests at heart."

-- Fredo

caye wrote on July 23, 2007 3:36 PM:

"I will not tolerate any improper politicization of this Department."

Which really means: "I will tolerate only the proper politicization of this Department that Bush says is okay fine for me to do and there's nothin' you can do about it--nannie, nannie, boo-boo."

Damn it, we gotta stop these people. Hey, Congress, you listening?

Sweeney Todd wrote on July 23, 2007 3:36 PM:

Is there a barbershop in the DoJ. It looks like they need my skills there!

Scott L wrote on July 23, 2007 3:37 PM:

Gonzo do us all a favor and move to North Korea. I am sure they would give you a job after all you have been giving aid and comfort to our enemys for years. P.S. I'm not joking you are a discrace to our Republic.

JohnW1141 wrote on July 23, 2007 3:37 PM:

Never forget, this is a Bush appointee you're talking about.

JohnW1141 wrote on July 23, 2007 3:38 PM:

Never forget, when judging credibility, this is a Bush appointee you're talking about.

Matt wrote on July 23, 2007 3:40 PM:

The headline is misleading, because that is not what Gonzales said.
He did not use or imply the "I created".
It is what you infer that the statement means.
Even if the author has an opinion or bias, it is not good journalism to state something as a quotation when it is not.

moi wrote on July 23, 2007 3:42 PM:

It is impossible to shame this brand of Republican -- they don't understand what shame is or means.

It is a form of mental illness.

After years and years of discussion with these folks on various message boards on various topics, I have reached the conclusion that they are brainwashed and unable to think logically or coherently. They are also unable to admit mistakes or having been wrong. All they know is propaganda. As I say, it is a form of mental illness and our country is paying the price big time.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:44 PM:

Mike Conwell:

I'd venture to guess I've been registered Independent (since the '50s) a tad bit longer than whenever you left the Republican party.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:46 PM:

Matt:

Nice try, but it's just an echo-chamber here. We've got lots of vicious Bush-haters, and it doesn't matter what the facts are.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:50 PM:

I am a bisexual man, in love with bush. It doesn't matter what the facts are. I love echo chambers too.

JusticeForall wrote on July 23, 2007 3:54 PM:

It's the up is down theory at work again. This clown leads the charge in the destruction of the Independence of our Justice dept. NATIONWIDE by doing the bidding and shielding them from the Rule of Law ( the opposite of it's true purpose)Bush and his neo/theocon minions have rotted our Justice Dept. and WH from the inside out, like the worms they are. Saying "no crime was committed" and "mistakes were made" to conver their unethical, immoral actions.Such an utter lack of ethical standards is appalling yet they are still IN THEIR JOBS TODAY. I do not understand why Gonzales hasn't been impeached. Doesn't CONGRESS oversee the Justice Dept.? Have all civic ethics been voided? Even if all these jackbooted thug followers of Bush and their puppets Kristol, OReilly, Novak, Slimbaugh et al. will condone this criminal behavior, shouldn't action be taken to impeach Gonzales and remove all the criminals in the DOJ that participated in the voting fraud and the placement of political partisan hacks who aren't even qualified? Shoudln't those planted there be fired? If our Justice Dept no longer is JUST and action isn't taken to rectify it, isn't that ANARCHY?
The White House usurping the power of the Justice Dept.spells lawlessness to me. Impeach Gonzales for his PERJURY. Charges should be brought against Goodling and Sampson and Taylor,Miers, et. al. and all the minions who participated in this planting of people into positions of power to force their idealogical/financial agenda! This is how Hitler did it! Blindly loyal, young, idealists...and in OUR JUSTICE DEPT. Do people not understand how dire this is? I blame the News media for not covering the news properly nowadays,the media helped Hitler too! We have proof positive that this is an unjust, unprovoked war Bush is waging in OUR NAME in Iraq, shouldn't MORE ACTION be taken to stop all this corruption? Congress must ACT to get to the bottom of the USAttorney/Election Fraud/, send in agents to confiscate the documents! The stonewalling borders on the absurd. We have to ACT BEFORE the upcoming election.
Executive Priviledge is claimed to hide virtually everything the White House does, and they have the Justice Dept. doing their bidding!
I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I find the condition our govt's condition is in appalling and the apathy of millions of Americans towards the issue is very scary indeed.
Justice in our country is wounded and dying.

the code word is loss, how appropriate.

