Firing-gate

[99-1100896887]

Jon Stewart did a number on him--showed shots of every time that Gonzales "couldn't remember" or didn't "recall". Not very prepared, I would say.
Yes, criddic, he is being grilled mercilessly, but for a very good cause--he apparently let eight or so attorneys go for partisan reasons( I am Canadian and we don't follow every last thing that happens in the US, and am discovering this now that it is bigger news) and partisanship has no place on the bench. If those fired were good enough before, why did they wholesale knock them off now?
If you can get rid of one bad apple,(Gonzales) we will have discovered that maybe the whole barrel is rotten. Let's get rid of Paul W., Rove, Cheney, AND Bush, who should have been impeached years ago. Agnew, who resigned, was a babe-in-arms compared to this gang.

By "sacrificed" criddic, do you mean the way that Scooter Libby was "sacrificed" for Cheney?

I must thank those who write about these issues. Many of us outside the country( and I daresay that there are many IN the USA) do not know about some of things you guys write about.

A thought re the USA: from our visits, it seems that the malls and stores are busy--at least there are people milling around, but every last store has a "SALE 30-70% off" sign in the window. Maybe the wise ones have already bought and are going to wait out the recession which I am sure will occur soon. It cannot go on like it is. Some of the stores remind me of that old SNL skit about the Scotch Tape Store--the cutesy boutiques, for instance, that specialize in niche markets.
Not many Bush-Cheney bumper stickers any more.

[criddic3]

No, I'm not stretching and no, I'm not panicking. The fact is that if Mr. Gonzales has broken the law or defied the constitution, then he should resign. However, I've thus far seen no evidence of this and see this as a clearly political excercise. The Republicans who aren't supporting Gonzales see that he didn't handle the firings as well as he could have, especially the media frenzy that followed, and that is where they seem to have the biggest problem with his actions. So he didn't explain himself clearly. I can understand that, with all the pressure about something he certaintly didn't think was going to haunt him. I'm of the belief that Mr. Gonzales should only resign if it can be proved that he did something wrong, illegally wrong or if it can be proven that he cannot carry out his duties as Attorney General. That is something that has not been proven and at this point it is up to Gonzales to decide if he wants to voluntarily resign his post. If he truly hasn't done anything constitutionally or legally wrong, he shouldn't bow to political pressures. The appearance of impropriety does not make it so. Suspicion is not a reason for someone to resign. If he does resign, it will be up to the President to accept that decision.

All this over the firing of a handful of people who have no guarantee of keeping their jobs in the first place. Is the political climate really this desperate?

[Akash]

Criddic, you're really stretching the definition of "a lot of people." The questioning today proves that most Republicans are against Gonzales (and the President) regarding these firings too. The latest NY Times article shows this. So which one of us really has the fantasy world going?

April 20, 2007
News Analysis
On a Very Hot Seat With Little Cover and Less Support
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, April 19 — It did not bode well for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales when, before he uttered his first word to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, looked at him as if he were headed to the gallows and offered this advice: “Be alert and direct and honest with this committee. Give it your best shot.”

Things only went downhill from there for the attorney general, as the people he desperately needed to come to his rescue — fellow Republicans — proceeded one by one to throw him overboard.

Not a single Republican, with the possible exception of Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, came to Mr. Gonzales’s defense — not even his old Texas friend Senator John Cornyn. And Mr. Gonzales did not help himself with his testimony that while he took full responsibility for removing federal prosecutors, he did not have a clear idea of why he had done so in some cases until he reviewed paperwork after the dismissals.

It was no surprise that the Democrats on the panel skewered Mr. Gonzales. But it was also apparent that even Republicans had serious doubts about his fitness for the job.

“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”

It was a devastating question — one reflecting pent-up Republican anger not only at the attorney general, but at President Bush as well.

Republicans have clashed openly with Mr. Gonzales on matters like wiretapping without warrants and elements of the USA Patriot Act. Now, feeling saddled by the war in Iraq and still blaming Mr. Bush for their loss of control of Congress last year, they have little desire to defend the administration on a matter rooted in questions of competence and the politicization of law enforcement. With Democrats and a handful of Republicans already calling for Mr. Gonzales’s head, the White House — which has publicly stood by him — is waiting to see if more Republicans will defect.

