Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 19, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

A PURGEGATE PRIMER....Shorter Michael Kinsley: For the Bush administration, lying is practically official policy. The fact that they're lying about Purgegate ("Volleys of lies come in wave after wave, like the trench soldiers of World War One. They get mowed down and the administration just sends in more.") doesn't mean they're covering anything up. It's just a tic.

If this sounds curiously familiar, that's because it is. The last time Kinsley was poo-pooing Bush mendacity was in his belated column about the Downing Street memos, where he made an almost identical argument: "fixing" intelligence is a standard feature of the Bush administration, so why get upset over further evidence about it? It's just one of those things.

This is beyond maddening, as if Kinsley is deliberately trying to misunderstand what's going on here. Look: the only serious argument that Purgegate is a scandal is related to the reason for the Pearl Harbor Day massacre. If seven U.S. Attorneys were fired that day for poor performance, that would be fine. If they were fired for insufficient commitment to Bush administration policies, that would be fine too. But there's considerable reason to believe that at least some of them were fired because either (a) they were too aggressive about investigating Republican corruption or (b) they weren't aggressive enough about investigating Democrats.

That's it. That's the argument. David Iglesias: Didn't bring indictments against some local Democrats prior to the 2006 election. John McKay: Failed to invent voter fraud cases that might have prevented a Democrat from winning the 2004 governor's race in Washington. Carol Lam: Doing too good a job prosecuting trainloads of Republicans in the wake of the Duke Cunningham scandal. Daniel Bogden and Paul Charlton: In the midst of investigations targeting current or former Republican members of Congress when they were fired. And this all comes against a background that suggests the Bush Justice Department has initiated fantastically more investigations of Democrats than Republicans over the past five years.

All of this, combined with the "volleys of lies" coming at us machine gun style from one Bush administration figure after another, strikes me as a pretty good reason to be deeply suspicious. Has Kinsley learned nothing about these guys since 2001?

Kevin Drum 8:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Yeah, but Michael Kinsley's funny. That excuses a multitude of sins.

Posted by: Wagster on March 19, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

There is also the minor fact that lying to Congress is itself a federal felony, and it appears that Gonzales lied under oath in his January appearance before Congress.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Kinsley has always been deeply disappointing for such an intelligent man. This goes back to his days as editor for the New Republic when he shamelessly backed the Reagan administration and the Contra terrorist guerrillas against Nicaragua.

Posted by: BillS on March 19, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

You're not understanding the tactical role of the lies. In that context, they're not lies, they're chaff, meant to confuse, slow or redirect well targeted criticism, just like the chaff thrown off by a fighter jet or ship under attack. Anything to redirect and gain another moment for the fight.

Posted by: David on March 19, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Kinsley:
Bush Administration merely defining deviancy down. So what?

Posted by: Mimir on March 19, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

BillS: I think that you'll find that, although TNR editorialized repeatedly in favor of Contra aid in the 80s, Kinsley (despite being the editor at the time) was not a supporter of the Contras. He in fact wrote several TRB columns criticizing the policy itself and the TNR editorials.

I can't find links b/c of the advanced age of the dispute, but if you can find "Who Won Nicaragua?" (TNR 3/19/90) or "Manila, Managua, Pretoria" (3/24/86), both by Kinsley, they will demonstrate his opposition.

Posted by: Michael on March 19, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever Kinsley writes a good column, he immediately feels required to write a crappy one. Contrarian centrism is his schtick, and in Bushworld contrarian centrists are idiots. But that's all he knows how to do.

He's younger and prettier than Broder, but he has the same problem. Poor guy.

(Reprinted from Yglesias. All rights reserved.)

Posted by: John Emerson on March 19, 2007 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

Yglesias wrote almost exactly the same post, the facts are clear to everyone payong attention, which presumably includes Kinsley (you'd think since he was writing about it but who knows. . .). He clearly knows all this and yet wrote that post anyway, so he obviously think Bush's lying is okay and the Dems shouldn't do much about it. Maybe it is his way of cauting the dems about overreaching, maybe he's joined Richard Cohen's don't mess up my cocktail party group of elite journalism. Whatever the case it doesn't speak very well of him in my book.

