I find myself missing Ashcroft, mighty soaring eagles and all.

What baffles me is that he goes around the country giving interviews even though he has absolutely nothing to say. I mean, if that's the best you can do, why not just stay home?

I'd think he would want to resign at this point just to save himself further embarrassment--cuz it ain't gonna get any better for him.

Of course, that assumes a Bush crony has any sense of shame, and we all know that isn't the case.

pass the popcorn.

The presidnet did it!

Impeach

When you watch Gonzales hiding behind the President's 'Because-I-Said-So', they're just not even trying anymore. They have nothing but egotism, and contempt.

One thinks of Ann Coulter and other fake Christians hiding behind the Unborn, non-existent persons whom they will never have to actually think about or care about or find a place for in the world, they're already dead. The Unborn are like a placebo constituency, ideal Republicans.

It's the same attitude when Republicans hide behind the troops: George Bush takes the troops, stuffs them into a meat grinder and their screams attract attention. The crowd asks what is going on and, as he's jumping up and down on top of them, stuffing them all in, he shouts 'You're not supporting the troops!'

But his only interest is to kill them, because he can, because that's what authority, being The Decider, is all about, and that's the way Ann Coulter likes it. If all those little Unborns were alive, she'd still be working to make sure they got dead as fast as possible, because everything is lousiness and its important that everyone respect that.

There are a lot of issues at stake here. US Attorneys can be fired at any time, because they're political appointees. This is a matter for the executive: A way of checking the judiciary.

Not only that AH, but US Attorneys are also there to check Congress. US Attorneys are inherently political appointees. And since they're political appointees, it's inevitable they should make decisions based on politics. I don't see anything wrong if Bush, as head of the unitary executive, fires US Attorneys because he doesn't agree with their politics and their political decisions.

Ah, Kevin.

Gonzales is absolutely right.

Clinton did the EXACT same thing, only worse, firing ALL US attorneys when he came to power. Bush only did 8. Yet liberals want to bash him for it.

Congress wants to micromanage the war, mircromanage the budget, and now they want to micromanage the justice department. Time to micromanage the Republicans back into the majority.

Wow, American Hawk, Al and Egbert.

We only need Norman Rogers for the Troll Grand Slam.

One of the most laughable (and depressing) defenses used by the administration's apologists is some variation of the claim that the Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President" and thus can (nay, should!) be fired at any time for any reason, however grossly political.

"Serve at the pleasure of the President" does not mean "serve the President." The thing that they serve is the United States Constitution.

It's almost as if Gonzales doesn't understand the difference between how and why.

Yes, the president can fire USA's for any reason, or even, if he so chooses, for no reason at all. But even "no reason" is a reason, and all reasons, of course, are not created equal.

If Gonzales' argument is simply that "the president felt like it," then fine, say so. If that isn't his argument, then what is it?

"Pleasure of the president" doesn't explain the motives behind the firings, and not all motives are equally valid. If the president fires USA's to thwart an investigation into the activities of some of his supporters, for example, we would all (I hope) agree that his actions were both unethical and illegal. We agreed back when Nixon did it, anyway, so I would hope we could still agree now.

But hey, if you don't want to believe me because I am "left wing," go listen to what Andrew McCarthy has to say over at NRO. Even Andy, a right winger by anyone's definition, understands that what is at stake here is no less than the rule of law.

USA's serve at the pleasure of the president, but the law does not.

Sorry I'm late. I was waxing my back. Did I miss anything?

egbert, your talking points are weeks old, they're starting to turn. even michael kinsley can understand firing the vast majority of USAs is common when the executive changes parties, as clinton, bush, and reagan did. what your daddy did here was fire 8 republicans he had appointed cause they weren't corrupt enough.

The wonderful precedent here is that, in 2 years when we get a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate with 61 dems and a Democratic house, we will be appointing the US Attorneys.

They are now a fully political arm of the Party in Power.

We Democrats will not forget. Many REpublicans will be facing the judge.

Because no prosecutions should be started now. If anyone was convicted Bush would pardon them. But Rove will be convicted by a hand-picked Democratic prosecutor early in 2010, and no one will be able to pardon him.

No pardon for Karl. No pardon for Libby, and none for Bush.

Is Troll liberal-ese for "somebody who is more conservative than Dennis Kucinich"?

No, it's english for "unloved moron".