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:58 PM:

By "fixing the problems", Gonzales means that he will work tirelessly to destroy all evidence of any previously discovered crimes and ethical lapses. This is the Gonzales that never used e-mail, never had any meetings that he can recall, and never signed anything except a secret order to give hiring authority to Sampson and Goodling. Gonzales will fix the problems, and OJ will find the real killers.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 3:58 PM:

I actually think that the apathy of millions of Americans towards this issue is to be expected -- both Democratic and Republican Presidents have fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons -- if you really want to stop that practice, see my compromise legislation proposed above.

Michael wrote on July 23, 2007 4:09 PM:

Simple solution to the criminal running the non-justice department. As long as he is there, congress should cut off all funding of the DOJ, other than terrorism prosecutions and investigations. Everything else should be shut down. It isn't functioning anyway and when it does it merely acts as a wing of the republican party. Shut it down.

Also, based on what this criminal administration has done, there should be extensive legislation to prevent it in the future. This legislation will not happen until dems sweep the elections in 08. Dems need to pick up enough senate seats to stop fillibusters by the republicans and then we will see real changes for the better. Until then, cut off all funding.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:12 PM:

Michael:

What do you think of legislation that no U.S. Attorney can be fired if they are investigating anyone of the President's political party, and then only for good cause?

Steve5117 wrote on July 23, 2007 4:14 PM:

It is an interestimg task, trying to hold back, while forging ahead. We really don;t want to convict anyone that Bush could could let off. Meanwhile we go for impeachment and keep investigating.

I wonder how many little fish are hanging around in the hope that the repugs will win in '08. I imagine there will be a lot of loyal Bushies resigning between 11-08 ans 1-09, LOL.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:16 PM:

I think I should fire myself. I should be outlawed.

JusticeForall wrote on July 23, 2007 4:17 PM:

Jake, it's a good practice to actually know the facts prior to typing. The FACT is that NEVER before have 10% of our prosecutors been mysteriously asked to LEAVE ( remember your Bushie Boy appointed them ALL)regardess of "serving at the pleasure of the President" the truth is, he loved them UNTIL they refused to play along and BREAK THE LAW.
You repeating their lies doesn't make it so,it only makes you look like a lemming who supports a criminal regime.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:18 PM:

I am a little fish, hanging around in the hope the repugs will win in '08.

Michael wrote on July 23, 2007 4:19 PM:

Too narrow and it doesn't address all the criminal activities of the king's justice department. Your "facts" to support your legislation are false. No prior administrations, whether republican or dem, have done what this administration has done. It is an absolutely tragedy and an abomination. At no time in our history has the justice department been so politicized and it all comes back to the Rove theory of politics. Criminalize your opponents and suppress voting. He has been doing it since Texas and his conduct itself is criminal.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:20 PM:

I am a lemming, supporting a criminal regime.

I hate myself.

Janie wrote on July 23, 2007 4:20 PM:

Except that Gonzales didn't create the problems. He let his boss, Rove, run the show. It's Rove who created the problems.

Of course Gonzales doesn't have the guts to stand up to Rove and be fired.

Remember the delegation of power that left the Deputy AG out of the loop and allowed Goodling to deal with the US attorneys? The whole purpose of that was so Rove could reach into the DOJ and appoint (via Goodling) whomever he wished. Damn the law.

chabuka wrote on July 23, 2007 4:21 PM:

Code for..." I intend to keep on doing what I have been doing....Politizing the Judicial Branch..with blessings from Bush, Cheney and Rove" and there is nothing you can do about it...! Nanner, nanner, nanner !!!

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:23 PM:

JusticeForall and Michael:

Both Clinton and Carter replaced U.S. Attorneys, midterm, for political reasons -- catch up to the issue here:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003655.php

davcbr wrote on July 23, 2007 4:23 PM:

"there are two options available in light of these allegations. I could walk away or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems." So, Berto, are these allegations or are they problems? Why do you need to fix an allegation? This says it all: he is not out to fix anything he did. To him, allegations are the problem.