Posted by: DP on March 19, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

...lying is practically official policy

You have to understand that the Bushies consider their political opponents to be so immoral that it’s ok to lie to them. In Kinsleyese, that too excuses them. You don’t blame a rabid dog the same way to blame a human murderer. Never mind that you have no choice but to stop them or allow them to continue to harm you.

This is beyond maddening, as if Kinsley is deliberately trying to misunderstand what's going on here.

I don’t know if he misunderstands or simply has acquired an elitist attitude about government and politics. He does not think it hurts him personally when the President is corrupt. So, what’s the big deal? A dog will be a dog. Nothing to be disgusted or exercised about.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on March 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

Things were so much better when John Ashcroft was in charge.

I can't believe I just said that. There's something flying over my house, sounds like it's oinking.

Posted by: Ringo on March 19, 2007 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kinsley is deliberately trying to misunderstand what's going on here

ya think?

when i was in my mid-20s I thought Kinsley's contrarianism was interesting. now in my early 30s, i just think he's schticky.

why do people still read him?

Posted by: DC1974 on March 19, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Has Kinsley learned nothing about these guys since 2001?
No.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by: Ronn Zealot on March 19, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kinsley, like Sullivan, is highly medicated, which causes loss of reason.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on March 19, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

doesn't mean they're covering anything up.

the actual quote is: We’re all in agreement—you, me, the Washington Post, even the Wall Street Journal—that the administration’s response to this controversy has been comically mendacious. Volleys of lies come in wave after wave, like the trench soldiers of World War One. They get mowed down and the administration just sends in more. This is the best evidence that there is something simply and truly wrong going on. It’s not great evidence. The characteristic mendacity of the Bush administration is the pointless lie, uttered because telling the truth would be ever-so-slightly more trouble. (Like drinking a Bud within arm’s length because better beer is in the fridge ten steps away.)But it is evidence, and the best we’ve got.

Shorter Kinsley: there is something obviously wrong, but you can not tell yet what, if anything, was technically illegal.

Consider Carol Lam. About 8 months before the end of her 4 year term there was a decision not to replace her at the end of her term. She successfully prosecuted Cunningham; two days before the end of her term she got an indictment against a Cunningham crony. At the end of her term, she was not re-appointed.

I am happy that Sen Leahy is going to investigate this. Then at least somebody will testify under oath why Lam was permitted to serve out her 4 year term like everyone else.

Maybe he'll interrogate McKay, and all that stuff about voter fraud in Washington will become a part of the sworn testimony with a national audience. McKay will be able to explain, under oath, why he never pursued any of the leads. I doubt that it will burnish the reputation of the Washington, or at least King County, Democratic Party.

Posted by: spider on March 19, 2007 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Mmm, so only Republicans lie.

"I did not have sex with that young woman."

"It depends on what your definition of is is."

It's called politics. Don't be so nieve.

Posted by: egbert on March 19, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

one no longer knows whether egbert is merely an idiot or a performance artist, but for the record, there was no problem with clinton wondering what the definition of "is" was in the context of the question he was being asked at the time. it was exactly what someone being railroaded by a phony civil suit should have asked: that every question be perfectly calibrated.

Posted by: howard on March 19, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

Reason is turned inside out. The Madmen are paraded as wise men, the criminally insane are crowned. Prudence and moderation are denounced as heretical and condemned. In this maelstrom of stupidity and wickedness, where can reasonable argument find a foothold, or even catch its breath?

Posted by: c4logic on March 19, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

If you want to be a "moderate", you have to occasionally betray your own side.

