Phoenix Woman, yet another poster at fdl, delivers the laughs with her link to a Kos commenter on the latest Gonzalez document dump:
Check this out, courtesy of a fellow over at DailyKos:
Smoking gun? ( 20+ / 0-)
This was not even redacted. Batch 5 p 14. 2/12/07 From Monica:This is the chart that the AG requested.It shows detail for each fired USA and each proposed replacement. Information Abu said UNDER OATH that he did not have, and was not involved with.His testimony should be interesting…Yeah, it should be.
I can't wait.
No, she couldn't wait. Don't spoil your fun by following the link just yet. I have omitted her red-faced UPDATE, but I will immodestly say this - the problem with this email as a "smoking gun" should be painfully obvious to anyone who looks. So match wits with the firedogs before clicking over.
Whateverl. Gonzalez is still gonzo, but this email isn't the proof of it.
It was AFER Gonzales testified. (I read it earlier.)
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 10:38 PM
crack
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 13, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Forget shooting fish in a barrel.
Just drain the damn barrel.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Can't wait to see what other smoking gun these geniuses dig up.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Jane!
Fitz!
Fourth!
Or as Jay Rosen would say, FDL is in the league of big journalism.
Posted by: Maybeex | April 13, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Ahhh sh*t, time for the stretched analogy.
Mrs hit and run is out of town. I took my son to soccer practice. Our neighbor watched our daughter in the meantime. After soccer practice, we went to get my daughter. Hung out with the neighbor for a little bit to let the kids wind down.
The neighbor has a dog. Oh crap, what kind of dog? Some kind of schizo, hyper, not quite greyhound type of dog, but I don't know exactly what.
The dog, now that it is spring, is in the process of digging up old toys, and moving them to new locations. Tonite we got to witness her diggin up some stuffed bear, taking it in her mouth and proudly prancing around the yard, showing off her "prize possession", before sneaking off to find a new secret location to hide it.
The kids were completely taken with this bear. It was like a magic trick--the dog found a bear in the dirt?!!?!?!?!
We adults, kinda just sat there and said, "bury it already, it's moldy and trashy and of no use to anybody but your own canine pride".
I don't know. I think that dog may be a dem operative.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 11:13 PM
It was a firedoglake dog. Silly.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Woof.
What's worse than a firedog trying to hump your leg?
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 13, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Don't even go there, wiseass.
Posted by: clarice | April 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM
You're really not even supposed to pray that your opponents could be this stupid.
Posted by: Other Tom | April 13, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Everyone knows Rove tampers with the dates, if he forgets to delete the emails.
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 13, 2007 at 11:59 PM
OFF TOPIC
Sorry gang. Was working all day and could not resist this gem I found through macsmind. Sorry if someone already posted it.
If you haven't seen it you should read Jason Whitlock's column on Imus at the KansasCity.com.
Here is an excerpt:
Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Specter | April 14, 2007 at 12:01 AM
What strikes me about this poor lady from Phoenix is that despite being terribly afflicted with BDS, her fondest hope is that someone will be caught in some process violation.
It is obviously clear to her that there is no 'there' there.
Posted by: MikeS | April 14, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Smoking Gun Or Smoking Dope?
If I'm being asked to choose between the two, I'm not going to pretend there's an easy answer to that question.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | April 14, 2007 at 01:05 AM
We had tornadoes hit here tonight! Just had to share that, because nothing interesting hardly ever happens to me.
Posted by: Lew Clark | April 14, 2007 at 01:18 AM
Smoking Gun Or Smoking Dope?
If I'm being asked to choose between the two, I'm not going to pretend there's an easy answer to that question.
Posted by: hit and run | April 14, 2007 at 01:05 AM
This is easy. I don't want no stinkin' smokin' gun.
Posted by: Sara | April 14, 2007 at 01:44 AM
Also Off Topic:
---------------------------------------------
This is very strong, fair, honest (h/t ProteinWisdom):
Apology to Duke lacrosse players not enough
By Jemele Hill
ESPN/Page 2
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070412
Posted by: stevesh | April 14, 2007 at 02:15 AM
Off Topic
A fairly complete time line of the Imus affair played out.
Imus Time line and details
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 14, 2007 at 02:56 AM
A Liberal Conflagration Over Imus
A really good piece by Rich Lowry. He rips those out to earn their "media-elite merit badge" by going on Imus.
Lowry sure can write. I consider this a companion piece to the Whitlock article cited by Specter above at 12:01.
Posted by: Sara | April 14, 2007 at 03:47 AM
Jason Whitlock was featured in a video clip over at Hot Air that is worth the look
Dissin Sharpton and Jackson
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 14, 2007 at 05:07 AM
Thoughts to remember
Imus already had miffed of the Hillary thingy
He made Chucky Schumer look like not so cool since he had not visited Walter Reid Hospital during the whole Iraq war
So he was putting it out there to be stepped on during the night of the long knives by dissing both of them.
Two NY Senators down with no payback, not likely.
Posted by: SlimGuy | April 14, 2007 at 05:24 AM
Republicans just don't know how to play the Democrats game.
What they should have done is find every negative article on Schumer from his entire carrerr. Every potential unethical act, everytime he was involved in a politcial hiring/firing. The start e-mailing those articles back and foth to each other with SUBJ: lines like:
1. Firing AGs, good thing we never did this, see attched.
2. Good thing we were never this unethical sh-t like Schumer, see attched.
3. Wow, we treat fired AGs better then Schumer treats babies, see attached.
ETC.
Then you print them all out and provide them to the committe per their request and to the media...open government/nothing to hise you know.
Posted by: Poppy | April 14, 2007 at 08:59 AM
This U.S. Attorney Scandal has introduced me to the 'document dump' (DD). How do these DD's work? Who culls through the documents? Who actually releases them? What criteria are employed to screen or filter the material? Who decides when to release the documents?, etc. Since this administration seems to be engaged in tactics to prevent the full story from being told, can we assume that what isn't released is even more incriminating than the materials that have been dumped? Can any of the readers explain a bit more about the people, processes, and procedures involved in these DD's?
Posted by: mindsteps | April 14, 2007 at 11:02 AM
The rule is whenever having produced all the relevant materials to the Dems and they can find no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, they will claim that something significant is missing or has been withheld or wrongfully destroyed and the left will run on that until even that idiocy runs ou of steam and some other source of manufactured outrage is invented. (Of course, that is the summary version of the matter.)
Posted by: clarice | April 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
We do need another one of those Imus stories to pop up next week to allow this idiotic US Attorney firings story run out of its remaining steam.
Funny how the WH adm wanted to accelerate Gonzales' hearing up by one week because they felt it would harm Gonzales more. If this story becomes non-existent, then they need to learn to allow the PR push it out of non-existence.
Posted by: lurker9876 | April 14, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Are document dumps based on rules of retention?
Posted by: lurker9876 | April 14, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Did you see how Diane Sawyer reacted to Larry Elder? Are we going to see more reporters reacting to nasty comments because of the Imus firings?
Posted by: lurker9876 | April 14, 2007 at 11:16 AM