GOP operative: impeach Gonzo

This is a pretty interesting exchange on Chris Matthews from last night, and you have to know that things are starting to turn when Republican operatives are beginning to speculate that impeachment might be the only course of action, Gonzo might finally be Gone-zo. However, as long as President Bush is behind him our amnesia-stricken attorney general is going nowhere. Because God only knows the our Democratically "led" Congress appears to be perfectly content to do absolutely nothing, no matter what the Bush administration does.

Latest Fox News "Mistake"

It's no longer a surprise when Fox News pulls stunts like this - identifying Republican Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on screen during a broadcast as a Democrat. It's now a surprise when the network doesn't do it. This is anything but a mistake. C&L has a short list of other instances of Fox's, ahem, "mistakes."

I wonder, if Specter would have made supportive statements today AG Alberto Gonzales during the latter's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, would he "earn" an "R" from Fox News? What, is Fox News now the athletic department of Congress? I guess so - Republicans now have to prove their conservative mettle to earn the much coveted "R" during Fox's asinine and absurd "news broadcasts."

And Rupert Murdoch wants to buy more media outlets in the United States? This is precisely the reason why we must demand strictly enforced, reasonable limits on any person, corporation or entity of any political persuasion from owning too many media outlets in the United States.

I have over 20 letters I've been meaning to write to my Congressional representatives, and this is near the top of the list - the FCC needs to roll back media ownership limits. NOW.

During vacation next week, my fingers are going to be sore from pounding away at my laptop keys. Of course, I will share these letters with you and encourage you to write your leaders about a host of issues as well.

Bush v. Democracy: Bush wins, again

Once again, President Bush has subverted the will of the American people, and certainly the spirit of our democracy. The only question that remains is, what will Congress and the Democrats do about it?

Actually, that's not the most important question. Even a passive follower of politics knows that the Democrats are all opposed to most of Bush's foreign and domestic policies. The most burning question now is, when will enough Congressional Republicans get sick and tired enough to do something about it? So far, scant few voiced opposition; Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter are among the prominent who come to mind. But, it's going to take many more than that to be able to legislatively and legally do anything about Bush and Cheney's subversion of our democracy.

The latest outrage - earlier this month, both houses of Congress, by large margins, passed a bill taking away the Justice Department's right to appoint interim U.S. attorneys (for an indefinite period) without Senate approval. The bill has been on Bush's desk since June 4. A president must sign a bill into law within 10 days (not counting Sundays), or the bill automatically becomes law. Not even Bush would be stupid enough to let this bill become law without his signature. Today was the deadline.

However, Bush had one maneuver left yesterday before signing the bill into law - he appointed one more U.S. attorney, in this case installing George Cardona as an interim U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not pleased. Today in a hearing, Leahy ripped Bush over the controversial move:

That bill, the Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007, has been on the president's desk since June 4th. Do you know it seems he just can't bring himself to sign it? Instead, we were informed yesterday through the Justice Department that the attorney general has used the power that we voted to repeal again.

It's almost like they live in an alternate world, as though they're not realizing the reaction of Democrats and Republicans about this misuse of this power. That's wrong.

Well, Senator Leahy, that's a start. It's more than "just wrong," it's giving the middle finger to the American people and our way of government.

It's important to note that the Justice Department (and by extension, President Bush) should NEVER have had the power to appoint U.S. attorneys in the first place - the provision was furtively put into the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Act of 2005 at the very last minute by someone in Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) office, under Specter's name. Specter was recovering from cancer treatment. I don't know if that account is true, but I've heard it from some credible sources, most notably liberal talk show host Thom Hartman. The guy who was instrumental in getting that provision into the bill? Timothy Griffin, who was later appointed interim U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

More on Griffin in a future post, and his role in caging during the 2004 election.

That only question now is, what will Congress do about Bush's final appointment? I'm sure Sen. Harry Reid is planning the Bush "no confidence" vote right now. What a joke. Alberto Gonzales really should be forced to resign or impeached. But, with the backbone this Congress is proving to have, neither is likely probable.

It's time to write our legislative leaders to tell them what we think of this latest move. I'll share my letter to my two senators with you tomorrow.

Think Progress has more.

