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 29, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

ALBERTO THE CLUELESS....The New York Times reports on Alberto Gonzales's nationwide trip to meet with U.S. Attorneys and mend fences:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales endured blunt criticism Tuesday from federal prosecutors who questioned the firings of eight United States attorneys, complained that the dismissals had undermined morale and expressed broader grievances about his leadership, according to people briefed on the discussion.

....He reacted unemotionally to the criticism in the private session, responding that he had not previously heard of their specific complaints, including the McNulty memorandum.

Gonzales has already told us he knew nothing about the two-year process to fire a bunch of U.S. Attorneys, and in this meeting he knew nothing about any of the specific grievances the USAs brought up. Sounds like a real hands-on kind of guy. What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

Kevin Drum 2:51 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (77)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If only Bill Clinton hadn't made it okay for people to lie, the Bush Administration would never have ended up the way it did.

Posted by: America in Hock on March 29, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

I have a special practice. I handle one client. Now you have my number. I'll wait for your call. By the way, I admire your pictures very much.

I'm an attorney for the Corleone family. These men are private detectives hired to protect Vito Corleone. They are licensed to carry firearms. If you interfere you'll have to appear before a judge in the morning and show just cause.

Ok. I checked out the Captain that broke Mike's jaw. Now he's definetely on Sollozzo's payroll and for big money. What you have to understand, Sonny is that while Sollozzo is guarded like this he is invulnerable. No one ever gunned down a police captain, never. It would be catastrophic, all the families would come after us, the Corleone name would be outcast! Even the old man's police and political connections would run for cover!

Now we have the unions, we have the gambling; and they're the best things to have. But narcotics is a thing of the future. And if we don't get a piece of that action, we risk everything we have. I mean not now, but, ah, ten years from now.

Mr. Corleone never asks a second favor once he's refused the first, understood?

Posted by: jerry on March 29, 2007 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Gonzales has already told us he knew nothing about the two-year process to fire a bunch of U.S. Attorneys, and in this meeting he knew nothing about any of the specific grievances the USAs brought up. Sounds like a real hands-on kind of guy.

Ah, Kevin. How hypocritical of you. First liberals like yourself complain about how Gonzales was too involved with US attorneys by firing incompetent US attorneys who were doing a bad job. Now you're complaining about Gonzales because he's not involved enough with the US attorneys because he doesn't know every one of their tiny concerns and complaints. You can either have Gonzales be more involved with the US attorneys or less involved but you can't have both. Trying to have it both ways is just hypocrisy.

Posted by: Al on March 29, 2007 at 3:42 AM | PERMALINK

What's with this construct of using the middle initial? "Alberto R. Gonzales". I have no point here. I just find it odd when journalists insert it for no apparent reason when naming a person well known without the initial.

Posted by: bubba on March 29, 2007 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, why in the world do you take Gonzales'I know nothing' statements at face value? Always amazes me when journalists and pundits play like they're always told the truth, especially from inveterate liars.

Posted by: Fel on March 29, 2007 at 4:06 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I guess if I must have a somewhat substantive response: It's always amazed me to what extent incompetence is an acceptable excuse for misdeeds and allows a person to stay in his/her position. If you have no scruples, go; if you have no brain, go.

That, and at the lower levels where most of us humans work, I love how "oh, but he/she's a nice person" becomes a job qualification when discussing a good for nothing screw up. That one's especially prevalent in defense contracting.

Posted by: bubba on March 29, 2007 at 4:08 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't Abu G the stupidest cabinet official you've ever seen? Compared to a typical person of that rank he is a total moron, as has been obvious for a long time. I'm beginning to think he would look like a total moron sitting next to Beavis and Butthead too.

Posted by: Marky on March 29, 2007 at 5:35 AM | PERMALINK

Everyone will forget about the unqualified and dishonest Gonazales, when the bombing of Iran begins.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 29, 2007 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, come on. Haven't you heard of the historic 'No-Nothing' Party?

www.fedlocally.com

Posted by: Hamilton on March 29, 2007 at 6:13 AM | PERMALINK

Not to be confused with the Know-Nothing party.

Posted by: Hamilton on March 29, 2007 at 6:15 AM | PERMALINK

Not a hands-on kind of guy.