Posted by: Jimmy on March 19, 2007 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

The real scandal is tied to the fact that Bush is able to appoint their successors without going through a confirmation. If he had to confirm their successors, he wouldn't be able to the partisan hacks he intends through the Senate. He would have to appoint real prosecutors who might, if anything, be less amenable than the fired attorneys were.

Posted by: Guscat on March 19, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

But Kinsley has point:

However, the administration’s preferred arrangement also seems unconstitutional: if these presidential appointees never have to get confirmed by the senate, there goes advice and consent.

Did the Bush administration really think that they didn't need confirmation, and Dems wouldn't notice the firing? Someone could well pick up right where Carol Lam's planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo left off, SINCE THERE MUST STILL BE A NEED TO GET THAT SEARCH WARRANT AS EVIDENCE MUST SHOW CAUSE, the question is what cause. This is key everyone wants to unlock.

Lam wanted to request a warrant and said so on 5/10 and Sampson send an email 5/11 to discuss the real problem with Carol Lam. That's where I pretty sure we'll find the smoking gun.

Thank goodness Sen. Feinstein is most certainly looking. Hope Josh Marshall and his team doesn't let that story get cold.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 19, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

also from Kinsley: For late arrivals: the administration snuck a provision into the odious Patriot Act that allows the Attorney General to fill US Attorney positions without Senate approval. Previously, if a slot remained open for more than 120 days, the local Federal Appeals judge would appoint someone to fill it

so one bad provision replaced another bad provision.

Another scandal is that Congresscritters vote on laws that they have not read.

Posted by: spider on March 19, 2007 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Sometime, somewhere in the last few years, Michael Kinsley has drunk some strange Kool-Aid that he evidently expected would cement his status as a member of the serious elite. He compromised himself, and the results are very disappointing.

Kinsley has forfeited his credibility for reasons that are difficult to discern.

Posted by: McCord on March 19, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Kinsley is like Broder in a manner of speaking.

As if Bush's lies don't really have any meaning, just ignore the nervous tics, but of course the war in Iraq was lies - and death has meaning. Lies do hurt people and kill people too.

It sure looks to me as if Gonzales wanted to put a stop to investigations by Republican lawyers. Lawyers that refused to look the other way merely for labels, or party sake. Clinton could not have done this, so I'm NOT expecting Bush to get away with this either.

Sorry Kinsley.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 19, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

There is also the minor fact that lying to Congress is itself a federal felony, and it appears that Gonzales lied under oath in his January appearance before Congress.
I haven't seen a transcript of a clearcut Gonzales lie yet. He's been very careful with his language. Clintonesque, even.

Posted by: Bill Arnold on March 19, 2007 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Kinsley has forfeited his credibility for reasons that are difficult to discern.

Maybe Arnstrong Williams could enlighten us on this point.

Posted by: calling all toasters on March 19, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Kinsley has always been a wanker masquerading as a liberal (a stereotypical pencil-necked weenie liberal at that). Anyone ever see him on Buckley's 'Firing Line' back in the 80s? He was a useful tool then, and a useful tool now.

For both Kinsley and Sullivan: writing skills != moral fiber.

Posted by: Fred on March 19, 2007 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Contrarian, weenie, all that, yeah. But Kinsley's got a personal beef with bush about the stem cell research stuff, remember? That's in the background. He's godalmighty furious with bush for essentially condemning him to an earlier death and instead of actually being mad he's getting philosophical.

If you look at it that way, it goes like "bush's lying is just a force of nature and nothing can be done about it and in the meantime his lying has killed me but I can't do anything about it so I might as well sneer at everybody else who's pissed about his lying."

It ain't pretty, that's for sure.

Posted by: Altoid on March 19, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

>Kinsley (despite being the editor at the time) was not a supporter of the Contras. He in fact wrote several TRB columns criticizing the policy itself and the TNR editorials.

He opposed the contras only in the sense that he favored inflicting an embargo on Nicaraguans instead. This he smugly called "letting them stew in their own juices." So he opposed overt warfare in favor of killing them slowly. Slightly less hideous than supporting the contras, but that was counted as "serious thinking" in the 80s.