Bush outdoes himself

Before he returned from Europe today, President Bush was asked about the Senate's no confidence vote (more on that in a minute) on embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and I find his quote simply breathtaking:

I find it interesting. You know, I guess it reflects the political atmosphere in Washington. And they can try to have their votes, of no confidence but it's not going to determine, make the determination, of who serves in my government. [Emphasis mine.]

MY GOVERNMENT?

Freudian slip much?

Mr. President, it's as much your government as it is my government.

Get real.

AP Photo

Senate set for No Gonzo vote on Monday

The Senate is set to have a no-confidence vote for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Monday. I think this is a positive step in the right direction, but I have no idea how serious charges have not been filed against this guy. Maybe Scooter Libby Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is in charge of these matters for the Senate?

For thos of you who don't know, Fitzgerald is the disgraceful prosecutor in charge in the Valerie Plame incident who chose not to file charges against Karl Rove, when all roads pointed to himm.

I'm sick and tired of the Senate "leadership" of the Democratic Party being so preoccupied with non-binding bills and other b.s. Either pass something with teeth, or move on to other things. By the Senate indicating it won't take more serious action, it's a signal that waiting it out is the best opton.

Unless President Bush fires Gonzo, and he's shown no indication that he has any plans to do so, the attorney general can simply continue about his merry way. As long as Bush keeps backing him, he has nothing to worry about, and Bush won't back down, country be damned. When it comes to corrupt people in Bush's inner circle, if they present him with an opportunity to score or make a political point, he never misses an opportunity. And Gonzo is just that opportunity.

Next week should get awfully interesting.

Photo by AP

Revealed! The Godfather, Part IV, featuring Fredo Gonzales

I could not stop laughing when I saw this tonight on Crooks & Liars. It's very well done - I just wish it's a bit longer.

Just in case you don't get the joke, President Bush, who has a nickname for virtually everyone he's known for longer than five minutes, calls Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "Fredo," from the Godfather movies.

Specter predicts Gonzo will step down

But, I'm not so sure. We've only been hearing this song now for about three months. However, a Senate no confidence vote, even if along party lines, would be an embarrassment to Alberto Gonzales and the Bush administration. And that vote would NOT be along party lines - more than a handful of Republican Senators have publicly called for Gonzo's resignation in the last few weeks - Norm Coleman, Arlen Specter and Chuck Hagel among them.

In the end, though, how do you embarrass a shameless administration? I don't remember where I heard this over the weekend, because I've been reading and watching so much on politics lately, but it really resonated with me, but it went something like this:

Bush and his cabal are perfectly willing to look completely stupid to advance their agenda. They'll say a million "I don't remembers" with a side of "that's just not true" (when they know that IT is), and in the end, if Gonzo stays put as AG, then it's a "victory" for Bush.

Sometime around January 22, 2001, this administration stopped considering what the best thing for America is, and started worrying about what's best for their political donors, and the best course to stay in power.

If Congress wants Gonzo out, it will probably have to impeach him.

Video via C&L

Gonzo in middle of NSA spying controversy

This is a longer clip, so give it a watch when you have time.

It's the testimony of James Comey, the former deputy attorney general. It seems that when former Attorney General John Ashcroft was in the hospital for gall bladder surgery, the White House had a problem with the NSA's Terrorism Surveillance Program. It needed DOJ approval for the plan.

However, Ashcroft had temporarily turned over the responsibilities of his office to Comey while he was undergoing surgery. The White House wanted Comey to sign off on the NSA's program, and when he raised objections, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card rushed over to the hospital where Ashcroft was convalescing and tried to get him to sign a piece of paper approving the program.

In no uncertain terms, Ashcroft refused. An enraged Card told Comey that had to report to the White House immediately, and Comey refused to appear without a witness, considering what he just witnessed. Comey also threatened to resign, but Ashcroft coaxed him out of that decision, urging Comey to wait until he was in better health so they could resign together. Reportedly, FBI Director Robert Mueller also threatened to resign.

This is a pretty amazing story, which could have turned into a modern-day Saturday Night Massacre. In some ways this revelation does resemble Nixon's colossal political miscalculation. I've already heard some conservatives say, "What does this have to do with Alberto Gonzales' behavior as attorney general?"

Really, it's another brick in the wall, and it further demonstrates Gonzo's willingness to let politics trump the law. If I were a lawyer, I'd say, "It goes to credibility," in relation to the U.S. Attorney Firing Scandal.

