The Times covers the testimony of Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
WASHINGTON, March 29 — The former chief of staff to Alberto R. Gonzales testified on Thursday that he had consulted regularly with the attorney general about dismissing United States attorneys, disputing Mr. Gonzales’s public account of his role as very limited.
The former aide, D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned two weeks ago, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Gonzales’s statements about the prosecutors’ dismissals were inaccurate and that the attorney general had been repeatedly advised of the planning for them.
The two men talked about the dismissal plans over a two-year period, Mr. Sampson said, beginning in early 2005 when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel. Mr. Sampson said he had briefed his boss at least five times before December 2006, when seven of the eight prosecutors were ousted.
OK, I will take a stand here and pronounce that this was not helpful to Gonzales. The Times editors joined in:
But if Mr. Sampson was trying to fall on his sword, he had horrible aim. In testimony that got so embarrassing for the White House that the Republicans tried to cut it off, Mr. Sampson simply ended up making it clearer than ever that the eight prosecutors were fired for political reasons.
He provided more evidence, also, that the attorney general and other top Justice Department officials were dishonest in their initial statements about the firings.
"Fired for political reasons" is pretty vague, considering that these people were appointed for political reasons.
Dana Milbank of the WaPo has more - apparently Mr. Sampson staged an "I Don't RememberFest" - look for him to appear as a spokesman for gingko-bilboa, if he remembers to show up. But I am not criticicizing! Given the temper of the times, and the Dems desire for a perjury prosecution, not remembering may be the safer stratgey.
Ahhh - a new thread. Finally, some peel room!
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Hey, Mark Steyn is liveblogging the latest installment from Fitz...namely the Chicago trial of Conrad Black. Lord Black is on trial for profiting from the sale of newspapers he owned. Check out Steyn's reports at Macleans (I think it's a a Canadian paper that carries his columns).
Posted by: secarr | March 30, 2007 at 12:02 PM
The daunting ailment that has plagued those in the service of the White House continued to take its toll on the President's minions. Today, members of a congressional investigative committee continued their efforts to find the source of the ailment as it seems to be highly contagious. The most recent strains seem to be far more pervasive yet determining its origin continues to remain elusive. Senator Chuck Schumer closed his questioning by offering the hypothesis that the ailment was a virulent form of lying.
Many within the media stepped in to immediately offer the public a layman's interpretation of the symptoms as well as analysis of the ongoing implications if a cure for the ailment could not be administered soon. The White House continued to downplay the seriousness of the ailment as it sought to allay the growing fears within the American public that the disease might soon decimate the bulk of their elected officials. A growing number of pundits continued to suggest that the President is in denial as to the severity of the ailment and what it might do to the Republican Party.
See a tongue-in-cheek visual spoofing an upcoming episode of Saturday Night Live featuring a guest appearance by "The President's Prevaricators"...here:
www.thoughttheater.com
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | March 30, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I've been against many, many policies of both parties, but have never actively hoped for those policy's failure once they were enacted. I just don't understand the mindset of wanting the United States to fail in order to diminish my political opponents.
Ultimately, I guess that is the difference between today's right and left. The left sees everything in terms of its own political power and success. The right still has the ability to look at what is best for the country over the political.
[That response and parts of this thread are now a bit cryptic - pete had his usual "gee, the war is going badly" post, and for some reason I am not in the mood for his mindless thread-jacking. But a general announcement - there is a war in Iraq, even though someties I post on other topics.]
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Fodder for the new thread
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/59414.html
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM
pete - read this, then comment.
Killing the Surge:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2007/03/killing_the_sur.html
"A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that most Americans don't believe the surge is working."
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM
From the Times editorial:
"He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress.
The Times is reiterating a "misstatement" (lie) by LAT reporter Richard Serrano. Patterico covers the LAT's refusal to correct the story - even when provided with Cummins direct rebuttal:
Oh well, it isn't as if a NYT reiteration of a LAT "error" is surprising. After all, they both work for the same party and it isn't as if they were engaged in journalism.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 30, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Full site shown by splitting it into two lines:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/
vcblog/archives/2007/03/killing_the_sur.html
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 12:18 PM
FYI -- has nothing to do with the USA 8, only democratic coruuption:
Posted by: topsecretk9 | March 30, 2007 at 12:19 PM
"Given the temper of the times, and the Dems desire for a perjury prosecution, not remembering may be the safer stratgey."
Maybe avoiding actions that you wouldn't want to admit doing in public would be an even safer strategy.
