yes, but kevin, rep. cannon is now on the record as saying that there is "nothing wrong with firing a U.S. attorney for the reason of politics."

so what more is there to say?

Kevin -

Your feigned ignorance "I'm just askin'" game is getting old. Isn't it time to join the rest of us in making snide remarks and sarcastic comments? Hell, we've already moved past "pleasure of the President" jokes. You've got some catching up to do.

> Any guesses why?

Afraid the press would go back to covering say, the war?

Republicans often feel moved to write some thing on the theme of 'what Democrats should do'.

In every case they're not serious.

Democrats never offer pretended advice on what Republicans should do. But, I wonder, what should they do?

The only advice I have for the Republican person is,

life is better in Paraguay.

Because Rove was targeting close '08 election states for "voter fraud" attention, that's why. This has been another edition of easy answers to easy questions.

Kevin, does this mean you are taking Chiara out of your "might have been poor mgmt" category?

Pivotal point from the first article: "Michael H. Dettmer, a Clinton appointee who preceded Chiara by several years as U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, suspects that she was replaced because of politics and policy disputes.
"She parted ways on certain issues that they wanted pushed, the primary issue being the death penalty," said Dettmer, a lawyer in Traverse City. "She's anti-death penalty. It rubbed the [Justice Department's] death penalty committee in D.C. the wrong way. I know it for a fact."

Good idea, Kevin, highlighting another questionable aspect related to possible 'reasons' for these indefensible firings.
This death penalty pushing, war-mongering white house, falsely claiming to their base that they value the culture of life.

Per Howard's post above, the final fallback position seems to be "Well, yeah, it was all political, but so what?" Now we see if the corruption of political culture is so complete that blatant politicization of the dept. of Justice gets accepted as "normal." It's the most powerful test yet of IOKIYAR.

If this flies, it'll be interesting to see what all the principals have to say when President Hillary sics all 93 U.S. attorneys on the RNC. (Not that it would happen, but Al, Hawk and Norman, you would have no defense if it did.)

kevin—

kentsimple is right. For my part, this is actually starting to piss me off.

For the last several years, a lot of otherwise clever people spent a lot of time pretending to stupid for dramatic effect, and the result was that nobody actually said the obvious truth, which is that the only rational explanation for what the administration of this White House is doing is that they're engaged in a deeply un-American project to destroy the democratic processes of the United States.

Stop with the "I'm just askin" game and join the Order Of The Shrill. It really is that bad.

jimBOB, if only the Als, Hawks, and Normans of the world thought that intellectual consistency was an important value.

I think they've got us right where they want us and are ready to spring the trap showing that this was Joseph Wilson's fault.

But for some reason they're reluctant to do that. Any guesses why?

Good call, Kevin. I'm starting to believe these people are capable of almost anything.

For what it's worth, here is a reason for the whole USA deal:
1 - In less than 2 years we hopefully will have a democratic president
2 - If both houses remain democratic,there is a good chance that a lot of the nonsense of the last 6 years (plus prior republican administrations) will get exposed; especially if they effectively return to the presidential records sunshine act (don't remember what it's called)
3 - The best way to keep all that history buried is to start working on winning the presidency in 2008.
4 - It could be a razor thin election like the last two
5 - If you are Karl Rove and understand politics, you have already started, and want to continue, with subtle voter suppression.
6 - Great way to do that is with USAs that look into "potential" voter problems with democrats, but not republicans. Reference that study Kevin pointed out with the overwhelming numbers that were against the democrats

Bottom line, get some USAs out there that will help you long term in the run up to 2008. Doesn't hurt to also nip the Lam investigations in the bud before they reach into the White House.

Notice that they don't present any actual evidence that it wasn't performance-related, just some speculation by people not involved in the process.

Good point AH. But also the liberal LA Times is flip flopping. The LA Times had already reported Chiara was fired because of the low morale in her office. Once again the liberal media can't stick with one story to bash Bush but must flip flop with multiple stories.

Link

"For Margaret M. Chiara, "morale in her office was low and that Chiara had lost the support of her staff."

"Way down upon the Pirana River" croons George as he decides whether to move his Junta to Paraquay or Paraquat, whichever.

