Captain's Quarters -

The President has been in an out of control state of panic since returning from South America. First he tells Snow to lie about Harriet Mires and then lie about Alberto’s involvement in the matter. Bush is completely out of control. It seems to me he has no reason to lie. And telling clumsy lies makes matters much worse. I think the President can fire anyone he or his predecessors appoint. So why tell all the lies? Particularly the obvious lies! Just say I have the right to fire these folk for whatever reason I want. By telling lie after lie after lie he has created the impression in many that he is hiding something bad. He is helping the Democrats big time! The last 2 weeks the President has just lost it. Maybe it was the knowledge that Nance was going to win her vote on Iraq. I do not know but Bush is just scared to death and acting in a total state of panic; without thinking about what he does or says.

but again, you (and Mr. Buckely) are judging a little too swiftly, and basing it on much of the MSM interpretations.

which has also served Conservatives very poorly...

quick reactions to the MSM presentations of Katrina, the Dubai Port Deal, the Mission in Iraq, the Israeli incursion into Southern Lebanon, etc., have been a weak point for Conservatives.

instead of reasoned basis, judging carefully the evidence, some Conservatives reacted just like the Liberal 'Emotives'.

Mr. Buckley has been stuck on questioning the Bush Administration for some time. Truly he is a personal hero of this poster.

He is correct, incompetence or deceit is unwanted, but in context of a political witch hunt, there is a certain level of tolerence to consider.

For example, part of being Conservatives, we believe politicians, government, are bound to be flawed because of human nature, and want smaller Government.

So if it turns out, the AG made a few errors, relying on poor guidance from his assistance, in the face of a clear unethical witch hunt, he should be given a chance.

Now, if he, after a some time and considered, serious review, is revealed personally to be 'in above his head', he should be removed.

But right now, the smoke is too rich with political poison, and instead of reasoned calm, some seem to be allowing their cynical nature with the current establishment (the Bush Administration), guide their mindset.

Can't speak for WFB, but I'm basing this one on the memos. They pretty much speak for themselves.

WFB - "At present, the investigators want to focus on the question whether one or more U.S. attorneys were discharged simply because they were doing their duty, and that duty included refusing to speed up the prosecution of various Democrats."

This is the heart and soul of the matter. Are you Bush supporters saying that Bush can fire the prosecutors for this reason alone?

We need to quit all this pussyfooting around. The reason why the US Attorneys were fired was all part of the plan to misuse the prosecutorial powers of the government for partisan purposes. This was Rove's cockeyed idea that they could use selective US prosecutions to defeat Democrats in close elections, as they tried to do with Menedez in New Jersey. This might have been clever electoral politics, as was the Swift boating, and others of Rove's brainstorms. Well, nothing all that wrong about dirty politics- it's a long and sometimes entertaining part of the nation's history. But in the matter of the US Attorneys, these amateurs crossed over the line into serious law breaking, and may have been guilt of misprision of felony in obstruction of justice, which rhymes with high crimes and misdemeanors, which rhymes with impeachment. Forget any attempts to cover this up- in this case, the cover up pales in importance with the crime they may have been committed here in subverting the rule of law. We're not talking about shenanigans in the White House corridors with someone young enough to be your daughter. As it happened, some of the Republicans who led the charge against the Prevaricator- in-Chief were also screwing around with youngsters they threw over their wives for. A lot of good old fashioned hypocrisy there- and good theater. But this thing with the US Attorneys isn't some side show. It could be for keeps.

thanks for the note mighty Captain...

i will review more slowly again...

and fully view the email transcripts as you have thoughtfully.

in my haste, i even spelled 'tolerance' wrong, so i have empathy for those who are imperfect, but correct on sound policy.

the minor vs. the major is a personal focus.

regardless, i don't doubt you, as you and MR. WFB are the finest in my book.

although, i advise a slower approach, because i feel the MSM slant has tainted the affair.

in a former personal experience, a business environment, emails did not provide a full picture, neither did video clips of meetings.

but i will review again...

thanks...

best wishes to the FM.

Buckley is a paleo who does not like Bush any more than the liberals do.

I understand what you are saying about the memos, but I am saying that they maybe taken out of context and it would be nice if bloggers and columnists would not help the Democrats do their dirty work.

There is too much at stake now to waste time and energy on this nonsense.

Captain:

You asked what else the meeting could have been about? What makes you think this is all they had to discuss?

I am sorry, but I have worked in a large company for years now and lots of things get discussed at meetings and lots of things get passed on without the boss having all the details, but in my job I have never seen anyone raked over the coals for such a nitpicking silly set of reasons.

There is no way Gonzales can prove to people what he did or did not know. There is no way he can undo this, but I know this...most of the people who are making an issue of this have screwed up at one time or another in their lives without millions of people analyzing everything they may or may not have done or said or written etc.

I am disappointed in the right, again. They are going to throw Gonzales to the wolves.

The whole purpose of this is to get to Rove so that they can get him under oath and we can do some remake of the Plamw/Wilson affair. It is ridiculous.

So even Texas crony Johnny Sutton was brought into the loop? I wonder if he earned his political position after pleasing Bush with his prosecution of the border patrol.

My understanding is that a lack of concern over immigration enforcement is what cost one of these attorney's a job.

Oh what the hell, I am sure the Democrats appreciate the help from the paleos and perfect.

Aside from Robert, above, no one is alleging anything illegal happened. It does look like the folks in the DoJ expected some political repercussions, and that A.G. Gonzales handled them badly, but all that really doesn't matter.

The Republicans are letting themselves get sucked into another phony scandal, not unlike the Wilson-Plame nonsense, only this time they've got self-righteous peacocks like Sen. Leahey (sp?) and Sen. Schumer to strut before the cameras and threaten "another Watergate."

Enough already! Mr. Gonzales should have had enough sense to stop the firings, knowing there would be opportunistic Democrat vultures waiting to pounce at the slightest excuse, but he didn't. Now it's time to STFU and stop talking to the Congress and to the press, let the supoena issue go to the courts, if necessary, and get on with the real business of the country.

If I may repeat my comments from the previous thread:

Captain, do you realize what's happening? You and others are falling right into the Democrats' trap, arguing over timelines, e-mails, the meaning of 'involved in the process', etc., etc. That's what they want--to get us bogged down in accusations and trivia, and to impugn the entire administration, keeping it on the defensive. . .

It doesn't matter whether the White House was involved in the firings. . . These are political appointees who can be fired for any reason whatsoever, including this reason: The White House wants them gone.

