No Confidence in GOP to Challenge Gonzales

New York Senator Chuck Schumer has for some weeks been calling for a vote of "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And it looks like he may get one – or, to be more precise, the start of a process that could lead to one -- on Monday.

But don't bet that the Senate will hold the scandal-plagued Gonzales to account.

In fact, the real issue will be holding senators to account.

A no confidence vote of the sort Schumer proposes lacks the authority, official or even symbolic, that attaches to such votes in parliamentary democracies.

All Schumer's vote would really do is force members of the senate to go beyond rhetoric and actually cast a vote that says they have lost faith in the ability of this attorney general to manage the Department of Justice or to deal honestly with Congress. That might be enough to shame Gonzales into quitting, but that's assuming that the attorney general can be shamed.

This does not mean that Schumer, the Judiciary Committee Democrat who has been most aggressive in going after the high crimes and misdemeanors of Gonzales, lacks sincerity.

He believes that, "We ought to be doing everything we can to get a new attorney general" – which is, of course, right.

And he is motivated by more than mere animus toward Gonzales. Schumer recognizes that, with the attorney general in full bunker mode and with top staffers and career attorneys quitting the DOJ at an unprecedented race, "No one is running the [Justice] Department."

The crisis created by Gonzales has spun out of control. Even conservative Republicans in the Senate recognize it, as they do the fact that only the departure of a lawless and dysfunctional attorney general will begin to set things right. "The bottom line is the only person who thinks the attorney general should remain attorney general is the president," say Schumer. "He's gotten virtually no support from even Republicans in the Senate, just a handful have supported him, six have called for him to step down, a dozen more have said very negative things about him."

Unfortunately, the petty partisanship that characterizes George Bush's Washington is all but certain to take the wind out of Schumer's no-confidence push. The White House is aggressively lobbying against it. And most of the Republicans who have criticized Gonzales -- including Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, who so pointedly told the attorney general to resign -- say they won't support Schumer's efforts to schedule a formal Senate vote on the question of whether the attorney general retains the respect of the chamber that approved his nomination to move from the White House to the Justice Department.

To schedule the no-confidence vote, Schumer will need the agreement of 60 senators to invoke cloture, which would limit debate and bringing the resolution to a vote. Getting to 60 votes in a Senate with 49 Republicans and a several White House-friendly "Democrats" is unlikely.

But the cloture vote will show where senators stand at a point when the Justice Department is in disarray. Do they want to fix things, or are they more interested in playing the political games of a White House that could care less about maintaining basic functioning within Justice?

If Republican senators who admit that Gonzales is a disaster were to do the right thing, this could be a turning point. Though a no-confidence vote carries no official sanction, if the Senate were to simply schedule such a vote, the attorney general would be forced to respond with something more than his usual doubletalk.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, has said that he thinks the response to the mere threat of a no-confidence vote would be a resignation. Referring to the prospect of "a forceful, historical statement" of no confidence, Specter says, "I think that if and when (Gonzales) sees that coming, that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark."

Unfortunately, the signals at this point suggest that Republicans who have told Gonzales to leave will prevent the "forceful, historical statement" that is needed to prod the attorney general. As a result, the Senate and House Judiciary committees will be forced to continue the painstaking pursuit of the additional evidence – which the White House refuses to hand over – that will end Alberto Gonzales' reign of error. And the crisis at the Department of Justice will continue to metastasize.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (135)

1. IF THE SENATE ACTUALLY DOES (FINALLY!) MANAGE TO HOLD A NO CONFIDENCE VOTE ON GONZALES...

   Schumer & Co. damn well better be sure in advance that they've got the votes to pass it, otherwise Bush is going to crow "victory" like you ain't heard him crow victory before and the failed "no confidence" vote will be spun into a vote OF confidence in Gonzales, you can be sure of that. (And Gonzales will be "set in stone" as AG for the rest of the Bush term.) Based on the recent Iraq funding debacle, my bet is on failure of the no confidence vote, unfortunately.

   Posted by w_m_bear at 06/09/2007 @ 4:01pm

2. "Getting to 60 votes in a Senate with 49 Republicans and a several White House-friendly "Democrats" is unlikely."

   Mr Nichols, given this about a simple cloture vote on a non-binding "no confidence" vote in Gonzales, merely the Attorney-General...

   do you STILL hold out hope for an impeachment of Cheney and Bush???

   Or is that the reason (since the Iraq supplemental surrender), you haven't done any more of your "Impeachment is imminent" updates?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 4:26pm

3. yes, just last week I celebrated hawaiian shirt GONZO! friday at work

   Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 5:14pm

4. because every friday... is gonzo friday

   Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 5:14pm

5. I say it'll be more like a 67-8/30 pro-no-con-fi-dence vote.

   Why again is anyone hitching their wagon to a hsuB/cHeney admin drowning in quicksand wearing cement boots? Especially when Frito's been lying to them for months/years/forever about everything.

