I think it was intended to emphasize the divisiveness of trolls who mostly try to hijack comment threads and make it all about themselves. By those measures, GG's trolls are pretty successful, but they couldn't be, if everyone else would simply exercise some self-restraint and completely ignore them. -- Karen M

But you can't because the real world intrudes and must be addressed. On the other hand, if you really can't handle controversy, and want a controlled environment where contrary opinion isn't allowed, FDL is the place for you. You will be coddled and pampered and sheltered and protected from all those nasty, evil, people that have a different opinion.

This is twisting of testimony, speculation run amuck, and a vendetta revisited. I've only just been through the transcript and the post so let me posit these points quickly....

* Comey said there was NO statute requiring the DOJ sign off.

* Ashcroft had done so anyway 29 times previously.

* Could it be that the difference here was Ashcroft's illness and a new Deputy AG changing the context?

* That is certainly enough to make Gonzales and Card believe that Comey was the thug taking advantage of a sick man, not the other way around.

* Doesn't anyone consider Glenn's simultaneous declarations that he doesn't know what the program does, yet is illegal anyway, seem presumptuous at best? How does one know a crime is committed yet admit ignorance of the circumstances?

* As Glenn states Bush tells Comey to fix whatever needs fixing to get his signature, that hardly seems the actions of a wanton criminal as so many here want to describe Bush. Nor was Comey pressured, by his own admission.

* Here's the transcript, read the whole thing before making any stupid accusations based on conveniently edited versions....

http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/comey.transcript.pdf

Your first point: There is no statute requiring the AG to sign off. Follow this logic and the President is king without restraint.

OK fine, you decided not to read the whole transcript and are making stupid accusations. Comey stated specifically there was no statute. Whether he or Ashcroft refuse to sign is meaningless. Don't like it? Sue.

Something happened that made a die hard Bushie loyalist so blanche that he said "Enough" and repeated that assertion while incoherant in a hospital bed with his wife by his side. Hmmm I wonder what changed his mind?

Your word, "incoherence". Do you think that with a deadline coming up Ashcroft would just say "no thanks" when asked to sign without discussing it with someone other than Comey? How is it that only Comey has this insight into why Ashcroft would do something out of character?

Comey made it clear that Ashcroft ordered him not to sign off, refused to sign off himself, and on his hospital bed refused to sign off on Card and Gonzo's order and directed them to speak to his (according to you) rebellious context changing Asst. A.G. What part of "No" don't you understand?

Exactly. From out of nowhere comes this change of heart. Sorry, I don't buy it. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth. On something this big, one would think he'd have something to say about it.

I'm sure if Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neil had rushed into Ronald Reagan's hospital room shortly after he was shot and heavily medicated (as was disoriented Ashcroft) to get him to sign off on a bill retracting his tax cuts, you, Shooter would be the first to call George Bush I for being a thug for stopping them.

Bless your heart. You can't help it can you. You're trying to reconcile something uncharacteristic for Ashcroft with another person's assertion. Sorry bud, I'm not taking Comey's word for anything. He is after all the guy that brought in Fitzgerald to lay perjury traps in the already resolved Plame investigation. Yes I know, that makes him your hero.

Point 5: Glenn can't tell us what the White House is still successfully keeping hidden. Therefore he must be lying.

More precisely, noone can tell if he isn't. Ordinarily one has some evidence when making accusations, but as usual, IOKIYAD.

Yeah, that's the ticket! If I kill someon and hide their body and the murder weapon then I must be innocent.

As far as I know, that's exactly right. Habeus Corpus and all that. But I thought you said you were a lawyer. No?

I then, using my Decider Guy hat order that they immediately make the changes, rendering me incapable of doing anysuch thing, to make things legal.

This is the perfect example of why liberals can never be happy. Not only does Bush accept the DAG's view that it's not something he can sign off on, he asks that changes be made to ease his legal objections. Now this is your hero were talking about making changes, not Bush. Because you folks are incapable of recognizing any actions that might mitigate your hatred, it's not worth Bush worrying about what ever you have to say.

You can't be pleased, so why bother trying. A sensible approach to fanatics.

Comey's refusal to address a secret program is not a denial of everything Glenn, I and soon, so many others have read.

LOL. It's certainly not an affirmation, leaving you two to howl like the junkyard dog, restrained by the chain of ignorance. Tsk.

Steve Allen wrote about about this type of illogic called "Dumbf." You might want to read it.

No need, I'm witnessing it in action.

If you have to ask that question, you've got bupkis. Rather than point out rank hystrionics, mention that the HERO Ashcroft is also the EVIL Ashcroft that signed off on the program from the beginning, or laugh at the idea of swooning declarations of vague impropriety, that's all that need be said.

Here's a suggestion.....You got a problem? See you in court.