Frank Rich's article:
http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/when-will-fredo-get-whacked/

Offers a great analysis of why Gonzales is the "fix it" attorney general for Mr. Bush

"She's anti-death penalty. It rubbed the [Justice Department's] death penalty committee in D.C. the wrong way. I know it for a fact."

There's a "death penalty committee"? They love death that much?

It is sickening that this admin forces the death penalty onto states that don't want it.

Notice that they don't present any actual evidence that it wasn't performance-related, just some speculation by people not involved int he process.
American Hawk

um...The 'actual evidence' is that the people she worked with--her subordinates, defense lawyers, her Democratic predecessor, and the Chief Judge appointed by St Reagan--all agree that she was a particularly skilled attorney and manager.

join the Order Of The Shrill. It really is that bad.

that, in a nutshell, is what it all comes down to. The High Broderists (and Kevin has always maintainted a toe-hold in that cult, it seems to me) simply refuse to believe their lyin' eyes and accept the fact that these people are, in fact, as bad--as corrupt, as contemptuous of the Constitution, as ruthless--as we Shrill Ones and the basic facts have been telling them for six years.

Jim -

I'm actually not sure what tone of voice Kevin has in mind when he writes stuff like, "But for some reason they're reluctant to do that. Any guesses why?"

Wow. That WaPo article quotes John Smietanka, a Reagan-Bush 1 appointee who seems, in the WaPo, to come down kind of neutrally on this issue: A badly handled personnel issue, seems to be his take in the last two pargraphs.
He's rather more shrill in an interview with Carol Marin of the Chicago Sun Times:
''I am very hurt and disappointed,'' said John Smietanka by phone from Michigan late last week. Smietanka knows an awful lot about being a U.S. attorney.
For 12 years, he was the U.S. attorney for Western Michigan. A Republican, Smietanka was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, then reappointed by President George H.W. Bush. He understands and believes in a president's right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys, but, as he testified before Congress earlier this month in the wake of the scandal, ''the removal of United States attorney by fiat . . . should be approached carefully and may have consequences.''
On the phone last week, Smietanka was even more blunt about the firings, saying, ''The people who did it deserve to get roasted.''
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/311098,CST-EDT-carol25.article

Rich, from Mr. Frank Rich---we know this, but it looks great in print! Back to Carol Lam for a sec.

"...To see what Mr. Rove might be trying to cover up, look instead at what Ms. Lam was up to in May, just as the Justice Department e-mails indicate she was being earmarked for removal. Building on the Cunningham case, she was closing in on Dusty Foggo, the C.I.A.’s No. 3 official and the director of its daily operations. Mr. Foggo had been installed in this high intelligence position by Mr. Bush’s handpicked successor to George Tenet as C.I.A. director, Porter Goss.

Ms. Lam’s pursuit sped Mr. Foggo’s abrupt resignation; Mr. Goss was out too after serving less than two years. Nine months later — just as Ms. Lam stepped down from her job in February — Mr. Foggo and a defense contractor who raised more than $100,000 for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign were indicted by a grand jury on 11 counts of conspiracy and money laundering in what The Washington Post called "one of the first criminal cases to reach into the C.I.A.’s clandestine operations in Europe and the Middle East."
Because the allegations include the compromising of classified information that remains classified, we don’t know the full extent of the damage to an agency and a nation at war..."

Bush has made it clear that he really wants us folks that comprise the American People to fully understand the reasons. He just thinks the best way to convey that understanding is in secret, not under oath, testimony with no transcripts and no records. That must make sense to someone, somewhere.

Al
Nice cherry picking on the LA Times story. You are well and truly a loyal Bushie. The sentence you quote out of context comes from an after-the-fact CYA strategy cooked up by Abu G's crooked staffers looking to invent reasons for their purge.
As for Margaret M. Chiara in Grand Rapids, Mich., the memo advised saying nothing about her dismissal because she had not made public statements in her defense. But the memo also said that "if pushed," the department should say morale in her office was low and that Chiara had lost the support of her staff.
as your fellow 'wingnut troll AH says, always click on the link.

They did the same thing in the other cases too:
"The one common link here is that three of them are along the southern border so you could make the connection that DOJ is unhappy with the immigration prosecution numbers in those districts," Tasia Scolinos, a senior public affairs specialist at the Justice Department, told Catherine Martin, a White House communications adviser, in an e-mail.

This is not called "evidence"; this is called "making shit up".