Posted by: Potato Head on March 19, 2007 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

>Kinsley (despite being the editor at the time) was not a supporter of the Contras. He in fact wrote several TRB columns criticizing the policy itself and the TNR editorials.

He opposed the contras only in the sense that he favored inflicting an embargo on Nicaraguans instead. This he smugly called "letting them stew in their own juices." So he opposed overt warfare in favor of killing them slowly. Slightly less hideous than supporting the contras, but that was counted as "serious thinking" in the 80s.

Posted by: Potato Head on March 19, 2007 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

It's called politics. Don't be so nieve (sic).

I thought you were the one who got offended when politics was used as a political football?

By the way, egbert, how is your health? Have they found a treatment yet for that rash that caused the yellow stripe down your back and the incessant trembling?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 20, 2007 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

Another significant motive for firing the U.S. Attorneys is getting no attention. That motive is to put prosecutorial friends in place for the balance of the Bush experience. With Congress finally playing some of its intended role, subpoenas and all, there is apt to be a rich set of potential prosecutions that, from an administration perspective, are best ignored. Friendly prosecutors through 2008 might even tolerate another round of electoral fraud. A few Fitzgerald and Lamm types are Rove's worst nightmare.

Posted by: PDL on March 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

but for the record, there was no problem with clinton wondering what the definition of "is" was in the context of the question he was being asked at the time.

Exactly. WJC was questioning Starr's insistence that the verb "is" includes the past tense (ie, that "is" = "was"). IOW, it was Starr that was playing fast and loose with the English language, and WJR was calling him on it.

But, I've grown tired of explaining this to nimrods for the last 10 years.

Posted by: Disputo on March 20, 2007 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

I looked at quite a few comments under Kinsley's article, & most of them here. I noticed something striking - The total lack of support from the right. (egbert doesn't count as he never discusses the issue before us.)

Yet it seemed to me he hit the nail on the head except his thoughts that no laws were broken. That one was a big time screwup. I also appreciate Kevin's giving us a list of the fired attorneys & reasons for firing them. thanks.

Posted by: bob in fl on March 20, 2007 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINK

Kinsley was one of the originals at Slate. Could this explain why that site so thoroughly sucks? Food for thought.

Posted by: mshep on March 20, 2007 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

Disgusting Kinsley column. I'm right there with DC1974. "The administration lied -- they actually are deliberately trying to provoke war with Iran so they can launch a nuclear first strike they believe will hasten the End of Days! The emails prove it!" Kinsley response: "So they lied. They lie about everything. There's no law against the President deliberately provoking a war, so what's the big deal?"

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 20, 2007 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Guys - can someone with legal knwoledge lay out technically what laws were broken with these firings?

Interfering with a US Attny's investigation?
Employment law?
What exactly?

I mean if Harriet gets up there and merely says "Yes we thought they were insufficiently vigorous looking into voter fraud or at these Dem's actions" or whatever, what can Leahy do?

Or do you think they can uncover enough just to show that Gonzo lied under oath? I mean, he's history anyway.

Someone give me the technical, legal issue re what laws were broken and how....

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

You say Kinsley's argument is "beyond maddening". Growing up in Brooklyn, we used the expression, "nobody's that fucking stupid". He is not that stupid. just as the right lies deliberately as a political tactic, kinsley's comments reflect a political posture he is embracing...not political commentary that he believes. For whatever reason, he feels it is beneficial to join Broder in the "pox on both your houses" middle...more money? better job future? but certainly deceitful and intentionally so,

Posted by: della Rovere on March 20, 2007 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Someone give me the technical, legal issue re what laws were broken and how....

I've noticed that "no laws were broken" seems to be the new talking point straight from the GOP's blast-fax. Strangely, though, no law needs to be broken for the Bush Administration's unprecedented firing of US attorneys for not sufficiently politicizing their office to be a scandal. Law or no law, you aren't supposed to do that.