Posted by: Badger | March 30, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Or to be clearer, you are posting the same incidents more than once.
Posted by: BarbaraS | March 30, 2007 at 12:36 PM
"Pre-emptive war that pre-empted nothing"
We cant possibly know that. Canard.
"100s of thousands of lives"
Lie. Highly unlikely according to all of the credible sources. Assuming that many have been killed it was primarily at the hands of Iraqi and Al Qaeda terrorists and not US forces, as your headlines unequivocally prove.
"the damage YOU do"
Lie. False premise. Canard. Damage is primarily being caused by Iraqi and Al Qaeda terrorists, not US forces. see above.
"continued occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq "
Absurd claim. Please seek professional help immediately.
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:37 PM
BarbaraS - Please don't let facts get in the way of pete's screed.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 12:38 PM
"GB - apparently Pete is a Sadrist."
You mean he's a fat little geek who wears eyeshadow?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Joe Gloor
I read the article and I understand the lame and transparent attempt to spin "the surge" but please don't insult america's intelligence. Whatsmore notice that the poll was done about a week ago. Hmm ... I wonder how the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... Hmm.
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:40 PM
PS- Pete- we're the good guys in Iraq.
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Pete:
"I wonder how the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... Hmm. "
Corrected Pete:
"I HOPE the violence of the last couples days will influence america's opinion of the surge ... "
Hmm indeed
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM
So pete, apparently you had heard all of the positive news coming out of Iraq, but just neglected to mention it in your laundry list of death and destruction?
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM
TMF is in a 2003 timewarp. Good luck with that buddy. America left you behind long ago.
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:42 PM
A preemptive war that preempted nothing which morphed into a war to liberate the Iraqi people which has horribly failed to the tune of 500+ billion bucks, 100s of thousands lives and millions of displaced or refugee Iraqis... and for what?
What is truley amazing is that creatures like yourself just do not seem to care about the damage you do. It's obvious that your support of the continued occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with the certain political death of US reich wing politics. Don't bother prertending this is not true. You are willing to bet everything in Iraq - all 25 million lives - to protect your politics from its unavoidable demise.
Ahh, almost an argument. Not really, as it is just an attack and a lot of cliche lefty talking points. Still doesn't explain his glee at U.S. deaths in Iraq or why he posts the headlines.
Pete, creatures like yourself have hated America for way too long. Your "clever" implication that conservatism is fascism demonstrates just how stupid you really are. Is that truly the best you can do?
Does it bother you that you are happiest when you hear that another U.S. servicemember has died? Does it bother you that you, from the very begining, WANTED the U.S. to fail?
Does it bother you that you always side with the people who hate america the most? Does it bother you that you can't seem to see beyond party labels to look at actual policies and ideas?
You hate america. I don't understand it, I don't know why it is, but it is true. It is demonstrated every time you post. Your glee at headlines showing american deaths is disgusting. Your belief that america is always in the wrong, or that anyone you disagree with politically can't possibly have a good motive, is ridiculous.
And no, I don't believe that all those who opposed the war hate america, or that all leftists hate america. Or even that people who think we should leave Iraq now hate america. Some of those people make reasonable arguments for their principled stances.
Not you. You simply hate america, want america to fail, want america to be weakened internationally, and want democrats to win at all costs. It is sad and it is pathetic, but it is not persausive in any way. Why do you come here? What do you hope to achieve with your hate and stupidity? You certainly have never had any intention of engaging in actual discussion or reasoned debate.
You are neither a deep thinker nor do you have a very good grasp (beyond reading headlines that support your world view) of what is actually going on in the world. You simply mimick lefty talking points that you probably read at DailyKOS or elsewhere.
You have proven yourself icapable of discussing events beyond mere leftist talking points and calling names.
And, it may make you feel good to believe that conservatism is "over", but I hardly think there is any evidence whatsoever for that view. Indeed, the democrats only won a majority by adopting conservative arguments and running a slew of conservative candidates. So, if conservatisms death is what you call it when our arguments are what are used to win elections, I guess I'll take that death.
When was the last time true liberalism won anywhere but in big cities? When was the last time a liberal candidate won a national election. Bill Clinton ran both times as a conservative democrat - not a liberal.
I'm pretty confident that the next president will be a republican, right of center. Moreover, I'm pretty confident the GOP will win at least one chamber of congress in 2008.
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 12:43 PM
"So pete, apparently you had heard all of the positive news coming out of Iraq, but just neglected to mention it in your laundry list of death and destruction?"