/Mr Lynn

I think Terrye has a good point, and share some of Terrye's concerns...

Reading Mr. Buckley's piece in total, i am not certain about his basis...

Questions after a more complete review:

1. Are you certain AG Gonzales made this meeting, which was scheduled in Nov? Do we have confirmation he was there?

What did AG Gonzales do this on this day?

* you can see his speeches for the month here:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches.html

November, 2006

* Transcript Of Panel Discussion Hosted by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales for National Methamphetamine Awareness Day (11-30-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the U.S. Air Force Academy Regarding Civil Liberties and the War on Terrorism (11-18-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Portrait Unveiling of Former Attorney General John Ashcroft (11-17-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Press Conference Announcing the Memorandum of Understanding on Ballistics Information Sharing (11-16-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Ninth Annual United States-Canada Cross Border Crime Forum Lunch (11-16-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the Buffalo Border Visit Press Conference (11-14-06)
* Transcript of Press Conference with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and European Union Officials on Agreement to Improve Efforts to Fight International Crime (11-07-06)
* Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales at the �Operation Falcon III� Press Conference (11-02-06)

*** Certainly, the AG is focused on Policy Decisions, and delegates authority. Not necessarily a sign of incompetence, although you could question the approach. Clearly, the AG is responsible for managing the department.

Gonzales stated:
"Mr. Sampson was charged with directing the process to ascertain who were weak performers, where we could do better in districts around the country. That is a responsibility that he had during the transition. We worked with respect to U.S. attorneys and presidential personnel at the White House. That was the role that he had when he was in the counsel's office. That was the role that he had when he was at the Department of Justice under General Ashcroft and so naturally when questions came up with respect to the evaluation of performances of U.S. Attorneys it would be Kyle Sampson who would drive that effort."

Gonzales was confirmed by the Senate in FEB. 2005, and had plenty of time to be involved. But it is possible he did not discuss specific removals, or review specific memos. (He could be relating his experience correctly).

It does seem curious, one would believe he would at least be briefed on the Attorney removals, prior to their dismissal.

But it would not be uncommon, if the Administration trusted Mr. Sampson without any question, to allow this Official to manage the replacement of some Attorneys around the Nation. Of course, this is foolish, if the one you trust is not worthy of your trust.

The Department clearly believed they had this power without question, which seems to have relaxed the need to provide the overt proof for just cause.

2. What was Gonzales focused upon at the time?

* Was he focused upon the GWOT?
* Some larger focus like Wiretaps, Homeland Security, etc.?

3. How does AG Gonzales define his position?

* as department CEO, interpreting the President's Policy, for major pubic relations, as a political figure, etc...

So far, much more has to be reviewed.

I saw this report and it seems to me that is covers the basics without the hystrionics. I don't think Gonzales lied and I thnk people need to ease up on this.

I remember when Reno replaced all those lawyers back in the 90's. She said it was to replace them with people whose views were in line with the administration. And that seemed to be acceptable, back then. Only in today's hyper partisan hyper critical atmosphere everything is out of proportion.

I suppose we will have an investigation and people's lives will be ruined and the president will be damaged while he is dealing with the Iranians in the end people will not that there was no underlying crime. Oh well.

You know people talk about competence, but I remember reading about the job the Coast Guard did in NO after Katrina and it turns out the NG did a better job keeping order in that Super Dome than people knew, but these people will never get credit for what they did right because giving them credit means we interrupt the narrative of Bush incompetency. And that is what this is all about. Creating a narrative. Whether it is Katrina, Iraq, the WOT or nonscandals like this...it is all about creating a buzz, a mindset. The reality is secondary.

Ever notice how when Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Deminici all complain about prosecutors, the only one who is said to be "caught up" in the firings is the Republican? Narrative.

I'm a lawyer, not a politician -- and a Democrat, not a Republican -- so please feel free to discount what I say. But this thing reeks.

When I help witnesses prepare to testify in a deposition or at trial -- much more mundane than the USAG testifying to Congress -- I enlist associate lawyers and paralegals to gather and review all relevant documents. That document collection effort invariably includes the witness's personal calendar and phone logs. Based on this extensive review, we work with the witness to assure that s/he won't leave anything out. This protects both the witness and the organization against memory lapses -- as best we can. The point isn't to manufacture testimony, but to minimize error.

In this context, it's gobsmackingly ridiculous that Alberto Gonzales could conceivably stand up and say things that are so obviously false. Seriously, kids, this is really nuts. And when I see such obvious dysfunction, I start telling my partners that there's just no telling how bad it's ultimately going to be. If you think you've seen the worst, you're almost certainly wrong. The level of hackery required to sustain these screwups has almost certainly spawned many others.

The important thing here is to get out in front of this. Instead of denial, the correct response for Republicans should be aggressive disclosure. If you aren't leading the parade you're cleaning up behind the elephants.

'm a lawyer, not a politician -- and a Democrat, not a Republican -- so please feel free to discount what I say. Rockfish

Two strikes against you right out of the gate...

The important thing here is to get out in front of this. Instead of denial, the correct response for Republicans should be aggressive disclosure. If you aren't leading the parade you're cleaning up behind the elephants.

Nice "bait & trap" tactic there Rockfish. Do you have anything of relevance to say here, or do you simply enjoy reading about yourself while attempting to have an intellectual conversation with us "kiddies".

"Seriously kids, AG is saying things that are so obviously false." Let me tell you how I handle these situations in my office...

How freakin pompous are you? Provide your support for these claims, or they are just "your words". As much as you seem to be in love with yourself Rockfish, we provide back-up for our words here when debating or making claims. Furthermore, if your back-up has already been discussed on prior threads, you are not likely to get many from this community willing to rehash old claims with you.

Okay, Keemo. I'm a pompous prick. I'll stipulate to that. Or whatever else floats your boat. I don't see how that helps you, but "Rockfish" is perfectly willing to be disreputable, because, after all, "Rockfish" is just a sceen name.

So, maybe we could just address the merits?

One thing Buckley states that if accepted changes the arguement. That is that the President must have a justifiable reason for the firing. Not so. Clinton fired a US Attorney who was investigating White Water. Congress does not have the authority to tell the executive branch how they operate or with whom. While he hires with the advice and concent of the Senate, he fires for what ever reason or no reason he so chooses. They are polical appointments and they are polical dismissals. They serve at the whim of the Preeisent.. Alway have and always will.