On Thursday, one did: Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who told Mr. Gonzales pointedly that he should resign. “I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered,” the senator said, referring to the United States attorneys who had been forced out. Mr. Coburn added that he believed “the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.”

The sense that Mr. Gonzales had failed to convince even members of his own party that he deserved to keep his job extended beyond the hearing room. By noon, Byron York, a correspondent for the conservative National Review, had written in an online analysis that it had been “a disastrous morning” for Mr. Gonzales. Republicans were wondering aloud how long the attorney general could last.

“It sounds like he walked into a firing squad without a gun,” said Charlie Black, a strategist close to the White House, after discussing the testimony with several other Republicans. Of the Republican senators, Mr. Black said, “They just think this was amateur hour, and they should not be expected to defend it.”

Republicans may also be revolting against what they view as Mr. Bush’s practice of installing loyalists at the Justice Department. The president and the attorney general are longtime friends, and the question of whether prosecutors were dismissed for not being “loyal Bushies,” in the words of D. Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s former chief of staff, has loomed large over the inquiry.

Some Republicans made their disdain for Mr. Gonzales clear by their questions. Just 15 minutes after the attorney general began testifying, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the panel, remarked wryly that Mr. Gonzales had prepared extensively for the appearance. “I prepare for every hearing, senator,” Mr. Gonzales replied.

Mr. Specter seemed to view it as a smart-aleck retort, and the exchange that followed ended poorly for the attorney general. “Let’s move on,” Mr. Specter said sharply. “I don’t think you’re going to win a debate about your preparation, frankly.”

Democrats seemed gleeful as they watched Republicans go after one of their own, even as their central assertion — that the White House had let politics interfere with law enforcement — was subsumed by questions about Mr. Gonzales’s job performance. Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who has been spearheading the inquiry, did not seem to mind.

“I think anyone who’s watched this would say we could do better for attorney general,” Mr. Schumer said during a break. “He seems to be far less qualified than the U.S. attorneys that he’s fired.”

The question now, of course, is what Mr. Bush will do. Congress has no power to remove the attorney general, and the president has repeatedly stood by his old friend. The White House did so again on Thursday, though officials were clearly uneasy with the Republicans’ criticisms.

“Senators have been frustrated with the admitted communications problems since this began, and I think this has been their opportunity to express that frustration,” said Tony Fratto, a spokesman for Mr. Bush, who was in Ohio Thursday. “That’s perfectly natural, but it doesn’t change the facts, and the facts are that there was a process here, and the ultimate decisions were the correct decisions.”

Mr. Bush has said Mr. Gonzales has “work to do” in repairing his fractured relations with lawmakers. Clearly, by the end of the day that was still the case. Mr. Sessions, who said he believed the attorney general was “a good man,” was asked during a break if there was anything Mr. Gonzales could do at this point to improve his standing on Capitol Hill.

Mr. Sessions shook his head sadly. “I don’t know,” he said. “I don’t know.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....d=print

[Sonic Youth]

Careful, son. You're going into panic mode.

In other words, you refuse to address the a. throught h. that I provided. Not even one letter?

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

[criddic3]

You guys have a great fantasy world going here. Do you really think that Gonzales is being "sacrificed"? He had responsibilities that he tended to, it's been made into a big deal, he's stood by his actions and has stated he has "nothing to hide" and has done "nothing improper." He believes this. He's not alone. A lot of people think he didn't break the law or defy the constitution on this. Yes, it's true that polls show that people think there was a political motivation behind the firings, but that doesn't mean they're right, and it doesn't show that they think he broke any laws in doing so if he did.

Gotta laugh about the Lego crack, though. Still thinking of the President in those terms, I see. At least you have a sense of humor, right?

[Akash]

I love how they're so obviously turning him into a sacrificial lamb, and Gonzales still won't sell them out. One wonders what kind of backroom deal must have been made. Wish I could hear THAT conversation.

Cheney: Listen Al, you're gonna have to take one for the team. The President is really upset. He can't even play with his legos in peace. You understand right? You're only Latino, that makes you the goat. But don't worry, we'll fix you up good once this all blows over...

April 16, 2007
‘Nothing to Hide,’ Gonzales Insists Before Senate Hearing
By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, April 15 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales offered a measured apology for his mistakes in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys, but said in testimony prepared for a Senate hearing on Tuesday that he had “nothing to hide” and that none of the prosecutors were removed to influence the outcome of a case.