This "detached management style" worked for Reagan and for GW Bush, though!

Posted by: captcrisis on March 29, 2007 at 6:20 AM | PERMALINK

Why has the FBI scandal been ignored?

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on March 29, 2007 at 6:41 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

It's all about being a loyal Bushie, a yes-man, a liar if necessary, whatever comes down the Dick
Cheney, Karl Rove loyality pipeline.

So Alberto goes to see Patrick Fitzgerald but Fitzgerald believe Libby lied for Dick Cheney - so what's a moron like Alberto doing with Fitz?

Using Fitz as a prop I guess?

Is the message "I love Fitz cause he successfully prosecuted Libby like a good little scapegoat prosecutor"?

Jeebus you can go far in Bush administration just flying by the sit of your pants and making shit up. Inside the Whitehouse there is nothing in those stiff shirts except nasty partisan politics. A big white can of Rush Limbaugh sardines -pack to brim with a culture of stink, slime, hate and nothing else.


Posted by: Cheryl on March 29, 2007 at 6:53 AM | PERMALINK

Congress isn't commander in chief
Los Angeles Times - 3 hours ago
The Senate and House want a timetable for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. That's fine, as long as they don't try to run the war.

Jeebus, what is LA's argument here. That Bush has the right to do nothing if he feels like it?

Bush did talk about benchmarks, so what is the problem? Now we're back to stay the course and LA saying that Bush's lie about those so-called benchmarks is to be expected Presidential privilege, at least when it comes to Bush and company.

Congress does have the power of the purse, so they have set conditions here, in that way - congress has the right to expect something for the money. I don't see anything wrong with demanding that Bush have a plan, cause right now all he's got is his mouth.

I don't see anything wrong with telling that lazy, do nothing Republican to get off his lazy ass and set some goals. Bush has been on vacation at the ranch doing nothing since he got the Whitehouse.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 29, 2007 at 7:09 AM | PERMALINK

As Jon Stewart put it, Alberto Gonzales is apparently the Attorney General in the same way that some homeless guy is Mayor of the Park.

Posted by: Dave L on March 29, 2007 at 7:10 AM | PERMALINK

To impose "a specific and random date of withdrawal" would be "disastrous," the President said, and play into the hands of America's enemies in Iraq.

A random date of withdrawal is NOT micro-managing a war, so what is Bush's beef huh? Bush is acting like a juvenile who doesn’t want to be responsible with the money.

Bush wants to liberally spend money and liberals want to be conservative. Bush is one those unaccountable dirty hippies.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 29, 2007 at 7:26 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

The job of any senior executive is to see the big picture and set high level policy without getting bogged down in details. The details are what minions are for.

Posted by: Al on March 29, 2007 at 7:46 AM | PERMALINK

Gonzalez has been Bush's personal attorney for years. Sadly, when he got the job of attorney general, nothing changed. He's still Bush's personal attorney.

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2007 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

Sounds like a real hands-on kind of guy. What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

It's all in the lie. This guy knows the whole story and for anyone who believes a word he says, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell him.

Posted by: pol on March 29, 2007 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

Serving the President, exactly like his job as White House Counsel, duh. Despite what he told Congress at his confirmation, of course.

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2007 at 8:15 AM | PERMALINK

From George Bush's Book of Wisdom:

"Liberals keep carping about the glass being nine-tenths empty when they should really look at it as one-tenth full." -- pg. 3

"Give Judge Gonzalez a chance. It takes a while to learn how to lie with aplomb." -- pg. 4 (last page)

Posted by: pj in jesusland on March 29, 2007 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

Why has the FBI scandal been ignored?

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on March 29, 2007 at 6:41 AM

It hasn't totally been igonored. Several blogs have posted on it. It has been reported in all the papers. It has taken a back seat to the Gonzales 8. That is probably because there is no one person or small group of people you can tie to the scandal, except maybe Congress for giving the FBI such unchecked power in the first place. In short fixes are pretty obvious, and the President hasn't yet elected to draw a line in the sand.

I do agree the FBI scandal is probably the most important going today.

Don't forget Walter Reed, and the GSA political scandals.