Wow, American Hawk, Al and Egbert.

We only need Norman Rogers for the Troll Grand Slam.

They all time-share the same damaged brain, with stale talking points on random/repeat.

I know one thing. If we ever do have a Democrat president again (G_d help us!) if he ever tries to fire even ONE attorney, this country will rise up and create a din so loud the glass will shatter off the walls of the white house.

Just try it, we'll crucify y'all for it!

For the latest news, email archives, hearings, legal filings and other essential documents on the Bush DOJ prosecutor firings, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."

RE: Undermining the Constitution

Although US Attorneys are political appointees, they are subject to Senate confirmation (Patiot Act revisions aside). President Bush may fire for any reason but the restaffing of these appointees was not intended to be independent from senatorial input, i.e. the Senate does have a legitimate role to play in the process.

Also, the argument that Clinton did it is selective use of information. Both Reagan and Bush senior did it as well. None of the previous three, however, did it after the initial stages of their administrations (or did such a piss poor job of explaining themselves to the American public). Besides, after lambasting Clinton for some many years, do you really want to use his behavior as justification for doing the same thing (I though conservatives were "above" that).

If that is the best Gonzo can do for a defense, he's more f___ed that I thought he was. And this before the e-mails confirmed he lied about his involvement.

I have a feeling it won't be too long before a group of GOP Reps or Senators goes to visit Bush at the White House and tells him point blank, "Enough. Gonzo must go. He can't be defended anymore." (I'm thinking of before Nixon's resignation, when Barry Goldwater and other GOPers went to see Nixon and told him it was over.) Of course, I wonder if that'll make a difference here. Bush is so damn stubborn, I wouldn't be surprised if he still clung to Gonzo, even if it meant dragging the GOP even further into the abyss.

Why don't you trolls{definition-lemming like,non thinking,follow at all costs,low I.Q.} move to a country more to your liking like say Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

Whatever happened to the "gwb43.com" RNC email server story? Government officials using an off-site server (probably to hide record keeping) surely are doing something wrong, correct?

As a resident of Seattle, I'm outraged by the firing of McKay. Especially since it looks like(as with the others), the guy was fired for not being biddable enough. Of course, Alberto Gonzales, being part of the Bush coterie, can't come out and say this. Especially not on liberal radio. Now if he was being interviewed by Rush Limbaugh, it might be a different story. Or maybe not. . . .
Anne G

Besides, after lambasting Clinton for some many years, do you really want to use his behavior as justification for doing the same thing (I though conservatives were "above" that).

they've been using the "Clinton did it too" defense for years now. I've always found it amusing, since Bush was supposed to be so much better in their opinion.

Extraordinary note at tpm about the newly appoint USAttorney for Minnesota,

Still, there's plenty of smoke there. For instance, the Star-Tribune noted that her Senate confirmation was almost derailed because, though Paulose had Administration backing, "she and her supporters had neglected to seek the support of both home-state senators," an oversight so unbelievable as to suggest that perhaps the Administration did not originally intend to submit her nomination for Senate approval but rather planned to rely on the attorney general's appointment authority under the Patriot Act. You can find more on Paulose here.

Regardless, the KSTP report shows that her lack of experience didn't keep Paulose from putting on the dog at her swearing-in, complete with honor guard and choir. There was also reportedly a list compiled of "potential problem reporters" who might attend the event. In an interview with the station, Paulose bobbed and weaved when questioned about the existence of such a list.

An honor guard and choir! It's like Moral Orel as directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

The only good thing to come out about this so-called "scandle" is the utter stupidity of Gonzales. This should remove him from any short list for the Supreme Court in case Bush gets another vacancy. Thank God for small favors. lol

Chicounsel is on message with Krauthammer, I see.

American Hawk: "Congressional democrats are trying to infringe upon executive authority, undermining the separation of powers. Why do Kevin Drum and others want to undermine the constitution?"

Blow it out your ass, Hawk.

Having read your innane postings here for quite some time now, I can state unequivocally that what you know of the United States Constitution would fit into the receptacle end of a condom -- with lots of room left over.

In just this instance alone, we're looking at two potentially major constitutional breaches here:

(1) Abuse of executive authority, in which the powers inherent in the Justice Dept. were allegedly used to intimidate and persecute real and perceived political opponents of this administration; and

(2) Obstruction of justice, by which the administration -- through its summary removal of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego -- sought to either impede or derail an active investigation into allegations of political corruption perpetrated by this administration and its political allies in southern California.