In his testimony, which was released Sunday by the Justice Department, Mr. Gonzales provided an account of his actions that was largely consistent with his past assertions that his role was very limited and his recollection fragmentary.

Mr. Gonzales said that he did not select any of the prosecutors slated for dismissal last year and that he largely delegated the effort to his former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson.

“I have nothing to hide,” he said in his testimony, “and I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here.”

A string of Democrats and some Republicans have already called for Mr. Gonzales’s resignation, and the Senate hearing is seen by many as the major battle in his fight to keep his job. The release of Mr. Gonzales’s testimony was part of the intense political gamesmanship and calculation by the Bush administration and Senate Democrats in advance of the hearing. Mr. Gonzales also previewed some of his testimony in an op-ed article on Sunday in The Washington Post.

He acknowledged in his testimony that his public statements about the firings had been confusing and that he had misspoken at a news conference on March 13 when he asserted that he “was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”

And, Mr. Gonzales said, “Of course I knew about the process because of, at a minimum, these discussions with Mr. Sampson.”

Mr. Gonzales said he was even aware that two Justice Department lawyers had been identified as possible replacement candidates for attorneys to be fired, including Rachel L. Brand, chief of the Office of Legal Policy, and Deborah J. Rhodes, now a United States attorney in Alabama.

After the testimony was released, two Democratic senators, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Charles E. Schumer of New York, dismissed Mr. Gonzales’s written testimony as inadequate.

Mr. Leahy said the Gonzales testimony was “another in a series of contradictory statements about the mass firing of U.S. attorneys.” Mr. Schumer said that the testimony “does not advance his cause at all,” and that his answers on Tuesday “will be make or break for him.”

And the top Republican on the committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Gonzales would need to disclose more facts when he appeared before the panel.

“The op-ed piece was Pablum,” Mr. Specter said Sunday. “I’m looking for facts.”

He added, “In his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Gonzales is going to have to be much more specific in answering questions about exactly what role he played, and explain, as best he knows, his understanding of the rationale behind the dismissal of individual prosecutors.”

Vice President Dick Cheney continued to express the White House’s support for Mr. Gonzales, but he made it clear that it was up to the attorney general to save his job.

“He’s a good man,” Mr. Cheney said in an interview recorded Saturday and broadcast Sunday on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “I have every confidence in him; the president has every confidence in him.”

But Mr. Cheney added, “This took place inside the Justice Department. The one who needs to answer to that and lay out on the record the specifics of what transpired is the attorney general, and he’ll do so.”

Mr. Gonzales’s troubles come as another figure who has played a major role in the Bush administration, Paul D. Wolfowitz, is fighting to retain his post as president of the World Bank after accounts that he had used his influence to raise the salary of his girlfriend. Both men represent important elements of the administration’s policy, as Mr. Wolfowitz was a principal architect of the invasion of Iraq and Mr. Gonzales was a principal supervisor of the legal strategy to fight terrorism.

In his statement, Mr. Gonzales admitted he had made mistakes, but his contrition was limited largely to missteps in the treatment of prosecutors who were asked to resign. “I made mistakes in not ensuring that these U.S. attorneys received more dignified treatment,” Mr. Gonzales said. “Others within the Department of Justice also made mistakes. As far as I know, these were honest mistakes of perception and judgment and not intentional acts of misconduct.”

“I am sorry for my missteps that have helped fuel the controversy,” he said.

Mr. Gonzales is certain to be asked on Tuesday about his own recollection of events. He has said he does not recall a meeting on Nov. 27, 2006, in which the dismissals were discussed. Michael A. Battle, the former director of the department’s United States attorney liaison office, has told Congressional staff members that Mr. Gonzales was at the meeting when a memorandum was circulated that provided a detailed outline of the plan to dismiss the prosecutors.

But Mr. Gonzales insisted in his written statement that not one of the United States attorneys was improperly fired. “I know that I did not and would not ask for a resignation of any individual in order to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain,” he said.

Mr. Gonzales’s prepared statement did not address several significant issues cited by Democrats who have charged that the firings were politically motivated. Two of the prosecutors, David C. Iglesias of New Mexico and John McKay of Washington State, were dismissed after Republican officials complained to the Justice Department. In Mr. Iglesias’s case, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, complained to the White House about what he saw as the prosecutor’s lack of progress on a politically sensitive case involving Democrats.