Oh do you mean the "election" of a Iraqi "government" that couldn't last one day - not a single day - outside of the green zone. Is that your idea of success? Dig in. You will never crawl out!
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:45 PM
pete
"America left you behind long ago"
Yeah, sure they did nimrod
Thats why the "new direction" congress just (as in a few days ago) voted to keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for another year, with thousands to remain in Iraq thereafter, and appropriated billions of dollars for said troops.
And in 2006, when a vote was put up to pull US troops "immediately" out of Iraq, the "new direction" Democrats voted against it, 200 to 1.
Your so 2000
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Ingrate Banana
Man what did you do? Read the GOP's 1960s-left-hates-america talking points. Do you really think that trash is going to work at this point. Look around bud. America hates YOU!
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM
The Iraqi government was elected.
But you could be correct that it wouldn't last a day with the kind of support that you would provide - that being none.
Great Banana is correct in his statement that you are hoping for a US defeat in Iraq.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Pete,
In all seriousness, what do you think will happen in and to Iraq if America leaves now?
What do you think will happen to U.S. interests in the region?
How do you think leaving now will further U.S. interests or regional stability?
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM
TMF dig deeper. That was just lame.
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:50 PM
pete
Excellent rejoinder.
Where did you learn your debating skills, chuck-e-cheese?
If America has gone anti-war, it's purported "anti war" party voted to continue the war for another year.
Perhaps America is impatient with the situation in Iraq, perhaps it wants things to improve faster, however it most certainly is not with insane, drooling America haters and terrorist enablers like you.
See you in a few minutes, you witless buffoon
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM
"Great Banana is correct in his statement that you are hoping for a US defeat in Iraq."
No. I am not. Why do you pretend that anything but defeat has already ocurred?
Have fun losers. Off too work.
Posted by: pete | March 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Pete,
Do you even read? Did you read what I wrote? obviously not, b/c your response demonstrates you did not. I did not say the "left" hates america. I said "YOU" hate america.
You have not demonstrated how I am in any way wrong.
America does not hate me. My politics (conservative) are much more popular than your politics. Why do you think your candidates (dems) try to move right always to run for President?
Why do you think dems lie about their positions and try to sound more conservative? Why do you think it is that no politician (outside of some Urban centers) ever runs and gets elected as an unabashed Liberal, yet many run and get elected as conservatives.
We've won on just about every issue. And will continue to do so. Just b/c Bush's popularity (which is still higher than the democrat majority congress's) is low, does not mean that conservatism is unpopular.
But, I guess it would be much to much for me to expect you to understand that.
Moreover, I am not poll driven anyway. I would still believe what I believe b/c it is right. Sometimes the right thing is hard and is unpopular. That is something that the left can't deal with, ever.
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 12:53 PM
pete,
Explain these numbers for us oh intelligent one:
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Mar-07 1673
Feb-07 1531
Jan-07 1802
Dec-06 1752
Nov-06 1864
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Now note for us that just before the election there was a spike in Iraqi deaths. See August and September. How do you explain that? And now the trend is down. How do you rationalize that. See the numbers for yourself here.
Posted by: Specter | March 30, 2007 at 12:55 PM
No. I am not. Why do you pretend that anything but defeat has already ocurred?
Typical liberal. Because something is difficult, is should be abandoned immediately.
That is a wonderful life philosophy you have.
I'm sure when we had defeats in WWII that type of thinking prevailed.
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Specter
Dont bother.
Its "working"
Didnt know work required lubricant.
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 12:56 PM
British forces are on a UN mandated mission in the Gulf,the Navy are acting as UN forces.
Iran makes Britain leaving Iraq a condition for hostage release.
Pelosi blocks support for Britain in Congress.
Russia blocks support for Britain in the UN.
al Qaeda is fighting to get the Coalition to leave Iraq.
Moqtadr Sadr is Iran's bitch.
Where does this leave pete?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Can Bush continue to say that getting out of Iraq is going to be left to the next President?
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM
British forces are on a UN mandated mission in the Gulf,the Navy are acting as UN forces.
Iran makes Britain leaving Iraq a condition for hostage release.
Pelosi blocks support for Britain in Congress.
Russia blocks support for Britain in the UN.
al Qaeda is fighting to get the Coalition to leave Iraq.
Moqtadr Sadr is Iran's bitch.
Where does this leave pete?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Lets see, what were the stated goals of the Iraq war, according to Bush?
1. Toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime
Achieved. We won.
