Captain's Quarters -

I nominate Robert Bork. Because if its going to be a battle, it might as well be an epic one.

Capt.,

I think you underestimate the need for Bush to keep AG:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/637ntzjr.asp

Lingberg is absolute right about most of us thinking AG was a goner. We all wrongly thought he had some self-respect. But as Lingberg rightly expressed it:
“Holtzman was presciently skeptical about Gonzales actually leaving. She understood the risks to Bush, as did some graybeards on the other side of the aisle. Whether Bush got effective counsel about the danger of caving over Gonzales, figured it out himself, or simply lucked into it because of loyalty to an old friend, he seems to have managed to escape the greatest politico-legal peril he has faced.”

In other words, Bush kept him because he had to. He had to avoid a greater damage and retain a less damaging alternative: a tarnished A.G that now carries with him all the sigmata of “stonewalling, memory lapses, contradictory testimony, missing documents, and lies under oath that constitute the real meat of a Washington scandal.”

This story is evolving faster and faster each week. Today Goodling is offered immunity and McNulty resigns. What will both say? Who else will talk, or leak? We know the DoJ is a hot bed of troubled paranoids now-- how long can this last?

Cleaning the house is a necessity, but it will come at the expense of gaining access to the WH.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000060

Capt.,

I think you underestimate the need for Bush to keep AG:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/637ntzjr.asp

Lingberg is absolute right about most of us thinking AG was a goner. We all wrongly thought he had some self-respect. But as Lingberg rightly expressed it:
“Holtzman was presciently skeptical about Gonzales actually leaving. She understood the risks to Bush, as did some graybeards on the other side of the aisle. Whether Bush got effective counsel about the danger of caving over Gonzales, figured it out himself, or simply lucked into it because of loyalty to an old friend, he seems to have managed to escape the greatest politico-legal peril he has faced.”

In other words, Bush kept him because he had to. He had to avoid a greater damage and retain a less damaging alternative: a tarnished A.G that now carries with him all the sigmata of “stonewalling, memory lapses, contradictory testimony, missing documents, and lies under oath that constitute the real meat of a Washington scandal.”

This story is evolving faster and faster each week. Today Goodling is offered immunity and McNulty resigns. What will both say? Who else will talk, or leak? We know the DoJ is a hot bed of troubled paranoids now-- how long can this last?

Cleaning the house is a necessity, but it will come at the expense of gaining access to the WH.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000060

sorry for the repeat-- servers acting weird.

Isn't there an expression out there? "Don't kick someone as you're going up the ladder of success; because you don't know whom you'll be meeting, again. As you tumble down.

The other thing I've noticed is that Gonzales did not make a case for his own COMPETENCY! He had his hearing. And, he made Bush look bad for even wanting him in this job.

And, "so much for loyalty." Because it seems NO ONE WANTS TO HANG AROUND, NOW.

And, McNulty's departure isn't the only HOLE in the Executive Office team. There's a difficult time HIRING people who it seems, would rather not "like the honor of working at the White House."

Don't get me wrong. Some very nice people don't want to move to DC. Take their kids out of school. And, then KNOW full well all their family members willl be reading UNPLEASANT HEADLINES. The press will call for commentary. And, the pay isn't all that good, either.

You'd think that you'd always have a core group of people clammoring to work for ya; when you're the president of the United States. Ya wonder, though, what the stink is, now? When you don't see people coming forward to "apply."

You'd think most phones would be ringing off the hook for a chance at "power."

Well, deep into the Civil War, Lincoln didn't know where he'd scrape up his last need for a half million more troops. The country was exhausted. And, then the stakes were higher. (That's how we got to the Emancepation Proclamation. As 200,000 Black soldiers suddenly put on uniforms, not as cooks. But to go to the front! Where they not only fought bravely; when they were given the order to start, you couldn't call a halt.) Victory can taste like that. Especially when you know how high the stakes are.

Which could mean there's even more weaknesses in Bush's team than you'd think.

And, what are they facing? The Ma and Pa Kettle Show?

We live in strange times.

And, what went missing? Plans to stem the blood flow when things went wrong. Just was never considered.