Administration officials have said the testimony was the product of high-level deliberations about how Mr. Gonzales should present himself and his actions to counter his critics and justify retaining his post.

In the last week, Mr. Gonzales, whose courteous but often uninformative appearances at past Congressional hearings have left Democrats complaining, has prepared for the hearing in practice sessions Monday through Saturday in the attorney general’s conference room at Justice Department headquarters.

The meetings have included mock question-and-answer sessions, with experienced trial prosecutors from the department playing the role of hostile senators asking Mr. Gonzales to be specific about his recollection of events.

Although there is little doubt that the purpose of Tuesday’s hearing will be about the dismissal of the federal prosecutors, Mr. Gonzales’s comments about that subject filled less than six pages of his testimony, with the rest devoted to discussions of other issues before the department.

He said he wanted to dispose of questions about the dismissals, saying, “The sooner that all the facts are known, the sooner we can devote our exclusive attention to our important work,” which he said was combating terrorism, sexual predators and illegal drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007....d=print

[criddic3]

Nothing Improper

By Alberto R. Gonzales
Sunday, April 15, 2007; Page B07

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

What began as a well-intentioned management effort to identify where, among the 93 U.S. attorneys, changes in leadership might benefit the department, and therefore the American people, has become an unintended public controversy.


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Decatur Illinois
Building a Mystery
White Noise Insanity


Full List of Blogs (77 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share Article What's This?

DiggGoogle
del.icio.usYahoo!
RedditFacebook



While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear.

I know that I did not -- and would not -- ask for the resignation of any U.S. attorney for an improper reason. Furthermore, I have no basis to believe that anyone involved in this process sought the removal of a U.S. attorney for an improper reason.

Given my convictions on this issue, I testified before Congress in January and will do so again on Tuesday. I have personally spoken with many members of Congress over the past several weeks to hear their concerns about this matter. Additionally, I have instructed all Justice Department officials to make themselves available for on-the-record interviews with lawmakers and hearings before Congress, and I have ordered the release of thousands of pages of internal documents.

All of these documents and public testimony indicate that the Justice Department did not seek the removal of any U.S. attorney to interfere with or improperly influence any case or investigation. Indeed, I am extremely proud of the department's strong record of vigorous prosecutions, particularly in the area of public corruption, where Republicans and Democrats alike have been held accountable for their crimes.

I have nevertheless asked the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to further investigate this matter. Working with the department's Office of Inspector General, these nonpartisan professionals will complete their own independent investigation so that Congress and the American people can be 100 percent assured of what I believe and what the investigation thus far has shown: that nothing improper occurred.

While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.

During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign.

I am committed to explaining my role in this process and will do so Tuesday when I testify before Congress.

I am also committed to correcting any management missteps that occurred during this process. In recent weeks I have met with more than 70 U.S. attorneys around the country to hear their concerns and discuss ways to improve communication and coordination between their offices and the Justice Department.

These discussions have been frank, and good ideas are coming out, including ways to ensure that every U.S. attorney can know whether his or her performance is at the level expected by the president and the attorney general. Additionally, I have asked for recommendations on formal and informal steps that we can take to improve all forms of dialogue between the main Justice Department and U.S. attorneys nationwide.

I am also telling our 93 U.S. attorneys that I look forward to working with them to pursue the great goals of our department in the weeks and months to come. During the past two years, we have made great strides in securing our country from terrorism, protecting our neighborhoods from gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and pedophiles, and protecting the public trust by prosecuting public corruption. As I have stressed repeatedly to our U.S. attorneys and others within the department, recent events will not and must not deter us from our important mission.

In part because of my own experience, I know the real strength of America. It lies in our Constitution, our people and our collective unyielding commitment to equal opportunity, equal justice, common decency and fairness. With this same commitment in my mind, I very much look forward to answering Congress's questions about this matter on Tuesday.

The writer is the U.S. attorney general.

[Sonic Youth]

And how could I have forgotten j. and k.?

j. Congress is upset because the White House staff used the Republican National Committee email server to communicate with each other over this matter, rather than the White House email server... meaning, when Congress subpoenaed White House email communications, these particular emails could not be subpoenaed.

k. Congress is upset because when they finally subpoenaed the desired emails used on the RNC email server "had mishandled Republican Party-sponsored e-mail accounts used by nearly two dozen presidential aides, resulting in the loss of an undetermined number of e-mails concerning official White House business," as I mentioned earlier.