2. Ending Saddams ongoing voilations of 17 UN Resolutions
Achieved. We won.
3. Ending Saddams ongoing support of terrorism in Israel and elsewhere.
Achieved. We won.
4. Ending Saddams capacity to produce and/or use WMDs
Achieved. We won.
5. Assist the Iraqis in building a stable, democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and does not support terrorism
Half way there.
So yeah, I guess achieving 95% of your goals in a military action could be deemed a "failure"
If you are a mental chimpanzee.
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 01:00 PM
TMF:
Where did you learn your debating skills, chuck-e-cheese?
Whoa whoa whoa.
I was in a Chuck-E-Cheese last weekend for our neighbor's 4 year old b-day party.
What you just did was dern near slanderous to 4 year olds everywhere.
I mean, have you ever tried to debate a 4 year old (or in my case a 3 year old and 5 year old) on the merits of LEAVING a Chuck-E-Cheese?
They would leave pete lying on the floor curled up in a ball.
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2007 at 01:02 PM
Good Lord, hit and run, there's not enough beer in all the Chuck-e-Cheese restaurants to get me to eat that pizza. I think they use card-board for the crust.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:12 PM
Joe:
Good Lord, hit and run, there's not enough beer in all the Chuck-e-Cheese restaurants to get me to eat that pizza. I think they use card-board for the crust.
Yeah, and the weren't even selling beer - the party was at 10am
But you shoulda seen me doing the skeet ball.
En fuego!
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2007 at 01:15 PM
sferris,
Don't you think it is obscene that pete has an orgasm every time someone gets killed in Iraq? That must be some "Grim Milestone" in his underwear.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:16 PM
PeterUK, at least Blair has enough sense to start pulling UK troops out of Iraq. I guess Brits support timetables.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:17 PM
Oh yeah. Skeet ball - can you still win a 50 cent trinket if you spend $30 in games?
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:18 PM
Answer the question sferris.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:19 PM
sferris Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.
You're good with long range thinking then, I take it.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:21 PM
*** not good with long range thinking ***
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Joe:
Oh yeah. Skeet ball - can you still win a 50 cent trinket if you spend $30 in games?
Yeah, pretty much. I gave all our tickets to another neighbor. She was over 1000 tix by the time we left.
So, yeah, she probably got a sponge bob eraser or something.
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Since wev'e met 95% of our goals let's declare victory and leave. Stabalizing Iraq will take another 10-20 years.
Even if true, wouldn't it still be worth it? If we can produce a stable, free, democratic state in the middle of the islamic world (not counting Isreal)?
Wouldn't that be worth it for stablizing the region and pursuing peace in the region?
As opposed to leaving right now, and allowing the region to become even more unstable?
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 01:23 PM
If the UK is pulling it's troops out, isn't it hypocitical to tell us to stay?
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Hopefully the UK will pull their troops out of Iraq and start moving them into Iran.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:26 PM
Petey,
Why aren't you serving in Iraq?
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:31 PM
UK isn't going to attack Iran. They will get their troops back without resorting to using their military. It's a policiy lesson the US needs to learn. We don't need more wars, or more stupid wars.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Howard Kurtz:
Does everyone in the Bush administration have amnesia?
Alberto Gonzales kept saying he wasn't involved in any discussions about the firing of U.S. attorneys, but according to his former chief of staff yesterday, he was -- several times over.
Gonzales couldn't even recall a conversation with the president involving GOP complaints about some U.S. attorneys, although Bush remembered it.
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:33 PM
White House officials are frustrated that Gonzales is taking so long to get up to Capitol Hill to attempt damage control on last year’s controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
It was on March 14th that President Bush said, “Al was right, mistakes were made, and he’s going to go up to Capitol Hill to correct them.”
Fifteen days later, he still has not made it to face Congress. In fact, he’s not scheduled to appear on the Hill until he testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee about the matter on April 17.
The timing of that hearing was determined by committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), but Republicans at the White House and in Congress think Gonzales should have asked for an earlier hearing or, at the very least, should be meeting one-on-one with key members of the committee.
If Gonzales is looking for signs of job security, this isn’t it.
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:34 PM
The war is going to be there whether we pull out of Iraq or not - it's a 'global war' in case you haven't heard.
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 01:35 PM
sferris,
"If the UK is pulling it's troops out, isn't it hypocitical to tell us to stay?"
Stick to writing code,your command of English is too poor for you the think in it.
The sentence isn't even logical.Hypocritical? Doesn't even have a meaning in this context.