And, of course, it begs the question of how much the remaining USA's might have "played ball" -- Josh Marshall reminds us of a bogus investigation launched of the New Jersey Senator who was one of the few vulnerable Democrats last year.

That said, as was pointed out upthread, lying to Congress is in fact illegal (although celebrated among the authoritarian Republican cult), and if Lam was fired to hinder her investigation, there's obstruction of justice (and conspiracy to commit same) to boot.

Of course, it'd be interesting to note how the irrefutable mendacity of the Bush Administration utterly fails to bother its apologists if they hadn't made the fact clear themselves some time ago.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2007 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

"Law or no law, you aren't supposed to do that. "

Well no kidding. This administration does a crapload of things it shouldn't, law or no law, like going to war on trumped up evidence. And of course it's one more scandal, but the question is, what can we do about it?

I am not a Bush apologist. I happened to change my citizenship to vote against him.

I just want to know, what's the there there? I suspect it would be very difficult to prove obstruction of justice re Lam. Inappropriate firing maybe, but again, where's the beef? Who has lied to Congress thus far? Likely Gonzo...so is that what Leahy's after? Get people under oath and then play gotcha for lying?


Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Kinsley need to understand that in judging government, the burden of proof is always on the people who have been caught lying.

Posted by: david1234 on March 20, 2007 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

> Guys - can someone with legal knwoledge
> lay out technically what laws were broken
> with these firings?

Based on the current document dump, it appears that Rove was angling to fire Fitzgerald _while under investigation by the same Fitzgerald_.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 20, 2007 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

yup Cranky I am sure that is the case...again, so what? Inappropriate yes, but illegal?

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Interference with a prosecution is Obstruction of Justice.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 20, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

smott, for someone who claims not to be a Bush apologist, you're focusing awfully hard on the fact that criminal charges may not be filed by Bush's actions, when as even you admit, its actions were wholly unprecedented and inappropriate.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, resignations have already ensued, and it looks like Gonzo himself will follow, so the Bush Administration evidently agrees there's a there there.

In fact, doesn't your rhetorical question of "so what" -- after you've been told the "so what" -- pretty much make you a Bush apologist by default?

If you realyl aren't here to carry water for Bush, a little less embrace of the dishonest GOP talking points might be nice. If you're here as yet another faux-Democrat concern troll, piss off and die. Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK


Yes thank BlueGal - and thanks to Shakes Sis for opining the same...

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/03/attorneygate-week-two.html

...though they still seem to say only it "may be"...and again I wonder how difficult that is to prove...

Also they too mention that it could snare Gonzo for prior lies. That would be a treat.

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

again I wonder how difficult that is to prove

Ask Scooter Libby.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

hah - yes!
But Rove skated.

And I suspect that much of the scurrying now is the prep for making sure he stays insulated.

Gonzo doesn't use email BTW. How convenient.

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Cold water can be bracing and healthy

So Kinsley is trying to throw cold water on this scandal. He's got a point if you define scandal, as he does, so narrowly as having to involve underlying criminal activity. If you concede that the administration has a right to set priorities for the US Attys, I have to agree that it is unlikely that supervision of those attys targeted at resetting their relative priority of investigating specific corrupt Republican Congresscritters, vs "voter fraud" or specific corrupt Dem Congresscritters, would fly as obstruction of justice. If they were incautious enough to commit to print a general rule, such as "I don't care if they raped the uncut maiden aunt of the Apostle Paul, if they're Republican, you don't investigate!" (with apologies to Robert Penn Warren), you might have a case, but if we're talking particular cases, there are always specific factors to a case that put how aggressively to puruse it well within the scope of prosecutorial discretion. I think it follows that, no criminality, no Gonzalez resignation, at least not in the near future.