However, the attorney general still has the "full support" of the president.

Pathetic.

Alberto Gonzales testimony high(low)lights

Lots of video to bring you this morning before I get on with writing some of my longer pieces. Yesterday saw embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales taking lots of heat up on the Hill. It's amazing to me that he's lasted as long as he has. Here are a few of the better clips from yesterday.

The footage above is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) really letting Gonzales have it. I find it truly remarkable that the attorney general of the United States claims that he isn't responsible for determining which documents are released and redacted in the U.S. attorney firing scandal. He is the number one law enforcement official in this country, and the DOJ is responsible for releasing the documents that are requested, which he heads. If he isn't responsible, then I'd like to know exactly who is?

Gonzo reminds me of CEOs (Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers, anyone?) of companies that have bilked billions from investors and employees who claim, after the fact, "I didn't know this was happening." That's no excuse, and these criminals (Gonzo included) should not be provided safe haven under the law.

I have to confess, I don't want Gonzo to resign, because if he does, that will take the immediacy out of the investigation, and the likelihood that he will be brought to justice greatly decreases. Bush and Gonzo are doing the Democrats a favor by his staying on as AG. I want to see him impeached and forcibly removed from office.

A footnote to Waters - she's the woman who formally protested the results of the 2000 election on the floor of the U.S. Senate in December 2000:

"The objection is in writing, and I don't care that it isn't signed by a member of the Senate," said Waters. (On her objection to the Presidential Election in 2000), to which Al Gore responded, "The chair would advise that the rules do care."

Gore, as president of the Senate, acted appropriately in this instance, but it's too bad that not ONE U.S. Senator would sign on to formally protest the election, especially in light of the election fraud that has come to light since that election. But, that's a post for another time. I'll be writing about election fraud in the coming days.

Here's one more clip from Gonzo's testimony yesterday...

Gonzo just wilts in the face of the heat that Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) is giving to him yesterday. It almost becomes repetitive after watching just a few minutes of this. You'd think that Gonzo is a low-level lawyer or even janitor at the DOJ in the wake of his testimony - the man claims to know next to nothing.

If this was spur-of-the-moment testimony, that would be one thing, but he's had weeks to prepare for his testimony, which makes his words all the more damning.

Best protest sign ever

I forgot to post this pic the day I found it - things get easily lost on my computer desktop. I have a nasty habit of not keeping it organized, and with our new 24" screen, it's just a bigger desktop to neglect.

The protester's sign marked the number of times Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified that he "didn't recall" an event or fact during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 19, 2007, about the controversial dismissal of eight U. S. attorneys.

Imagine how busy this guy would have been with the same sign with President Reagan's many utterances of "I don't recall" during the Iran-Contra Scandal.

Anyway, well done - I love it that this guy thought to do that.

AP Photo/Dennis Cook

Broder embodies what's wrong at WaPo

Today's Washington Post, is a newspaper with amazing ability, yet one with an equally amazing amount of contradictions.

Very seldom do I read a newspaper column where I nearly jump out of my chair with outrage. Yesterday was one of those days. In a Thursday column (which I heard about yesterday), long-time WaPo political columnist David S. Broder wrote a piece, The Democrats' Gonzales, which almost defies description.

He begins his column with this whopper:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.

If you answered "Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

To suggest that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is even on the same planet of incompetence and obfuscation as Alberto Gonzales is as asinine a comment as I've ever read from a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist.

To briefly compare...

Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, this past week became the first political leader in Washington with enough moxie to publicly conclude what a majority of the American people did months (if not years) ago - that the war is lost.

On the other hand, we have Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who has more controversy surrounding him than... Karl Rove. Oops.

From claiming that there is no constitutional right to habeas corpus (see video below), his involvement in the firing of U.S. Attorneys, and his alleged involvement in the NSA warrantless wiretapping and domestic eavesdropping, to compare Reid to Gonzo is just absurd.

Concerning the NSA eavesdropping controversy, we'll never know the truth, or Gonzo's role, because the investigation was abruptly shut down after President Bush denied investigators the required security clearances to conduct their investigation.

But, perhaps nothing Gonzales has done is more controversial, or has had more far-reaching implications than his 2002 memorandum to Bush opining the Geneva Conventions were "outdated." From WaPo:

Gonzales is perhaps best known for a controversial January 2002 memorandum to the president in which he argued that Geneva Convention proscriptions on torture did not apply to Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners, and that the conventions are, in fact, "obsolete."