So many scandals, so little time.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 8:19 AM | PERMALINK

I've heard a couple of pundits argue, most recently Daniel Schorr on NPR, that it was rather strange that it should be this issue that trips Gonzalez up, when there is just so much that's wrong about his appointment to this post and his behavior in it -- his lack of qualifications, his unitary executive theories, his support for torture, his lack of support for habeas corpus, his lack of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, his woefully misplaced law enforcement priorities, and so forth. I must confess that I have to agree.

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2007 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB: Simple, really. The firings are a direct assault on the political efficacy of the Democratic Party. The rest of those odious actions? They can be lived with, gotten around, or ignored.

Posted by: bobbyp on March 29, 2007 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

"What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?"

Keeping Jenna and not-Jenna out of jail/rehab/community service would be a full time job for Louis Nizer, much less this mall lawyer.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on March 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

PaulB,

You and Dan Schorr have listed six profound reasons Alberto Gonzales should not be AG. None of them have been taken up by the MSM. The current issue is important because the MSM's attention has focused on Gonzales by Josh Marshall and his team, Kevin Drum and a bunch of other bloggers.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

"has been focused" Preview is my friend.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Look, any reasonably objective political observer in and around DC knows the Bush Administration is just a house of cards held together with Crazy Glue.

As the Democratic Congress conducts simple, routine oversight the GOP Crazy Glue is cracking and the cards are falling, one by one.

The end of our six-year national nightmare has begun.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on March 29, 2007 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

"...his lack of qualifications, his unitary executive theories, his support for torture, his lack of support for habeas corpus, his lack of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, his woefully misplaced law enforcement priorities, and so forth."

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2007 at 8:21 AM


So what? AFAICT, these very points were (and probably still are) considered features, not bugs, as far as Congressional Republicans were concerned when AG Gonzales came up for confirmation. His main "qualification" was that President Bush wanted him (and that because he was aloyal Bush crony/toady from way back) - that was enough, in 2005, for the GOP-run Senate. The other stuff? The "Unitary Executive" theory was just fine (as long said UE was a Republican!) - the torture and habeas corpus stuff was a non-starter (since only Evil Terrorists suffer thereby, and no one gives a **** what happens the them) - and as for the "rule of law": it was obvious from the get-go that a to a creature like Alberto Gonzales the "rule" is whatever the Boss says it is: and as house counsel, it's his job to defend that position. Oh, and any cavils can simply be dealt with by playing the "wartime" or Commander-in-Chief" cards.

Features, not bugs: all allowable (and desirable) under the fundamental principle of Republican rule which has run Washington since 2001: IOKIYAR.

Posted by: Jay C on March 29, 2007 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Keeping Jenna and not-Jenna out of jail/rehab/community service would be a full time job for Louis Nizer, much less this mall lawyer.

Posted by: Steve Paradis on March 29, 2007 at 8:40 AM

On behalf of "mall lawyers" every where, I find your dismissive tone also most as offensive as your unfair comparison of America's ethical, compassionate and hardworking small firm and solo practice lawyers to Alberto Gonzales. Not everyone is born with a silver foot in his mouth.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK

"also most" = "almost." I have to get ready for work. Again, preview is my friend, preview is my friend.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

I see PaulB is thinking along the same lines.

Gonzalez has been caught in several lies regarding this scandal. I hope it isn't forgotten that it's now obvious he lied to congress in assuring them he understood the difference between the two jobs (or at the very least, in the implied promise that if he understood the difference, he would abide by it).

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2007 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

If it's Thursday the excuse must be "priorities differed."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl,

Your little Watching Those We Chose site is doing pretty well lately.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 29, 2007 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

I can't decide if all the lawyers in the Bush administration don't have a clue what the law is, or if they really believe it's whatever they say it is. It's got to be one of those. I'm leaning toward complete incompetence, that's the hallmark of this administration.

Posted by: justme on March 29, 2007 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Gregory: Gonzalez has been caught in several lies regarding this scandal.

That's it, I think. It's not that this scandal is more important than the others (I agree that the underreported FBI situation should be top priority), but Gonzales and his shop have been the Keystone Kops of lying on this one. It's horrifying and hilarious the way they run around making up excuses du jour without checking with each other. So they had to get caught.