I would normally suggest that you might actually get yourself a copy of the United States Constitution and read it, but I'm afraid that you'd instead that document as an excuse to not buy any toilet paper.

Hawk, Al and Egbert, I know this might seem a bit subtle to you but imagine if a president were to sell pardons, say one million $ per felony.

Ok, pay attention now. The president has the power to pardon whomever he or she wants, right? There is no Federal law that says the president can't sell pardons, he has an absolute right in the Constituion to pardon. So if Bush goes out and sells pardons everything is cool right? If Clinton were selling pardons by advertising in the NYT you would say "Cool baby go for it, it's your Constitutional right."

The Constitution calls for impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors," not just a violation of a Federal Statute. Abuse of power and serious misconduct are two that are universally accepted as impeachable offenses.

What we are seeing is the President using his powers, through one of his appointees, to convert the DOJ into a branch of the GOP, and while doing so, obstructing justice as an investigation ensues. If that isn't an abuse of power, what is?

Aloha, Alberto. Thanks for playing -- don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

You fucks got something against Hispanics?
That it?

Is that why you call it the "White" house?

Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made', March 14, 2007:
"I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on," he said. "That's basically what I knew as the attorney general."

Nixon Tells Editors, 'I'm Not a Crook', November 18, 1973:
"The President acknowledged that he had "made a mistake" in not more closely supervising campaign activities.
But the tapes can be heard, he said, and will prove that he was not involved in the Watergate cover-up, he insisted."

Gonzales Met With Advisers on Dismissals, March 23, 2007:
"General Alberto R. Gonzales and senior advisers discussed the plan to remove seven United States attorneys at a meeting last Nov. 27, 10 days before the dismissals were carried out, according to a Justice Department calendar entry disclosed Friday."

Alberto does have a point. I wonder if there isn't a bit of racism involved in this witchunt.

Posted by Egbert: "Congress wants to micromanage the war, mircromanage the budget, and now they want to micromanage the justice department. Time to micromanage the Republicans back into the majority"

"Micromanage":: The newest of the new republican talking point words--used four times here alone, just like parrots are expected to spout out of their beaks.
I think Olbermann just did a video on the overuse of this word by the repukelicans.

Egbert has failed the Turing test. I think he is a spambot. Recycling that old canard about Clinton doing it too? Seriously, his programmers need to keep up with the news.

When the Attorney General is unable to answer a simple, straightforward question about why he chose to change the official in charge of enforcing Federal law in my district, we have a problem. When there is clear documentatary evidence that said AG was a participant in a meeting to discuss this change, but he was standing up in public just days ago denying that, we have a problem.

As a citizen, I am entitled to straight answers. Our Constitution does not provide for the President to reign as Monarch between elections.

Ah, egbert...Being a member of a minority does not give one a pass for being a feckless, simpering tool. Gonzo happens to be an asshole and a Hispanic. Lieberman happens to be an asshole and a Jew. Condi Rice is an clueless idiot and she's black. See how it works? Only a chump thinks the race card is a trump.

Shorter BGRS:
Rasicsm is ok as long as you come up with excuses for it.

Egbert. Get a life. Research, read and overcome your limited thinking. Stop being in attack mode on this board. I am concerned that you have become a parrot.

shorter egbert: look if I eat my cake and crap I can eat it again! Democrats would just throw it away, and they complain about global warming!

Ummm...No.

Now if you had written:

Shorter BGRS:
Incompetence is not ok no matter what race you are.

THAT would have been correct.

American Hawk has to be a fucking joke. Nobody is really that fucking stupid.

Are they?

More trouble for the mis-administration:

FOIA
March 22, 2007

CREW Sends FOIA Requests Asking for Documents Regarding White House Communications Methods
This week, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security seeking documents regarding methods of communication used by the White House to communicate with agencies or agency components of the executive branch. CREW seeks to determine whether the Bush administration has adopted a policy or practice of not using email to avoid creating publicly accessible record of their actions.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said "Now that we know that at least two White House officials have circumvented the law by using alternate email systems to discuss the U.S. Attorney firings and Jack Abramoff, we are asking Chairman Waxman to investigate whether the White House has continually violated its mandatory record-keeping obligation under the Presidential Records Act. This administration continues to disregard the law in favor of agenda-driven politics."

