Specter disses Gonzo... on Air Force One

My first thought when reading this story? It's about time that some Republicans start speaking up and speaking out about the Bush administration and its seeming indifference to the rule of law.

However, to me, this story is notable for two reasons: Arlen Specter is a Republican Senator from my own Pennsylvania, and Specter piped up aboard Air Force One. That ought to get the attention of his Republican colleagues in Congress, much less President Bush.

From The New York Times:

Guests of President Bush aboard Air Force One generally know that he expects them to behave in a certain way: No showboating or mingling with the on-board press corps and, certainly, no criticizing the commander in chief or his team.

Senator Arlen Specter violated both points of decorum on Thursday. He visited with reporters aboard the presidential airplane before it lifted off for Philadelphia and lambasted the attorney general.

Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, wandered back into the press cabin as the plane sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base before the president arrived from the White House.

According to a pool report of the encounter, Mr. Specter expressed anew his criticism of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales but said he saw no signs that Mr. Gonzales would be forced to resign. Mr. Specter attributed Mr. Gonzales's job security to Mr. Bush's "personal loyalty" to him.

Mr. Specter spoke derisively of Mr. Gonzales's appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he faced accusations that he misled Congress last year when he said there had been no disagreement within the administration over the National Security Administration’s domestic surveillance program.

Read more Here.

Will this change much? I'm not sure, but there seems to be a steady Drip, Drip, Drip of Republicans who are finally beginning to wake up to the excesses and abuses of the Bush administration. I'd like to think that the drips will turn into a deluge, but only time will tell.

It's about time.

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.

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

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.

Bush still insists he's the decider

President Bush, battling with Congress over Iraq, said last Friday that "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to Iraq. Evidently, the president was peeved about criticism about his buildup before it had taken place. "I've picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed," Bush said in an Oval Office meeting with military advisers.

However, a prominent Republican Senator, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter (left), has other ideas.

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," said Specter recently during a hearing on Congress' war powers. "The decider is a shared and joint responsibility."

Right on, Arlen. I laughed as I read this - no wonder Bush and his political Rasputin, Karl Rove, supported ultra-conservative Pat Toomey in the 2004 primaries. When Specter edged Toomey, the Bushies had to grit their teeth and support Specter in the general election against Joe Hoeffel. I voted for Hoeffel, but Arlen's not a bad guy - a moderate Republican who's no sheep - he goes his own way, and that irritates Republicans, but delights me.

Anyone remember the "Decider" Speech from April of last year? I do - here is part of the transcript:

Bush: I say I listen to all voices but mine's the final decision and Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror - He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices and I read the front page and I know the speculation but I'm the decider and I decide what is best and what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of defense.

Bush's arrogance is costing him credibility within his own party, and all of Congress. I don't vote for Senators and Representatives in the U.S. House to take orders from any president, especially when it comes to deciding the who, what, where, when, why and how of our wars.

I'll have more on this later tonight when I get home, including examples of how Republicans had plenty of questions when Clinton put boots on the ground in the 1990s.