Still, as Ron says, had TPM and other blogs not bulldogged this, it's not like the MSM would have noticed this huge scandal as they were tripping over it. I am continually cheered by the expanding power and influence of blogs in taking on what the traditional media gave up doing long ago.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2007 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

The evidence indicates he thinks it's all about helping the president do whatever the hell the president wants to do.

Posted by: kc on March 29, 2007 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Ron, I just had an idea - I have a hell of a lot of help and a great group of people. It isn't mine, it's ours.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Alberto's new nickname should be "Schulz".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 29, 2007 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

What's with this construct of using the middle initial? "Alberto R. Gonzales". I have no point here. I just find it odd when journalists insert it for no apparent reason when naming a person well known without the initial.
Posted by: bubba

They apparently believe it adds gravitas and dignity.

Witness Alfred E. Newman...

There might also be elements of submission posturing before someone more highly placed in the food chain.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 29, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

America in Hock: If only Bill Clinton hadn't made it okay for people to lie, the Bush Administration would never have ended up the way it did.

Recognizing that this is a parody, nonetheless I think the first time people became generally aware of a president lying to the people was when Eisenhower denied that we were sending U2s over the Soviet Union, until, of course, they had photos of Gary Francis Powers and a dead U2. People were shocked, shocked, to find that a president would lie.

Later, we discovered that Roosevelt was lying to us about sending destroyers to England, but I think that came after Eisenhower's public outing.

Posted by: anandine on March 29, 2007 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

Gonzales headlie (heh, a typo, but looks good and I should copyright that term) this morning actually has a grain of truth.

"Prosecutors dismissed over priorities".

Yup. Priority 1: File charges against democratic candidates. Priority 2: Dismiss charges against reppublican candidates.

So there was a simple answer to all this... nothing to see here... the fired prosecuters simply had their priorities backwards... move along now.

Has everyone watched the video clips of the head of the GSA being questioned in another scandal hearing? Answer to most all questions: "I don't remember anything".... heh.

Posted by: Buford on March 29, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Why can't you trust lawyers?

Because, even when they're dead they lie still.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 29, 2007 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

It's like we have Sammy Jankiss in charge of the nations checkbook.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

I believe the use of R by the press is an attempt to show a modicum of respect -

Repugnante for a Harvard Law grad simply could be misconstrued by the hoi polloi.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 29, 2007 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINK

Why is it that everything I'd actually like to watch on c-span is on c-span 3, which Dish Network doesn't carry?

Posted by: cld on March 29, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

ttp: Alberto's new nickname should be "Schulz".

I don't get it.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

Um ... supping at George Bush's lap? (Damn, I almost wrote "the president's" ... I must be slipping. I'm not about to start calling Shrub that at this late date!)

Posted by: Chainsaw on March 29, 2007 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop:

Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes "I know nothing."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the quick backup, BGRS - Shortstop is far too young to remember Cantinflas playing Hogan.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 29, 2007 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

It's pretty clear that Al, egbert, and American Hawk are all the same troll. During the past two days all three began one or more posts with the phrase "Ah, Kevin."

What are the odds of three different trolls doing that at random in the space of two days?

Posted by: nemo on March 29, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Keeping Jenna and not-Jenna out of jail/rehab/community service would be a full time job for Louis Nizer, much less this mall lawyer.

Typical liberals!

When you can't bring the man down, attack his innocent children. No wonder liberals act like Conan the Barbarian but have all of the impact of Conan the Goofy Ass Talk Show Host...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Normie, we are only trying to do our Conan The Barbarian act, in the hope Sandahl Bergman will reprise her "Air Erotica" dance with us.

And, All That Jazz, Norman.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 29, 2007 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Innocent isn't exactly the descriptive I would use for those two...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Innocent isn't exactly the descriptive I would use for those two...

Are you aware of any crimes they are currently being accused of? Oh, that's right! They're automatically guilty of being related to the President! Typical liberal smear of good people trying to live their lives in an America where only liberals have a grasp of reality and where anything conservative is unjustifiably conflated with illegal activity and fraud.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

What exactly does he think the job of Attorney General is all about?