Alberto who?

WFB asks,

This is the heart and soul of the matter. Are you Bush supporters saying that Bush can fire the prosecutors for this reason alone?

Yes.

And if I presume "The View" is a human sacrifice cult, then their preproduction meetings become sinister; the absence of any transcript of their rehearsals, diabolical; their failure to prove Barbara Walters did not read a Black Mass over Rosie O'Donnell, the smoking gun; their reliance on my failure to offer anything but calculations of probability, absurd.

Can you prove you didn't view the .doc file at CPAC? You have ties to this Administration as well, Ed. Please clear your name by demonstrating you couldn't have used somebody else's computer to send emails we haven't read for a discussion with no record beyond the memory of people we'll call liars anyhow.

I can accuse Mother Teresa of felonies--and if I can't prove it, I can spit on her for her incompetent handling of me, that let me suspect and accuse her without result.

That's responsible civic participation? I'd prefer apathy.

And who would accept the competence of the AG if Gonzales really had no idea how his own department drew up a list of federal prosecutors for termination? What Cabinet officer would have so little interest in how his underling fired presidential appointees?

Oh please.

He delegated. He wasn't involved in the process of actually checking the records of the attorneys and deciding which ones should go and which should stay.

I mean, really, I don't think he meant that he would never know anything about it. After the decisions were made with whatever documentation necessary to back up those choices he could sign off on it and pass it along to Bush.

There was also the question of how to handle it politically, how to talk to the states about what was happening and why. Another process that would get the political wing involved.

Go ahead, listen to Buckley, he's another who loves to eat his own at the first sign of whatever.

It's idiots like you who are helping us to lose this war. Throw Gonzalez to the wolves and paint a target on the next victim's back.

Purity. Perfect conservatives. Aren't you proud you're not human.

Rockfish:

Yes, I can tell you are a lawyer. So tell me, what do you think of Sandy Berger's story that he was just taking the classified information home for review and accidentally cut some of it up? Oh yeah, big fat D behind the name, presumption of innocense.

Are there 110,000 people working in your office? Have you read all their email and all their correspondence on everything?

For all you know this process began before Gonzales ever got to Justice and he never said he was unaware of the process. He just said he had not gone over every memo and all documents, etc. And what difference would it have made anyway? This is not a crime.

And the administration put the documents out there for people to see as well. There has not been an effort to hide this material.

So I think you are the one who is making a big deal out of nothing and you are doing it for partisan reasons. Since you get to decide that Gonzales is lying, then I get to decide you are just a partisan hack. Why not?

Later this morning on:

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former U.S. Attorney H.E. "Bud" Cummins.

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Former U.S. attorneys David Inglesias and John McKay; Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Some regular "This Administration Can Do No Wrong" posters at Just One Minute have appointed themselves as an intervention team to cure Captain Ed of what they see as a dangerous tendancy to express an opinion that varies from the official GOP line.

Don't let them get to you, Ed. There are any number of blogs which dutifully regurgitate the "talking points" of the hour. What is needed is more thoughtful conservative opinion, not more people shouting the same points. Inside the echo chamber, everything is going well; on the outside, voters are turning away from the Administration's brand of conservatism.

Some will say Gonzales should have anticipated charges of lying based on taking portions of his answers out of context and said something like the following ...

1. I had some discussion about setting up the process to select for dismissals;
   
2. I had no discussions about actually selecting for dismissals;
   
3. I had a discussion about signing off on the results of the process to select for dismissals.

Gonzales:

"I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers - where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew," Gonzales said last week. "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.”

WaPo (and AP and NY Times):

“a disclosure that contradicts Gonzales's previous statement that he was not involved in "any discussions" about the dismissals.”

Reno fired all and that's quietly considered justified.

Gonzales fired 8 and the world goes wild for Rove.

Obviously if Gonzales had fired them all this ridiculous 'scandal' would never exist..

I am not self appointed anything, but I started voting Republican because the Democrats were just not capable of seeing anyone other than a Republican as the enemy. Would Webb stand up the Iranians like Ed thinks we should? NO...Would Leahy keep terrorists locked up away from the civilian population? NO...Would Pelosi stand up to the terrorists in Iraq? NO. Their enemy is Bush, they don't even register the terrorists as anything other than a nuisance. As Pelosi said, Iraq is not a war to be won, it is a problem to be solved.

Catering to these people by going after administration officials on trivial semantics and trumped up charges is self defeating and stupid.

Just listen to them on the Sunday talk shows today, no doubt they will have fun today pretending they walk on water and getting all indignant and outraged as if they themselves were never involved in anything so BAD in their lives. What sanctimonious self serving crap that is.

I know how the operate, I was one for most of my adult life.

I just do not want to see conservatives helping the Democrats to go after the Bush administration, they won't respect them for it, they will just think they are naive.

I saw the following post at Macsmind written in response to Buckley. {who btw abandoned Iraq before many of the Democrats did... next thing you know Buchanan will be in on the judge jury and executioner thing.}

While I know he is the “dean of conservatism”, he is quite wrong in this assumption of “malfeasance” as are others on the right who seemed in lockstep with the insanity of the democrats who insist on a crime present that could not possibly be there.

First no matter what the emails say, don’t say, or whatever, they do not show any instance of illegality, nor anything out of the ordinary for White House communications. Fact is that those who are “oohing and aahing” over their details seem competely ignorant to the nature of the type of communication that takes place in Government.

To the amature investigator they’re content may sound ominious, but from my informed eye there is absolutely nothing I see that even suggests an impropriety or some evil scheme, and yes I have been sifting through them as well. As I said before, rather than show some sinister scheme they show a carefulness that is completely mind-boggling. It’s almost that they were too careful that the prosecutor replacements were accomplished to have the least effect on all those involved.

Hell, at least they weren’t given a scant ten days to clear out.

You can call Gonzales a confused soul or idiot and maybe even President Bush a “criminal mismanager” (sounds personal on the part of WFB imo), but the fact is that nothing seen so far needed to come to where it’s at today.

On the fact that the administration didn’t handle the press portion of the operation correctly we can agree, but then PR has never been a Bush administration strong point. Nevertheless to give the Democrats the scalp they want will do nothing but open the flood gates, because as I said on the show today they won’t be happy until they have impeached President Bush.

While even that act would cause no shed tears on some conservatives - especially on the far right - because of immigration issues, Harriett Miers, etc, nevertheless it’s time to stop kow-towing to Democrats who are in no position to throw stones in regards to corruption or ineptness.