While the Bush team "dabbles" in the Mideast. And, the Saud's are supposely now in control of telling Israel "what to do."

You don't see problems?

I don't see solutions.

Let the Democrats try to milk this manufactured non-scandal.

There is little downside remaining for the President in this AG story. He appears as he is stubborn and loyal to a fault. At the end of the day there is no THERE here, the USAs served at the President's discretion. The more Democrats press this issue, the more we are reminded of USAs who were fired during open and active investigations of Dan "Rosty"Rostankowski and that old worthless land deal in Arkansas. Hillary needs to keep from stirring the bottom of the fish tank, and here she is the pot engaged in a little racial profiling of the kettle. : ))

Let the Democrats try to milk this manufactured non-scandal.

There is little downside remaining for the President in this AG story. He appears as he is stubborn and loyal to a fault. At the end of the day there is no THERE here, the USAs served at the President's discretion. The more Democrats press this issue, the more we are reminded of USAs who were fired during open and active investigations of Dan "Rosty" Rostankowski and that old worthless land deal in Arkansas. Hillary needs to keep from stirring the bottom of the fish tank, and here she is the pot engaged in a little racial profiling of the kettle. : ))

Let the Democrats try to milk this manufactured non-scandal.

There is little downside remaining for the President in this AG story. He appears as he is stubborn and loyal to a fault. At the end of the day there is no THERE here, the USAs served at the President's discretion. The more Democrats press this issue, the more we are reminded of USAs who were fired during open and active investigations of Dan "Rosty" Rostankowski and that old worthless land deal in Arkansas. Until she secures the nomination Hillary needs to keep from stirring the bottom of the fish tank, and here she is the pot engaged in a little racial profiling of the kettle. : ))

"Going for impeachment" of Bush, for "dereliction of duty" while he loses staff; would be INSANE.

If the lessons weren't learned about "going to impeahment" over a Blue Gap Dress; nothing will help ya.

But to leave Bush strapped in place UNABLE to extricate himself from this, is exactly what the Ma and Pa Kettle Show is doing.

With what? A TWO PERCENTAGE POINT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "IT" AND THE REPUBLICANS. Well, if you can't play ball when all your opponent has is a 2% advantage. Then, I guess. You can't play ball.

The other problem? Let's see. Kirk, from the HOUSE, on the GOP side, went with a team of GOP House members, (over the head of the minority chair?) ... And, not only was BLUNT with the president, in a heart to heart discussion. This fact ended up splashed as a headline on Drudge.

So, then?

Next day. Drudge flashes another one. Karl Rove lost his temper at Kirk.

How dumb are those blokes? They're into slamming down phones on each other? You know the ghosts they rattle up?

I still don't see solutions.

Besides, I thought Gonzales said he didn't need "cause" to fire people. He could just do it. And, he also sat like a potted plant throughout all meetings.

I think if you asked most Americans if they are outraged that 8 people got fired, unjustly; they'd probably tell you "no." They don't care that Imus got fired at all.

Now, in politics, however, something that was a nothing deal; emerges as a big woo-ha. Okday. I said the same thing when I heard about the WaterGate burglary. I didn't even think Nixon knew anything from that night. He was at a poker game. And, I don't even think he "authorized" the Cubans.

Since Kennedy got shot the Cubans have authorization stamps from the CIA.

What a strange town DC is.

But to go for impeachment over this? That would give Bush a SYMPATHY CARD that he doesn't have in his pocket.

On the other hand? Watching the White House inneptly handling world events; this included. Now you might guess, hmm? Has something to do with the modus operandi. And, just how did Bush fall into this quicksand? I'd bet he could recognize Jack Abramoff better than any of the 8 dudes and dudettes who were serving at Justice. (I mean that as a comparison, like finding Waldo, in a sea of faces.)

If Bush called Arlen Spector on the phone. And, said he wanted the "problems solved." Meaning the people from Gonzales DOWN, who are INCOMPETENTS. And, worse. Had the powers of the office handed off to them, BY Gonzales; and then abused those powers?

What if the "cleaning operation" can be solved? But it would have to be Bush accepting defeat, looking for surender. AND, THEN? Beginning to work SMALL MARGINS; and try to get back in touch with the MIFFED GOP members i Congress. THEY. ARE. THERE.