   But then again there is bribery and blackmail and thus the 30.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 5:57pm

6. This is a very quickly deteriorating presidency:

   The survey finds that President Bush's job approval rating has declined significantly since April. Bush's approval rating stands at 29% - the lowest of his presidency - down from 35% two months ago. Bush has lost substantial support from his Republican base. Only about two-thirds of Republicans (65%) approve of Bush's job performance, which also is the lowest mark of his presidency. As recently as April, 77% of Republicans approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president.

   http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=334

   And he'll be below 50% of his insane base within another month-- why again does he have any pull with anyone in congress? Repubs in congress will be more inclined to put the hsuB/cHeney admin out of its rapidly putrefying state than have to continually smell its stench. It sticks you know.

   Posted by hsuBfools at 06/09/2007 @ 7:00pm

7. yes, just last week I celebrated hawaiian shirt GONZO! friday at work

   Posted by WILL C. 06/09/2007 @ 5:14pm

   You were Hawaiian shirts at the progressive framing company? Or are they progressively out of business ?

   Posted by john maasch at 06/09/2007 @ 7:59pm

8. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/09/2007 @ 7:00pm

   Let's start a time-line, HSUB...

   June 2007---No confidence vote in Gonzales dubious in passing (John Nichols)

   July 2007---"Bush below 50% among Republicans/conservatives" (HSUBFOOLS)

   August 2007--- ???? (HSUBFOOLS predicts what?)

   September 2007--- ???? (HSUBFOOLS predicts what?)

   October 2007--- "House passes bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney and sends them to the Senate for trial" (HSUBFOOLS)

   Love to know what happens in August and September?

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 9:13pm

9. Who cares about the polls? The shrub has driven the country into a ditch and EVERYONE know it. It only the 29% facepainters that won't admit it.

   "Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash." - Stephen Colbert

   itmfa

   Posted by COProgressive at 06/09/2007 @ 9:22pm

10. You were Hawaiian shirts at the progressive framing company

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/09/2007 @ 7:59pm

    Unless you can think of a reason why Hawaiian shirts can't be worn on a job site john boy? Now it's true, we can't wear throw away jewelry on the job. But that's only because it's a safety hazard. And it's gay.

    but on GONZO! friday....

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 10:26pm

11. it's hawaiian shirts baby

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 10:26pm

12. But that's only because it's a safety hazard. And it's gay.

    Posted by WILL C. 06/09/2007 @ 10:26pm

    Something WRONG with something being "gay", WILL?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 11:00pm

13. nothing... if you're gay

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 11:03pm

14. nothing... if you're gay

    Posted by WILL C. 06/09/2007 @ 11:03pm

    So if something APPEARS "gay" (as you think "throw away jewelry" does) and you're straight...that upsets you?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 11:22pm

15. So if something APPEARS "gay" (as you think "throw away jewelry" does) and you're straight...that upsets you?

    Posted by MASK 06/09/2007 @ 11:22pm

    no, I just don't wear it. Wasn't I clear about that, or is this another of your.... traps?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 11:28pm

16. Bwah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 11:29pm

17. no, I just don't wear it. Wasn't I clear about that, or is this another of your.... traps?

    Posted by WILL C. 06/09/2007 @ 11:28pm

    No, no trap. Just curious about why you think "throw away jewelry" is bad (besides the safety concern)...and therefore deserves the label "gay"? Or do you think that if a man wears jewelry that is indictative of being homosexual and should be avoided? And then...again...why would "appearing" gay be a "bad thing" in your eyes for a heterosexual to appear as?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2007 @ 11:43pm

18. Awwwwwwww sweety. I never said it was bad. I said it was gay. Maasch sells womens costume jewelry.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/09/2007 @ 11:48pm

19. Isn't William Jefferson from the south?

    It's terrible how the toxic grip of evangelic conservatism permeates through a culture and corrupts otherwise decent people.

    Posted by Will C. at 06/10/2007 @ 12:31am

20. ove to know what happens in August and September?

    Posted by MASK 06/09/2007 @ 9:13pm

    Masky, are you feeling just a tad bit insecure or what? The answer is in your own question.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 01:32am

21. Posted by LVLIBERTY! 06/09/2007 @ 9:06bm

    Would not the perfect solution for everyone concerned, we the people especially, be to impeach the hsuB/cHeney admin? It would help both the congressional repubs and as well as the dems! Think about it. Clearly 2/3's of the US citizenry wouldn't mind.