Many reason that this memo, at least indirectly, led to the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib.

What's more, the Bush administration's blithe dismissal of the Geneva Conventions has done more to damage the reputation of the United States than perhaps anything other than our ill-fated invasion of Iraq.

And Broder compares Alberto Gonzales to Harry Reid?

I think Katharine Graham just rolled over in her grave.

Hey David, I've got a little something for you...

A few cartoons...

Today's the day - Gonzo goes before Congress to lie testify about his role in the U.S. Attorney purge scandal. Politically, he's mortally wounded. It's just a matter of time before he hangs himself with his lies, obfuscations and inaccuracies. If Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are smart, they'll just keep feeding Gonzo rope, because before long, he'll use it.

Speaking of lies, I love it when a politician or PR flak gets on TV and talks about a "misstatement." That would be a LIE. I wonder how many times Gonzo will say "misstatement" during his testimony today?

Well said - we're all counting. - 641 days to go.

Tragically accurate.

Yep, Bush supports the troops alright. Our military is in such dire straights, we should have either ended this war or began a draft years ago. But the "D" word might as well be the "F" word in the discourse about this war. No politician (mostly Republicans) would dare go near it. The language of shared sacrifice might just as well be Arabic to our government - so few people can read it, much less interpret it.

How many times have we heard this in the last four years? But, it usually doesn't come from Bush - he sends his Dick to do the dirty work. Or Repubes in Congress.

It's Vietnam, the sequel. Just like many/most South Vietnamese weren't willing to fight the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese while they had the American military behind it, the Iraqi government is taking this same approach. Maybe, just maybe, unlike the decision makers in this administration, the Iraqis pick up a history book every now and then and read about our past mistakes and are learning from them. God only knows Bush and Cheney have learned no lessons from Vietnam. Maybe it's because they both successfully avoided serving the war.

How good does John Kerry look now?

Spot on. It's amazing to me that Dick Cheney still has an al-Qaeda fetish about Iraq. The terrorist group is only in Iraq now because we are there. It's nothing short of remarkable that a few select neo-cons, led by Cheney, still insist that WMDs were/are in Iraq, and that Hussein and al-Qaeda were connected to 9-11. Last week, Cheney was at it again, making thoroughly debunked claims about the bogus connection. After thinking about it, this occurred to me - this is the same tactic and logic the right uses with global warming - just keep repeating a lie over and over, and as long as you can successfully bring doubt into the discourse and cloud the issue, Mission Accomplished.

A shocking number of American people still believe, in the face of all the facts, that Iraq was connected to 9-11. In my humble opinion, the right is doing this to "soften the blow" about our disastrous foray into Iraq. The thinking is this: if we can make a few people cling to the notion that Iraq and 9-11 are connected, the War in Iraq doesn't look quite so bad. (As it really is.) Nice job, Dick.

Well said. We so desperately need tax reform.

Soo disturbing for so many reasons, but also very funny, too. I love the dog's bubble talk. I'm sure Rudy already rues the day he ever decided to get in a dress for a joke. I'd ask, "What was he thinking, but clearly, he wasn't."

Orrin Hatch in denial more than Clay Aiken

This is a clip from a pretty combative Utah Senator Orrin Hatch during his appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday morning.

I really wonder what it would take for Hatch to criticize the Bush Administration for anything. I really can't think of anything.

Of course, toward the end of the show on Sunday, we get our answer - evidently, Hatch has been pimping himself all over town as a possible replacement once current AG Alberto Gonzales resigns or is fired.

Notice in the clip above that Hatch makes sure to mention that Gonzo "is the first Hispanic to serve as AG." Yea, we know, Orrin - quit trying to score points with voters on that point. If this keeps up, he's also going to be the first Hispanic AG who has resigned under fire, or dismissed.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but I find it very curious to hear Hatch intone that the "atmosphere on the Senate Judiciary Committee is so poisoned." I don't suppose that would have anything to do with the Clinton witch hunts in the late 1990s, would it?