Post in your native tongue and we'll shove it through Babelfish.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:36 PM
Separate White House E-mail Accounts Draw New Criticism
--US News & World Report
News that administration officials are buying separate private E-mail accounts to avoid using the internal system, coupled with reports that aides have often used GOP E-mail accounts, is drawing heat from public interest groups. One, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, claims the practice could be illegal.
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:36 PM
"Petey,
Why aren't you serving in Iraq?"
Why aren't you Tom/mark/Dalton?
Oh sorry,they have raised the age for recruitment but they haven't lower the IQ requirements.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:39 PM
Why hasn't CREW pursued the Diane Feinstein Culture of Corruption?
Typical leftwing pick and choose the villian today.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 01:42 PM
How George H.W. Bush Helped Saddam Hussein Prevent an Iraqi Uprising
The following is an adapted excerpt from "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" (Other Press) by Barry Lando.
Though Saddam Hussein has been dispatched, the trial of his confederates continues in Baghdad. In the next few months, the Special Iraqi Tribunal will be hearing evidence against almost a hundred of Saddam's former officials, charged with the slaughter of tens of thousands of Shiites following the abortive uprising or Intifada of 1991.
Because of the way the Tribunal has been run, it's highly unlikely there'll be any mention of U.S. complicity with that slaughter. In fact, President George H. W. Bush was very much involved.
It was he who in February 1991, as American forces were driving Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, called for the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow the dictator. That message was repeatedly broadcast across Iraq. It was also contained in millions of leaflets dropped by the U.S. Air Force. Eager to end decades of repression, the Shiites arose. Their revolt spread like wildfire; in the north, the Kurds also rose up. Key Iraqi army units joined in. It looked as if Saddam's days were over.
But then George H. W. Bush blew the whistle. Things had got out of hand. What Bush had wanted was not a messy popular uprising but a neat military coup -- another strongman more amenable to Western interests. The White House feared that turmoil would give the Iranians increased influence, upset the Turks, wreak havoc throughout the region.
But the Bush administration didn't just turn its back; it actually aided Saddam to suppress the Intifada.
The Uprising Smashed
When Saddam's brutal counter-attack against the rebellions began, the order was given to American troops already deep inside Iraq and armed to the teeth not to assist the rebellion in any way -- though everyone knew that they were condemning the Intifada to an awful defeat. Thanks to their high-flying reconnaissance planes, U.S. commanders would observe the brutal process as it occurred.
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:42 PM
A little senstive over your governments decision to starting pull it's troops from Iraq?
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:42 PM
"One, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW,a Democrat front organisation, claims the practice could be illegal."
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:34 PM
Dalton, did you get that from the carpetbaggerreport - quoting ABC?
Kinda like semanticleo pulled the "Costanza" bit from carpetbagger?
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Gonzales job security is the President.
Keep dreaming.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 01:44 PM
March 30, 2007
That's the only fella Gonzales has to worry about.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | March 30, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Tom,
That's hardly new information. Bush I's decision to allow Hussein to stay in power was a terrible one. What is your point?
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Petey,
You didn't answer my question. You're constantly talking up the war, backing Bush to the hilt, yet you aren't serving in Iraq.
If you feel so strongly...why didn't you enlist and serve??
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:45 PM
We have the duo of Enlightened and PeterUK both here today. No coding for me. It's Caesar Chavez day.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:45 PM
"A little senstive over your governments decision to starting pull it's troops from Iraq?"
No they are needed more in Afghanistan.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Oh, Great One,
Can you read?
The point of the passage isn't just that Bush backed away from invading Baghdad, it's that we literally aided in Saddam's continued leadership.
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Petey,
You didn't answer my question. You're constantly talking up the war, backing Bush to the hilt, yet you aren't serving in Iraq.
If you feel so strongly...why didn't you enlist and serve??
It never takes them long to go for the "chickenhawk" meme.
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 01:47 PM
Where are all those subpoenas regarding the fired eight?
Whats that? Private meetings not under oath, but duy transcribed?
Looks like Bush won that round.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 01:48 PM
We aided Saddam? Yep, yessir Billy Boy Clinton sure as hell did.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 01:49 PM
You first markg8.Still pestering young people on the internet?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 30, 2007 at 01:50 PM
Oh, Great One,
Can you read?
The point of the passage isn't just that Bush backed away from invading Baghdad, it's that we literally aided in Saddam's continued leadership.
OK, I'll try again to see if you can undersand. Read it twice before responding.