    PollingReport.com

    PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

    Survey_______Dates__________Approve______Disapprove____Unsure____Dif

    AP-Ipsos___6/4-6/07 ________32 __________66________*_____-34

    AP-Ipsos_____5/7-9/07 __________ 35____________61 _________*______-26

    Pew____5/30 - 6/3/07________29__________61________10____-32

    Pew_______4/18-22/07 ___________35____________57_________8______-22

    USA T/Gallup_6/1-3/07________32__________62________6 ____-30

    USA T/Gallup__5/4-6/07 ___________34____________63_________3_____-29

    CBS/NY Times_5/18-23/07______30__________63________7____-33

    CBS/NY Times__4/20-24/07_________32____________61_________7_____-29

    D/Hotline RV__5/16-20/07______32__________64________4____-32

    D/Hotline RV___4/26-30/07 _________35____________62_________3_____-27

    Gallup____5/10-13/07_________33__________62________5____-29

    Gallup_______3/11-14/07 __________35____________61_________4_____-26

    Newsweek___5/2-3/07_________28__________64________8____-36

    Newsweek_____3/28-29/07_________33____________60 _________7 ____-27

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 01:51am

22. "Now it's true, we can't wear throw away jewelry on the job"

    Thats because he can't afford throw away jewelry....and I don't know anyone who sells costume.....

    ....that is for guys who suffer from "hammer blow back syndrom"..common event when one is pounding nails into studs, then has a suddem impuse to think about economics, and at the same time the hammer flys back off the nail and into the brain pan of young Will here, , and out comes something either anti gay,or, for some reason, anti jewelery...

    Costume jewelery is something one sells to tourists.

    The last piece of jewelry, young Will of no means or demand, cost more than you make in 4 years..but lucky for you your sweetie doesn't require any jewelry of value..she has, er, you..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/10/2007 @ 01:53am

23. I know that would make me proud beyond repair.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/10/2007 @ 01:53am

24. What does you not knowing anybody who sells costume jewelry have to do with you selling costume jewlery?

    Posted by Will C. at 06/10/2007 @ 01:56am

25. Posted by LVLIBERTY! 06/09/2007 @ 9:06bm

    And let's not forget this stinker:

    The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    "How would you rate the job Republicans in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

    Date____Excellent/Pretty Good___Only Fair/Poor

    4/20-23/07_______22______________74

    2/2-5/07_________26______________69

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 01:57am

26. Posted by RIO RAVO 06/10/2007 @ 12:25bm

    Jefferson -vs- all the repub corruption-- lets count, so far =

    Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), pleaded guilty to taking bribes from defense contractor Mitchell Wade.

    Former Rep. Bob Ney (OH) pleaded guilty in October 2006 to taking bribes from former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    DeLay was indicted in October 2005 for money laundering and conspiracy to launder money. A former DeLay aide,

    Tony Rudy, pleaded guilty in connection with the Abramoff scandal, while another former aide,

    Michael Scanlon, pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff to bribe public officials.

    Former White House procurement official David H. Safavian was convicted in June 2006 of lying and obstructing justice in the Abramoff investigation, as Media Matters for America has noted.

    Former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was convicted in March 2006 of obstructing justice and making false statements. On June 5, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay a $250,000 fine.

    Former Deputy Secretary of the Interior J. Steven Griles pleaded guilty in March 2007 to obstructing justice. As a March 23 Associated Press article reported, Griles "admitt[ed] in a plea agreement that he lied in testimony before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on Nov. 2, 2005, and during an earlier deposition with the panel's investigators on October 20, 2005."

    Former CIA executive director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo was charged by federal prosecutors in San Diego with improperly trying to steer a $132 million contract to defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

    Former FDA commissioner Lester Crawford pleaded guilty to charges of "conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating," according to an October 17, 2006, Associated Press report. "Beginning in 2002," the AP report stated, "Crawford filed seven incorrect financial reports with a government ethics office and Congress, leading to the charges."

    Former Federal Housing Finance Board chairman John T. Korsmo "pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, which oversees the Finance Board, and the Inspector General for the Finance Board," as Media Matters noted.

    Rep. John T. Doolittle (CA) is reportedly under investigation by the FBI in connection to his dealings with Abramoff.

    Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA) is reportedly under investigation in connection with the Cunningham scandal, and will reportedly not seek re-election. According to a January 31 article in The Hill, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said in an interview that "he believes Lewis is innocent until proven guilty, and that prevented him from toppling him from the top GOP spot on the [House Appropriations Committee]."