Did I leave anything out?

[Sonic Youth]

Criddic is talking in the broadest of generalities, which means he's utterly clueless regarding the specifics of this controversy. So why don't we enlighten him as to why Congress is upset with the White House's behavior?

a. Congress is upset because the White House lied when they claimed the attorneys were fired for performance reasons... a lie that didn't hold up once the performance ratings were released and reviewed.

b. Congress is upset because when the White House finally capitulated and released thousands of emails relating to the matter, there was a mysterious 18 day gap. The White House maintained that they weren't holding anything back, and this was nothing but a "lull"... a lie that didn't hold up once someone leaked the 18 days worth of emails. (And what is it with corrupt politicians and the number '18'?)

c. Congress is upset because the White House lied when they said only Harriet Miers called for the purge, and Gonzales and Rove opposed the plan... a lie that didn't hold up once the emails were released demonstrating that G & R were at the center of the decisions to fire these attorneys.

d. Not to mention that the email detailing the meeting Gonzales held to approve the firing of the attorneys happened on November 27th... a date that falls within the 18 day "lull" that was initially held back.

e. Congress is upset because the White House lied about the reason they fired Carol Lam: that she was lax on illegal immigration prosecutions... a lie that didn't hold up once Lam's performance review was scrutinized. And if it really was a problem, then why didn't the Justice Dept. (which is headed by... what's his name?... Oh, yeah! Gonzales!) ever bring it to her attention?

f. Congress is upset with the White House insulting their intelligence by claiming Iglasias was let go because he wasn't vigilant enough in prosecuting voter fraud cases, a lame reason considering the GOP always cooks up these bogus allegations in order to disenfranchise minority voters. Not to mention that in the 6 years the Republicans were in power of both houses of government, they only prosecuted and convicted app. 85 people of voter fraud... which doesn't exactly make up for the thousands of Floridians whose names were illegally and inaccurately placed upon bogus felon lists.

g. Congress is upset, because when they called upon Monica Goodling - director of Public Affairs for the Justice dept. - was called upon to testify before Congress, she invoked the Fifth Amendment... something people do only when they don't want to incriminate themselves of any illegal acts they may have done.

h. Congress is upset because when Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson testified before Congress, he was wholly unable to provide any criteria Gonzales used in order to select those particular 8 attorneys for firiing.

i. Congress is upset because a. thru h. demonstrates - with painful obviousness - that there is a cover-up going on.

So, maybe you're right, Criddic. Maybe there is nothing unlawful, unconstitutional, or even unseemly about the U.S. attorney firings. But if that's the case, then why the cover up? And maybe there is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional to cover up. But if that's the case, why can't Gonzales and all the rest get their stories straight?

Finally, if it is proven that there is nothing unlawful or unconstitutional about the firings - something which, by the way, I acknowledged in an earlier post - it sure as hell doesn't mean the story ends there.

Oh, and Criddic? I'm SO sure you were on President Clinton's side when the Republican congress launched investigations over Travelgate, after Clinton fired the entire travel office... even though he was well within his rights to do so, and there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. And I'm sure you were horrified when the Republicans used this issue to "play politics." And I'm SO sure that if there is a difference between the attorney firings and the travel office firings, you're going to provide a cogent argument detailing reasons that are so obvious I must've been a fool to miss them.

[Sonic Youth]

The president should be able to have full faith that his choices aren't compromised by politics. But if judges and other officials must go through Congress, then I'm all for U.S. attorneys being slogged through that process.

Sure, why not?

After all, it was the same process the president and congress slogged through since the 1780s - as defined in Article III in the Constitution - and in all that time no one's complained about "slogging" until now.

[Mister Tee]

The president should be able to have full faith that his choices aren't compromised by politics.

Comedy gold!

criddic, you're making me fire off one of my infrequent responses, because as usual you cram in more falsehoods per square inch than anyone else on the board.

The 28% was a viable, out-there number when I wrote the post. Numbers fluctuate slightly, mostly in margin of error. Your touting the 38% -- the ONLY poll to show him that high, and, according to most pollsters, a likely outlier -- is just as selective. But, fine, let's compromise: the 33-percenters. That make you feel more popular?