Michael wrote on July 23, 2007 4:31 PM:

Nope you get the facts jake d. This has never happened before. Since Ronie there have only been a handful of US Attorney's fired midterm. Never has an administration cleaned house like this one and the reasons for the firings are refusing to pursue suppress the vote tactics and failing to pursue fraudulent criminal cases against democrats. What are you talking about jake d.? Also, you conveniently ignored the thrust of my posts to try to take a swipe at dems. I want more comprehensive legislation to address all of the game playing that has been going on under this administration. I do not want a future administration that is as ethically challenged as this one to get away with what these criminals have done. I don't care which party is in power, I don't want it to happen again.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:32 PM:

P.S. in 1978, Carter replaced U.S. Attorney, David Marston -- at the request of Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman Joshua Eilberg -- who was the target of Marston's corruption investigation.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919302,00.html

Luckily, Rep. Eilberg lost his 1978 reelection bid, and, three months later, pleaded guilty to conflict of interest charges. He was sentenced to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As an interesting bit of trivia, in 1974, Eilberg had defeated Chris Matthews, now host of MSNBC's "Hardball" program, in that Democratic primary.

In addition, Bill Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys that he ORIGINALLY has nominated in 1993 with the following:

1998: Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera.

1999: Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee.

2000: Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

FACTS ARE FACTS.

Michael wrote on July 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

Uh, moron, jake d., US attorneys serve for 5 year terms. There is constantly turn over, but there aren't "firings," like what just occurred. Uh, you add 5 years to 1993 and you get, bingo, 1998.

Why can't you just admit facts bozo? Also, I really don't care about Carter. You guys constantly reach to support the king and his criminal cohorts. What about voter supression? You like that one jake d.

modernesquire wrote on July 23, 2007 4:38 PM:

Wait, I thought all the Republicans during these hearings have been complaining that there's absolutely no evidence that there was anything worth investigating here! Hasn't that been the talking point, that after months of investigations, there's been no evidence of anything improper being done?

And now, just as they did with Rumsfeld, the White House changes course, admits there's been a problem that they've denied existed for months, thus leaving the Republicans carrying water for the Administration in Congress twisting in the wind.

Is this yet another example where the Bush White House rewards Congressional Republican loyalty by making them look like idiots?

Isn't the inherent value of this statement an acknowledgement that, yes, it appears there is substantial and credible evidence that politics played an inappropriate role in the Justice Department?

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:39 PM:

Well, Michael, I will agree that 10 all on the same day is probably unprecedented, but I just gave you the names of 26 mid-terms replacements under Clinton. If you really want to believe all of them were Republicans and ZERO political considerations took place, I guess that's your call -- I actually know several are registered Democrats -- I prefer to live in the reality-based world.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 4:44 PM:

P.S. under the statute, U.S. Attorneys serve FOUR year terms or until they are replaced. As for voter suppression, I want every LEGALLY REGISTERED voter to vote -- I would support Election Day being a national holiday if that would increase turnout. You will also note I won't resort to ad hominem name-calling either.

Michael wrote on July 23, 2007 4:46 PM:

Actually, I do not want any politics to play in the appointment of US attorneys. Other than party affiliation for the purposes of nomination, I do not believe that politics should come into play in pursuing criminal justice. It is despicable and what is really frightening is what the other 83 us attorneys did to keep their jobs.
And I don't want dems to be able to do it either, so I do support some type of comprehensive legislation. However, your claim that dems did it also, so its not so bad, doesn't fly. Neither dems nor prior republican administrations did what these criminals have done, period.

judyinnm wrote on July 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

He's not going to allow any more "improper" politicization of the justice department - wonder what he deems "proper" politicization? I think Bush issued an Executive Order making Karl Rove the final arbitor of the propriety of all politicized departments. One of the "mistakes' that won't be repeated is allowing anyone to find out about how they're running things now - executive privilege and all that....

johnnydoughey wrote on July 23, 2007 4:51 PM:

I'm sorry, Mr. President, but I went in the wrong end when I did your colonoscopy. I know you'll want me to stay on and keep trying 'til I get it right, won't you...

Anonymous wrote on July 23, 2007 4:53 PM:

Unfortunately Jake, YOUR "reality" is real only to you.
You clearly function in your own reality and not that of the real world. A situation such as this, with a large number of President appointed prosecutors from across the nation mysteriously being FIRED has EVER HAPPENED except in your own personal delusional reality.
The sad thing is, you believe your own delusions.