    Rep. Gary Miller (CA) is reportedly under investigation for two land deals and related taxes, although he says FBI agents have not contacted him.

    Rep. Rick Renzi (AZ) is reportedly the subject of a preliminary investigation into whether he pressured several landowners to buy land from a business partner.

    Former Sen. Conrad Burns (MT) is reportedly under investigation in the Abramoff investigation.

    Former Rep. Curt Weldon (PA) is being investigated over allegations that he "used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter," according to an October 14, 2006, Associated Press article.

    In addition, as The Washington Post reported on March 8, Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-NM) is the subject of a preliminary Senate ethics investigation into a phone call he made to then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias before the 2006 elections.

    According to an April 12 article in the Post, "[B]ecause the House ethics committee keeps its probes secret, it is unclear whether the lower chamber is looking into the similar allegations concerning Rep. Heather Wilson ? (R-N.M.), a close ally of Domenici." Domenici and Wilson allegedly pressured Iglesias to indict a local Democratic official on corruption charges before the 2006 elections.

    ...which doesn't even include Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who appears to be of interest to FBI investigators right now.

    ...which doesn't even include some low-ranking Republicans, such as Claude Allen, who was busted for shoplifting, or Mark Foley, whose interest in congressional pages is well documented.

    Not to mention all the cronies that have been let go or resigned due to their incompetence.

    Not to mention big business, energy/oil, MIC, no bid, secret meetings/deals, highest profits from our pockets and lives.

    Not to mention the corruption of our DoJ into a kastapo and anyday now resigner/impeach articles reciever Frito.

    Not to mention violating our constitution by spying on citizens without a warrant and no habeas corpus.

    Not to mention chronic liar cHeney continuing to lie and lie and lie.

    Not to mention circular mathematician rOve.

    Not to mention Iraq and torture and carnage.

    Not to mention lousy health care, insurance going up, middle class squeese, poor numbers increase, on and on.

    No, the only way repub candidates will counter the stench of their hypocrisy following them everywhere, is to literally change sides. And even then...

    Not to mention the incompetence and lack of care and attention due the aftermath of the Katrina disaster.

    Not to mention the seven minutes hsuB sat on both his thumbs while we were being attacked.

    Not to mention the decimation of our military's readiness due to the resider's continued incompetence.

    So did I leave something out?

    The Diabold story, Katrina, Abu Ghraib, Memogate-The Senate Computer Theft, The administration illicitly diverted $700 million from Afghanistan to Iraq, The Indian Gaming Scandal, Wiretapping the United Nations, Halliburton's Vanishing Iraq Money, The Medicare Bribe Scandal, Iraq/WMD lies/poor planning, Energy company executives/Cheney/U.S. energy policy, Prisoner renditions/continuing torture , Guantanamo , Theft of the 2000 election, Gannon, Pentagon's vanishing $billions, Insider trading before 9/11 , Plamegate , Lack of armor/untainted water & food for troops, Medicare anti-reform , Attempt to "privatize" Social Security , National debt , 700+ Presidential "signing statements" on legislation,Claude Allen, the chief domestic policy advisor, arrested for shoplifting; the three DHS officials arrested for child molestation and internet porn; Armstrong Williams and the paying-off-reporters scheme; Judy Miller "embedded" with various people; Bill Frist under investigation by the SEC for insider trading; Tom DeLay under indictment for money laundering; Bob Ney's connection to the Dukestir; Bernie Keric, the original nominee to replace Ridge, using cops to guard his visits to call girls; Katherine Harris' connection to Abramoff; Santorum in all kinds of sleaze (favorable home mortgage rates); the destruction of the entire House Ethics process; the manipulation of committee reports, the stonewalling on the cherry-picking investigation; Terri Schiavo...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 02:16am

27. What does you not knowing anybody who sells costume jewelry have to do with you selling costume jewlery?

    Posted by WILL C. 06/10/2007 @ 01:56am

    Ah, is this an attempt to make a slam?

    A comment on something you have readily admit you know nothing about...come on, try..

    And get that hammer dislodged from your fore head and try again....!!

    ...I so love your one line, ah, posts..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/10/2007 @ 02:17am

28. ah, no

    it's just a question that I asked because I'm not sure how you not knowing anyone who sells costume jewelry has anything to do with you selling costume jewelry

    Posted by Will C. at 06/10/2007 @ 02:23am

29. Oh what oh what will the repubs in congress do when the dems push for the articles of impeachment for the hsuB/cHeney admin? Them congressional repubs pushing away from hsuB so hard, will they defend hsuB and thus have hsuB's disasters stick to them-- owning his polls as well -or- will they side with dems alienating their new con insane base? Uhmmm, what to do, what to do...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 02:36am

30. PONTI, are you still around? Rio, Luvvy?

    It seems some "guilty" terrorists have been released from our gulag. Do they get their lives back, though?