Nice try though.

Thanks for the new posts, Kevin.

Make sure you read Jane Mayer's essay "Bullets," found easily on newyorker.com.
Worth reinterating, as we continue to ask "Why Were They Fired?"

Regarding Karl Rove's protege, Timothy Griffin:

"A former research director for the Republican National Committee and an aide to Karl Rove, the White House political adviser, Griffin had relatively little prosecutorial experience.

Nonetheless, e-mails between Justice Department and White House officials show that Bush Administration officials pushed out Griffin’s well-respected predecessor, H. E. (Bud) Cummins, to make room for Griffin, in part because “it was important to . . . Karl [Rove], etc.�
Griffin did not undergo a confirmation process before the Senate Judiciary Committee, as is required by the Constitution. Instead, the President appointed him under a little-noticed provision of the 2006 renewal of the Patriot Act, which allows for the indefinite appointment of an interim U.S. Attorney without Senate approval. Ostensibly, the provision was intended to be used in situations where national security might be at stake, such as the death of a sitting U.S. Attorney resulting from a terrorist attack.

As early as last summer, Justice Department officials worried that Griffin’s past as an opposition researcher for the Republicans might make him unconfirmable. (A Justice Department staffer wrote in an e-mail, in reference to the plan to install Griffin, “We have a senator prob.�)

Why do people even ask that way, when we know the firings were for insufficient Bushiness? (And then, lied about.) BTW, Good MTP today. They went over Gonzo-loss having denied being involved, and then the emails contradicting that. The fired US Attys looked and sounded great, as did Durbin and even Spector, considering his circumstances. (But no mention of the evasive use of RNC servers, which might directly violate law...) It gets harder and harder to evade ...

Sunday, Mar. 25
Exclusive! Dismissed U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias and John McKay, plus Judiciary Committee members, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL) & Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the continuing controversy.

cicero >"...Doesn't hurt to also nip the Lam investigations in the bud before they reach into the White House."

Nice misdirection there.

The Lam investigation wasn`t headed into the White House but it WAS headed into the CIA & other intelligence activities funded through the black budgets. You know, those budgets that provide "welfare" to all parts of what Dwight Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex". Gotta keep those wheels greased so they can generate false intelligence, forged documents, counterfeit currencies, false flag operations etc.

Can`t have all those Soldiers of A White God lose their cushy "welfare" now can we ?

"As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Since the RPuBs seem to have minisculely short memories.....

Once Presidential appointees have been appointed "to serve at the pleasure of the President" they serve the People of the United States, politically blind. 'At the pleasure of the President' is merely the process of their appointing.

Serving "at the pleasure of the President" was a straight lift, like so much else, from the home country, Britain, when the Constitution was written. In Britain "The Monarch" makes all the appointments but they are actually at the perogative of Parliament. In 1780, of course, when the Constitution was written, Britain was in the midst of a moment when Parliament's authority was in the midst of George III's atempt to become an Absolute Monarch. He could never succeed permanently because from 1688 prliament has been Sovereign in Brtain and the monarch constitutional, serving "at the pleasure" of Parliament. So George III failed and had to ask young Pitt, aged 24, to pick up the pieces: sovereignty was returned to Parliament

Aint it amazing we too have a George, only he is George II, trying to become an absolute monarch. What's in a name?

Do the American People and does our 'parliament', House and Senate, get that this is what these criminals are trying to do?

Chicken Shit and all you other Bush Arse-Lickers --- is that what you are? You want a monarchy, an absolute monarchy? I thought that was what, mostly, 1776 was all about?

CLD: Cleaning this up for you...

The only advice I have for the Republican peron is,

I could find job satisfaction in Paraguay

daCascadian on March 25, 2007 at 1:40 PM

I have been forgetting about GW/Cheney's private army they have been funding magnificently, Blackwater.

Thank you SO much for reminding me to be scared of how far the Mil/Indust complex has gone already.

Ah, Kevin.

Please explain how I am supposed to retort your arguments without having my posts reflexively delted.

dacascadin says "Nice misdirection there"

I intended no misdirection.
I think you will find a direct connection someday between the WH in the form of Dick Cheney's activities, and those of the military/industrial complex of bribes, etc. that Lam was investigation. Still might happen.

retort? Oh I think not! To retort implies a severe, incisive, or witty reply, especially one that counters a first speaker's statement, argument, etc.