What we are watching is a story that has grown far beyond the original script, on the par of a plant growing from a pebble. Grown in large part with the meme enabling of those on the right who have jumped on the happy-juice bandwagon with the Democrats.

Buckley didn't "abandon" Iraq; he opposed the invasion from the beginning.

You don't like the policies of the Democrats? Vote against them; I do. But I'm not going to accept incompetent and deceptive leadership from a Cabinet official just because his resignation would please Democrats.

As for the "Clinton fired 93 of them" argument, he did that when he took office -- when he gets to appoint federal prosecutors. They didn't try to excuse it by pretending it had to do with supposedly poor performance of the USAs, nor did they offer a carousel of justifications for it. None of them, by the way, were mid-term firings of his own appointees.

Gonzales told us on March 13 that he saw no memos and was not involved in any discussions regarding the terminations of these prosecutors. Now we see that he chaired a meeting on "US Attorney Appointments" on November 27th, days after his staff circulated the list of attorneys to be fired and the political process the DoJ was to follow in accomplishing the task. Either he lied, or he forgot, but one thing is very true -- he never bothered to check his own records before making that assertion of non-involvement.

It's that kind of incompetence that has turned this into a debacle. Had he done what Bush did with the NSA surveillance plan, there would have been nothing left but the gripes of a few Democrats.

Tell me somthing Starfleet, did the morning shows ever do any interviews with the US Attorney looking into Whitewater who Reno fired, along with about 90 other people who were given 10 whole days to clean out their desks? Any time given to them to discuss how badly they were treated? I guess these attorneys will be the new Joe Wilsons and Val Plames won't they? What crap.

Well one thing about it, most people don't watch those shows anyway so they can preen and posture all they want to a little bitty audience.

Captain, I think you are misrepresenting what Gonzalez said when you take out of context and focus on the phrases "not involved in seeing any memos" and "not involved in any discussions about what was going on". In the context of his complete remarks, he means with respect to the selection of the particular attorneys to be replaced, he was "not involved" in selecting those attorneys.

Remember, at that point he was responding to the claim that the terminations were politically motivated and came from the White House, i.e. he was responding to the claim that someone in the White House identified specific attorneys who were either prosecuting too many Republicans or not enough Democrats and ordered them replaced.

This is a wholly manufactured scandal created by the Democrats in Congress and supported and fed by their stooges in the media (or is it the other way around?). There is no evidence that anyone was fired improperly and certainly no evidence of any attempt to cover anything up.

Throwing Gonzalez to the wolves over this is simply playing into the Democrat’s hands and helps them solidify the Narrative that Terrye mentioned. Why do you wish to help them do that?

Ed:

I guess that is true re Buckley and Iraq.

He is like a lot of paleos who never liked the neocons.

However, I was thinking about an article he wrote a year or so ago stating that all was lost in Iraq. Maybe it was longer ago than that even, and much was made of how Bush had lost his base. I remember thinking, since when was Buckley part of Bush's base? The same could be said for George Will. I don't think I have heard him say many kind things about Bush or his administration either. These people are columnists not politicians or officials. Like those of here {including me}, all they have to do is talk. They don't really have to do the job.

Rather than focusing only on the firing of the U.S. attorneys and how that was mishandled, the crux of this scandal really revolves around the politicization of the Department of Justice, particularly in how some U.S. Attorneys were urged to pursue cases that had an impact on U.S. elections regardless of the merits of the charges. I've previously mentioned the example of how the U.S. attorney for New Jersey made public an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) right before last fall's elections that was based on very dubious evidence as it turned out. There have also been instances of U.S. attorneys being pressured to pursue cases in New Mexico and Washington State that had partisan motivations from elected and GOP party officials as well.

The basic principle involved here is that U.S. attorneys have the power to independently investigate and bring charges. When this independence is compromised by partisan politics, it corrodes the trust placed in the justice system. All those here carping about the fact that the President can hire and fire attorneys at will might want to think carefully about what motivates such actions. It wasn't just a coincidence that the midnight insertion of that clause permitting the President to bypass Senate approval of U.S. attorney nominees was then used to appoint U.S. attorneys more to the Bush administration's liking, and that such an act would also put other U.S. attorneys on notice to go along with a more partisan agenda to get along with Karl Rove.

Ed:

I am sorry, but it seems to me that we are reading the same words and seeing something different. Gonzales never said that he knew nothing or was unaware of anything to do with this, he was talking about the process etc. That is not a lie. He might very well not be talking about the same thing you are.

And yes, the 93 do make a difference. These was initially discussion of firing them all this time, but the administration did not. Perhaps they should have fired all them earlier, then this whole silly thing would not be an issue.

starfleet:

What??? These people are political appointees, that is what they are. If you don't like that, make them civil servants.

And obviously Gonzales was aware these people were being fired because the administration wanted to get rid of them, he had to sign off on it.

Sheesh. I feel like I am in the movie Casablanca and Claude Raines is telling me he is shocked, shocked, there is gambling in this establishment.

Terrye, if you have actually read the emails (including those released late Friday), can you honestly claim that the AG was being truthful and forthright in his public comments?

The important thing here is to get out in front of this. Instead of denial, the correct response for Republicans should be aggressive disclosure. If you aren't leading the parade you're cleaning up behind the elephants.

True Rockfish, unless an aggressive disclosure of the actual truth (rather than a pile of misleading spin to keep those with shovels busy) leads to the revelation of some high crimes and misdemeanors in the White House itself. I don't think we can discount that possibility now, and the longer Gonzales stays the more likely there's more to this than just the Attorney General's failure to communicate with Congress. I don't think it's at all coincidental that the DoJ liaison to the White House (and thus Karl Rove), Monica Goodling, is on an indefinite leave from her job since last Monday.

This scandal is eroding the justice system?

Not that is matters to anyone but what was in Sandy Berger's pants pretty much turned the entire justice system into crap.

Lawyers... they can speak to unborn fetuses, create legalize through which same-sex activity will result in children birth, allow the dead the right to vote, rationalize that the word illegal holds the same meaning as legal and milk billions of dollars all in the name of justice; Who needs to abide by the law when the National Lawyers Guild is in charge of justice?

WFB - "At present, the investigators want to focus on the question whether one or more U.S. attorneys were discharged simply because they were doing their duty, and that duty included refusing to speed up the prosecution of various Democrats."