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 4:57 PM:

Deranged, he sees himself a Paladin.

Sadly, upon exposure to sunlight he appears a Troll.

"Please Do NOT Feed The Trolls".

It only provokes them and allows them to beg for 'more'.

jw1

michael wrote on July 23, 2007 5:00 PM:

I agree, every legally registered voter should be allowed to vote. There should not be ridiculous conditions placed on voting designed to prevent people from voting, which is what has been occuring. Conceptually, why would someone go through the time to illegally vote or to cast fraudulent ballots? It makes no sense in light of the number of voters even though only 50 percent of eligible voters actually vote. It is just crass political gamesmanship by republicans to prevent people from voting.

Also, I think election day should either be a national holiday or it should fall on a weekend so all people get to vote.

Finally, you got me on the four year term, I thought it was five years, but my point still stands about replacing US attorneys at the end of their terms by Clintooon, who I didn't like anyway, so I am not real hot about trying to defend him.

jak1 wrote on July 23, 2007 5:15 PM:

>>Nope you get the facts jake d. This has never happened before. Since Ronie there have only been a handful of US Attorney's fired midterm. Never has an administration cleaned house like this one and the reasons for the firings are refusing to pursue suppress the vote tactics and failing to pursue fraudulent criminal cases against democrats. What are you talking about jake d.? Also, you conveniently ignored the thrust of my posts to try to take a swipe at dems. I want more comprehensive legislation to address all of the game playing that has been going on under this administration. I do not want a future administration that is as ethically challenged as this one to get away with what these criminals have done. I don't care which party is in power, I don't want it to happen again.

Posted by: Michael
Date: July 23, 2007 4:31 PM<<

Michael
I'm on your side and agree entirely with your posts.

But What Jake d can't give you for fact is who put these names on the list to be fired. As far as I've read, no one knows how any name got on the list. Just that there was a list being complied.

I think I now remember saomeone did say they suggested a name, but "I don't recall."

Who did the actually fireing and why? That is in the names from Jake D. posts. I'll bet you can find something other then a bunch of "I don't recalls."

jeffgee wrote on July 23, 2007 5:16 PM:

It's all about gumming the issue and running out the clock. Two can play that game. Dems should insist on what they want, Bush veto or not. So what if nothing gets done. Dems can easily point out how much filibustering has been done by Republicans since the thumpin' in 2006. Bush won't play well with others, including his own party now. Let him use the rest of his term to destroy by association his loyalists in the GOP. We might as well save our energy for post 2008 when there will be even better opportunities for a Democratic agenda.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 5:28 PM:

No problem, Michael. As for why would someone go through the time to illegally vote or to cast fraudulent ballots, isn't the answer obvious: TO STEAL AN ELECTION!!!!

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 5:42 PM:

No problem, Michael. As for why would someone go through the time to illegally supress votes or to make ballots go uncounted, isn't the answer obvious: TO STEAL AN ELECTION!!!!

jw1 wrote on July 23, 2007 5:44 PM:

No problem, Michael. As for why would someone go through the time to illegally supress votes or to keep ballots from being counted, isn't the answer obvious: TO STEAL AN ELECTION!!!!

Laura wrote on July 23, 2007 5:49 PM:

Something that has concerned me for a long time is this whole 'stand by your man' chant that seems to follow the loyal bushies. We saw it with Rumsfeld, a man who's obstinance helped to play a part in the failed policy in Iraq. With Gonzales, it seems much more sinister to me. Can he simply be holding on by a thread because bush and rove and everyone else in the game knows that the catssss will be out of the bag if he goes? Also, something wicked brews in this administration, like a rumble on the railroad tracks, I suspect that we are in for some very rough seas and perhaps the hangers on, and Lieberman for that matter, have been promised a little slice of what's ahead? I don't know, but the sky looks green and the winds have shifted. I smell a rat, and it aint a little one.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 5:56 PM:

jwl:

I stated above that no one should illegally supress votes -- any such person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law -- every VALID ballot should be counted as well.

JamHandy wrote on July 23, 2007 6:00 PM:

“the fink, whose perfidy was equaled only by his gall”

Austin Cooper wrote on July 23, 2007 6:23 PM:

There are all kinds of reasons, I guess, why Gonzales might remain as AG when other people would have resigned months ago.