Where I would criticize Kinsley's position is in his idea that scandal only attends outright criminal behavior. Yes, there is a wide scope of discretion in setting priorities for the US Attys that makes the case for the crime of obstruction of justice unlikely, but the public expects that discretion to be used for the public good, not the political advantage of the administration. Lots of juicy red meat in them thar hills of Purgegate, even if we aren't going to get a Gonzalez resignation, or anyone led away in handcuffs -- just yet. Yes, we need to work with what we've got, despite, no, especially because, we won't get total victory from the first skirmish. We have a lot of groundwork to lay with a general public which, after all, re-elected the SOB in 2004, before we get to the scene where he's led away in handcuffs. They need to be convinced first that this administration is a pious fraud on protecting national security as opposed to Bush security, and Republican political machine security, before we can get him on his real crimes, the American gulag, and the American war of conquest in Iraq.

Posted by: Glen Tomkins on March 20, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Rove has skated thus far, but I think his blades are rusty and he's way far out on thin ice...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 20, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

BlueGal - yes! We can hope.
But I still remember Wilson's "frog-marched" remark re Rove, and I can't stand to see him keep getting away with the kinds of dirty tricks Bush Sr had him fired for....

Here's to thin ice and frigid water underneath.

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

For the "no big deal" people: can anyone else recall the silly hysteria over "travelgate"? Where there was this "scandal" over Clinton firing people in the travel office? I mean was THAT illegal or even particularly unethical??? Man it does make one nostalgic for such simple times. But anyway yeah - as soon as I heard about this I thought, they were trying to fire Fitz is what they were doing. And even if that is not enough - the removal of USAs when they are targeting R corruption is very stinky and deserves to be aired in Congress.

Posted by: cass on March 20, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

He's got a point if you define scandal, as he does, so narrowly as having to involve underlying criminal activity.

I'm compelled to point out that there was no "underlying criminal activity" in the Bush Administrationm's staggeringly incompetent handling of Hurrican Katrina, but that didn't stop said incompetent handling from being a scandal.

As an aside, I trace the Administration's current meltdown right there, to Katrina. The Administration's primary marketing point was keeping Americans safe, and I think not a few Americans realized that if the Administration couldn't deal with Katrina, despite it being years after all the "reforms" put in place after 9/11, then this gang was indeed just as basically incompetent as its critics alleged.

Posted by: Gregory on March 20, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

smott, the laws that were broken are the same ones that were broken when Archibald Cox was fired.

Posted by: Tyro on March 20, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

....and that was when we had Congress with enough spine to find its collective d-ck and tell Nixon he had to go....
Different times now.

Posted by: smott on March 20, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Kinsley is a frightened little pussy who periodically has to show his fealty to his masters by vomiting out some vile piece of contrarian crap to prove that he's a made man. Except that he's not a man.

Kinsley always has been a pussy going back to the 80's when he made his bones by enabling right-wing massacres of peasants in Central America.

Go ahead and die already, Mikey. I know that sounds harsh but you're SUCH an asshole. Lots of people dies much worse deaths in El Salvador while you were helping justify Reagan's death squads, so fuck you.

Posted by: The Fool on March 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kinsley:

Ponder this: if you had been a man in the 80's and not been so busy fluffing Reagan's immoral policies, perhaps Reagan would have been discredited and right-wing extremism along with it.

And then perhaps there wouldn't have been the right wing jihad against stem cell research that could have saved your sorry ass.

What goes around comes around, motherfucker.

Posted by: The Fool on March 20, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I hate having to repeat this, but it needs repeating until Kevin and our other highly read bloggers start to emphasize it: this story isn't about the 8 attorneys who were fired for not carrying the administration's political water. It's about the other 83, at least some of whom were carrying that water. This story won't truly hit home until the true scope of the abuse of power behind it is known. What have our U.S. Attorneys been up to?

Posted by: chris on March 20, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

He's so on target with the right, that he is "Quote of the Day" on today's Wall St. Journal Political Diary.

Posted by: Cathy on March 20, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly