You're ignoring the obvious, ob:

Whether I was ignoring it or considered it too obvious to merit mentioning is open to question. If he was to blame or not didn't seem to be the point to me--Bush seems oblivious such realities anyway.

The man is running for President. If he hadn't said anything, his supporters would have wondered why he hadn't said anything. That's why I wasn't critical of Bush's handling of the VT shootings. He bothed Katrina horribly, he wasn't going to ignore the next tragedy. Sure it makes it look like he cares more about the VT students than the residents of New Orleans (and probably does), but he had to do something more than nothing. I think it's unfair to say either man was "politicizing" the event. It's what presidents, and presidential aspirants do.

I haven't seen the video, but I've seen the screen shot that everyone is using. My first reaction was that it reminded me of Lee Harvey Oswald's famous pose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't people still trying to figure out what the hell was going on inside his head that day?

Having a column or a perch on the teevee does not necessarily translate to "respect and admiration." Surely you recognize that as well as anyone.

Savage, for one, is personna non grata on the teevee after his meltdown for MSNBC.

If one's status in the puditocracy is not measured by their tv perch and column syndication reach, how else is it measured, exactly? Bring up Michael Savage proves my point. He's not respected because of how he behaves. Just because he agrees with CK on this issue doesn't really make any difference. You could argue that CK is no Gearge Will, but I'd say that's splitting hairs. That's fine if you and your circle of friends have no respect for CK. I don't either, and neither do any of my friends. Nor does anyone I respect, for that matter. But if CK did not enjoy respect at the highest level of the Beltway gang, he would not be a Washington Post columnist, and would not be writing for Time.

Maybe you should read the full article and others' posts. CK writes for the Washington Post AND Time Magazine. That definitely puts him up there with the big boys.

I for one don't want to hear his answer. It will be just as evasive and frustrating as Gonzales' "testimony" today. Geez, he should've just taken the 5th. We wouldn't know any less at this point if he had, that's for sure. I kept asking myself, "How many more times is one of these senators going to have to say, 'That's not what I asked you.'?"

Not.

Any senator who intrduces bad legislation and turns around and says he wasn't aware of what he was putting up for a vote because one of his staffers wrote it, not him, would certainly be incompetent. Otherwise, your analogy couldn't be any more false. These firings weren't something being put before Congress for a vote.

The Attorney General's job is not analagous to a Senator's job.

ps--The actions of the Attorney General is every American citizen's business. His title is "Attorney General of the United States." Not "Attorney General of the Republican Party."

of indications, it's obvious now that Coburn calling for Gonzales' resignation indicates that Gonzales is gone. How's that for stating the obvious?

of the fact that he's obstructing justice and covering his ass.

Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'.

It's not hard for me to imagine that bin Laden wanted to dupe the Bush administration into launching fatal, pre-emptive middle east land war. He probably thought the Trade Center attack would be an excellent sucker punch. And Bush and the neocons fell for it. Of course, the fact that Bush already wanted to go into Iraq makes this theory somewhat implausible, but I don't see how bin Laden could have been aware of Bush's intentions at the time. You know, unless one of his family members told him.

It was Coburn, not Cornyn. I'm an idiot.

hearing John Cornyn voice is support for Gonzales' removal may be the most shocking thing I will hear out of this hearing all day.

back to Gonzales by a senator?

"But that's not what I asked you..."

that scandals and hearings like this erode the public confidence in government overall, not just in the DOJ. The Republicans will probably lose this battle, but in the grand scheme of things, it serves their broader purpose of eroding public confidence in government. This hearing bad for Gonzales and bad for them in a micro sense, but good for Republicans in a macro sense. They WANT folks to be disgusted and give up becuase it gives them greater leeway in undermining our system of government and constitution.

"Gonzales and the Bush Whitehouse in charge of DOJ isn’t like the fox guarding the henhouse, it’s more like the termites in charge of the treehouse."

when you're watching, listening to, or reading someone who's really, really smart, and you think to yourself, "Wow, this guy's really, really smart." I don't get that feeling listening to and watching Alberto Gonzales.

This hits the nail on the head. There's better reason to fire Gonzales, than those 8 prosecutors.

If you have iTunes, go to the “Radio Tuner” part on the left, open “Talk/Spoken Word” and double click on KPFK.

I'd hate to have a job where I had to remember important things.

That Bush never fires ANYBODY. How many folks should he have fired for performance reasons over the last six years? I've lost count. But he wanted THESE guys fired for VERY shakey reasons. VERY shakey.

I had trouble accessing the cspan website on my computer, but found a radio simulcast via itunes on KPFK.