If by "aided" you mean did not support the people who rose up - again that is old news, it was a bad decision, and what is your point?
If by "aided" you mean something else - cite to what you mean. That article says what everyone has known since 1991 - we called for an uprising and then did nothing to help that uprising. Moreover, we called off the dogs at the "highway of death" and did not completely destroy Saddam's Republican Guard.
I did not read anything in your quotation that indicated we actually "aided" in the sense that we affirmatively helped Saddam put the uprising down. If that is what you are trying to imply, cite to some evidence.
Where do you have any evidence of that?
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 01:51 PM
I caught the CSPAN rebroadcast of Samapson's appearance yesterday. The "I don't remember" aspect of Sampson's answers is being mischaracterized. Sampson was being very careful not to get trapped by having his words twisted. He would frequently say, "Senator, I don't remember it happening the way you describe." Or "I don't recall anyone saying anything like that." When he answered that way, he was really saying, "no it didn't happen that way" period, but his lawyer prepared him well and he would not answer any questions based on documents without demanding to see the document first, he prefaced every answer with "to the best of my recollection" or a variant of that phrase.
I found Sampson to be believable and honestly trying to answer the questions. But, I also sense that the younger staffers, including him, were more outspoken and sometimes very politically naive as they would suggest certain courses of actions. He admitted that on more than one occasion, he was sorry he suggested something the moment the thought left his mouth. And he again and again said that when necessary the "principals" refused to go forward or shut down the staffers with icy stares letting them know that their suggestions were off the wall.
He admitted that he was also unaware of certain types of political fallout in advance and only became aware in hindsight.
I think the majority of this faux scandal has been fueled because of naivety and inexperience of staffers or the over enthusiasm of youth, which shows up in some of the email chains.
The problem for the dems trying to gin this up to more than it is, is that the people making the ultimate decisions are not putting the seal of approval on the earlier email suggestions of staffers when those suggestions are obviously off the wall stupid. It is like watching sausage being made and a peak into how younger, inexperienced staffers get their on-the-job training in political theater and intrigue.
Posted by: Lady Sara | March 30, 2007 at 01:51 PM
This Pete is such a contemptible worm that it is probably ill-advised to respond to him, but I will anyway, just for the hell of it.
No one, least of all Pete himself, could persuade me that he is not actively hoping for a defeat of the US and the Iraqis who seek to build some modicum of a free society. Nor can I be persuaded that he is not delighted with the deaths and atrocities he reports.
I think it might be useful to examine today's ongoing events against some historical perspective.
During the Revolutionary War, George Washington's army suffered defeat after defeat, but persevered to ultimate victory. Washington changed the rationale for the war even as it was going on: before July 4, 1776 the stated purpose of the war was to secure the colonists' rights as Englishman; only after that date did it become a war for independence. No one complained about the sudden change in the rationale. So far as I am aware, no American who was not loyal to King George made a point of listing the American setbacks and repeatedly predicting--or even announcing--defeat. That is what Pete does. There simply were no Petes in those days.
During the US Civil War, many thousands--sometimes tens of thousands--of Americans died in single battles, including First and Second Manassas, Shiloh, Antietam, Cold Harbor and Gettysburg. The war was begun to prevent southern secession; only with the Emancipation Proclamation did it become a war to end slavery. Lincoln changed utterly the entire rationale for having begun the war. There were, indeed, people like Pete abroad in the land during that period, complaining, predicting defeat and viligying the president. They were known as traitors. They are not remembered fondly today.
Shortly after Pearl Harbor, a few Republicans sought to blame FDR for the attack, and even to suggest that he had known of it in advance but welcomed it. They were so shamed by their colleagues that they ceased this line of argument almost immediately. The US suffered innumerable setbacks, and lost thousands of dead in single battles, including Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pelelieu, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Kasserine Pass, Normandy and the Bulge (where the US troops were caught flatfooted and napping). Very few whined and complained, and no one trumpeted the casualties or the setbacks. Over 700 men were killed in a rehearsal for the Normandy landings; no one questioned FDR's competence or his conduct of the war. The US invaded places such as the Solomon Islands, Morocco, Italy and France, none of which had had anything to do with Pearl Harbor. No one complained.
We don't know Pete's identity, but we can rest assured that those who do will not forget his evident pleasure in losses suffered by our men and women. Pete can count himself very lucky that I can't find him and get very personal with him.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:52 PM
York's latest.