Whatever our God-annointed President wants to do is OK with me. If he wants to invade Canada, nuke Jamaica and send all liberals to be turned into dog food, it is God's will, and you have no right to oppose it.

You've got to be kiding me. Now you guys are trying to invent new scandals? Something as trivial as what kind of email you use?

Stupid liberal: "Uh oh, the President doesn't use Microsoft Outlook! Let's impeach him!"

Why don't you let the man govern? You guys are becoming charicatures.

Ah Egbert. You established your dirtbag credentials with that sneering remark about triple-amputee veteran Max Clellan. You remember that egbert you twerp? I do. Ever have the decency to apologize for it? I didn't think so.

Until you beg forgiveness for that remark, nothing you say deserves anything but contempt.

egbert:

Alberto does have a point. I wonder if there isn't a bit of racism involved in this witchunt.

Thanks for the props man.

Just because my ancestors came from down south doesn't mean I act like a dirty illiterate lawless wetback.

Thanks for showing me you got some huevos Mr. Eggdirt.

From the New York Daily News Blog:
Among the letters praising Gonzo were a smattering of Hispanic organizations, including the Latino Coalition. The leaders of seven of the nine groups just happen to be 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign donors, according to Federal Election Commission docs mined by Naomi Seligman of Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington. (A couple of leaders who donated to BC04 also gave to John Kerry's campaign or to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), apparently feeling no pangs of irony at all.)

Weak egbert. So very, very weak.

Here is a link. Here is a link that explains The Presidential Records Act basically establishes that every record created in the White House on public business belongs to the United States of America is to be collected and protected. To the extent Rove and CO are using non-white house email servers to send emails there is at least an argument he is trying to thwart the collection and protection of Presidential Records. It is also damn poor email practice. There is an exception for personal records, but the emails in question are anything but personal records.

To Egbert, especially>>>>>>>>>

"If you couple the president's obvious distrust of e-mail communications with the fact that both he and other top officials don't use e-mail, a picture begins to emerge. When you add to these facts the notion that other administration officials are conducting official business using unofficial e-mail addresses, the picture becomes clearer. Given this administration's history of avoidance of openness and distrust of democracy, this matter is definitely worthy of further discussion and research. One doesn't doubt that, the more stones we overturn, the more we'll find. And something else lost in this is that these are our employees. They work for us. They may not think so, but the inconvenient truth is that they do. And when they're conducting our business, their communications should be subject to our oversight. Anything short of that, anything that attempts to either cloud or circumvent the transparency that lies at the heart of our democracy is, quite simply, un-American. Do you have something to hide, Mr. President? Does your administration? America deserves an answer."

For the full story, please visit http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/21/91533/7245 .

Ah, egbert. We know better, don't we?

Silly liberals, laws are for losers.

Additionally public email is incredibly less secure, one would imagine, than White House email.

But, if they use the White House phone system, or wi-fi to get into it, doesn't that automatically make it White House communications regardless of any other argument?

also from MYDD:
"Further, it now appears as though the scandal's tentacles reach into the uppermost echelons of the Bush White House, including, as recent administration controversies almost always do, Karl Rove.
While the endgame of this saga is far from decided, what is already apparent is that a vital facet of the story - the administration's seeming unwillingness to comply with both the law and a fundamental cornerstone of our American system - is in danger of being lost in the shuffle of the overarching stampede.
And, if we can no longer expect our government's top officials - including the top official, the president - to obey the law and adhere to the bedrock standard of open government, then the questions about whether or not we still live in a democracy are no longer so far-fetched"

Ooooh. Bush doesn't use email. Let's arrest him!

Oh wait, every President before Bush didn't use email, either. I guess they should all have been impeached.

Bud Cummins was investigating my Republican Governor and was replaced by a minion of Rove. The patronage fee-office investigation came to a screeching halt, but believe me, I read the local papers and there is a there there. For over a month it was an obstacle course for residents of Jackson County, Missouri to tag our vehicles as required by law.

The U.S. Attorney for Western Missouri, Todd Graves, resigned under a cloud after his wife received one of these patronage plums and the situation certainly bears looking at.

But when Tim Griffin took over Cummins position this investigation stopped.