They seem to break down into three categories -- one, he stays because he's involved too deeply with the inner workings of the development of the legal basis for torture, and inner workings of the Bush cabal when he was Counsel to the Leader.

Two, it's all personal -- his ego simply won't allow him to leave, no matter how ridiculous and stupid, how poor a manager, he appears.

Three -- There is something else going on we can't see -- something like the details of the wiretapping program which Ashcroft wouldn't sign -- which has to be handled by someone Bush absolutely trusts not to reveal it.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 6:39 PM:

So, which "category" do you think the reason he gave ("I want to remain here and fix the problems") falls into? There couldn't possibly be a fourth category: committed civil servant who has the integrity to stay and get the job done no matter how tough the Democrats make it for him?

jak1 wrote on July 23, 2007 6:53 PM:

>>("I want to remain here and fix the problems") falls into? There couldn't possibly be a fourth category: committed civil servant who has the integrity to stay and get the job done no matter how tough the Democrats make it for him?<<

No that's just plain funny! "committed civil servant who has the integrity." Are you talking about Alberto Gonzales? "I can't recall."

If he had integrity, he would leave and take his Bushies with him.

Gonzales just simply staying is an insult to PEOPLE WITH INTEGRITY!

Mark Allender wrote on July 23, 2007 7:02 PM:

Here is the text of an email I sent to the Attory General's office last Thursday:

###

To AG Gonzalez,

Sir,

You are set to testify before Congress early next week. I am begging you. I implore you. PLEASE stop stonewalling Congress. If you are hiding something, then please come forward.

Who out of the Watergate scandal has come out with his dignity? John Dean III. Nobody else. Ehrlichman? Haldemann? Or any of the other presidential apologists? Not a single one came out with any self-respect or dignity.

Sir, history has brought you to an important point where you can come out as a hero of the American people, or a doomed, disgraced loyalist.

It's just getting caricatured. We all know that the Bush camp is dishonest. I am sick of being snowed here. I want to trust my government again.

Please.

You have a moment. You have an opportunity. And we will be forever grateful if SOMEONE can just tell us that we're not insane -- that our mistrust is well-placed.

The perfect opportunity is before you. You can tell your story. And we will reward you infinitely more than the President can.

Please sir. Bring us back to reality.

Mark Allender

lespool wrote on July 23, 2007 7:08 PM:

... But the DoJ's investigators cannot investigate Gonzales --- OR ANY SENIOR DEPARTMENT HEADS according to Leahy's recent letter written to Gonzales on July 17, 2007:

"Other Inspectors General can investigate misconduct throughout their agencies. Apparently, the Department of Justice Inspector General suffers under a limitation that restricts his ability to investigation misconduct by you, the Deputy Attorney General, and other senior Department lawyers. Will you agree to the removal of this limitation on the Department of Justice Inspector General so that the Inspector General may investigate misconduct by you, other senior Department of Justice officials, lawyers, and law enforcement agents?"

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 7:14 PM:

And, Mark, if he is NOT hiding something?

Dennis wrote on July 23, 2007 7:15 PM:

You can't fix problems using the same thinking that created them. Gonzales is the presidents security blanket. If Gonzales goes so does the administrations protection from prosecution. Alberto has the key to the skeleton closit. He won't leave because he can't, if he goes they all go down including Alberto.

jak1 wrote on July 23, 2007 7:29 PM:

>>And, Mark, if he is NOT hiding something?

Posted by: Jake D.
Date: July 23, 2007 7:14 PM <<

Then he should be fired because he can't seem to be able to remember anything inportant.

Jake D. wrote on July 23, 2007 7:38 PM:

What do you consider "important"?

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 23, 2007 7:45 PM:

Doesn't seem to care he is the steaming pile in the middle of the buffet table.
What kind of bonus must have been added to his arrangement?
Or what drug to what's left of his non-functioning brain?
He could be so well trained now he does "sit" and "stay" perfect.

wow, bucket is the code. Wonder...will anyone use it?

jak1 wrote on July 23, 2007 7:49 PM:

>>What do you consider "important"?<<

Oh wait a minute! I saw this one on South Park. It's called having your cake, and eating it to.

By the people. FOR the people. The people's business. That what's "important".

Is that vaguely direct enough for you?