    TIRANA, Albania -- Ahktar Qassim Basit says he is not angry about the four years he spent as an American prisoner at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before his captors mumbled a brief apology and flew him to this drab Balkan capital to begin a new life as a refugee.

    It is this new life in Albania, Mr. Basit and other former Guantánamo detainees say, that is driving them to desperation.

    The men, Muslims from western China's Uighur ethnic minority, were freed from their confinement in Cuba after they were found to pose no threat to the United States. They have now lived for more than a year in a squalid government refugee center on the grubby outskirts of Tirana, guarded by armed policemen.

    "We suffered very much at Guantánamo, but we continue to suffer here," Mr. Basit said. "The other prisoners had their countries, but we are like orphans: we have no place to go."

    Things could be worse, the former prisoners note. At least 15 of the 17 Uighurs who remain at Guantánamo have also been cleared for release, but not even Albania will accept them -- and neither will the United States. Instead, American diplomats say they have asked nearly 100 countries to provide asylum to the detainees, only to find that Chinese officials have warned some of the same countries not to accept them.

    So, here we have some folks that want to be free from communist tyranny, but Ponti says they are guilty of being terrorists!

    Most of the five Uighurs in Tirana said they had left their homes in China's far-western Xinjiang Province, an area the Uighurs call East Turkestan, to earn more money for their families and escape government harassment. They said they drifted into Afghanistan after travels through other Central Asian countries, and heard that the Uighur hamlet was a place where they could get free food and shelter while trying to figure out where to go next.

    The youngest, Ayoub Haji Mamet, who was 18 when he was captured, had a quixotic plan to make his way across Europe and then fly to the United States to attend school.

    International human rights groups have long accused the Chinese authorities of oppressing the roughly nine million Uighurs in Xinjiang, where there have been occasional acts of separatist violence. The State Department's own 2006 human rights report for China describes ethnic discrimination, the suppression of Muslim religious freedom and the persecution of those thought to be separatists, many of whom have been executed.

    ...Several of the Uighurs said their most traumatic experience at Guantánamo was their interrogation by a team of Chinese security officials in September 2002. The Chinese "had all of our files from the Americans," Mr. Qassim said, threatened them repeatedly and insisted that the prisoners return with them to China. They refused.

    But American intelligence personnel at Guantánamo soon began to doubt that most of the Uighurs represented a real terrorist threat, officials who served there said. By late 2003, senior national security officials in Washington cleared most of the Uighurs for release -- 14, by one official's count.

    Some officials at the Pentagon advocated sending the Uighurs back to China, and the State Department eventually sought and received assurances from the Chinese that they would treat the men humanely. But senior officials finally decided not to repatriate them, citing China's past treatment of the Uighur minority.

    who would Jesus detain?

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/10/2007 @ 10:01am |

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 10:06am

31. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/10/2007 @ 02:16am

    Response, RIO ?

    You seem outraged over Jeffeson, 1 dem out of hundreds, but quite content to watch members of YOUR party participate in graft and corruption.

    Not too surprising for someone that is afraid of the non-existent wmd's.

    Partisan Taliban hack!

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 10:11am

32. How about that list MAASCH?

    hsuB seems to have compiled quite a list of illegal and incompetent behavior on the part of YOUR party. Any comments, other than the unprovable "Well, they are still better than the other option".

    "The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house. Jan 15, 2000."

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 10:13am

33. Not that it matters because Bush is not running for any office again. Only foolish libs care.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2007 @ 9:06pm |

    Yep, it seems that even preachers don't give a rats ass about legalities or the fact that HIS president has the approval of only the most craven apologists. Even Gods sheep don't care that the Chinese are killing and torturing people for their religious beliefs and desire to be free from communist rule.

    As long as the cheap jewelry keeps flowing, I guess.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 10:16am

34. Republicans: WRONG about Gonzales

    Republicans: WRONG about Justice

    Republicans: WRONG about Bush

    Posted by conshame at 06/10/2007 @ 10:52am

35. Just how far are the repubs going to rid themselves of the current hsuB/cHeney admin noose around their necks? Obviously they're stuck in a connundrum when the dems decide to move on impeaching the hsuB/cHeney admin in a few weeks. If the repubs appear to be protecting hsuB/cHeney admin in any way-- they're also stuck with all hsuB's disasters and possibly with polls in the 20's if not teens. If the repubs in congress side with the dems to rid themselves of the hsuB/cHeney admin concrete shoes, their new con pro-MIC/death of other people's family and ME-looking types or their 'insane-base', will turn on them. UUuuhhmmm.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 11:40am

36. ...Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he believed a "sizable number" of GOP lawmakers would join Democrats in expressing their lack of confidence in the attorney general.

