Letters to the Editor
-
The Middle Game
The WH holds on to A.G. until the Dems subpoena Rove, then offer A.G.'s head in order to get Rove out of it. The Dems need to go forward, get the subpoena of Rove, let A.G. step down, then follow through with Rove, breaking any deal the WH thought they had made. What would they cry? "You broke our deal!"?
-
See no Fredo, hear no Fredo...
I.e.: "I didn't see it, but I hear he did a good job." So W. lives in a bubble with a selectively permeable membrane. Not exactly breaking news, folks, but probably the most overt proof thereof yet. What's interesting is that I think W. had only one question for the people who told him about Fredo's testimony: "Did he rat me out?" Fredo, being loyal, didn't. Ergo, W. is pleased with the testimony. The rest doesn't matter.
I think, absent any actual proof, this is the closest we've got to an answer to the question: "Who ordered the firings of the eight U.S. attourneys?" Gonzales evaded it successfully, that's what he's good at, doing W.'s dirty deeds and then screening him out. That's his job. (I'm not saying anything new or unknown, I'm just stating the obvious.) The answer is, of course, "the President of the United States".
Maybe the Congress should dispense with the "antiquated and quaint" due process and waterboard the fuck out of Gonzales. He's a pathetic weakling, he'll crack instantly and then we'll know the truth.
-
This is, after all...
...the first completely faith-based Presidency. You just gotta believe, and simply don't need anything as mundane and worldly as objective EVIDENCE to back up your beliefs.
That would make you just another Doubting Thomas, and any good fundamentalist Christian wants to avoid THAT.
-
Bush watched the coverage on FOX
Obviously. It's been reported that Fox News is the only channel shown in the White House. I'm sure Brit Hume spun some right wing alternate reality in which Gonzo's testimony was a success.
Fox News isn't just Bush propaganda for the geriatric and poorly informed -- it's also how Bush's advisors and Rupert Murdoch keep Bush inside his bubble.
-
Which is it?
The President hopes Gonzales will remain Attorney General?? What the heck does that mean? The Attorney General is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The AG “serves at the pleasure of the president,” the phrase the White House is so fond of using. So unless he “chooses” to step down, is asked to resign by the President, or is convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, Gonzales isn’t going anywhere.
So which is it Mr. President? Are you concerned that you’ll fire him, he’ll resign or that he’ll be convicted of a crime?
-
Obviously
I think it's somewhat obvious (and predictable) that Bush's comments were written in advance of Gonzo's testimony. Rove probably told him to say it and he said it. The fact that such comments make him look bad hasn't stopped him before, and it didn't stop him this time.
-
A nagging question...
I continue to wonder; what is it that the Angry Left thinks it will accomplish by forcing a resignation of Alberto Gonzalez? Do you expect a change in policy by the Administration? If so, what?
I am always happy to make the case that there was no impropriety in the US Attorney controversy. But I feel no great personal or political loyalty to Mr. Gonzalez.
Anyway, I find it kind of funny that the Democrats are so worked up over the matter. Because I can't think of a single serious policy initiative that would change, with or without Alberto Gonzalez.
-
possibly honestly answer
"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer--honestly answer--in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Bush said.
I'm no expert on grammar, but it seems to me that Bush is saying a lot more than he means to. Bush first says that Gonzales answered every question that he could possibly answer. Then he clarifies with the phrase "honestly answer." The way it reads is that Gonzales answered every question he could possibly honestly answer. Presumably the ones he couldn't honestly answer, he simply said that he did not recall.
It shouldn't be the least bit surprising that the testimony increased Bush's confidence. Gonzales proved what a loyal Bushie he really is by taking a serious beatdown and not giving up any secrets. He told us nothing, and that was exactly what Bush wanted. I nominate Alberto Gonzales not only for a promotion and raise, but also for the Purple Heart for getting eviscerated by congress.
And let's remember that Bush didn't watch the coverage of Katrina, either. Maybe he just flips the channel when bad news comes on.
-
Management 101 Bush Style
The minions had no idea where or how the various US attorneys landed on the list, but they did their job.
Gonzo had no idea where or how the various US attorneys landed on the list, and didn't bother to find out, but he is sure that his staff were above-board and professional and that the attorneys who were fired deserved to be.
Bush has no idea what Gonzo said or did in his testimony, but he is sure that his AG is above-board and professional and honest.
Is there anyone managing ANYTHING in this administration who actually believes has a clue what their subordinates are doing?
-
If you could call this a strategy...
The best operational theory springs from events ensuing after the Watergate burglary. At the time, there was scant direct evidence of administration involvement; however there was a growing and reasonable inference that numerous individuals high in the administration were party to some shenanigans around electioneering. No one was talking, but collectively what they weren't saying (the omission of facts) began to take on a fairly coherent narrative. So what? Nixon was still Nixon, right? But as events developed, he was forced to give up political limbs Erlichmann, Haldeman, AG John Mitchell... ultimately exhausting so much energy on maintaining the charade that he was hamstrung from continuing to effectively enact policy.
Some here love to keep saying that this is a non-issue, no evidence of lawbreaking - seems to me that the grandiose level of obfuscation emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania is beginning to add up to what the old timers called circumstantial evidence. It's making me feel all nostalgic, I'll bet Mr. Leahy is similarly affected.