We've seen for six looooong years the precision with which the Bushies use language so as to appear to be saying one thing while actually saying another.

Gonzales is doing it here: he "would never politicize" the DOJ, and the reasons were not "improper." To my knowledge, he has never made the direct, unequivocal statement that the US Atty's were not fired for an unwillingness to toe the various political lines, as we think they were. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

See, here's the thing: Bush, Gonzales, Cheney et al. don't consider firing USA's for their lack of political purity improper, and in truth, despite all his efforts, Gonzales hasn't politicized the entire DOJ yet.

Ipso facto, presto-change-o, he's telling the truth.

Now see how easy that was?

...I'd love to see the MSM portray this as "they wanted the AG to go after adult filmmakers at the expense of pursuing paedophiles". That should get even the American wingnut dead-enders indignant at last.

Howard, a MUUUUCH too complex thought process for your average AWD-E. To the bulk of them, your quoted segment reads "porn=porn." After which reading, they'll go back to listening to Rush and Hannity et al. telling them that this whole thing is nothing more than a "Democrat witch hunt."

Besides, most of 'em think paedophiles are people who like bicycles...

Seriously, now that I'm through snarking, I despair of most Americans' ability to make this sort of distinction and then make the connection between this unseemly obsession with what total strangers do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and politicization and a loss of independence in the DOJ. It really is too complicated a series of analyses and links.

But bvernia's insider observations pretty much confirm what we've thought for a long time, didn't they?

"Mr. Gonzales, why did you need so much preparation time before coming before this committee, when you apparently know nothing at all about anything that's going on in the DOJ? And why can you, whose every trip to the toilet fer cryin' out loud is documented and written down, remember so damned little about anything that has happened since you took your current job?

And finally, Mr. Gonzales, in light of the two previous questions, what the hell are the American people paying you for?"

I'm just askin'....

Dear Right-wingers:

Y'all are nuts.

No, seriously - this is no longer a matter open to discussion. If you believe even one scintilla of what this loony tune Gaubatz is saying, you're crazy.

I mean, seriously - we here on the Left have some righteous wack jobs at our outer fringes. We don't like it, but it's in our makeup not to try to suppress them. Go figure - First Amendment, and all that. We just hope they won't make too much noise or get too much traction, but at least we KNOW they're wack jobs.

But your MAINSTREAM spokesdogs are buying into this kinda crap.

When are those of you who still have something resembling a ntenuous grasp o reality going to stand up and say, "Hey, they're not OUR wack jobs!"

This is gettin' scary, folks. No - never mind, it's already way INTO scary. This is the closest thing to a completely made up out of whole cloth conspiracy freak story I've seen in many a day - and in this era of relative truth, that's going some.

Never mind whether WE believe them - what you folks who call yourselves Republicans or conservatives or whatever rightist label you care to adopt should be asking yourselves is: why do YOU believe them?

And if you don't, when are you going to stand up and say so?

Poor Larry King. He used to be a really good interviewer, and even occasionally had something of substance to say on his own.

Of course, that was back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Today, every time he opens his mouth, he plunges ever deeper into political hackdom. It's really sad to see it.

I wonder if, when he made the "dearly beloved" remark, he knew he was lying - or if he really is that far out of touch with reality. No one really expects him to have the on-air cojones to ask GHWB a really tough question, or to say anything that might make the "beloved" ex-preznit uncomfortable, but I really wonder if he knew just how untrue the statement was.

Maybe they really DO have some kind of Kool-Aid...ya think?

I had to read through 11 SCREEN PAGES of these posts to discover that the one question no one has asked or answered is perhaps the most important question of all in this. Consider:

1) Preznit and wingnuts all say that USA's serve at the "pleasure of the Preznit", ergo no crime was committed by firing them for any reason (not quite true as we've seen in these posts, but for the sake of argument, let's accept the premise for a minute.)

2) White House and Gonzo swear WH was not involved in the firing of the 8 USA's

3) Bush can fire any USA any time he wants, again say the wingnuts.

BUT, based on the above statements:

4) The person or people who fired the 8 WAS/WERE NOT THE PREZNIT!!!!

So then - there are only two possible explanations for the events we're talking about here:

Either the Preznit DID authorize Gonzo or the DOJ to fire the USA's, since he's supposed to be the only one who has that authority, in which case the Preznit is unquestionably lying to say he had nothing to do with it, OR

Gonzo or someone else in DOJ arrogated the Preznit's power to fire USA's to him or herself without presidential permission, in which case it seems like maybe some little law or other was broken.

Why isn't this an important question to answer?

Why does anyone even bother to respond to this irrelevant moron any more? I mean, hell, they don't even like him in TEXAS these days!