    Five Republicans have urged Gonzales to resign over his firing of federal prosecutors, while several other Republicans have expressed criticism of his actions.

    Specter and other senators said they were particularly troubled by testimony last week that Gonzales, when he was Bush's White House counsel, pressured then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to certify the legality of Bush's controversial eavesdropping program while Ashcroft was in intensive care.

    In his testimony, former deputy attorney general James Comey said he thought the no-warrant program was questionable and violated the law. Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andy Card then headed to Ashcroft's sick bed at George Washington University Hospital in an unsuccessful bid to convince Ashcroft otherwise. The program was eventually certified after it was modified.

    On Sunday, Schumer sent a letter to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, asking if they personally ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room. When asked twice by reporters last week, Bush refused to answer.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274096,00.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 11:49am

37. Has Gonzales received support letters from Kissinger, Perle, Rumsfeld and Wolfewitz?

    That's always a nice touch.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 12:07pm

38. "A lot of things have happened in 200 plus years of congressional history," said Senate historian Richard Baker.

    ...Baker, said that it is well within the Senate's right to have the Senate express its opinion on any subject."

    Congress did try after the Civil War to assert its authority for removing Cabinet secretaries when it passed the Tenure of Office Act. President Andrew Johnson was trying to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who had support in Congress. As Johnson sparred with the "Radical Republicans" in Congress, Stanton barricaded himself in his office and refused to leave. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, though the Senate narrowly voted not to remove Johnson from office. Stanton eventually resigned. That law was repealed in 1887 before the Supreme Court could offer an opinion on its constitutionality

    The Democrats of today, while they have not yet forced a no-confidence vote, have recently considered the notion. Last year, ahead of the November midterm election, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a no-confidence vote for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The vote did not take place and Reid, now in the majority, did not have the opportunity to bring it up after he took power because Rumsfeld left the position almost immediately after the election.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3197438&page=2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 12:10pm

39. "A lot of things have happened in 200 plus years of congressional history," said Senate historian Richard Baker.

    ...Baker, said that it is well within the Senate's right to have the Senate express its opinion on any subject."

    Congress did try after the Civil War to assert its authority for removing Cabinet secretaries when it passed the Tenure of Office Act. President Andrew Johnson was trying to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who had support in Congress. As Johnson sparred with the "Radical Republicans" in Congress, Stanton barricaded himself in his office and refused to leave. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, though the Senate narrowly voted not to remove Johnson from office. Stanton eventually resigned. That law was repealed in 1887 before the Supreme Court could offer an opinion on its constitutionality

    The Democrats of today, while they have not yet forced a no-confidence vote, have recently considered the notion. Last year, ahead of the November midterm election, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a no-confidence vote for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The vote did not take place and Reid, now in the majority, did not have the opportunity to bring it up after he took power because Rumsfeld left the position almost immediately after the election.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3197438&page=2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 12:12pm

40. "A lot of things have happened in 200 plus years of congressional history," said Senate historian Richard Baker.

    ...Baker, said that it is well within the Senate's right to have the Senate express its opinion on any subject."

    Congress did try after the Civil War to assert its authority for removing Cabinet secretaries when it passed the Tenure of Office Act. President Andrew Johnson was trying to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who had support in Congress. As Johnson sparred with the "Radical Republicans" in Congress, Stanton barricaded himself in his office and refused to leave. The House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, though the Senate narrowly voted not to remove Johnson from office. Stanton eventually resigned. That law was repealed in 1887 before the Supreme Court could offer an opinion on its constitutionality

    The Democrats of today, while they have not yet forced a no-confidence vote, have recently considered the notion. Last year, ahead of the November midterm election, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested a no-confidence vote for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The vote did not take place and Reid, now in the majority, did not have the opportunity to bring it up after he took power because Rumsfeld left the position almost immediately after the election.

    http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3197438&page=2

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 12:13pm

41. Damn! The republicans are the party that just keeps on giving!

    RIO!! where are you? Your president hired these people.

    Inspector General Announces Resignation

    By Martin Crutsinger

    The Associated Press

    Friday 08 June 2007

    Washington - The Commerce Department's inspector general, the official charged with investigating wrongdoing at the agency, announced his resignation in the midst of an investigation by a congressional committee into allegations of improper conduct.

    Johnnie E. Frazier, who had served since 1999 as the agency's chief watchdog, said in a resignation letter obtained by The Associated Press that he would step down effective June 29.

