Shooter, just two little questions....

....Please be so kind and don't disappear on us again. I'm sure that many other people besides me would love to hear your answer.

I live to serve.

Do you, personally, believe that the esteemed AG, after all the time preparing for the hearings, was unable to remember the answer to 74 very simple and important questions?

No.

If your answer is no, why would you want a liar to remain AG?

Therein lies the problem, he may know the answer but it may not fit other testimony perfectly in all respects, opening him up to a charge of perjury. It's clear that all parties have determined before the hearing, that USAs serve at the pleasure of the President and may be replaced for whatever reason he likes. That being the case, it is also clear that this is a show trial put on for political purposes, one of which is trying to catch Gonzales in a perjury trap during the inquisition. As your questions demonstrate, there is no good answer. The lesson of Libby has been learned.

Fortunately, the previous administration has shown the way to deal with this situation. Rather than take the fifth, it is more advantageous to plead ignorance. The admitted master of manipulation has shown us the way in such matters......

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71

I don't know - 62

I'm not sure - 17

I have no idea - 10

I don't believe so - 9

I don't recall - 8

I don't think so - 8

I don't have any specific recollection - 6

I have no recollection - 4

Not to my knowledge - 4

I just don't remember - 4

I don't believe - 4

I have no specific recollection - 3

I might have - 3

I don't have any recollection of that - 2

I don't have a specific memory - 2

I don't have any memory of that - 2

I just can't say - 2

I have no direct knowledge of that - 2

I don't have any idea - 2

Not that I recall - 2

I don't believe I did - 2

I can't remember - 2

I can't say - 2

I do not remember doing so - 2

Not that I remember - 2

I'm not aware - 1

I honestly don't know - 1

I don't believe that I did - 1

I'm fairly sure - 1

I have no other recollection - 1

I'm not positive - 1

I certainly don't think so - 1

I don't really remember - 1

I would have no way of remembering that - 1

That's what I believe happened - 1

To my knowledge, no - 1

To the best of my knowledge - 1

To the best of my memory - 1

I honestly don't recall - 1

I honestly don't remember - 1

That's all I know - 1

I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1

I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1

As far as I know - 1

I don't believe I ever did that - 1

That's all I know about that - 1

I'm just not sure - 1

Nothing that I remember - 1

I simply don't know - 1

I would have no idea - 1

I don't know anything about that - 1

I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1

I just don't know - 1

I really don't know - 1

I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

I'm done with my days errands, any more questions? LOL.

I think being shooter must be a blast.

Oh yeah.

Since shooter is defending Gonzo, I'm going to assume that he feels Clinton's behavior was a-ok. Makes sense right?

Hardly. I can see you misunderstand. While Gonzales and Clinton have being investigated in common, that's as far as it goes. Gonzales hasn't done anything illegal. I invoke Clinton not to defame him, but praise him for recognizing the perjury trap and demonstrating how to evade it.

Consider that if there weren't DNA on the dress, Clinton wouldn't have been impeached. Mrs. Clinton on the other hand said "I don't know" some 250 times while being investigated, and it worked very well. She escaped any consequences of bad behavior.

So, if it works that well for the Clintons it's a good strategy for the innocent also. Cynical? Sure. But this is no different than the Libby investigation where no crime was committed regarding the nominal question of the investigation. As the posters demonstrate, as well as the inquisitors, this is a garden variety witchhunt. There is no purpose to this circus other than searching for a victim.

In all seriousness, no reasonable person fires someone just because an underling tells them to. Typically you build up a portfolio that illustrates performance issues, you have informal discussions, etc.

Again, hardly. You may recall mass firings with no portfolio, no performance issues. In the real world, such things would be done, but not in DC. Here, the USAs serve in anticipation of being fired. The only non-issue here is timing. That's not going to fly.

kovie....

But they're not. No one is. It's just taking longer than we'd all like to take them down because of the vast defensive infrastructure they've built and precautions they've taken to defend themselves against what they knew would be an eventual and likely intense attack.

Lord. Perhaps you folks should consider that trying to skewer Gonzales over something that ISN'T illegal is self-defeating. But that's OK by me, I sense the shark jump is in mid flight.

There literally isn't a single thing anyone can point out about a Republican that you can't bend over backwards to excuse.

Tsk. Sure there is, the problem is that the things I criticise about Bush are the things you folks approve of, and thus are never mentioned. Overspending and lax immigration policy are but two examples.