For those who think I'm wrong to bring up Clinton, spend a few hours watching Fox News on any given day, and you'll hear Bill or Hillary Clinton's name come up at least once, but most likely multiple times. Repubes can't have it both ways - you can't bring up Clinton in one breath, and then decry someone bringing up the Clinton witch hunts in the next breath.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy showed remarkable restraint this morning on the same show, which I thought admirable, since Hatch was functioning as President Bush and Alberto Gonzales' press secretary.

A few final points...

Hatch mentions that there are over 100,000 people working at the Justice Department, thereby implying that it's tough for an attorney general to know what's going on all of the time. But, this scandal isn't about 100,000 people at the justice department, it's about decisions being made about federal prosecutors at the highest levels of the justice department. A nice try by Hatch to minimize Gonzo's fallibility here, but no cigar.

Hatch ridiculously mentions that "[Gonzales] isn't capable of lying." Are you kidding me? Sure Hatch, we'll just take your word for it.

Finally, Hatch mentions that he "sees no evidence of criminal activity" on the part of AG Gonzales. How does he know until the matter is fully investigated? Then, in the next breath, he opines that the Judiciary Committee should let Gonzo tell his side of the story, and that no one should rush to judgment on his guilt. That's a pretty wild contradiction.

What's more, I don't think Hatch has been paying attention to the document dumps the Justice Department has been putting out to the press, because there's plenty of evidence that Gonzo was involved in the politically motivated dismissals. Gonzo has changed his story at least twice, and from some things I've read, maybe more.

There's plenty of reason, and precedent, to have not only Gonzo, but Harriet Miers and Karl Rove testify, under oath and in public, before Congress.

Only time will tell if this happens. If President Bush chooses to prevent subpoenaed members of his administration from testifying before Congress, we are going to have a Constitutional confrontation with far-reaching implications.

Saying goodbye to Gonzo in song

This one's pretty good - it's a video send-off of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to "Bye, Bye Love."

Seems pretty fitting. I'd give it three out of five stars. It lulls a bit in the middle, but all in all, a quality production.

Subponea powers... ACTIVATE!

Shape of... impeachment!

You have to love a Wonder-Twins reference.

The Senate Judiciary Committee now has subpoena power, so it's just a matter of time until they use it. This is a bit dated, but Leahy appeared on Countdown With Keith Olbermann last Friday, and, as usual, he didn't mince words:

The reason I want to do it under oath..remember in the Valerie Plame thing, nobody had anything to do with this. Nobody outed her name. Nobody said she was a CIA operative, nobody at the White House did, until some of these people were under oath and then we find out, gosh, they did. It's amazing how that focuses ones attention.

A few things about this...

It's totally outrageous how Arlen Specter is trying to be almost apologetic for this administration. If you listen to Specter's words, he almost wants to back down in the face of Bush's bluster. That's exactly what Bush is hoping will happen. It seems to me that Specter would love it if this entire matter just died a quick death. Keep dreamin', Senator. Now keep your mouth closed, quit siding with the White House, and do your duty. You're in the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, and you sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee ~ it's your responsibility to look into these matters as thoroughly as possible.

I'm writing a longer piece tonight on Specter, so stay tuned for that - there have been some impeachable offenses (and by that, I mean with Specter AND President Bush) that have recently gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media.

I hate to play the Watergate card, but there are some things here, so far, that remind me of Watergate. I didn't live through it, but I've read about Watergate at length. It's one of my favorite political topics to read about. Anyway, during the Watergate hearings, when White House Assistant Alexander Butterfield confirmed that President Nixon taped everything in the Oval Office and other surrounding offices, it set off a legal tug of war between the Nixon White House and Congress, which eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Once the Watergate tapes were revealed to exist, Nixon and his cadre of advisers and lawyers refused to turn over copies of the tapes. Then, they offered to turn over transcripts of the tapes, it what became known as The Stennis Compromise. When Archibald Cox, the Watergate Special Prosecutor, refused that offer, Nixon fired Cox.

There's a similar tug of war beginning on Capitol Hill between Congress and the White House. Instead of agreeing to his aides and cabinet members testifying under oath as other presidents have done, Bush has offered that they could testify privately, not under oath, and no transcript. What a load of b.s. and a non-starter. Thankfully, Leahy knows that, too, and he isn't budging. Nor should he.