You do not *retort* egbert. It implies a level of sophistication and ability to offer a snappy comeback that is light-years beyond your feeble-minded abilities.

Globe, Perhaps he meant snort not retort. I guess Kool-Aid in a powder form can be snorted.

This one's for you Apollo:

I know this fella from Dixie
He makes the apologists feel sickly
He kicks such ass
By whipping out facts
Poor trolls just find him too tricky

November Seven
Waxman subpoena power
Repubs lawyer up

Since an example of the crimes suspected in the purge scandal have already occurred in an extremely similar situation, namely the Marianas/Black case, why not consider the benefits of unfettered bribery and conspiracy as the underlying reason for the firing?

Isn't the administration's ability to shut down investigations that are finding genuine evidence of crimes a real gold mine?

After criminal activity was discovered in the U.S. Territories that was connected to Abramoff, and as he subsequently bragged, the federal prosecutor was punished. This was necessarily at the pleasure and with the authority of Bush and it was exclusively his responsibility when he demoted the successful prosecutor and shut down the investigation.

This was an early example (incidentally, noted in a 13 March comment to 'Bush and the Purge') of what was to be accomplished by the firings.

...without having my posts reflexively delted.

He who smelt it delted?

consider wisely always on March 25, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Thanks for the tip. "Bullets" has some great info into the new Arkansas USA, Rove's handpicked operative Tim Griffin:

In 2004, Griffin reprised the role, leading the behind-the-scenes effort to disseminate negative information about John Kerry, the Democratic Presidential nominee. As Rove’s protégé, he set up a boiler-room rapid-response operation at 129 Portland Street, in Boston. Security was tight, with guards and a buzzer system. Upstairs, thirty operatives worked in a maze of offices filled with computers and TVs. Among other things, the Republicans scrutinized Kerry’s parking violations and unearthed old gossip items and tabloid accounts of his troubled first marriage.

On the phone, Griffin suggested that his experience with the media would be an asset in his new job. “A lot of what I do is communications,� he said. “It’s no different than in the campaign.�

Senator Pryor doesn’t see things that way. “Doing opposition research shouldn’t disqualify a person from being a U.S. Attorney,� he said. “But the question is what political activities he did—and did he break the law? Were they suppressing the African-American vote? He says not, but that’s why we need confirmation hearings.� Pryor said that the Attorney General had assured him in a phone call that he wanted Griffin to face Senate confirmation. But now, Pryor said, “the e-mails show it was just the opposite. The truth is, I was lied to.� ...He has also co-sponsored legislation that, if passed, will force Griffin to undergo a retroactive confirmation hearing.

“I’m not interested in that,� Griffin said. “I don’t feel bad about the work we did. I’m proud of it. It’s research! It’s their record—I didn’t make anything up.� But as a man whose headquarters during the 2000 campaign was decorated with a banner that read, “Unleash Hell on Al,� he seemed to realize that he would most likely have to face the same kind of treatment that he is known for dishing out. Given that Democrats now rule the Senate, he asked, “Do you think I could get a fair hearing?�

Globe!

Wow, fine job! See, I suspected you were sandbagging your innate talent. Well done.

I'm only as good as my source of inspiration.:)

Specter, Hagel, and Graham speak out against Gonzales. CNN, March 25, Key Republicans question Gonzales' credibility:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his truthfulness and a Democrat joined the list of lawmakers who want him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid and truthful. And if we find out he's not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department.

Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said he would wait until Gonzales' scheduled April 17 testimony to the committee on the dismissals before deciding whether he could continue to support the attorney general. He called it a "make or break" appearance.

To Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, Gonzales "does have a credibility problem. ... We govern with one currency, and that's trust. And that trust is all important. And when you lose or debase that currency, then you can't govern. And I think he's going to have some difficulties."

Hagel cited changing stories from the Justice Department about the circumstances for firing the eight U.S. attorneys. "I don't know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management. I don't know what the problem is, but he's got a problem. You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility," Hagel said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Additionally, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, called for Gonzales to step down over his conflicting statements on how involved he was in the dismissals last fall....

Click the link. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK.

Posted by: American Hawk on March 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM

Isn't that the Al-Bot's line? Hock, are you really the sock-puppet of an Eliza program? Say it ain't so!
How long before you open with an "Ah Kevin"?