This reminds me of Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal. He couldn't recall, recollect, or remember. He was asleep in this meeting or that meeting. These things were being done without his knowledge, consent, or approval.

Hey, worked for Reagan. Maybe Gonzalez also has Alzheimer's.

Posted by: ckelly on March 29, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

No, Norman - they live in the public eye, by - *ahem* - virtue - of being related to the president. Their actions in that public eye have earned them a fair amount of derision. Didn't they get kicked out of a country in South America recently for their antics? One of them managed to consort with street criminals under the nose of the Secret Service and get her purse and cell phone ripped off. Innocent? Not since third grade.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Argentina. You have to go some distance to shock Portenos.

Posted by: shortstop on March 29, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Didn't they get kicked out of a country in South America recently for their antics? One of them managed to consort with street criminals under the nose of the Secret Service and get her purse and cell phone ripped off. Innocent?

Are you insinuating that the daughters of President Bush went to South America in order to run with a vagabond gang of petty criminals? That the thrill of knifing a tourist and running down a back alley with a fist full of bloody German marks while the police chase them is what they were up to down there? Do you really think they get their spending money knocking over food carts on the plaza and filching coins out of payphones? Are you trying to tell me that these fine young ladies went around in panchos with dirty noses and grubby hands and stole bananas and cookies from indifferent shopkeepers?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

And, All That Jazz, Norman.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Then maybe MC Rove would show us his rap moves.

If you haven't seen it go to NevadaThunder.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 29, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

That is quite a leap of the imagination, Norm. Be careful on the landing, you might sprain something.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Bullshit mhr - this is holding a feckless loser accountable - who happens to be Hispanic. We would be just as hard on a white guy. Ask Sam Fox.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

In fact - you guys are the racists. It's called the soft bigotry of low expectations, and you are illustrating it perfectly.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on March 29, 2007 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone who has ever said anything bad about anyone who is even the slightest bit anything other than white is, indeed, a flaming racist.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

"When you can't bring the man down, attack his innocent children." . . . "Are you aware of any crimes they are currently being accused of?"

Very cagey of you to include the word "currently". Back in 2001 both Jenna and not-Jenna pleaded no contest to multiple counts of underage drinking, possession of alchohol by a minor, and misrepresenting their ages while trying to buy alcohol.

That was in Texas. In a separate incident not involving the police, a bar in New Haven CT also prominently displayed on its wall a phoney ID confiscated from not-Jenna.

Now all these are misdemeanors, not involving any jail time. But "innocent" is hardly the word that leaps to mind when contemplating the antics of Jenna and not-Jenna.

In Texas all they had to do was keep their acts clean for a whole 60 days to get these crimes expunged from their records. But if they hadn't succeeded in doing that, the authorities were prepared to seek formal criminal convictions and revocation of their drivers' licenses.

Posted by: nemo on March 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

I also recall that Ashton Kutcher caused quite a stir back in 2001 when he recounted tales of smoking pot with the Bush twins to Rolling Stone magazine.

Posted by: nemo on March 29, 2007 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

Anyone who has ever said anything bad about anyone who is even the slightest bit anything other than white is, indeed, a flaming racist.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Bring out the marshmallows, then. That Indian (South Asian) kid on American Idol can't sing for beans. I suspect, however, that Bollywood has expressed interest in his commercial appeal.

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 29, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

mhr wrote: "This is racism, tolerant liberal style."

ROFLMAO... Oh man, I just loved this content-free rant, so absurd on its face that it needs no fisking or counter-argument. Conflating criticism of an incompetent attorney general with an actual deadly lynching??? The mind boggles at the cluelessness of someone who could actually write that, much less believe it.

Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Serious question:
What does the org chart for DOJ look like? Is it Alberto and his (relatively) small HQ staff and then the 93 USAs directly under him? I guess FBI is in there somewhere too, huh? Actually, I just found it.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dojorg.htm

So the USAs are one of many equally sized blocks. Can anyone give me some perspective on how important the USA office is relative to every other thing here? I'm not defending him - I think he's an idiot. But some of what he says is probably true and defensible. He really can't know everything that is going on here.
Thanks

Posted by: thatguy on March 29, 2007 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

"I also recall that Ashton Kutcher caused quite a stir back in 2001 when he recounted tales of smoking pot with the Bush twins to Rolling Stone magazine."