It doesn't take a seasoned political analyst to understand Bush's offer. This is about accountability and transparency, and Bush is interested in neither one. Just like Nixon and his aides, who had plenty of reasons to want to conceal what was on those tapes, the Bush White House also has reason to not have cabinet members and advisers testify while under oath. If all of the testimony is in public, holes can be poked in it when other facts come to light.

This isn't the first time the Bush Administration has jerked around Congress, either. When the sham 9-11 Commission asked Bush and Dick Cheney to testify, they would only do so together, in private, and not under oath. There are a million jokes here that I'll resist the temptation to make, but, kidding aside, even Bush loyalists have to question why these two boobs would only testify together. I feel it's so they could keep their b.s. stories straight.

Also with the 9-11 Commission, anyone remember the saga that arose when Condi Rice was asked to testify? First she could, then she couldn't, then she could, but not under oath, then no, then finally, yes.

Again, if you don't have anything to hide, what's the big deal about testifying under oath before Congress?

It's a no-brainer. Congressional Democrats had better stick to their guns on this one - we must hear from Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under oath, with a transcript, no exceptions.

I'll write later on tonight why I believe even sworn testimony by the three figures above won't be successful in getting to the bottom of the attorney purge scandal, but it's important for Democrats to do all they can anyway, to get their actions on record. Then, the American people can decide who deserves to take the brunt of the political fallout.

MTP: Good Gonzo chat, but T Russ lets Senator Specter off EASY

I watched Meet the Press yesterday, and I must say that host Tim Russert redeemed himself somewhat after having Tom DeLay on last week. That's not too surprising to me, though - Russert rarely has two bad weeks in a row.

Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) were on to talk about the continuing saga of the eight dismissed federal prosecutors.

Just a few thoughts, and then I'll move on to other aspects of this story in different posts.

First of all, if I hear one more Republican mention that President Clinton dismissed all 93 federal prosecutors when discussing Alberto Gonzales, I'm going to scream until my voice goes out. All together now, folks - COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

Just about every president replaces all of the federal prosecutors when first taking office. It's the standard MO - prosecutors are expected to turn in their resignation letters with the arrival of a new administration. Clinton did what just about every president does. And, after the first term, if a president is around for a second term, typically some, if not all, are replaced.

That's not what the controversy is in this case, period. At issue here is that many of these attorneys were fired because they were not prosecuting cases the White House wanted (in some cases, more Democrats); and in other cases, the White House was peeved that certain Republicans were being targeted.

For instance...

As reported by the Congressional Research Service - a piecemeal "purge" of attorneys (especially mid-term) is not normal, or ordinary. Of the 468 U.S. attorneys confirmed by the Senate over a 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily. (This number does not include the eight that Bush bounced.) This excludes the typical resetting with every administration, which I mention AGAIN. I wish people would just stop it with the Clinton references. I'm going to start calling Clinton "Crutch" because more than any other person on the planet, he's been leaned on by Repubes in trouble.

The stories about WHY these attorneys were fired seems to change like the temperature, too. For example, check out what happened to David C. Iglesias, the fired attorney in New Mexico...

In February 2007, Iglesias publicly alleged that "two lawmakers called him about a well-known criminal investigation involving a Democratic legislator" and that "the lawmakers who called him seemed focused on whether charges would be filed before the November elections. He said the calls made him feel "pressured to hurry the subsequent cases and prosecutions."

As a quick aside, U.S. attorneys in Arizona, Nevada and California were also conducting corruption probes involving Republicans at the time of their dismissals, but I'm sure that's entirely coincidental, right?

According to Iglesias (and this was later confirmed), prior to the 2006 midterm election, U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) and Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) called and "pressured" Iglesias "to speed up indictments in a federal corruption investigation that involved at least one former Democratic state senator."

When Iglesias told Domenici that an indictment wouldn't be handed down until at least December, Iglesias said "the line went dead," and he was fired one week later by the Bush Administration.

After initially denying the call, Domenici recently copped to making it.

According to a WaPo article, "A communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of [Congressional] ethics rules."

Domenici admitted calling Iglesias despite initially lying about it, but Domenici said he never used the word "November" when he called Iglesias about an ongoing Albuquerque courthouse corruption case.

Yea, right.

I'll have more in a bit about subpoenas, A-Gonz and Arlen Specter.