David Brooks said on the News Hour this is small beer. We should just move on now.

The email dump contained virtually nothing from before the firings discussing the reasons for targeting the eight USAs who were eventually fired. Surely there must have been such a discussion?

That's simply untrue, Kevin. Follow the links at your own link to Patrick Frey -- there are tons of emails from before the firings that are exactly what you claim doesn't exist.

Any guesses why?

Republican Congressmen, in response to their own policy preferences and constituent complaints, wanted them fired.

MatthewRMarler on March 25, 2007 @ 4.39pm

I am sure you are right; US Attorneys are apolitical once appointed, and it must have come as a surprise to them to discover that the Republican Congress's/Administration's fundamental amorality did not stretch to great numbers of US Attorneys. How incompetent it was of GW's advisors not to appoint amoral apparachiks in the first place. Never mind, Karl Baby had the matter in hand. Barbara Boxer to them all!

That what you meant?

David Brooks said on the News Hour this is small beer. We should just move on now.

I do agree that David Brooks should move on, retire from punditry, and find something else to do.

Oh my Gosh, stop the presses:

Hagel: Some See Impeachment As Option
Washington Post - 2 hours ago
By HOPE YEN. AP. WASHINGTON -- With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

My hero!

Damn, Hagel MUST be running for President or something AND, AND he has enought foresight to see the writing on wall. Imagine that from Repug even. A smart Repug, who would-u-thunk it?

I bet Hagel is the little trickle that turns into flood by 2008. All this "loyal Bushie" BS just plain looks bad. If Hagel gets in, than poor little Rudy Giuliani will need to get himself a little dinghy to even half-way stay afloat, because the Presidential ship is going to leave the harbor without hime should Hagel declare he's running. The Repugs don't have anyone in this damn race.

I'm sure it certianly make make poor senile armchair pundit, Broder's day. Seeing as how Broder is mostly all about labels being an armchair pundit and all. Broder's been praying for a Repug angel. Oh my gosh.

Darn, that should have been: "Imagine that from a Repug even. A smart Repug, who would-a-thunk it?"

Anyways, its nice that Hagel said "impeachment" whereby all Dems fear to tread. Somebody has to have a spine and turn out to be Repug.

egsmell: "Please explain how I am supposed to retort your arguments without having my posts reflexively delted."

Get a post-secondary education, learn to spell, reason, and think for yourself instead of reciting outdated talking points and maybe your posts won't be "delted". Also, as we keep asking, show at least some indication that you a real human being and not a broken GOP windup toy.

My state of Washington was rife with voter fraud in 2004, when our secretary of state and Mr. John McKay let the Democrats steal an election right in plain sight, putting Christine Gregoire into the governor's mansion by fraudulent ballots magically appearing as fast as they could be printed on an in-house computer that printed unnumbered ballots.

If Mr. McKay had done his job all the vote talliers would have been interviewed under oath and just how the election was stolen would have come right out. But now it can never come out.

A dishonest election is basically an act of war. It calls off the social contract. Democrats have things rigged in our state so that any time it is close enough that they need to cheat they can do it and no one will really get to the bottom of it, they will just do a little hocus pocus song and dance and pronounce "It's all better now," until they need to cheat again.

This is not a government by the will of the people. It is a gangster regime completely manipulated by an entrenched elite and immune from any legal correction.

Aw, mike cook, looks like somebody's still mad that he couldn't get even 10 percent of the vote in his own little campaign! Washington voters are such meanies!

Look, crybaby, the justice department had no beef with the way McKay conducted that investigation. Now, as they scramble about looking for the latest after-the-fact rationale for invading Iraq--er, firing the USAs--this is being floated with zero documentation to back up the insinuation that McKay didn't do his job.

This is not a government by the will of the people. It is a gangster regime completely manipulated by an entrenched elite...

We're with you on that.

...and immune from any legal correction.

No, I think you're going to find that the coming months are rife with legal correction. It's your boys that are going to be impeached, convicted and generally outed as crooks, of course. Crime never pays.

I agree that crime never pays. You are simply misidentifying the criminals. In the end, God directs all justice. God was very indulgent of Saddam and the Ba'ath Party for a long time, until they had completely acted out their urge to do evil. But now they are gone. All the car bombings in the world will never give the Sunni minority exclusive control of Iraq's oil wealth again.