Why NOT put new faces on view at Justice?

Oh, to think how this whole thing could have been avoided IF he had just ordered Gonzales to fire Patrick Fitzgerald. No crying over spilt milk, though. Cause ya can't stick it back into the bottle.

Bush may have also decided to HELL WITH IT. He's gone in less than two years. And, if he leaves the GOP in a shambles "it's not his problem." Well, how we he brought up to treat problems?

This issue, which continues to twist in the wind, is the result of some horribly weak political maneuvering. Most involved are too incompetent to manage the regional division of a large corporation, let alone the Justice Department.

I am not impressed with George W. Bush or his apparently foolish subordinates.

DU

I agree the only conclusion to be drawn at this point is incompetence. There are many outstanding questions. This matter,and the Libby trial, show Karl Rove's uberplan to leave it all on the battlefield in the hopes of furthing a perverse anti-program of fear. No one can back that. If the prime poster would have left off the last paragragh and a half it would be harmony.

Mcnulty was Schumer's boy at Justice, and somebody the Dems wanted as a replacement for Gonzales, he is a Rino that fed the Dems info to manufacture the scandal. The fact that his resignation coincides with Goodling's deal makes me wonder if Goodling wanted protection so she could slam Mcnulty and then avoid being targeted by the Dems.

After two months of high-profile hearings, all the Democrats have shown is that Gonzales and his team handled the firings incompetently

Ed, the incompetence you speak of is merely a smoke-screen that's obscuring the reasons why those U.S. attorneys (growing in number, BTW) were actually fired. Unless you think people just get fired for no reason whatsoever, there's more to this matter that you seem willing to admit. There are plenty of emails already showing Karl Rove's involvement in the firing of at least two of the U.S. attorneys and of an overall agenda to politicize the Department of Justice, espeically the Civil Rights division. If this sort of thing was happening under Bill Clinton's watch, I highly suspect you'd not be content with accepting incompetence as an explanation.

Two words: "recess appointment"

At this point, there is no reason to have any more confirmations at all. Ok, for some individual appointments maybe for some particular reason, but not in general.

Besides, those pesky appointment hearings get in the way of our congresscritters managing their true job, bringing home pork...

Two words: "recess appointment"

At this point, there is no reason to have any more confirmations at all. Ok, for some individual appointments maybe for some particular reason, but not in general.

Besides, those pesky appointment hearings get in the way of our congresscritters managing their true job, bringing home pork...

I have the perfect solution to the problem. Appoint Chuckie Schumer to DAG or AG and he'll sail through the confirmation process and we'll get rid of him in the Senate.

Or we could get rid of Gonzales and with McNulty resigning we could put Leaky Leahy in as AG and Schumer in as DAG, thereby ridding ourselves of two Dems in the Senate.

But the president will have to mind his ps and qs or they'll start investigating him. Not that they already aren't.

starfleet_dude:

"Unless you think people just get fired for no reason whatsoever, there's more to this matter that you seem willing to admit.

...

If this sort of thing was happening under Bill Clinton's watch, I highly suspect you'd not be content with accepting incompetence as an explanation."

Shirley you can't be serious.

So when Bill Clinton -did- fire -all- of the attorneys, every single one had a reason, eh? I don't recall Republicans raising this kind of hell over that, or claiming that every firing must have a reason, which kinda disqualifies your "what if" in a big way.

Qwinn

Qwinn, every new administration has cleaned house by appointing new U.S. attorneys, espeically if the Presidency was held by the opposing party. But none have engaged in the sort of politicized firings that the current administration has in its second term. That Gonzales still hasn't been able to provide the reasons for the firings is a clear sign that there's more than mere incompetence involved, and the emails indicating Rove's involvement in the firings is reason enough to call him to testify before Congress.

