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

April 19, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GONZALES....I've only been watching his testimony sporadically and with half an eye (or ear), so I don't have any substantive comment. But for a guy who's been preparing for weeks, he sure does seem awfully flummoxed and testy, doesn't he?

Kevin Drum 12:48 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (81)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You testify with the sincerity you have, not the sincerity you wish you had.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

He's been called away from upholding the rule of law in our nation to participate in a Democratic Party witch hunt. If they have their way, they'll drive yet another dedicated public servant out of office. I'd be testy and flummoxed too. Has the left really fallen this far?

Posted by: Al on April 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

Al: He's been called away from upholding the rule of law in our nation...

Good one, Al. A Republican who cares about the rule of law.

LMAO!

Posted by: Riesz Fischer on April 19, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

What's Spanish for Uncle Tom?

Posted by: chance on April 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Al is just phoning it in these days. Pathetic.

Posted by: DJ on April 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Lying is hard!

It's complicated too!

Posted by: Arglebargle on April 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well they did say that Nixon wasn't that bad.Bush is out to prove just that.

Posted by: john john on April 19, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

You testify with the sincerity you have, not the sincerity you wish you had.

ROTFL

Posted by: Teresa on April 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

anonymous nails it.

Posted by: tomeck on April 19, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Agreed. Anonymous, you rock!

Posted by: rusrus on April 19, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression he sleeps in a hair net?

Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

He's been called away from upholding the rule of law in our nation to participate in a Democratic Party witch hunt. If they have their way, they'll drive yet another dedicated public servant out of office. I'd be testy and flummoxed too. Has the left really fallen this far?

Posted by: Al on April 19, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Funny how nobody in the Reich wing seemed concerned with this sort of thing during the Republican't Clenis witch hunts of the late nineties.

Maybe we should all just shout rule of law over and over again like the Republican'ts did back then.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on April 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I don't get CSPAN 3, so all I've seen is what was broadcast on CNN (with Arlen Specter doing the questioning). The main thing I saw was a guy on literally the verge of breaking down in tears.

Posted by: Bob (at 55-40) on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

anonymous must choose a less plain handle.

Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

he sure does seem awfully flummoxed and testy, doesn't he?

Him and Bush, birds of a feather - dumb, defensive and cranky.

Posted by: luci on April 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Who wouldn't be nervous if you have been found guilty by the majority of the committee because there's proof that you lied about your own activities before testifying before them?

This "going after the truth" mumbo jumbo is for all you liberals. They will poll their constituents before making a decision, unlike Republican'ts, who break the law whenever they want, and then imprison those who point out their illegal activities.

Fixed.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on April 19, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

So, Gonzales, after seeing that his lies about the DOJ informing Lam about so-called immigration problems aren't going to fool anyone starts claiming she knew because members of Congress told her.

So, who is running the DOJ, Gonzales or members of Congress?

And if it is the latter, then why can't members of Congress rehire the fired USAs?

And why should Gonzales keep his job if he isn't doing it, but letting members of Congress do it?

Here's a good question:

"General Gonzales, you earlier stated that Carol Lam was told by members of Congress that she wasn't performing well on immigration. Now, where I come from, the employee's boss evaluates the employee and informs the employee of any problems with that performance. Were GOP members of Congress Carol Lam's boss or were you? Why did you allow someone else not even associated with the DOJ do your job?

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

I can't stand that man's whiny voice.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on April 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Gonzales had to prepare forever because as Abraham Lincoln said "No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar."

Posted by: Steve Crickmore on April 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell: Who wouldn't be nervous if you have been found guilty by the majority of the committee before testifying before them?

Corollary: this principle does not apply when it is the police questioning a suspect, even if the suspect is totally innocent.

Second Corollary: this principle does not apply when it is the Princess Bush maladministration that is questioning and torturing a terrorism suspect, even if that suspect is totally innocent.

Third Corollary: this principle does not in any way shape or form apply to a Democrat being questioned by a Repugnican.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression he sleeps in a hair net?
Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Is that some sly attack on his sexuality? You don't have anything substantive to say so you stoop to this. Pathetic.

Maybe we should all just shout rule of law over and over again like the Republican'ts did back then.
Posted by: (: Tom :) on April 19, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Kevin, why do you tolerate childish word play on "Republican", but you delete my posts if I leave "ic" off "democratic"?

There's a serious double standard here.

Posted by: Al on April 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

What is telling is the fact that he was reluctant to provide straightforward answers to even the softball questions.