Go ahead with the impeachment thing, by the way. It will just push events toward their logical conclusion.

maunga: Once Presidential appointees have been appointed "to serve at the pleasure of the President" they serve the People of the United States, politically blind. 'At the pleasure of the President' is merely the process of their appointing.

time to reread the history of Johnson's impeachment.

Unless Congress wants to make an impeachment issue of firings, as in the removal of Archibald Cox, by proving obstruction of justice, the president can fire anybody (without Civil Service protection) in the executive branch whom he wants to.

Any guesses why?

It was mostly done by lower level staffers, assistants to Congressmen and so forth, with a cursory review and approval by Gonzales. No one person still in the Administration actually knows why they were all fired. Even Rove might not know any more than the fact that all were recommended for removal by Republican Congressmen, and he was acting to keep as much Congressional support for the President as he could. You'd think that if someone actually knew, the first person called up to the Hill to testify might have been prepped on some story sufficiently concordant with the facts to allay suspicion, instead of that "performance" excuse that got everyone's hackles up.

Wrong thread, John Doe. But since you've posted your comment here...

Kevin Drum: The email dump contained virtually nothing from before the firings discussing the reasons for targeting the eight USAs who were eventually fired. Surely there must have been such a discussion?

John Doe: That's simply untrue, Kevin. Follow the links at your own link to Patrick Frey -- there are tons of emails from before the firings that are exactly what you claim doesn't exist.

Tons? Really, tons of emails before the firings?! Sure, uh-huh. Exaggerate much?

Making up excuses or fabricating "reasons" is far different than actually providing legit reasons. That's why the judiciary committees are investigating the DOJ's version of "reasons" with the support of prominent Repubs who are also speaking out against Gonzales and the USA firings.

The USAs themselves dispute the DOJ's reasons. Iglesias described his firing as "political fragging, pure and simple" in an email to friend, Joe Monohan.

Kevin disputed the "immigration excuse" previously in his FLAKKING PURGEGATE post:

DOJ commissioned a report and its conclusion was that two of the three prosecutors mentioned above were doing fine. There were no serious problems related to immigration prosecutions. The third, Carol Lam, did have some problems, but the report concluded blandly that it was probably due to differences in prosecution guidelines (Lam spent more time on felonies than the others) and could be fixed by changing the guidelines. Hardly earth-shattering, gotta-fire-her-ass kind of stuff. Furthermore, the report suggested, if Issa and the Border Patrol aren't satisfied with this, then perhaps Congress and the Bureau of Immigration ought to provide Lam's office with a few more attorneys....

Others on the PURGEGATE FISHINESS thread have also provided cites disputing the DOJ "reasons" aka "excuses" to fire the USAs... so far the more plausible answer is the firings were to replace the USAs with partisan hatchets like Tim Griffin, Rove's buddy.

Are you aware that Karl Rove named 11 states critical to the 2008 presidential election in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association? Out of those 11 states, Bush fired USAs in nine of those states. And he fired them, not at the beginning of his presidency, which is the usual practice of presidents such as Reagan (replaced 89 of 93 in his first two years), Clinton (89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years) and Bush (88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years) -- see Kevin's post "CHANGING THE GUARD" on Mar. 23, 2007.

As poster "grape_crush" cited with links on Kevin's KINSLEY AND PURGEGATE thread of Mar. 23, 2007...

In a 25-year period (1981-2006), 54 US Attorneys total have left office before the end of their four-year term for reasons other than a change of administration. Of these, only eight total have left for reasons other than death, acceptance of a judiciary appointment, running for elective office, return to private practice, or to serve in the executive branch or a state government.

Eight total. Those eight abbreviated terms break down to:

- 2 Dismissals: William Kennedy and William J. Petro.
- 3 Resignations: Larry Colleton, Kendall Coffey, and Frank L. McNamara.
- 3 No information.

Eight total in 25 years versus eight total in a day...Nine, for this administration alone, if you include the replacement of US Attorney for Guam Frederick Black back in 2002, a day after he issued a grand jury subpoena related to Jack Abramoff's lobbying on behalf of the Guam Superior Court.