Me: "This is the heart and soul of the matter. Are you Bush supporters saying that Bush can fire the prosecutors for this reason alone?"

Rocketman: "Yes"

Well, okay then. Assuming there is no actual crime here, then using the apparatus of the State to harass the opposition political party is "just politics". Would it not also follow then that raising as high a stink as possible about that harassment is also "just politics"? And hence should play itself out according to the skill of the players involved?

I don't know if harassing poilitical opponents with the DoJ is a crime or not. It "feels" like it should be illegal because we see the nasty result of such action in every dictatorial banana republic around the globe. It also plays into the tribalism that pits opposing groups at each other in increasingly violent ways. I thought we, the US, were better than that.

Isn't Buckley one of those Country Club Republicans who drove Jews, blacks, women, poor, non-Protestants, out of the Republican Party many a decades ago?

This is my first time to post here. I'm disappointed when reading your position regarding Gonzales.

From what I have read so far, Gonzales followed the standard operating procedures. I did not see where Gonzales lied or showed ineptitude or incompetence in his job performance. In managing a very large group, Gonzales is not required to know everything that's going on under him.

I agree that we should not accept either in the office of the highest-ranking law enforcement officer of the United States, regardless of whether he is a Republican or Democrat. America existed before the Bush administration, and it will exist after it, and we had better insist on a level of competence and/or honesty that exceeds what we're getting at the moment -- or else we will live to regret it in later adminstrations.

But by the same token, we expect our Congress to treat our public officers with integrity and high morals. Congress' performance and treatment towards our public officers in the last twenty years have been deplorable to the point where some people, such as Libby, have been indicted and convicted for a missing crime.

Gonzales may not be smart but he may remain a high ranking law officer with integrity and high morals but he was grilled the treatment from Congress that he does not deserve to get. The harder and longer he was grilled by Congress, the more "confusion" came out.

We are making a serious mistake by throwing Gonzales under the bus, rather than focusing on the process to prevent show trials from happening.

You say:

"You don't like the policies of the Democrats? Vote against them; I do. But I'm not going to accept incompetent and deceptive leadership from a Cabinet official just because his resignation would please Democrats."

I don't like the policies of the Democrats. So I vote against them. While I expect competent and non-deceptive leadership from a Cabinet official, I expect the same from Congress treating our Cabinet Officials!! Gonzales' resignation means that Bush will never be able to nominate anyone just as good or better than Gonzales. The Democratic Congress will not let him.

I thought we, the US, were better than that.

Evidently not, TWood:

City Police Spied Broadly Before G.O.P. Convention

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.From Albuquerque to Montreal, San Francisco to Miami, undercover New York police officers attended meetings of political groups, posing as sympathizers or fellow activists, the records show.

They made friends, shared meals, swapped e-mail messages and then filed daily reports with the department’s Intelligence Division. Other investigators mined Internet sites and chat rooms.

From these operations, run by the department’s “R.N.C. Intelligence Squad,” the police identified a handful of groups and individuals who expressed interest in creating havoc during the convention, as well as some who used Web sites to urge or predict violence.

But potential troublemakers were hardly the only ones to end up in the files. In hundreds of reports stamped “N.Y.P.D. Secret,” the Intelligence Division chronicled the views and plans of people who had no apparent intention of breaking the law, the records show.

These included members of street theater companies, church groups and antiwar organizations, as well as environmentalists and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization and other government policies. Three New York City elected officials were cited in the reports.

In at least some cases, intelligence on what appeared to be lawful activity was shared with police departments in other cities. A police report on an organization of artists called Bands Against Bush noted that the group was planning concerts on Oct. 11, 2003, in New York, Washington, Seattle, San Francisco and Boston. Between musical sets, the report said, there would be political speeches and videos.

“Activists are showing a well-organized network made up of anti-Bush sentiment; the mixing of music and political rhetoric indicates sophisticated organizing skills with a specific agenda,” said the report, dated Oct. 9, 2003. “Police departments in above listed areas have been contacted regarding this event.”

Such creeping politicization of law enforcement is something to be concerned about, Terrye.

Slightly OT, but illustrative of the liberal tendency to hive-think.

People in my car-pool started ranting about the firing of the USA's. I kept quiet until they got into the whole Bush = dictator crap, and then asked them why they did not get angry, and there was no investigation, when Reno turfed 93 of them.

Without missing a beat they started yelling about how "that's different." But then I asked how many of them had heard of the Clinton-era firings before I just mentioned them.

Nobody had. But in 20 seconds they were advancing arguments about the merits of them vs Bush's firings.

I didn't bother asking whether they were curious about why they had not heard of the historical fact of the Reno firings. Regardless of whether they can serve as a precedant or not, they are clearly a part of the overall story.

While they blather about Bush controlling information and blah blah blah, some guy at the AP or in the local paper's newsroom is deciding what they need to know, and what they don't, and they are just fine with it. And that's because that guy always tells them the part of the story that they want to hear, and leaves out all the parts that would make them have to think and doubt and evaluate.

By the way, these people love to tell me I have been "brainwashed" by the right-wing.

Gonzales' resignation means that Bush will never be able to nominate anyone just as good or better than Gonzales. The Democratic Congress will not let him.

Sure they would. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) gave former AG John Ashcroft his vote when Bush nominated him, which wasn't popular with a lot of Democrats but was justified by Feingold saying that the fact that he didn't agree with Ashcroft politically didn't mean that Ashcroft couldn't serve as an impartial AG when it came to enforcing the laws of the U.S. As it turns out, Feingold was right - Ashcroft did do the right thing when he recused himself from the case involving the outing of Valerie Plame and assigned Patrick Fitzgerald to it, which certainly didn't endear him to the White House (and perhaps was a reason for his stepping down after 2004). Feingold opposed Gonzales' nomination in 2005, BTW, and his vote against him looks very smart in retrospect.

Lukyer and Terrye are now joining Syl and Clarice ... all coming over from Just One Minute to discourage the Captain from straying from the official party line.

Some of us would rather disassociate ourselves from the occasionally unsupportable actions of this not-very-conservative Administration. Better to speak up than to hand the Executive Branch over to the other party - and their certain tax increases - in January '09.

Yet another case of ineptness and fumbling by the Bush administration. I've always thought Gonzales was quite glib and slick and never considered him especially savvy. He was a poor choice for the job. Bush's predilection for friends from the old days has bit him yet again.