Hatch asked whether any USA was asked to resign for political reasons or in retaliation for pursuing or failing to pursue certain cases and Gonzo said, more or less, I don't think so.

What's that about?

I think Hatch was looking for an unequivocal "No." That he didn't get one is pretty astounding.

Posted by: Dungheap on April 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

cld: anonymous must choose a less plain handle.

Anonymous would but for the fact that anonymous is many not one.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

LOL, these Republicans are so crooked that Al's doublespeak is blowing back on him.

When I read it--that Gonzalez was called away from doing his job to participate in a Democratic witch hunt, I was like "yep, he's hitting the nail on the head."

Of course, I took the comment to mean that the Bush Administration had called Gonzalez away from his job of pursuing justice impartially, and instructed him to fire USAs who were upholding the law, investigating crooked Republicans and refusing to charge Democrats with nonexistent crimes.

Basically, the Bush Administration pulled him off his job and assigned him to a partisan witch hunt of Democrats!

Which is pretty much what he did.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

anonymous: Basically, the Bush Administration pulled him off his job and assigned him to a partisan witch hunt of Democrats!

Excellent point, anonymous.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

There definitely needs to be a "I can't recall" montage up on youtube after this.

I think most outrageous from the testimony so far (especially considering what the hearing is about in the first place) has been Gonzales's attempts to claim that various Senators are denigrating the poor, hard-working, careerists at the DoJ. I was glad when Durbin called him on it.

Posted by: Royko on April 19, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

...Repugnican.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM

See! They're doing all the time and you're not censoring them!

Posted by: Al on April 19, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Not only did Going Going Gonzo say congressman must have alerted Lam about her problems, when asked when Iglesias lost his (Gonzo's) confidence, Alberto replied "He lost Senator Dominici's confidence in the fall of 2005." It captured the situation perfectly. AG is truly inept.

Posted by: Jim on April 19, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK
This "going after the truth" mumbo jumbo is for all you liberals. . . . Posted by: Orwell on April 19, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK
Should I be the one to tell this commenter that George Orwell was a socialist, or does someone else want to? Posted by: the idiot on April 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I can't stand that man's whiny voice.

You know who he sounds like? Sam Kinison, when he wasn't screaming. Seriously.

Posted by: Royko on April 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Bob et al, go to http://c-span.org for links leading to the hearing testimony streamed live video via WMP or RealPlayer. It's on the C-Span 3 link. Use the standalone player for best throughput.

--Parrot

Posted by: parrot on April 19, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't seen much of the hearing, but what I have seen has been pretty sad for Gonzales. Nothing has changed, either he is a really bad liar unwilling to tell the truth, or a total incompetent. Either way he has no business being AG.

What boss fires a key employee for some shortcoming without first telling the employee about her need to improve? Talk about a poisonous work environment. How would you like to work in a Deparment of Justice run by Alberto Gonzales?

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Al,Is that some sly attack on his sexuality?

It's a sly attack on his egotistical hairdo. That he sleeps in a hair net would suggest a strong, in fact overweening, social hysteria, one of the principal characteristics of the SCAMD personality.

Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Orwell: Who wouldn't be nervous if you have been found guilty by the majority of the committee before testifying before them?

Ironically enough, terror suspects are found guilty and put into prison (for YEARS) before 'testifying', but somehow Gonazales, an architect of that policy, gets to remain free.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Jim: Alberto replied "He lost Senator Dominici's confidence in the fall of 2005."

It bears repeating:

"General Gonzales, was Senator Domenici Carol Lam's boss or were you?"

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

No one anticipated that the Democrats would question the competence of the first Hispanic Attorney General.

Posted by: gregor on April 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the impression he sleeps in a hair net? Posted by: cld

WARNING To Big Brother (aka moderator): Gratuitous politically incorrect comment to follow.

And on the weekends, he favors plaid shirts buttoned to the neck, sports a bandana worn "pirate-style," and rolls up just one pant leg.

Posted by: JeffII on April 19, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Orwell" wrote: Who wouldn't be nervous if you have been found guilty by the majority of the committee before testifying before them?

Having one's prepared testimony revealed as lies in advance will do that.

Posted by: Gregory on April 19, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ron: What boss fires a key employee for some shortcoming without first telling the employee about her need to improve?

Well, we need to admit that it is hard to tell someone about their need to improve when you don't actually know what it is they need to improve, since you haven't actually looked at the substance of the criticism, but merely know that they are "on the list."