Here's what bothers people about the attorney purge: A significant number of US attorneys -- people we rely on to keep the judicial system honest -- were fired for their refusal to cooperate in pursuing bogus voter fraud or corruption cases, all of which centered on alleged Democratic wrongdoing. (Those who went along -- like the idiot in Wisconsin -- were rewarded by holding onto their jobs, even thoughbtheir cases are being thrown out of court). This is part and parcel of Karl Rove's plan to disenfranchise as many potential Democratic voters (read: minorities) as possible, to try and maximize the GOP's shrinking electoral base. The reason Gonzales et al. have lied (saying the dismissals were over immigration policy, or whatever the lie of the day is) is because they know they're in quasi-corruption territory. (And, please -- sneaking the confirmation clause into the Patriot Act renewal was a key part of this scheme, as they knew they'd never get it past Congress) Let's not pretend this is about Gonzales being a sloppy manager. It's about keeping the justice system from being bent. (Oddly enough, right-wingers who -- justifiably -- scream to the high heavens about Nifong's behavior in NC seem to have no problem with this instance)

As for Pelosi...you really have to stop letting Matt Drudge and his ilk drive your news consumption. Pelosi was accompanied by, among others, REPUBLICANS. Republicans also visited Syria both before and after Pelosi's visit. People are "hinting at" prosecution but not going forward because they know they don't have even a wisp of a case. Their only object is to convince the rubes something wrong happened -- in your case, mission was apparently accomplished.

Just for your education: Hastert visited foreign leaders when the Clinton administration asked he not. Gingrich, against requests, not only went to China, he told them we'd go to war for Taiwan -- specifically not American policy. Were you in favor of prosecuting them?

I really don't know why I bother. Your problem is you're totally ignorant of how ill-informed (or misinformed)you are.

[criddic3]

28-percent-ers like criddic

Sorry, but according to most polls President Bush's approvals are at least mid-30's. In fact a recent USA Today poll had him at 38%. Nothing to cheer about really, but don't misrepresent the facts here.

President Bush has done a lot of good things and has been right much of the time, despite the public's anxiety about the Iraq War and the misrepresentation of the PATRIOT ACT by many in the media.

I understand the reasoning behind changing the provision in the law that allowed the President to appoint attorneys without senate approval, and have no problem with them adding their votes, but I also understand why the provision caused no commotion when the bill was enacted and re-enacted. The president should be able to have full faith that his choices aren't compromised by politics. But if judges and other officials must go through Congress, then I'm all for U.S. attorneys being slogged through that process.

The trouble here is that there wasn't anything unlawful or unconstitutional about the firings. Was it bad judgment on Gonzales' part to fire them all en-masse? Probably. But the only reason any Republicans are calling for his head is that it showed that Gonzales may have lost his senses politically in doing so. It is political, whether the Attorney General leaves or not. My hunch is that President Bush will not fire him, for the reason that it would make his political opponents seem correct. Should Gonzales go? Maybe, maybe not. But to bow to political pressures like these would be foolish, because the general public will think they've done something truly wrong when they haven't.

That Nancy Pelosi's recent actions aren't being reacted to in quite the same manner, and she did worse things, shows a double-standard I think. Sure, some have said there should be an investigation, but few have taken those calls seriously. She could well be prosecuted for her actions and may have committed a felony with her trip overseas, but Gonzales' lawful actions are being used to throw him off a cliff? I think not.

[OscarGuy]

If congress were smart, they would accept that line as the bull shit it is because, you know what, the technology that exists in the commercial world being inferior to that in the military world, would suggest that emails being "deleted" isn't the end of anything. Unless they went in and deleted the backup copies and the impressions they left on the computer, there is no way that line would work. Congress should push hard for a massive data retrieval option.

Could this white house BE any more corrupt?

[Sonic Youth]

Associated Press: "The White House said Wednesday it had mishandled Republican Party-sponsored e-mail accounts used by nearly two dozen presidential aides, resulting in the loss of an undetermined number of e-mails concerning official White House business."

Whoops!

[Sonic Youth]

Bush cheerleader The National Review calls on Gonzales to resign.

Bush cheerleader The Weekly Standard calls on Bush to fire Gonzales.

Newt Gingrich suggests firing Gonzales.