Security Code: snake

Here's Leahy's rejoinder:

“Each day seems to bring with it another example of this Administration’s troubling pattern of misleading or stonewalling Congress and the public.
“The reports today that the Attorney General misled Congress regarding violations of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties by his department are deeply disturbing and warrant further inquiry. In addition to the Attorney General’s misleading statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee prior to the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT, it appears the Attorney General also failed to disclose the truth about when he first knew of widespread abuses by the FBI of National Security Letters (NSLs) in questions I posed to him following his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year.

“Unfortunately, this Administration’s penchant for secrecy makes it difficult to work in a cooperative way, and it is only through dogged oversight or Freedom of Information Act lawsuits – such as the one that revealed these inconsistent statements – that Congress and the American people learn the truth about this Administration’s activities.

“This inconsistency is a disturbing addition to a growing list of misleading answers by the Attorney General to questions from the Judiciary Committee, and it is unacceptable. I intend to pursue this matter with the Attorney General prior to his appearance before the Judiciary Committee later this month.”

Anonymous wrote on July 23, 2007 8:29 PM:

A person who HEADS the Justice Dept. testifies and "can't recall" over 80 times!?!?!
That alone disqualifies him for the job.
We know dmn well he is complicit in the crimes being committed by the White House, but based ONLY on his sheer INCOMPETENCE he should step down. The American people deserve better employees.IMPEACH Gonzales NOW.

Kurt wrote on July 23, 2007 8:29 PM:

When dealing with republicans always have a dictionary handy. --"fix (f¹ks) v. fixed, fix·ing, fix·es. --tr. 1.a. To place securely; make stable or firm: b. To secure to another; attach: 2.a. To put into a stable or unalterable form: 5.a. To set or place definitely; establish: b. To determine with accuracy; ascertain: c. To agree on; arrange: . 6. To assign; attribute: fixing the blame. 7.a. To correct or set right; adjust: 8. To make ready; prepare: 9. To spay or castrate (an animal). 10. Informal. To take revenge upon; get even with. 11. To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means:"-- All of the above save #7 seem very likely motives for AG AG to wish to remain in office.

Bob wrote on July 23, 2007 8:35 PM:

THAT IS LIKE BROWNIE FIXING FEMA!!!!!

Anna S. wrote on July 23, 2007 8:53 PM:

Let's examine the reasoning in play in this little PR attempt:

- Under me, the department has become the most political that it has ever been. This has been corroborated multiple times in interviews by former and current staff, and by testimony before congress by former and current staff.

- The above is a problem that's not a direct result of my own incompetence, but happened [incidentally? circumstantially? as the result of a vast right wing conspiracy?] since I became AG.

- Prior to the scandals, I was not aware of any of this enough to comment, but that does not imply negilence or incompetence of a kind that would mean the department is better off without me.

- During the scandals, my 'time, energy, and efforts' were devoted to doing nothing but preparing for Congressional testimony, which as we all know revealed that I have the faultiest memory known to man.

- As evidenced by the tremendous investment of time and energy that went into my former congressional testimony (aides to the AG have testified about his diligence in preparation), and the results that said time and energy produced (we've all see the embarrassing TV coverage), my time and energy will produce results that will restore the reputation of the justice department.

I'm confused here: we've seen this man do other things that he's supposedly devoting himself wholeheartedly to, and we've seen massive failures as a result. Whatever makes him think that this little feel-good, go-me! message is going to do anything but make him look like more of a fool?

bejammin075 wrote on July 23, 2007 8:53 PM:

It's going to be very hard work to fix those problems, given that Gonzo has severe, early-onset Alzheimers disease. But you got to admire his effort, what a champ.

Samsara wrote on July 23, 2007 9:08 PM:

As you know, upon learning of these troubling accusations, I promptly referred to these matters as an overblown personnel matter.

I can't wait to see AGAG give another winning performance.

molly wrote on July 23, 2007 10:07 PM:

Is everybody in this administration gay? The women are more manly than the men. Bush waves like a little girl and there is nobody waving back. They just seem tinkly.

molly wrote on July 23, 2007 10:08 PM:

Is everybody in this administration gay? The women are more manly than the men. Bush waves like a little girl and there is nobody waving back. They just seem tinkly.

gus smith wrote on July 23, 2007 11:05 PM:

Your point molly? Is yours a constructive question or a tinkly question?