I find it interesting that Navarette is defending Gonzales and criticizing the Democrats for convicting him before he's even testified (despite his numerous dishonest public pronouncements which they are not required to ignore), but it was okay for the DOJ to fire at least 7 USAs on the basis of mere allegations without any evaluation whatsoever of whether the allegations had merit, not to mention no chance for those USAs to testify on their own behalf and respond to the allegations.

Even though Gonzales is being accorded more courtesy than he himself accorded to the USAs, Navarette practically falls all over himself defending Gonzales, even lying on his behalf - one can only come to one conclusion: Navarette's support for Gonzales is based solely on the fact that he's a prominent Hispanic conservative.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes, this guy is a wreck. Fire should have canned him just to save him this embarrassment.

Posted by: chris on April 19, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I really want someone to find out if Carol Lam's important accomplishments were taken into account.

She investated and convicted a Congressman for accepting bribes to influence military contracts in a time of war.

That makes it one of the most significant public corruption cases in U.S. history.

In a decent department, run to acheive it's mandate, you'd think that accomplishment alone would prompt serious consideration before any sort of firing.

In a deaprtment merely cogniscent of appearances, the fact that she got a conviction against a member of the same party as the President would make people careful even for dismissing someone who truly deserved it - the appearance of corruption on the part of the administration creates serious problems as people lose faith in their public officials.

Posted by: Fides on April 19, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

eh-nonymous,

You'll have to put up with it when the next hive mind drops in.

Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Al respect is earned,Not a right.got that.Call me sick but I kinda like it when AL Cries,Reminds me of day care.

Posted by: john john on April 19, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

I really want someone to find out if Carol Lam's important accomplishments were taken into account.

She investated and convicted a Congressman for accepting bribes to influence military contracts in a time of war.

Yes, her accomplishment in taking down Cunningham and investigating the other Republicans were taken into account. Why do you think she was fired?

All the rest is total bullshit.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 19, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes, this guy is a wreck. Bush should have canned him just to save him this embarrassment.

Posted by: chris on April 19, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Reminders: Gonzales is not on trial, he is at a hearing where the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He is under suspicion for legitimate reasons (like, his statements were contradicted by his own deputy.)
Second, there are many idiotic defenses of Gonzales going around. One of the most pathetic, from Ruben Navarette, http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/navarrette/index.html?eref=rss_topstories, is: "That won't satisfy the critics. Nothing will, absent Gonzales' head. To get it, they keep changing their line of attack. ..."[then description of same]. Well, the critics keep changing their line of attack because Gonzales has done so many shady things about this! The complaint about changing lines of attack is a common debate trick used by dishonest or incompetent debaters.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 19, 2007 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

As near as I can tell he hasn't defeated a single "line of attack."

So many "lines of attack," so little time. What some might call a target rich environment.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes, this guy is a wreck. Bush should have canned him just to save him this embarrassment.
Posted by: chris

Given what a complete disaster his presidency has been, I'm pretty sure that Bush has no sense of shame, and so cannot be embarrassed.

Posted by: JeffII on April 19, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is live on the teevee right now giving a general lecture about "terrists" so hopefully people won't watch the crack Attorney General of the United States crumble like a cookie under questioning from Democratic Senators. Hilarious.

Posted by: trex on April 19, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Over at TPM, reader T.A. compares Gonzales' performance to those pleading their case not to by fired on "The Apprentice." I've never seen the show, but his performance is truly astonishing in its sheer lameness.

Perhaps my experience has been rare and fortunate, but I've done a lot of time in the corporate sector, including at some rather large and impersonal companies, yet, still, I've often witness senior executive leadership stand up and take the hit for poor performance, even when it is rather obvious that matters concerned details they probably were not, in fact, intimately acquainted with.

What we keep witnessing time and time again with the Bush administration at large, and with Gonzales now specifically, is senior leaders using the Enron/Worldcomm excuse that they're so busy being in charge that they really don't know what's going on, and expecting that to somewhat suffice as a valid excuse for poor leadership.

It's all a case history at large and proof of the old adage that the fish rots from the head. And who would that be? Oh, just the guy in charge of it all.

Posted by: bryrock on April 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B: The complaint about changing lines of attack is a common debate trick used by dishonest or incompetent debaters.

Exactly.

Navarette is an odious and mendacious little conservative toady.

Democrats haven't changed their lines of attack, they've simply added new ones as the evidence has accumulated.