Yes, I am very pissed off about this. I was personally affected. (I got a ticket for expired tags, even though my car was parked and I was not driving it while I was unable to tag it.)

In addition, one of KC's mayoral candidates was indicted on a pretty thin soup of mortgage fraud charges and since she lost in the primary the story has sorta died...Mysterious, that, wouldn't you say?

egbert, give it up. You find yourself defending the indefensible.

Interesting, BGRS. Hits home alright.

Egbert, your eternal apologist for the administration----this is for you>>>>

"With all the minutiae about subpoenas and bluster about executive privilege now flooding the zone in the U.S. attorney purge story, it’s important to return to the basics of what we know and why it’s important."

"The president fired U.S. attorneys to stymie investigations of Republicans and punish U.S. attorneys who didn’t harass Democrats with bogus voter-fraud prosecutions.

In the former instance, the evidence remains circumstantial. But in the latter the evidence is clear, overwhelming and undeniable."

— Josh Marshall, The Hill, "It’s How They Do Business," March 23, 2007

…White" house? Alberto Gonzales at 4:14 PM

Why don't you let the man govern? You guys are becoming charicatures.eggbutt at 5:48 PM

Ooooh. Bush doesn't use email.

You poor thing. That wasn't the charge now, what it?

The charge was that Karl Rove used non-government e-mail to insulate his corrospondence from scrutiny, in violation of federal law.

Law? You've heard of that, right?

Why don't you let the man govern? Y

He doesn't govern. He misgoverns.

Nothing but comtempt for you, twerp.

Documents provided by the DOJ to Congress suggest that at least one high-ranking official, D. Kyle Sampson, knew that the statements made to Congress were untrue. If, as it appears, a Department of Justice official allowed other officials to provide inaccurate information to Congress, federal crimes may have been committed.

Because DOJ obviously cannot investigate and prosecute the misconduct of its own officials, CREW has called on the attorney general to appoint a Special Prosecutor to handle this matter.

It is clear that at least two officials, former White House Legal Counsel Harriet Miers and Sampson, schemed to fire prosecutors for political reasons. According to press reports, Sampson has acknowledged that he did not tell DOJ officials about the extent of his communications...
from citizens for responsibility and ethics in gov't

imagine if a president were to sell pardons, say one million $ per felony.

Hm. what exactly did Marc Rich pay for his? As long as we are imagining.

Back on topic, Gonzales acts as though he did not then, and does not now, know why they were removed. There were a bunch of requests; there was some staff work; he sat in one meeting; he approved. He also continues to act as though it really does not matter, and there is no reason for him to learn more about it now.

It's a throwback to the good old days of Bert Lance and Webster Hubbel.

Worst president in history.

Worst vice president in history.

Worst secretary of defense in history.

Worst attorney general in history.

Just off the heels of the worst Congress in history.

Current GOP: worst political party in history.

"Hm. what exactly did Marc Rich pay for his? As long as we are imagining."

This is an unmitigated slur, dipwop. Apologize.

"It's a throwback to the good old days of Bert Lance and Webster Hubbel."

No. it is not. You display only your ignorance. It is a throwback to Warren G. Harding, one of your GOP heroes, no doubt.

posted by cld, upthread at 2:18 p.m.>>>>>>>>>>
"One thinks of Ann Coulter and other fake Christians hiding behind the Unborn, non-existent persons whom they will never have to actually think about or care about or find a place for in the world, they're already dead. The Unborn are like a placebo constituency, ideal Republicans."

That is profound.

The only good thing to come out about this so-called "scandle" is the utter stupidity of Gonzales.

The primary problem with wingnuts -- they think stupidity is a good thing.

The charge was that Karl Rove used non-government e-mail to insulate his corrospondence from scrutiny, in violation of federal law.

My guess is that he only uses self-shredding email -- the kind with an attachment that deletes it after it is read.

In that case, Disputo, maybe they need to be looking at hard-drives, because you know someone did a cut-and-paste of some email and saved a word document, if they knew they could not refer to Karl's emails later.

MYDD offered this--

A number of other emails from Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff document Ms. Ralston's use of three outside domains: rnchq.com (used for the headquarters of the Republican National Committee), georgebush.com and aol.com. In many of these emails Ms. Ralston is communicating inside White House information to Mr. Abramoff in response to Mr. Abramoff's efforts to broker deals for his clients and place specified individuals in positions within the administration

Worst president in history.