    In the letter, dated Thursday, he expressed "my disappointment and outright sadness at leaving Commerce at a time when my office and I are the subject of controversy."

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee had launched an investigation into accusations against Frazier and members of his senior staff relating to travel fraud, contracting irregularities, wasteful expenditures, favoritism and retaliation against whistle-blowers.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 12:15pm

42. "... fraud, contracting irregularities, wasteful expenditures, favoritism and retaliation against whistle-blowers."

    Now where have we heard that before? Wasn't that the main platform of the Bush/Cheney campaign?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/10/2007 @ 12:19pm

43. Harvard Law Grads against Frito:

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/224/500143050_91de3a7f03_o.gif

    Former Classmates Criticize Gonzales

    56 class of '82 Law School alums publish open letter in Washington Post

    Published On Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:10 AM

    By KEVIN ZHOU Crimson Staff Writer

    Fifty-six members of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' graduating class at Harvard Law School signed a quarter-page open letter in yesterday's Washington Post excoriating their former classmate for his "cavalier handling of our freedoms."

    The letter stops short of calling for Gonzales's resignation, even as the attorney general comes under rising heat on Capitol Hill. But it is a stinging rebuke to Gonzales, just two weeks after the Law School Class of 1982's 25th reunion.

    "Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel," the letter says. It calls on Gonzales to "relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago."

    The decision to write the letter was made a few days after the reunion. One of the signatories, Barbara C. Moses of New York, said that the attorney general's appearance--which drew a small group of protesters, including one who donned an orange jumpsuit and black hood--motivated some of her classmates to go public with their criticism of Gonzales.

    "It grew directly out of our re-meeting him, and thinking about what our responsibilities were to speak out," Moses said.

    Marshall Winn of Greenville, S.C., added that the attorney general's appearance caused many of his classmates to consider whether it was time to issue a public rebuke against the Bush Administration's policies.

    "I think the fact that he came to the reunion made us think that its really time for us to make a statement on what's been going on in this administration," he said.

    The classmates debated whether their criticism of Gonzalez should be made publicly. About 15 to 20 individuals declined to sign out of courtesy or because "their job prevented them from joining," according to David M. Abromowitz of Boston, who helped write the letter.

    However, Abromowitz said that the decision was made to run the open letter because the organizers wanted to encourage other individuals to express their opinions publicly.

    "We thought it was important to speak up on these issues even if, on a personal level, it might cause discomfort," Abromowitz said. "We hope that it encourages others in the private sector who are concerned about their civil liberties."

    Abromowitz added that none of those who declined to sign the letter did so because they disagreed with its content.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518918

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 12:52pm

44. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/10/2007 @ 01:51am

    HEY, THERE'S HOPE!...

    Bush is up to 32% in ONE poll! Listen folks, these polls always spot a President 5-10 percentage points anyway, just because he's the President (even Bush). If the 2004 election were held today, do you seriously think Bush would get even 30 percent of the total vote? Do you seriously think he would get ANY electoral votes??

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/10/2007 @ 2:27pm

45. IT'S LIKE A HANDICAP IN GOLF...

    And I'm guessing they're spotting Bush a BIG handicap in most polls. My own estimate is that his TRUE "approval rating" is probably in the low twenties, at best, and Cheney's is in the low teens.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/10/2007 @ 2:31pm

46. WHY IS THERE A GOOD CHANCE THE NO CONFIDENCE VOTE WILL FAIL...

    Despite the imploding Bush administration. Well, it's not nicknamed "the Bush crime family" for nothing. Not only are Bush & Co. the most incompetent administration in U.S. bar none, they're also the most vindictive. Dick Cheney, especially, is the Tony Soprano of politics. That's why I'm predicting that the No Confidence vote will fail. The Republican senators are all simply fucking AFRAID of Bush-Cheney. They'll vote their hides instread of their consciences.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 06/10/2007 @ 2:36pm

47. WMB,

    Another reason the congressional repubs will eventually side with the dems on moving forward with hsuB/cHeney admin impeachment proceedings. It's political life or death either way, might as well start doing the right thing or the congressional repubs will be going down with the most corrupt pres admin ship to sink in history. Meaning, they were a part of the corruption rather than losing for being opposed to it...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 4:11pm

48. NEWSWEEK Poll

    Jan. 24-25, 2007. Conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International.

    At this point in time, do you personally wish that George W. Bush's presidency was over, or don't you feel this way?