Apparently, the judiciary committees think something's fishy, too, since they have now authorized subpoenas. CNN reported Mar. 12, 2007, " White House backtracks in row over U.S. attorneys"...

Back in Washington, a consensus was emerging among senators of both parties, and Gonzales himself, that the firings had been botched chiefly because the prosecutors had not been told the reasons for their dismissals.

Sampson's testimony on Thursday should shed more light.

One last point about Patrick Frey's "strikes" against Kevin... Frey makes a flat-out assertion that should be examined with raised eyebrows:

By the way, the reason I noted Drum’s misspelling of “Kelley� was not to be pedantic, but to reinforce the conclusion that he wasn’t actually looking at the e-mail itself at the moment he so badly (and materially) misquoted it.

In Kevin's JOHN MCKAY post, he refers to a Gonzales interview on Seattle radio:

Mr. Attorney General, as a way to defuse this controversy now, why not just come out and tell the American people exactly why these prosecutors were fired? What did they do?

Gonzales refused to answer [why]. Even now, after weeks of controversy, he can't explain why they were fired. He just repeated his usual mantra: the president can fire anyone he wants, there was nothing improper, and it's reckless to suggest otherwise.

...Why, for example, would McKay have been considered for a federal judgeship if he were doing such a lousy job as USA? Gonzales refused to answer that too.

My apologies to the PA regulars who already know this material and have seen it repeatedly.

Cheryl: Damn, Hagel MUST be running for President or something AND, AND he has enought foresight to see the writing on wall. Imagine that from Repug even. A smart Repug, who would-u-thunk it?

If Hagel leads an impeachment charge, he'll have to run for President as an Independent or a Democrat.

Meanwhile, Congress is way behind the wave in Iran. They need to pass a resolution prohibiting the expenditure of any funds in an attack on Iran proper, and prohibiting an offensive attack on Iranian naval vessels.

Apollo 13: Are you aware that Karl Rove named 11 states critical to the 2008 presidential election in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association? Out of those 11 states, Bush fired USAs in nine of those states.

Was anything accomplished by firing them after the election?

How were the 8 attorneys from 9 different states? Is that a misprint? Does the answer have to do with districts?

Somebody asked how somebody could be fired for incompetence and yet recommended to a judgship. The answer is that the people recommending for a judgship were different from the people recommending removal. Remember that Harriett Miers was on some of the Democratic Senators' approval lists for Supreme Court, even as other thought she was incompetent. McKay, after all, was well regarded by Democrats in Washington State, so he'd get confirmation for sure.

How were the 8 attorneys from 9 different states? Is that a misprint? Does the answer have to do with districts?

I shouldn't have written "fired" implying they were part of the single-day purge. Bush appointed nine new USAs in those states, of which four are part of the eight-USA purge of Dec. 7, 2006.

McClatchy Washington Bureau, New U.S. attorneys seem to have partisan records, Mar. 23, 2007:

Last April, while the Justice Department and the White House were planning the firings, Rove gave a speech in Washington to the Republican National Lawyers Association. He ticked off 11 states that he said could be pivotal in the 2008 elections. Bush has appointed new U.S. attorneys in nine of them since 2005: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico. U.S. attorneys in the latter four were among those fired.

Here's the McClatchy link and a few more excerpts:

Under President Bush, the Justice Department has backed laws that narrow minority voting rights and pressed U.S. attorneys to investigate voter fraud - policies that critics say have been intended to suppress Democratic votes.

Bush, his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, and other Republican political advisers have highlighted voting rights issues and what Rove has called the "growing problem" of election fraud by Democrats since Bush took power in the tumultuous election of 2000, a race ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since 2005, McClatchy Newspapers has found, Bush has appointed at least three U.S. attorneys who had worked in the Justice Department's civil rights division when it was rolling back longstanding voting-rights policies aimed at protecting predominantly poor, minority voters.

Another newly installed U.S. attorney, Tim Griffin in Little Rock, Ark., was accused of participating in efforts to suppress Democratic votes in Florida during the 2004 presidential election while he was a research director for the Republican National Committee. He's denied any wrongdoing.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the four U.S. attorneys weren't chosen only because of their backgrounds in election issues, but "we would expect any U.S. attorney to prosecute voting fraud."