Part of politics is to get it right. For so much of this second term, the Bush team keeps getting their politics wrong. I've got tired-head about them. I'll take 'em over any Democrat Executive Branch, of course, but I'm glad we'll (hopefully) be getting a new Republican team in there in a year and a half. I need the fresh air.

Captain Quarters seems to have strayed from the official party line already with his position regarding Gonzales and some of the other Cabinet Officials.

starfleet_dude, not this time around.

Part of politics is to do it right. The Democratic Congress is not doing it right.

Getting a new Republican Team isn't the right answer because the Democrats will continue with their shenanigans against the new Republicans unless we stand up to them between now til '09.

starfleet_dude, not this time around.

Why not? President Bush thankfully put ability over loyalty when he nominated Ben Bernanke to be Chair of the Federal Reserve, and that nomination sailed through the Senate. There's no reason to think Bush can't find someone who is a conservative who has a reputation for impartiality when it comes to justice.

The tide has changed. Schumer, Reid, and Leahy will make sure Bush nominates someone from their list and it won't be someone that met Captain Quarter's criteria as a high-ranking law officer with integrity and high morals and stand by our political policies.

There is also something else going on in the background to this story. Do read Mac Ranger for some hints and rumors.

"From what I have read so far, Gonzales followed the standard operating procedures. I did not see where Gonzales lied or showed ineptitude or incompetence in his job performance. In managing a very large group, Gonzales is not required to know everything that's going on under him."

If anyone watched Meet the Press this morning, they would have seen a good discussion about what the "problem" was with these firing. Granted, it was with two who were fired, but they made good points.

David Inglesias especially. His points out that there were very few US attorneys dismissed (outside of administration changes) over the years. And almost all of those were for misconduct purposes (one Clinton firing occurred because he bit someone -- the attorney, not Clinton).

Now, 8 were let go without and misconduct sited. Gonzales said they were let go because he "lost confidence" in them. When you couple all this with evidence that the administration was not happy with results of politically charged investigations... well, something went wrong here.

Yes, these attorneys serve at the discretion of the president (and AG), but that doesn’t mean they can’t misuse that discretion. When it seems these US attorneys were fired because their work in certain cases did not benefit the ADMINISTRATION, as opposed to benefiting the country, that’s cause for great concern.

overtaxed:

This has nothing to do with the party line. I just do not want to go through another Plame/Wilson circus only to hear in the end of it all, that golly gee there was no crime and the whole thing was a waste of time and accomplished nothing, except to ruin someone of course.

Captain has every right to his opinion, obviously this is his blog. But there are bigger fish to fry and this is political b.s. we should not be wasting our time on right now. That is how I feel.

No, I don't see a lie. I see people talking about different things. If you read the entire exchange rather than just taking selected sentences out of context and putting your own spin on them then AG's remarks are not at all sinister.

And starfleet, gimme a break. Did Bush use the state cops to find women for him?

Really.

And is it is just incompetence? I am beginning to think that the process is at much at fault as the individuals. I don't think it is possible to appear competent in this atmosphere. People are always looking for something to make an issue of. I doubt if any of us would look too swift under a microscope like this. And that makes me wonder who will even want to try in the future?

There is no proof that they abused the discretion.

These are also political appointments. Clinton replaced 30 after he fired 93 US Attorneys, btw.

Tom:

And following the Plame/Wilson narrative we have the dutiful government employees canned for not doing the dirty work of the Bushies.

Is there any evidence to back that up? Other than the views of the people who lost their jobs that is?

Reno fired those people because they wanted people who would follow the views of the Clinton administration. That is what she said.

Mountain, molehill....should have canned them all to get these 8 I guess.

Dave Inglesias's story is one-sided. Besides, did Clinton abuse the discretion by replacing 30 of those he fired.

After Libby and Gonzales, who wants to work as a Public Officer? The Federal government is going to have a hard time filling their positions with highly qualified people after this.

Terrye - It is unfortunate that your only criteria is whether or not a crime has been committed. Forget ethics, forget propriety, forget honest government. Your standards are a little too low for me.

From what I have seen, there was no crime committed. Gonzales was ethical and honest in the way he handled the firings of these 8 US Attorneys.

I am surprised that you mentioned ethics, propriety, and honest government. These are part of our own standards and that is what we expect of our public officers.

After all, Pelosi placed or considered the most unethical, dishonest people with pork-laden ideas in some of her committees: Murtha, Jefferson, Hastings.

This is in spite of her telling the public that she would run the most ethical, honest, and open government.

The bill Pelosi passed last Friday was a clear violation of the House rules adapted two months ago.

For the "Comrade Bush is always right!" crowd, anything is O.K. as long as you're a Republican.

It's funny how they don't see themselves as being exactly the sort of "useful idiots" that get taken advantage of by Karl Rove's brand of politics. The problem with such "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" politics is not that Karl Rove isn't Vince Lombardi, but that politics isn't just a game, it's how decisions are made about things like going to war. The reason the U.S. is in Iraq now has far more to do with stupid Republican partisanship than it ever had to do with genuine national security needs. Saddam Hussein could have been contained for the cost of $1 billion a year for 1,000 years given what the Iraq war will cost in the end.

This is not a Republican vs. Democrat debate. Not when you have 2 fired Republican US Attorneys, 2 Republican Senators and a number of usually-supportive conservative commentators taking the Administration to task on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Gonzales is being lied about. Perhaps Captain Ed is too trusting of media reports but the quotes he has used actually discredit his own take on the matter. Hindsight blindness on this issue is no excuse. To misapply the Gonzales answer on a specific point and claim it is deceitful when applied to the general issue may be standard operating procedure for partisan democrat operatives, but respected conservative bloggers should make an effort to get it right instead of trying to look like saints.

In hindsight one might wish Gonzales had expanded on his answer like so ...

(1) I had some discussion about setting up the process to select for dismissals;

(2) I had no discussions about actually selecting for dismissals;

(3) I had a discussion about signing off on the results of the process to select for dismissals.

starfleet, You sound like someone that no longer posts at AJStrata.

overtaxed, I posted here primarily to let Captain's Quarters know of my disappointment of his position regarding Gonzales. Let a number of usually-supportive conservative commentators taking the adm to task until they fully understand the big picture or fall into a trap that doesn't bode well for the future.

Opines Starfleet, "The basic principle involved here is that U.S. attorneys have the power to independently investigate and bring charges. When this independence is compromised by partisan politics, it corrodes the trust placed in the justice system"

My wife points out that this is an inherent conflict in the system. The USAs are political appointees, as is the Attorney General. So the entire investigative and prosecutorial side of the government is part of the Executive Branch, the head of which is the elected President.