There was a lengthy period when Clinton had no Surgeon General--not a deputy chair, the top slot was open--and the Office of the Surgeon General kept doing business as usual. Refusing to fill #2 slots at Cabinet Departments is not a "high crime or misdemeanor", nor is refusing to have a Cabinet at all...which is starting to look like a smart way to avoid this scandalmongry

"Qwinn, every new administration has cleaned house by appointing new U.S. attorneys, espeically if the Presidency was held by the opposing party. But none have engaged in the sort of politicized firings that the current administration has in its second term."

Translation: It's okay for Clinton to fire 93 attorneys for completely political reasons in the first term. It is absolutely outrageous for Bush to fire 8 attorneys for completely political reasons in the second term. Isn't it obvious why this makes a huge difference? First term? Second term? DUH!

"That Gonzales still hasn't been able to provide the reasons for the firings is a clear sign that there's more than mere incompetence involved"

What are you talking about? Good reasons for the firings were given at the very beginning of this entire non-scandal. The attorneys in question were not addressing the priorities they were assigned. I recall that one was asked to concentrate on voter fraud, and chose not to do so.

Qwinn

Qwinn, the "performance" excuse given by Gonzales was shown to be bogus in every case. The common element in all was the desire by the White House to have attorneys who would bring even dubious cases helpful to the GOP's chances at the ballot box in states which are hotly contested. It is very wrong to abuse the Department of Justice this way, but Karl Rove has never been bothered by such sentiments.

McNulty was forced out. He's been a problem for years at DOJ. He's been allied with the Dems and is a best bud of Chuckie Schumer. Did anyone ever wonder who leaked to the Dems details about DOJ investigations?

Resigned? I bet. And do not let the door hit you on the way out.

Schumer.....Comey, McNulty, Fitz.....Powell rats to Tenet over Cheney wanting him gone then protects Armitage for a year......Tenet shoots Plame at Cheney......Plame, DNC, Schumer.

McNulty, go away.

There is no excuse to give the Dems or their MSM Army more Republicans. It will not even slow them down, much less stop the flak. I have never cared for Gonzales because he has not showcased the pure corruption of the Democrats that is out there but hidden by the Dem's Army. But Gonzales MUST stay. Quit feeding the liars and helping the Dems take out every top official they can get their hands on. It is all MSM hype to sell Dems to the public. They have managed this crap about the war because we needed more Repubs like DeLay who was actually hurting them. So what did many Pugs do? They kept quiet or agreed to get rid of DeLay. Good grief.

The Democrat plan for winning 2008 is simple - George Bush. So long as they can keep him as the focus, they figure they will win simply by being the other guy.

Keeping Gonzales around plays right into their hands - anytime there's a headline they don't like, or a topic they need to steer away from (like say, the fact they have done zip for the country with their new control of Congress), they can issue another subpoena or leak another document or give another speech.

The sad thing is that Bush is so vulnerable to a confirmation fight that he can't win any way he chooses. Except there is one possibility: if Karl Rove resigns.

That might, but only might, give Bush the ability to defuse the whole issue, but it is probably too late for even that to work.

But anyway, why is he keeping Rove around now anyway? Just what exactly is Rove doing that is doing Bush or the GOP or the country any good?

Given the brilliant maneuvering behind this whole fiasco, Rove's credentials as a political mastermind are more than a little suspect. So what else does he offer us?

Anybody?

This is certainly a telling tale related to the ongoing fiasco at the DoJ:

Comey Details White House Attempt to Force Approval of Secret Program

The deadline for the Justice Department's providing its sign-off of the program was March 11th. On that day, Comey, then the acting AG, informed the White House that he "would not certify the legality" of the program.

According to Comey, he was on his way home when he got a call from Ashcroft's wife that Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card were on their way to the hospital*. Comey then rushed to the hospital (sirens blaring) to beat them there and thwart "an effort to overrule me."

After Comey arrived at the hospital with a group of senior Justice Department officials, Gonzales and Card arrived and walked up to Ashcroft, who was lying barely conscious on his hospital bed. "Gonzales began to explain why he was there, to seek his approval for a matter," Comey testified. But Ashcroft rebuffed Gonzales and told him that Comey was the attorney general now. "The two men turned and walked from the room," said Comey.

The Mayberry Machiavellis strike again. They can't get the acting Attorney General of the United States to sign off on something, so they resort to getting the approval by less than ethical means.