In another dishonest technique, Navarette writes the following:

They're just not sure what he's guilty of. Well, they had better figure it out fast. Gonzales testifies Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We've seen this before from conservatives.

When it comes to conservatives accused of wrongdoing, you must have proof of guilt BEFORE you investigate, that is IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY AN INVESTIGATION YOU MUST FIRST PROVE GUILT, which of course turns our society's standard for such matters on its head.

Why would the Democrats need to say what Gonzales is guilty of BEFORE they finish their investigation?

They wouldn't and haven't.

That's not how our system works, or at least it's not how it is supposed to work and it is not how liberals implement our system of justice.

For liberals, the investigation precedes the determination of guilt.

Of course, we know from Guantanamo that this is not true of conservatives whose process is to impose guilt and punishment, then hold the investigation on terms that prevent the suspect from defending himself or herself or even to abandon investigation as completely irrelevant.

Thus, we should not be surprised that they, and especially Navarette, have mistaken this as the process being applied to Gonzales, nor should we be surprise that they find nothing wrong with the fact that this same process of finding someone guilty before (or without) investigation was applied to the USAs.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK
...George Orwell was a socialist... the idiot
This one is George W. Orwell not Eric Blair Posted by: Mike on April 19, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
I don't get CSPAN 3...Bob
CSPAN 3 available here Posted by: Mike on April 19, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

"You testify with the sincerity you have, not the sincerity you wish you had."

Brilliant.

Gonzales is beyond embarrassing today.

Posted by: Jim Bartle on April 19, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

..he sure does seem awfully flummoxed and testy, doesn't he?

Sounds that way, anyways...You can listen here...h/t to various posters over at FDL.

It's painful - Graham and Sessions are practically putting the arguments in Gonzales' mouth and the Dems asking the questions are just smacking the AG around. You can tell the parts Gonzales has rehearsed and the parts where he's just got nothin'...

At one break, most of the Senators - Dem and Repub - gathered together, shaking their heads.

Posted by: grape_grush on April 19, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

In his testimony regarding the U.S. attorneys scandal before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales once again offered his Sgt. Schultz defense. Like the bumbling German guard in Hogan's Heroes, Gonzales essentially claimed "I know nothing, nothing!" Sadly, his own recent statements show that while Gonzales may be similarly stupid, he is not ignorant.

The Attorney General's recent op-eds show his dilemma. While claiming to have played no role in the evaluation of the fired attorneys, Gonzales claimed they lost his confidence nonetheless...

For the details, see:
"Gonzales' Sgt. Schultz Defense."

For the latest news, document dumps, email archives, hearing transcripts and other essential materials in the firings of U.S. attorneys, see:
"The U.S. Attorney Scandal Documents."

Posted by: AngryOne on April 19, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

bryrock, As you might recall, Gonzales, or at least his firm, represented Enron. It is not surprising he is using the Ken Lay defense.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 19, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Unlike Ken Lay, Gonzales cannot say he did not know the law..I hope not, at any rate.

Posted by: Steve Crickmore on April 19, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Given what a complete disaster his presidency has been, I'm pretty sure that Bush has no sense of shame, and so cannot be embarrassed.

And this trait is reflected in the Bush Cultists who post here.

Posted by: Gregory on April 19, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, Given Gonzales's performance in all of this, if he did say he doesn't know the law, many Senators, both Democrat and Republican will compliment him for being very candid.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Flummoxed. Isn't that a great word?! Feels good just saying it. Rolls off your tongue. Imagine if that was your permanent state of mind, kinda like Dubya?

Posted by: steve duncan on April 19, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I still haven't heard the answer to one simple question. Who, exactly, made the decision to fire the USA's? We keep hearing "They serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them at any time." But I have not heard Bush state that it was him who made the decision.

Posted by: Tim Lovett on April 19, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like to pile on and my kudos to the first poster.

Posted by: Disputo on April 19, 2007 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Guilty criminals often appear flummoxed and testy, Kevin.

Fredo shoulda stuck to being a dirt lawyer in Texas...

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 19, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

So, the USAs serve at the pleasure of the president, but . . .

. . . the president had no participation in the firings whatsoever, much less substantive . . .

. . . Gonzales's only participation was to approve a list, without knowing the substantive evidence upon which the list was allegedly founded and only vaguely aware of the claimed reasons . . .