Posted by: hit and run | March 30, 2007 at 01:53 PM
peak = peek
Posted by: Lady Sara | March 30, 2007 at 01:55 PM
It's been reported here that Britain sees Afghanistan as more salvageable then Iraq. There's also more support in Britain for troop redeployments to Afghanistan then supporting the US presence in Iraq.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Rick,
"the president has confidence in him"...what a hoot.
When has George ever been right about ANYTHING?? (Please, list all of his successes...)
And, as always...this is really no more than the "kiss of death."
Alberto es gonzo...
Posted by: Tom | March 30, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Gee I'm so glad every man woman and child enlisted for the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korean war...blah blah blah. What a tired arguement, put forth by a whining leftwing bunch of zeros that enlist only in hatred for their fellow man, and their country.
Bravo. While the real world understands that there are heros and heroines, and there are not.
Those that are not, are not obligated to justify their love of country dictated by a leftwing dipshit.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 01:57 PM
I, for one, think Gonzales should go. He was a bad choice in the first place.
But, again, that does not mean that anything illegal, immoral, or unethical was done in the U.S. Attorney firings. Just that I think Gonzales is not up to the job.
Posted by: Great Banana | March 30, 2007 at 01:58 PM
Pete is indeed full of hate and hostility; but its real object is himself. His self-loathing stems from the knowledge that he long ago surrendered his mind and gave up developing the ability to think independently, i.e. he sacrificed his reason, his own mind, and adopted the leftist world-view – and the truly humiliating thing is that he did it to win the approval of his teachers or of his peers, who had been ramming that leftist world-view down his throat during his entire education.
Since reason is our only means of dealing with reality, those who surrender it become helpless little conformists, unable to think for themselves, unable to deal with the world around them, fit only for regurgitating the talking points dispensed by their intellectual masters. It is the knowledge that he has been reduced to this state – and that HE did it to himself – that creates the sense of self-hatred. When you surrender your judgment and agree to accept, uncritically, someone else’s assertions, you surrender self-esteem and self-respect at the same time.
But this fact must be evaded at all costs. And the leftists are there to help him. Yes, they tell him, you are right to be angry, because capitalism and its greatest exponent – America – are the cause all of the world’s problems, including your own. Thus, they give him an external target for his hatred, a laundry list of all the world’s problems from slavery to war to poverty to starvation to exploitation of people to exploitation of resources to global pollution to global warming to genocide – all of it they lay at America’s feet. The entire narrative is blatantly false, but that does not matter to this little leftist because that narrative provides a crucial rationalization, it provides an excuse for emotions so ugly he dare not acknowledge their true source.
This is why today’s leftists are so hostile and why they cling to their talking points no matter what facts, reasons or evidence you produce to contradict them. Their view MUST be true, otherwise they have sacrificed their self-esteem and self-respect for nothing.
Posted by: Michael Smith | March 30, 2007 at 02:00 PM
More departures. White House political director Sara Taylor and Peter Wehner, the head of strategic initiatives, are both leaving. What's with all the departures? Must not be much fun working at the White House any more.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Well don't look to Barry Lando for any solutions in Iraq:
"And now it's extremely difficult to know what to do, because they are on the verge -- there's already a civil war. They’re on the verge of a much greater cataclysm now. There is no easy way out. The Baker commission said there’s no way out that will not entail more bloodshed."
From :http://www.democracynow.org/
article.pl?sid=07/01/30/1515254
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 02:03 PM
Leftists are so hostile? That's a laugh. We're labeled traitors and supporters of terrorists and were considered hostile? We maybe angry over the war and the state of the country but were not labeling Republicans traitors or terrorist sympathizers.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 02:07 PM
Michael Smith - Wow. Just Wow.
That's all that needs to be said about them.
We can easily note that there are roughly five (yep, count 'em - five) leftwingers that come to this site spewing their venom.
And we can easily note the vast majority on this site are diametrically opposed to their mindset and vitriol.
So, let them drivel on. Consider the source.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 02:09 PM
It's been reported here that Britain sees Afghanistan as more salvageable then Iraq. There's also more support in Britain for troop redeployments to Afghanistan then supporting the US presence in Iraq.
Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 01:56 PM
Wrong
Most of the UK AOR (Area of Responsibility) has been handed over to Iraq forces. The UK will now provide a support role that takes less troops.
The force is being redeployed to Afghanistan to assist with the upcoming spring offensive.
Posted by: SlimGuy | March 30, 2007 at 02:10 PM
"were not labeling Republicans traitors or terrorist sympathizers. "
Of course not.