Jess wrote on July 23, 2007 11:20 PM:

Jake D,

Does your "Clinton and Carter did it too" argument justify the current allegations/problems?
You are old enough to know that "everyone else did it too" is never a justification.

-- Jess

jeff clark wrote on July 23, 2007 11:47 PM:

The most "in the pocket" lawyer who has ever practiced law. It must be good to have enough money to retain a diligently compromised counsel for your entire life's corrupt activities. Bush Sr. saw this guy coming, and said "my son REALLY NEEDS" someone without an iota of legal integrity like Gonzales if the New World Order is ever gonna straighten out that messy constitutional law based Democracy thing".
We cant have a bunch of activists trying to adhere to our three tier system of government while we are placing Masonic Brethern in the courts and local governments across America to rule according to the law of the Grand Lodge of England, the TRUE POWER behind Bush's presidential appointment.
Up the masons asses, and out with masonic rule and masons like Bush.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 12:23 AM:

Jess:

I simply want the same standard applied -- if it was O.K. for Carter and Clinton, then it should be O.K. for Bush -- I'm 75; how old are you?

Jess wrote on July 24, 2007 1:40 AM:

Jake D,

I wholeheartedly agree that the same standards
should be applied. And I was right. You are old
enough to know that just because everyone else did it, doesn't justify anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I hope you agree with me that it was our representatives' fault back then for not pursuing those past problems. Maybe in the end it was our fault for not making them. After all, government is always a "reactionary" body, never one to take the lead.
However, they are free to prosecute past cases now .. I am not going to oppose them in that endeavour.
Just remember to apply the same standards to the current issues.

I applaud you for not calling names in your postings. Let's not lower your standards by pulling seniority. Thanks

-- Jess

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 1:52 AM:

As you may or may not be aware, any applicable statute of limitations have long since passed on Carter and even Clinton -- how convenient that you are not going to oppose them in that endeavour though -- I say if you want all future Presidents to not replace U.S. Attorneys for political reasons, see my proposed legislative compromise above.

Paulie200 wrote on July 24, 2007 5:22 AM:

Sounds like Alberto has been consulting with O.J. Simpson, he's not going to take it lying down, he's going to go find the REAL perpetrators!

Official A wrote on July 24, 2007 11:32 AM:

if he can't walk away from the problems, perhaps we should provide him a gurney.

Jake D. wrote on July 24, 2007 11:55 AM:

Is that a threat, Official A?

Jess wrote on July 24, 2007 12:29 PM:

Jake D,

Re: statues. These are just a matter of bookkeeping. If they really wanted to, they could do away with these limitations. But they won't because they want to be protected too when it's their turn for power grabbing.
To show that the support of which I spoke isn't a matter of convenience, I'd suppport removing these statues all the way back to 1776 to expose the lies in the Constitution itself. OK, that's not practical, so how about allowing to investigate any presidents that are still alive? Abuse of power is abuse of power. Time does not heal that.

You invoked "past presidents did it too". That means you agree that past --and current-- administration did something improper.
Are you opposed to the current endeavour to investigate/discuss/have hearings/fix the mistakes, so that future administrations will not repeat them?
After all, your argument is "apply the same standards". Since we, the people, let past presidents abused their power and betrayed our trust placed upon them.... will you then apply the same apathy standards to the current administration?
Is that your point all this time?

Re: your proposal. Feel free to work with your reps. Hold public meetings to raise awareness. However, as others have pointed out, as it stands, the proposal is not solid. I am not even a first-year law student and I could see there are problems with the wording. Your representatives should be able to work with you to make the wording even better.

This is my last posting on this topic. I think I have made my point clear enough. I yield so that you may have the last word, if that sort of thing makes you happy.
Have a nice day.

-- Jess

Alguien wrote on July 24, 2007 4:47 PM:

Anna S.:
Thanks for summarizing Gonzo's genius so accurately and concisely!
You forgot to add, however, that he is VERY PROUD of all his acomplishments and that plans to CONTINUE doing what he does so brilliantly in the future. That's why he is not resigning. He is committed to his mission.
He repeated the word CONTINUE several times today.
In other words: expect MORE OF THE SAME and don't even dream with seeing my resignation before jan-2009.
Any further questions?