I just checked it online. Kutcher said he met the Bush twins at a Hollywood party, and that they came back to his house where they engaged in underage drinking and pot smoking, using his roommate's hookah, to be specific.

Last I heard, possession of marijuana does involve jail time in many states.

Posted by: nemo on March 29, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Samson describes Gonzales as not being "accurate."
...Specter asked about Attorney General Gonzales' "candor" in saying earlier this month that he was not a part of any discussions on the firings. He asked about the November 27, 2006 meeting "where there were discussions" and Gonzales allegedly attended. Was Gonzales' statement about taking part in no discussions accurate?
"I don't think it's accurate," Sampson said. "He recently clarified it. But he was present at the November 27 meeting."
"So he was involved in discussions in contrast to his statement" this month? Specter asked.
"Yes." Sampson replied.
Sen. Charles Schumer then asked about Gonzales also claiming that he saw no documents on this matter.
Sampson replied: "I don't think it's entirely accurate."
Schumer: "There was repeated discussions?"
Sampson : "Yes."
Schumer: "As many as, say, five."
Sampson: "Yes."
Schumer then asked if Gonzales was truthful in saying Sampson's information on the firings was not shared within the department.
Sampson: "I shared information with whoever asked....I was very open and collaborative in the process."
Schumer: "So the Attorney General's statement is false?"
Sampson: "I don't think it is accurate."
Sampson was later asked if it was a mistake to let "ultimate political operative" Karl Rove to be so involved in the process because of the signal it sent to the public about political influence in the process. He agreed that it was....


Posted by: Mike on March 29, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Jenna Jaunts?

October 23, 2006 -- George W. Bush's Paraguay land deal. WMR's Paraguayan sources have confirmed that George W. Bush recently bought 42,000 hectares (over 100,000 acres) of land in Paraguay's northern "Chaco" region. The land sits atop huge natural gas reserves, according to sources in Asuncion. Moreover, the land deal was consummated in a dinner meeting between Bush's daughter Jenna and Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte. Although Jenna, who was in Paraguay under the cover of a 10-day UNICEF trip to visit child welfare projects, put the Bush family seal of approval on the land deal, the actual legal papers were worked out by Bush family lawyers and business representatives. Jenna Bush is supposedly working for UNICEF in Panama City.

Posted by: Relevant on March 29, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

There is a straight line from the killers of Emmett Till, killed for flirting with a white woman, to the liberals who savaged Thomas.

Nice to see that the Bush Cultists are so desperate that they are -- taking their cue from Rush Limbaugh, of course -- playing the phony "racist liberal" card.

But: Bullshit. Yes, in the mid-20th Century, many Southern Democrats were racist. Then came civil rights -- in the 1960s, you turd! -- and the racists defected the Democratic Party in droves -- and good riddance!

Yet they were welcomed with open arms by the Republicans thanks to Nixon's odious Southern Strategy. The direct line you pretend to draw goes straight to the rotten heart of the modern GOP -- the one you support and defend, mhr. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on March 29, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Buy more bullets....

Posted by: The Carlyle Group on March 29, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

mhr conveniently forgets that several of the fired US Attys are non white.

To answer the earlier question about why this scandal took off--those affected were Republicans and in a position to make their anger known. This is the GOP eating its own. When they do it to Dems it's business as usual.

Posted by: moe99 on March 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

mhr conveniently forgets that several of the fired US Attys are non white.

No sir, they are not. Julio Iglesias is not a WASP-y fellow, I can vouch for that. He performed in Las Vegas one time and we had a delightful time taunting him from the wings. I believe I was able to hit him in the thigh with a poker chip as he sang "Vaya Con Dios."

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

The prosecutors at other meeting talked about improving communications. Did the prosecutors in Chicago sit behind Fitzgerald?
Did Harriet ask someone to remove her water glass from the meeting in which Samson suggested firing Fitzgerald? Did she wipe her fingerprints off the records of the meeting?

Posted by: Dick on March 29, 2007 at 10:04 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