Congress, as we see, can also investigate and put pressure on the Executive, but as we saw during the Clinton years, aside from Special Prosecutors, not much was done to oppose his people pursuing their own political ends.

Perhaps we really need four branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and Investigative. Or maybe, put the the Attorney General's office, and the entire Justice Department, under the purview of the Judiciary?

Anyone for a Constitutional Convention?

If not, let's forget about these eight attorneys and get on with the real business of the country—if the Administration would stop kow-towing to the Democrats and take the 'Kick Me' sign off its backside.

/Mr Lynn

"And following the Plame/Wilson narrative we have the dutiful government employees canned for not doing the dirty work of the Bushies."

Not exactly. Plame, who's life work was leading a double life in service of this country trying to chase down "loose nukes," which George W. has described as the greatest threat to our national security, had that work ended because her husband stated what he found on his fact finding mission to Africa, countering what the Bush administration claimed.

Rove even said, "she's fair game." That's absolutely true. Our government screwed one of their own, OUTED her has a CIA agent and ending her life's work in a political attack.

That is absolotely true. Technically a crime may not have been committed (Fitzgerald said he could not tell, in part because of Libby's obstruction), but, as in this case, the government absolutely acted incorrectly.

"These are also political appointments. Clinton replaced 30 after he fired 93 US Attorneys, btw."

lurkyer9876,

I looked into this. I assume you're referencing Rove's comment that Clinton appointed 123 attorneys during his 80 years. He did 93 at the beginining, thus that would be 30 left over.

BUT, I see no evidence that he REPLACED 30. I've found evidence that he replaced " three or four." 2 for blatent misconduct, 1 because he didn't get along with local officials. That person was replaced with Mueller, he served the first Bush one and later went on to lead the FBI.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001480.html?nav=rss_print/asection

Now, the only information I've found regarding the 30 that Clinton "replaced" is Rove saying he appointed 123 during his eight years.

Since I can't find anything else on this, I can just speculate. But it seems that during 8 years, attorneys will resign, which would require Clinton nominating some one to replace that person. That could very well be the case here.

So, I'll ask you lurkyer9876, do you have any evidence that Clinton REPLACED 30 after the initial 93?

"Perhaps we really need four branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and Investigative. Or maybe, put the the Attorney General's office, and the entire Justice Department, under the purview of the Judiciary?

Anyone for a Constitutional Convention?"

Whoever holds the office of president receives the RIGHT to nominate those who will hold the role of US attorney. This in no way means those appointees are beholden to the president.

The idea that people think it's OK for the president to fire one of these guys for political reasons is scary.

These attorneys are beholden to the US constitution. Political matters SHOULD NOT COME INTO PLAY. They seem to have here. That's the problem.

These appointees serve the US constitution and the people of this country. Seems the Bush administration believes they serve them.

That's the problem.

So far, I remain unconvinced...

Not that my opinion is important.

It is quite amusing to see liberal democrats on this comment section, try to do all they can to sway opinion to encourage the rejection of this Administration.

We have seen this on many message boards, blogs, etc., where Liberal Democrat Partisans actually have tried to pose as Conservatives to alter opinion.

It is a wonder if they don't work for MoveOn.org, Chuck Schumer's office, or are given orders by the Kos Kids.

Some more libertarian, isolationist, alarmist, protectionist, mindsets have also tried desperately to undermine the Republican Support, which is ironic, because they only seem interested in empowering the folly of the Liberal Democrats.

The case about Gonzales is not about a 'blind support' for this President and his Administration.

The evidence is subject to interpretation, and if one were on a jury, it is hard to prove 'beyond a reasoned doubt' as of yet.

In regards to WFB, I remember his insight prior to the Iraqi Mission to be rather quiet, but the more public objections came after the invasion. Not that he didn't oppose the mission from the beginning, just to be honest, as a devoted reader, I simply do not remember his public advocation against using US forces to remove Saddam prior. It could be my mistake...

I do accept a case can be made, suggesting the AG is not able to handle his position, but I don't feel it is convincing as of yet.

We simply do not fully know his full involvement, his role as AG, his focus at this time, etc...

For example, again, does he see himself as Prosecutor, Administrator, Director, Policy Guide, etc...

Clearly, AG's throughout our history have had differing views of how to handle their position. Can any writer, pundit, who lacks experience with the AG Office, can make a sincere judgement on this, based on emails, MSM press reports, and Democrat political opportunism.

the AG stated: "Many decisions are delegated. We have people who were confirmed by the Senate who, by statute, have been delegated authority to make decisions."

as well as: "I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much."

Gonzales was stepping in to the job after 4 years of a previous, trusted associate, and probably had faith in the lower operatives in the Department.

There is little to suggest he would not have this belief.

I do not doubt he has not made mistakes, but still do not see any gross negligence.

Some suggest, if this issue were handled with great strength in the beginning, it would not be a story.

Well, I disagree, for the Democrats having disgruntled partisan attorneys as witnesses, controlling the Senate, would make a stink, regardless of the handling.

Their history suggests this is the case. The current Democrat Elected Representation will slander and lie without consideration. Sen. Schumer clearly lied about Judge Pickerings past without any thought.

The MSM has portrayed a weak perjury case, as some major leak of a covert agent, to silence - rebuke political debate. It is absurd. And the manipulation is gross, overt, negligent, repulsive.

The have even convinced a number of Americans we have a bad economy.

And this President cannot be boldly defying the Senate in a hostile manner without just cause, because he may lose the support he needs with some 'on the fencers' in the GWOT.

So now, we are going to fire Gonzales, with two years left on the docks, with a Democrat Senate, and a vicious - unethical Liberal Media?

They simply won't approve a new AG, until they get a Democrat. And will use every minute to debase this Presidency.

The unethical Media Side Show will make the dishonest Plame coverage seem mild.

It will be a circus...

Not that you shouldn't, but you must be certain, that Gonzales is truly incompetent, and the evidence is simply not there, as of yet.

His focus may have mistakenly been on a larger picture, but that doesn't mean he is not fit for the position. It could indicate a sincere positive in context of the GWOT.

This is not about supporting the administration right or wrong. This is about going after someone on half baked evidence, using poor logic and ruining him without even knowing the truth.