. . . leaving a bunch of out-of-control young GOP hoodlums, not the president and not the attorney general and not even the deputy attorney general, to make the decision on which USAs to fire . . .

but Gonzales is okay with the end result and he's not really responsible for any of it.

Got it.

Coburn (imagine, a Republican!) got it right when he basically said that Gonzales has performed more poorly in his capacity as AG than what has even been alleged, much less proven, about the so-called poor performance of the USAs that got fire and that if those USAs deserved to get fired for "poor performance", then Gonzales deserves it even more.

Posted by: anonymous on April 19, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Graham said the same thing.

Posted by: Disputo on April 19, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Gonzales' responses make it clear that he is not in charge of the DOJ -- and somehow he is not embarassed by that.

Posted by: Jean Arf on April 19, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Al: See! They're doing all the time and you're not censoring them!

EmmaAnne: I can't stand that man's whiny voice.

Me, neither, but apparently there isn't a software fix. The moderators have to delete him one post at at time.

Posted by: anandine on April 19, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ya gotta give it to Al. He won't throw in the towel when even he knows his guy is an incompetent liar. Al, have you no shame? Is there any ethical, constitutional, moral or legal line that these scumbags can cross that would make you stand up for your rights? Do you really think that these steady steps towards less freedom won't effect you someday? Do you really think that a fellow countryman should not be allowed to do a job he is qualified for because he is a Democrat? Do you hate half of your country that much?

Posted by: TK on April 19, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

All Americans should be embarassed to have this man represent our legal arm. His judgements on the appropriate way to run his own office is, at best, mediocre...and likely criminal. As Senators Graham and Coburn and Schumer observe, he should resign at the earliest opportunity if he really cares about the quality of the Department of Justice. Yet, still he clings to the wreckage of his tenure as if it was some sort of shining beacon for America?! Too bad it is only a 10 watt bulb, eh?

Posted by: parrot on April 19, 2007 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

One last comment. The Committee seemed to shy away from asking about the Patriot Act provision. My thinking is that they are still in the dark about precisely how it came about although they do have some guess about the primary players.

Also, no "Federalist Society" foo? Probably to hot a topic for them to actually get into at this time--but why?

Posted by: parrot on April 19, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

[this comment deleted]

--Moderator

Posted by: Rectuma on April 19, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Rectal tumor.

Posted by: cld on April 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

mhr --
Point of fact: "People of Color" is a general term for non-white minorities, most often used by same to refer to themselves. It's not the same thing as "Colored People."

Having said that, I have to agree that asking "what's Spanish for Uncle Tom?" is kind of silly.

Posted by: thersites on April 19, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

thersites,

Word.

More generally, some white libs can tend toward the paternalistic (which should be identified and avoided), but that is nothing compared to the crypto (and not so crypto) racial hatred exhibited by wingnuts.

Posted by: Disputo on April 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

he sure does seem awfully flummoxed and testy, doesn't he?

Hey, if Bush can get snide and nastyto Americans - why not his yes-man GA.

Rove is all about being as nasty as he can be.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 19, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

You can tell the parts Gonzales has rehearsed and the parts where he's just got nothin'...

He may not have had a contingency plan, but he did have a really nice suit.

Posted by: Zit on April 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Al, have you no shame?

Does Dubya, does Cheney, does Rove, does Gonzo?

Shame? Shame is for sinners and all sinners are liberal and all liberals should be ashamed.

Posted by: Dance the Hot Dog on April 19, 2007 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Someone get this Repug some smelling sauce.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) -- just started the afternoon round of questioning by telling Gonzales to resign.

"I believe there's consequences for mistakes," Coburn lectured Gonzales, noting that the ousted U.S. attorneys don't appear to have deserved being fired and that Gonzales himself then butchered the process. "I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

Since when do Repugs care anything about ethics or justice?

Sen. Tom Coburn is in the wrong party, I mean, how dare he not kiss Bush's royal sorry ass. Isn't that the whole meaning of being Repug. What will his constituencies say, knowing that all Repugs are either loyal Bushie or against the Repug Party.

Surely Dick Cheney will call Sen. Coburn into his office, sooner rather then later. Corburn forgot what Party he belongs - it's the GOP.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 19, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

I believe it was reported that the attorney general said "I don't remember" 77 times today....

Posted by: consider wisely on April 19, 2007 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

Well, at least Gonzales proves having a Harvard Law degree doesn't make you inherently beyond reproach.

Posted by: Vincent on April 21, 2007 at 6:56 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