Bob Barr slams U.S. Attorney dismissals

This one has got to sting the Bush White House just a bit (insert sarcasm) - Republican Rep. Bob Barr, who would never be mistaken as a liberal, criticizing the Bush Administration's handling of the Alberto Gonzales/U.S. Attorney firing scandal. (And he's got cred - he once served as a U.S. Attorney in northern Georgia.)

A partial transcript:

BOB BARR: Well, it's probably some of both. But what's really unfortunate here, both from the White House standpoint, as well as from the more important standpoint of what's best for the country, is the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who's the toughest hombre in all this. It's very unfortunate. And I'm not really sure that the administration has chosen the best line in the sand to draw here, so to speak.

Congress clearly has a right to inquire into the running of the Department of Justice, to inquire into the integrity of the process of hiring and firing U.S. attorneys, notwithstanding the fact that that that is technically a prerogative of the president. And rather than fight this, the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush I administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.

###

Ouch. More of A-Gonz and the attorney scandal later tonight.

Newsweek Poll: Things are greeeeeat!

Newsweek conducted a poll late last week that will be released in Monday's edition (it's available online now) that details just how poorly things are going right now.

Of course, when polls don't reflect favorably on this administration, "they aren't poll driven," but when they show a favorable response to what the president supports, the Bush cabal is more than happy to cite them during press conferences and interviews.

Anyway, the whole poll can be found Here, but I'll offer a few highlights...

Q4. All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?

Losing Ground: 61%
Making Progress: 29%
Don't Know: 10%

Q5. In general, do you favor or oppose President Bush’s decision earlier this year to increase the level of U.S. troops in Iraq?

Oppose: 64%
Favor: 32%
Don't Know: 4%

Q6. Do you favor or oppose Congressional legislation that would require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008?

Favor: 59%
Oppose: 34%
Don't Know: 7%

Other Stats

58% think the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys was politically motivated. 45% of Republicans think so, too.

35% want Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to quit. 32% think he should stay. The rest clearly haven't been doing their Constitutional duty of keeping up with the news.

55% think the administration has choked badly on Walter Reed (the neocons seem to be slipping though - where's the Clinton scapegoat angle?)

President Bush's approval rating is still at 30%. Sheesh. This means that MORE people believe that AG Gonzales should stay than think Bush is doing a good job. Maybe the president should just get away from all of this burdensome responsibility that the American people voted him into office once to accept. How about a weekend in Camp David, Mr. President? Wait - he already took that advice.

The great news: 27% approve of how Bush is handling the War in Iraq. That should be encouraging to the Stay the Course Bushies.

Speaking of the war, somebody is celebrating a birthday next week! It just seemed like yesterday you were conceived in the bowels of the Pentagon (don't tell you mother I told you that). We never guessed that having you would have cost us so much money (over half a trillion dollars, to date) and blood (3,200+ Americans, and counting), but we'll keep sticking to the story that you were an accident and not planned all along.

We're doing our best to raise you, but at this point, we don't know what you'll grow up to be - our 51st state, a civil war (too late), World War III, another South Vietnam, all of the above, or victory?

At this rate, we'll never be able to afford college for you - we may have to declare bankruptcy by then.

Picture (screenshot) taken from MSNBC broadcast on 3.17.06

The Gonzales death watch is on

Tick Tock Tick Tock, Alberto.

It's only a matter of time before Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is given the gate. A Newsweek poll released this weekend found that 35 percent think he should resign, only 33 percent think he should stay, and the rest don't know. Those aren't encouraging numbers. (I have to wonder where the 33 percent of respondents who said "Don't Know" have been living, however.)

What's more, Republicans are now beginning to jump ship, too. The first big name to do so is John E. Sununu, (R-NH). Considering the fallout over the federal prosecutor firings and the disclosure about the FBI illegally abusing the USA PATRIOT ACT wiretapping provisions, it's time for this guy to go.

And I thought I disliked Gonzales' predecessor, John Ashcroft! (which I vehemently do). Gonzales has taken a place alongside Ashcroft as one of the worst AG's in U.S. history.

Let the eagle soar, Alberto. (Sorry, I can never miss an opportunity to post the video below. Like I always do whenever I post it, I triple-dawg-dare you to get through the whole thing.)



This is some funny #!@@%$#@! Can an appearance on American Idol be far behind? I wonder what Simon would say to him? BTW, I dunno who did the camera work for this footage, but I got dizzy watching it. At least the tremendous audio always comes through.