I have seen it time and again in recent years and there is nothing fair about it. This is a pattern. Not so long ago I thought people were going to start accusing Hastert of trolling play grounds for Foley before that idiotic scandal settled down. That is what hysteria does to people. It makes them stupid.

Were any innocent people hurt in this? Were any guilty people set free? Was this process begun before Gonzales even got to DoJ? Was he at all the meetings, for the whole meetings and what else was discussed and in how much detail?

And who cares?

He could just as easily meant he was not involved in the details but knew about that people were going to be fired.

And starfleet, there is nothing wrong with that. It is not just that there was not a crime... it is true that is well within the powers of the Executive branch to do this.

After all, in the real world, people get fired every damn day. Why should government be different?

Tom:

I saw the reference to the 30 fired prosecutors in the WSJ as well. But hey, big D behind the name, makes it ok anyway.

And you know what? If this is such a big deal to people, why are we just now hearing about it? The US Attorneys have always been public patronage kinds of jobs...but now all of a sudden that is sinister.

I think it is political nonsense and I hope that if Bush is forced to get rid of Gonzales that he waits until Easter and does a recess appointment so that the Democrats don't get to add insult to injury by preaching and preening their way through a confirmation hearing.

The hypocrites.

starfleet dude:

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence that these terminations were improper. I've see no evidence that any US Attorney was told to stop a legitimate investigation or prosecution of a Republican or was told to start an unjustified or trumped-up investigation or prosecution of Democrats. If you have some direct evidence of that, you should post it. Until and unless you do, the claim that the DOJ has been "politicized" in some improper or unusual fashion is simply an unsupported assertion.

And by the way, that clause in the Patriot Act permitting the appointment of US Attorneys without Senate confirmation was written in by Arlen Spector. Is it your opinion that Spector is engaged in a conspiracy with Bush to "politicize" the DOJ?

One other thing. As far as I know, only one Attorney was appointed under this provision, not "attorneys".

The administration should fight this for the pure and simple reason that this is a Wilson/Plame redux - no underlying crime just a fishing expedition to "Get Bush". Yes, Gonzalez is obviously incompetent but is this news to anybody? The attorneys may have been fired for political reasons which, of course, is a huge important problem because politics in hiring/firing has never been seen in any previous administration (hmm, Travelgate, anyone?). None of that is really relevant. If you doubt the true method behind this madness, it is enough to look at the language of starfleet _dude who assumes that there are "high crimes and misdemeanors" just waiting to be uncovered by the Dems' intrepid investigators.

Terrye is right on the money. WFB may be a respected denizen of the right but he is not always guaranteed to be right. If the administration gives an inch, they have just bought themselves a ring-side seat to the Impeachment Circus.

Terrye,

You have a link to a WSJ story or op-ed that says Clinton fired 30 more attorneys? I looked, didn't find anything.

Neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence that these terminations were improper. I've see no evidence that any US Attorney was told to stop a legitimate investigation or prosecution of a Republican or was told to start an unjustified or trumped-up investigation or prosecution of Democrats. If you have some direct evidence of that, you should post it. Until and unless you do, the claim that the DOJ has been "politicized" in some improper or unusual fashion is simply an unsupported assertion.

Gee, then why would did the idiot lie before congress? Either he did in fact do something wrong, he is just a liar, or he is an incredible judicial idiot.

All reasons why the moron should resign.

WFB responds and asks, "Well OK then, Would it not also follow then that raising as high a stink as possible about that harassment is also "just politics"? And hence should play itself out according to the skill of the players involved?

Yes.

I don't know, I have to say, I don't see many convincing arguments in defense of the administration.

The defense that Clinton either A) Fired 93 attorneys when he took office or B) Fired 30 after that don't hold up.

First, the Reagan and Bush I and II replaced most of the attorneys when they too took office. And, Reno did ask for resignations of the attorneys right away, but many, if not most served until their succussors were confirmed, some serving many months (up to a year or so, I believe).

Second, I have yet to see any evidence that Clinton "fired" 30 after the initial 93 were let go. If anyone finds any, please post it.

Now, the problem with these firings. David Ingelsias puts it best:

"United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html

In this case, Republicans members of Congress asked about his investigation into a democratic corruption case, specifically, whether indictments would be handed out before the election. First of all, he's legally not allowed to talk about these cases, so it was improper of them to ask in the first place. And when he said "no" he was hung up on. Later he was fired dispite high job performance reviews.

This is an unpresidented firing, which is much more dangerous than mass firings which occur at the beginning of administrations.

IF indeed he was fired because he did not work on the political timetable of republicans in Washington, that's a major deal. I'm not saying this is what happens, but there's evidence to suggest it. To ignore that evidence and call any investigation into this matter a "non-story" is just having partisan blinders on.

And I haven't even touched on the keystone cops routine in response to congressional inquiry or the list that rates US attorneys by "loyalty" to the administration.

That's just plain wrong. To those who can't see that, I don't know what to say.

I placed a question to Mac Ranger regarding the 30 US Attorneys replaced by Clinton at a later time.

The story is that a standard operating procedure is followed. Nothing more. Nothing less. Sure it is a valid and legal presidential firing.

As for taxes, the Democrat's Propose the Largest Tax Increase in American History

As for Dave Iglesias, it remains a one-sided story. I am not convinced of Dave Iglesias's story.

Mac Ranger now says that the AG story beginning to fall apart - for the MSM.

Bush Turns the Other Cheek and needs to stand up to the Democrats.

I still don't see anything wrong. This remains a non-scandal, no crime story.

And even if Clinton replaced as few as 3 or 4 later, there is no difference between Clinton and Bush firing US Attorneys at later times. Clinton's US Attorneys follow his political policies and the odds that some of them are cronies of Clinton is very high.

Gee, then why would did the idiot lie before congress? Either he did in fact do something wrong, he is just a liar, or he is an incredible judicial idiot.

All reasons why the moron should resign.

He did not lie before Congress. He did nothing wrong. He followed the standard operating procedures. That's it.

TomShipley, Regarding the last statement in your post, you made it very clear that you believe what the MSM (and no one else) is telling you that this story is a major scandal when in fact there aren't any.

While true that most if not all of what I've read about this story comes from the "MSM," so what?

I've heard what former reagan US attorney Bob Barr has said:

Barr: I think it’s highly improper. Not unlawful. A president can remove a U.S. Attorney for whatever reason. They serve at the pleasure of the president. But what’s happening here it’s extremely troubling because it errodes the public’s confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our federal justice system — which is perhaps