YOur labeling them mass murderers, war criminals, liars, and publically hoping they die of cancer and/or are assassinated by jihadists.
Its apples and oranges ferass
Posted by: TMF | March 30, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Routine turnovers. Let's sit back and watch how long it takes for this to be inflated to epic proportions...whispering: conspiracy!
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 02:12 PM
"peak = peek"
Ah hah. I'm not the only one! That makes me feel better.
By the way, is anyone sick around here. Why the well wishes on the "Miracle" post?
Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2007 at 02:14 PM
One reason, SFerris, is that Republicans have not taken any actions that would lead a sensible person to conclude that they were either traitorous or sympathetic to terrorists. I just saw a clip of the corpulent ignoramus Rosie O'Donnell proclaming that there was nothing to fear from the terrorists, because "they are mothers and fathers." She is openly favoring the Iranian theocracy in its dispute with Britain. She is, apparently, unfazed by that government's policy of executing homosexuals and hanging sixteen-year-old girls. I have yet to hear a denunciation from the left of anything this public fool has said.
I think if you look at any two-term presidency, including those of Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton, you will find departures of White House personnel during the second term that are at least as numerous as those in this administration.
Posted by: Other Tom | March 30, 2007 at 02:17 PM
So jerry wants peace in the middle east. pete wants us out.
How very convenient to ignore the fact that one of the best chances for peace in the middle east was lost when Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah to be overthrown. With a strong U.S. presence in Iran, Saddam doesn't attack. With a strong U.S. presence in Iran, the USSR doesn't have the guts to invade Afghanistan. With a strong U.S. presence in Iran, we can work effectively with the moderate elements in Pakistan. Instead, Carter won't deal with the problem when a brigade would have taken care of it, and we have this descent into fundamentalism. Left on their own you get the Taliban, you get Darfur, you get the hell of Somalia, you get the Pakistani tribal areas. What in the world would lead anyone to think that the U.S. pulling out and turning it over to "the region" would result in any kind of stability? Centcom expects if we leave prematurely, 1,000,000 deaths. That's 1,000,000 deaths. That's what your stability would look like.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 30, 2007 at 02:17 PM
I don't know of a single instance of a Congressman who has labeled anyone in the Administration a "mass murderers, war criminals,
liars, and publically hoping they die of cancer and/or are assassinated by jihadists." On the otherhand, Bush and Cheney have on many occasions accussed Democrats of aiding Al Qaeda and terrorism in general.Posted by: sferris | March 30, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Uh, who is that calls the President a murderer? A Mass murderer? A war criminal? Not the liberals - never! What a bunch of self-loathing crybabies.
Posted by: Enlightened | March 30, 2007 at 02:19 PM
By the way, what's funny is I read the London Times and they have comments come in from people who live in Iran. A couple were apologetic, but several more were like, "well what are you doing near Iran in the first place", and "the US can't do anything to Iran because they are too streched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran's military is too strong". So interesting to see the viewpoints of the people there.
Posted by: sylvia | March 30, 2007 at 02:20 PM
Pofarmer,
How about this for a 'pull out now' slogan?
"Death - the final stability"
Posted by: Joe Gloor | March 30, 2007 at 02:21 PM
I for one, think Gonzales should go. He was a bad choice in the first place.
But, again, that does not mean that anything illegal, immoral, or unethical was done in the U.S. Attorney firings. Just that I think Gonzales is not up to the job.
Good luck getting anybody worthwhile to take it, at this juncture. You'd have to be a sadist, or a Dimocrat.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 30, 2007 at 02:21 PM
It's funny about the Brits considering Afghanistan, more salvagable; considering
their experience there and in the NW
Frontier generally, from 1837-1947, A flavor of this can be seen in the British
cementary in Peshawar, in the intro to
Bergen's first book on Osama. The bitter
Kipling verse, about when captured in Afghanistan, to execute oneself They lost tens of thousands in the 1st Afghan War, thousands in the second,(where young Watson
had a cameo, before meeting Holmes. as well as the 3rd war in Waziristan. Not to
mention the engagements at Buner,where young 'Bobs' Roberts, saw firsr blood; The Black mountains, the Tirah, the Malakand
valley of the Mullah, where Churchill prepped for the Omdurman showdown. The
Hunt for the Fakir of Waziristan in the
30s & 40s. The problem is not confined
to Afghanistan; as an examination of the
recent fighting in Helmand province shows.
Posted by: narciso | March 30, 2007 at 02:22 PM