Taken together, critics say, the replacement of the U.S. attorneys, the voter-fraud campaign and the changes in Justice Department voting rights policies suggest that the Bush administration may have been using its law enforcement powers for partisan political purposes.

The Bush administration's emphasis on voter fraud is drawing scrutiny from the Democratic Congress, which has begun investigating the firings of eight U.S. attorneys - two of whom say that their ousters may have been prompted by the Bush administration's dissatisfaction with their investigations of alleged Democratic voter fraud....

Meant to include this in the excerpt...

Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys.

Apollo 13: Several former voting rights lawyers, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of antagonizing the administration, said the division's political appointees reversed the recommendations of career lawyers in key cases and transferred or drove out most of the unit's veteran attorneys.

The Bushies and their supporters believe that the government bureaucracy has a long standing liberal/Democratic bias. They think that the "career lawyers" have a bias against them.

They tend to think of Texas Republicans as pretty close to the true center, and the Federal Government as biased. What looks to the rest of us like blatant partisanship looks to them like redressing an imbalance. It's as though they have only recently accepted that fluoridation of the water is not really a Communist plot, and they are a little insecure even about that.

Well, the one thing we are certain about is that the fired Republican-appointed U.S. attorneys were viewed by Rove's White House and Gonzales' Justice Department as just not being partisan enough.

Which just makes one wonder how corrupt the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys are who were NOT fired? We know that Iglesias, McKay, Lam and other fired U.S. Attorneys are honorable, because they WERE fired.

On the other hand, what did the other U.S. Attorneys "do" to keep their jobs including what did they do to help "pushback" last year against the negative Republican publicity generated by the Mark Foley sex scandal just before the November elections?

Can any of them be trusted to follow the "rule of law" and put aside their partisan allegiances, especially in the lead-up to the November 2008 elections?

Any "rule of law" American, whether Democrat or Republican or Independent, should be very concerned over the answer to these questions.

Which makes interrogating Monica Goodling, the DOJ's White House liaison, that much more important, under oath, in public, before a congressional hearing. Last October, during the midst of the Mark Foley sex scandal, she would have been the go-between, passing Rovian partisan instructions to the DOJ and to the U.S. Attorneys on how to handle the fallout from the Mark Foley sex scandal. Plus, she would have been deeply involved in discussions between the DOJ and the White House over inserting that provision into the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill last year that stripped Senatorial oversight from U.S. Attorney hirings.

Hopefully, her "extended leave of absence" doesn't involve her skipping the country? Has anyone seen her? Talked with her? I bet if she does testify under oath before Congress, both she and her family will have to enter into the witness protection program afterward.

Hey, egbreath, it seems that you are admitting that you don't exist. Or are are a pathetic coward who cuts and runs whenever challenged. But Bush, him heap strong man! Must follow leader...

No, like myself Bush is an ordinary man of ordinary wisdom and strengths, feeling his way through tangled times. Democrats seem to want everyone interrogated lately. I wanted the ballot counters and election results tabulators interrogated thoroughly after 2004 Washington election but the county (the source of the problems) wouldn't do it,the state wouldn't do it, and U.S. assistant attorney general John McKay wouldn't do it.

Democrats don't often need to cheat quite as much as they did in 2004, but when they feel the need again the same cheat machine is in place and ready for action. No matter how brazen, how bald-faced, how in-your-face the irregularities, nobody will face county or state heat for election rigging. Next time around they may have to sit down and explain everything under oath and to FBI agents, however, because John McKay, the Democrat ace-in-the-hole, no longer works at the Justice Department.

If Alberto Gonzalez has to go down too, that's too bad, but he should have known how to fire a blatant partisan hack and make it stick.

In the meantime, Iraq looks like a more honest society to me than Washington state, at least on the political level. Moderate politicians put their lives on the line in Iraq. It's kind of like the Martin Luther King story about the difference between being involved and being committed when it comes to breakfast. To make ham and eggs the chicken is involved but the pig is committed!

There are a lot of good people in Iraq. The proper Islamic way to view the intervention that has put an end to Ba'ath Party leadership is to note that George W. Bush did not send the coalition forces--God did. God used Bush and a lot of other folks as a tool to get rid of Saddam and his hideous sons, then had them stay four years to make sure that type of leadership stays gone.

God always knows what is right and always takes the long view. I wonder what God has in store for that world-class punk Ahmadinejad?