IMPEACH THE COX-SACKER!

to totally fucking up peoples' lives and careers ... "playing god" in such an inexact "unscientific" manner ... just because they could ...

Aside from Plame, Fitzgerald's work on local corruption has been groundbreaking and long long long overdue from what I've read ... corruption is like dry rot, it sucks the life out of communities -- and as far as I'm aware Fitzgerald's work has had NOTHING to do with Republicans ...

No, SAY IT WITH ME, it wouldn't have been "illegal" for them to fire Fitzgerald, but -- as with the others --it would be extraordinarlly wasteful, breath-takingly capricious, and generally "suspect," a violation of the "good faith" that if you work hard and produce results, you get to finish what you've started.

Actually, I been thinking it's amazing the 8 so solidly resisted the pressure from "above" ... I suspect there will be books and quite possibly strong careers ahead ... too bad they're all republicans. Perhaps they will be the nexus of the New IMPROVED Republican party ... or they'll defect ...

Six degrees of separation, these 8 must have literally hundreds of friends and colleagues seething over how they were treated -- Rove boo-boo'd big time.

The headline makes it appear that Fitzgerald was being considered as one of the attorneys to fire. It's clear from the article that this was never the case.

Sensationalism does inflame, but it does not inform. Cherry picking the worst aspect of the story is the same as slanting it to intentionally mislead the reader. This is intellectual dishonesty, and does a severe disservice to those who strive for civil dialog.

I give high marks to Sampson. While I disagree with virtually all his opinions and judgements, I appreciate his candor and honesty. These qualities are so rare these days, we forget what it's like to have an open government. Sampson should be applauded, not castigated - even if we do end up reversing everything he and Gonzales' team did.

wasn't fired. This is in the "Have you ever thought of hitting your wife?" category.

Nice muckraking Salon.

I see no evidence that Sampson is being particularly candid. He almost stepped in it when he started to explain why he recommended Fitzgerald for firing. Then he "recovered" by saying he couldn't remember why. Of course he remembered. He just didn't want to reveal how despicable he is. And as for Miers and the others, I'm sure he's covering for them. They no doubt rendered an opinion but he's not going to say. They probably had enough sense to also cover themselves by pointing out the obvious -- firing Patrick Fitzgerald would have created a huge firestorm that the WH did not need on top of the Scooter Libby case. Sampson and so many other people in this administration have been drunk with power and they wanted to flex that power by smashing all the people they felt weren't loyal enough. I'm not positive that the firing of the 8 attorneys amounts to legal wrongdoing, but I do think it exposes the Bushies for what they really are - morally corrupt, elitist and power hungry. Government to them is an excuse to plunder and pillage and wreck political payback.

you've been beating your wife?

I'd say they're setting us up for gutting the Supreme Court. All of this will wind up in the SC, and Bush's handpicked team will pretend to decide on it but Bush has zero intention of paying attention to their determination. Afterall he could open up his graphic novel version of the Constitution would tell him the SC has zero enforcement power. That way one of the three branches of government is eliminated leaving the Executive Branch and precarious opposition in the Legislative branch.

the "when did you stop beating your wife?" approach. But your version says a lot about you.

"I give high marks to Sampson. While I disagree with virtually all his opinions and judgements, I appreciate his candor and honesty. These qualities are so rare these days, we forget what it's like to have an open government. Sampson should be applauded, not castigated - even if we do end up reversing everything he and Gonzales' team did."

Did this person actually watch Sampson?

Candor and honesty? The guy found it impossible to answer a question directly. He more likely than not could not remember, unless he was addressing something which was in the emails, and he was forced to.

Beware of people who claim to disagree with the Bushies, but post disingenious arguments in support of them.

Any fair minded person who watched Sampson's testimony and has an understanding of the English language, and human nature can figure out that Sampson's swiss cheese memory alone doesn't qualify him for a government job....as a janitor.

I only read the comments released yesterday and excerpts of the testimony today. I still stand by the fact that Sampson is showing candor - when compared with any other administration official who has testified (or even spoken publicly) in the last six years.

This guy has come straight out and admitted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons. He's bluntly stated that his former boss was incorrect when he denied his involvement. He's even admitted proposing firing Fitzgerald, if only quasi seriously.

This is far more plain truth and honesty than we've ever seen come out of W's government. If all of W's lackeys were so forthcoming, we wouldn't have to spend any time convincing anyone of their motivations. Imagine if these phrases had been uttered:

W: "There is no credibly threat of WMD's in Iraq. I invaded to try to show my Dad I could live up to his example."

Rumsfeld: "I never condoned torture in so many words, but I did purposely create an environment where that kind of behavior was permissable. I knew it was happening, and I did nothing to stop it."

Cheney: "The energy company heads have basically dictated the energy policy of the US government. We aren't interested in the environment, just business."

But these guys don't say these things, they just lie and lie and cover up the truth. Sampson's a lousy, lousy person to hold high office in the Justice Department, but at least he's got a measure of honesty. We should encourage that - it might make others come forward.

Does that make me a Bush supporter? Only if you think more openness and truthfulness supports Bush.