Worst vice president in history.

Worst secretary of defense in history.

Worst attorney general in history.

Just off the heels of the worst Congress in history.

Current GOP: worst political party in history.

Posted by: Google_This on March 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Googs, you forgot worst Secretary of State in history. I'm sure, though, the list is obviously much longer.

Mike: Look at what he has cost the country so far: 3 NYC skyscrapers, one mid-sized city, the US army, the US National Guard, trillions in increased national debt, housing bubble, recession and poor employment, hundreds of billions lost to corporations without accountability, corrupted justice system, corrupted voting system, millions more in poverty, millions more without health insurance, and a credibility gap that rivals the Grand Canyon to mention but a few reasons.

Excellent succinct summary of the worst president in my lifetime and the leading contender for the worst in U.S. history. Well done. Bush's abuse of presidential power may rival... well, I'm presently at a loss for another worst case example.

consider wisely at 9:03 pm: do you have the MyDD cite about Susan Ralston and the various email addresses? I would dearly like to see more about that.

moe99,

CREW has the info you seek on Susan Ralston's use of "three outside domains: rnchq.com (used for the headquarters of the Republican National Committee), georgebush.com and aol.com."

Also, moe99,

CREW has a PDF of Susan Ralston's emails.

Mike: Look at what he has cost the country so far: 3 NYC skyscrapers, one mid-sized city, the US army, the US National Guard, trillions in increased national debt, housing bubble, recession and poor employment, hundreds of billions lost to corporations without accountability, corrupted
justice system, corrupted voting system, millions more in poverty, millions more without health insurance, and a credibility gap that rivals the Grand Canyon to mention but a few reasons.

Mike to his base, the haves and have mores, these things aren't costs; they're profit centers. From their perspective Bush truly is the best president ever due to his unflinching determination to deliver every single remaining vestige of democratic governance into the hands of the predatory plutocratic class. To complete the 'Reagan Revolution' don't ya know.

'Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation -- indeed, the world -- as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption.' - Chris Floyd - http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/46602/

John McKay, dismissed attorney from Seattle, is eloquently stating the facts of his situation as we speak on Russert's Meet the Press.
He claims the reasons for his dismissal keep changing, and it tells him the justice department, the administration have to clear up the dark cloud --politics were allowed in the federal grand jury, and it is critical that politics not enter into the federal grand jury. That cloud just has to be removed.
He did not find voter fraud, he thinks they felt he just was not aggressive enough to ensure the Republican won in his state. That came up during his interview for a judgeship.
Former attorney David Ignatius asked for a recommendation when it was clear he was to be dismissed to see if it was performance-related or politics--and that is genius on his part.
McKay contends Gonzales is to lead an independent function of government--distinct from the white house. And those questions will come.
Ignatius wants to know if he regards what happens to us to be a break from the past, and if justified, citing statistics. To this day he believes he was removed for political reasons.
McKay thinks the stories have changed so frequently, it has to be investigated, the Attorney General is not above the law.

Feinstien: "He serves one master. The people of this country."

"He called me and he said I didn't have the facts straight...He wasn't telling me the truth then either."

Drip, Drip, Drip, indeed.

egbert, you can´t be real, because, like you, "Rasicsm" doesn´t exist.

Bush's abuse of presidential power may rival... well, I'm presently at a loss for another worst case example.

The last Kaiser, or the last Tsar. And he's rapidly gaining on them.

Ludwig (the Mad) of Bavaria springs to mind.

Today on Meet the Press, JOHN McKAY just gave EVERY American the reasons why Alberto Gonzales needs to go bye-bye.

McKay cited the different and changing rational for the eight US Prosecutor firings, and McKay reaffirmed WHY his position should be non-political - it painted Alberto in a really bad light.

Bush is going to have to fire Alberto just to keep all those freak-out GOP members in step with his ever stupid ongoing loyal Bushie agenda.

Bush is painted as a man who clearly values loyality over honesty - No wait, that's not quite right, because REALLY little Bush has never cared much about the truth and never lets the truth get in the way of politics.

Bush's cheap talk about "candid conversation" is simply ridicules seeing how little Bushie doesn't like to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear except for a bunch of "yes-man" that mind kissing his royal little monkey ass.

er -that should be "that DON'T mind kissing his royal little monkey ass."

Thanks Apollo