    Total____________________________Rep___Dem____Ind

    58% ___Yes, wish it was over ___21%___86%____59%

    37%_____No, do not______________75%___12%____36%

    5%______Don't know/Refused_______4%____2%_____5%

    New Zogby Poll, Released: June 30, 2005

    In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

    http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1007

    And that was when hsuB was at 43% approval... Consider that hsuB's at 29% now and that:

    According to a new ABC poll, 55% of Americans believe the Bush administration "intentionally misled" the nation in making the case for war.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1278080

    58 percent want investigating government contracts in Iraq to be a top priority. Fifty-two percent say investigating why we went to war in Iraq should be a top priority.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/

    The Harris Poll® #1, January 3, 2007

    Just over half (56%) would support investigations into allegations that have been made about various actions of the Bush Administration.

    These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,309 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive® between December 12 and 18, 2006.

    http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=717

    Comparable polls in August and September 1998 found only 36% supported hearings to consider impeaching Clinton, and only 26% supported actually impeaching Clinton and removing him from office.

    THE PEW RESEARCH CENTER

    Released: June 4, 2007

    The survey finds that President Bush's job approval rating has declined significantly since April. Bush's approval rating stands at 29% - the lowest of his presidency - down from 35% two months ago. Bush has lost substantial support from his Republican base. Only about two-thirds of Republicans (65%) approve of Bush's job performance, which also is the lowest mark of his presidency. As recently as April, 77% of Republicans approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president.

    http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=334

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 5:01pm

49. Hey Masky-- just in:

    Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. June 4-6, 2007. N=541 Democrats and leaners nationwide. MoE ± 4.2.

    "If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?"

    Candidates__________6/4-6/07_____3/5-7/07

    Hillary Clinton__________33___________38

    Barack Obama_________21___________21

    Al Gore ____________20 _________14

    John Edwards__________12___________10

    http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf. cfm?name=mr070609-1topline.pdf&id=3528

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 5:15pm

50. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/10/2007 @ 5:15pm

    Well, that's great, HSUB....but a question...

    Do you believe that poll is accurate or not?

    Wait...

    If you say you do, then you have to accept ALL of it...and that means that the Democratic primary voters prefer HILLARY...over OBAMA....and prefer OBAMA...over GORE.

    You can't say "See! See! Gore can enter the race and take 20% of the vote!"....and NOT say "But that means he comes in third as well!"

    So good for Al...he can beat John Edwards. Otherwise you can't infer anything from your poll data, but that he'll run THIRD.

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2007 @ 8:54pm

51. Posted by MASKY 06/10/2007 @ 8:54bm

    Masky,

    Putting on the dumb face again? Ooops sorry, forget you try not to have one.

    Most people use polls to help measure mo, trends, comparisons amongst options,...etc.

    How do you use polls, Masky? I'm not familiar with one such as yourself not capable of evolution and all, and don't want to offend too much. Though I do like you in those commercials for Geico faking indignity. I am to sensitive to why you wear a mask, really.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvBXBZEhkw

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 11:30pm

52. Could you please say something about the caging scandal and how it relates to what is going on in the Justice Department? Thanks.

    --Jason Rhodes

    Posted by Jason Rhodes at 06/10/2007 @ 11:45pm

53. Masky,

    Is it weird for you when polls change? Does the world for you like not make sense anymore all of a sudden when next month the polls differ? Really, how do you deal with change? Does the concept make any sense to you at all?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 11:49pm

54. Jason,

    Are you asking John Nichols?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/10/2007 @ 11:58pm

55. Here's something:

    This Monica revealed something hotter --- much hotter --- than a stained blue dress. In her opening testimony yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee, Monica Goodling, the blonde-ling underling to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Department of Justice Liaison to the White House, dropped The Big One....And the Committee members didn't even know it.

    Goodling testified that Gonzales' Deputy AG, Paul McNulty, perjured himself, lying to the committee in earlier testimony. The lie: McNulty denied Monica had told him about Tim Griffin's "involvement in 'caging' voters" in 2004.

    Huh?? Tim Griffin? "Caging"???

    The perplexed committee members hadn't a clue --- and asked no substantive questions about it thereafter. Karl Rove is still smiling. If the members had gotten the clue, and asked the right questions, they would have found "the keys to the kingdom," they thought they were looking for. They dangled right in front of their perplexed faces.

    The keys: the missing emails --- and missing link --- that could send Griffin and his boss, Rove, to the slammer for a long, long time.

    Kingdom enough for ya?

    But what's 'caging' and why is it such a dreadful secret that lawyer McNulty put his license to practice and his freedom on the line to cover Tim Griffin's involvement in it? Because it's a felony. And a big one.

    Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.

    The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and --- you got to love this --- American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.

    Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation --- and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.

    How do I know? I have the caging lists...

    I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them --- sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.

    Here's what you need to know --- and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:

    'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted below. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor. The committee was perplexed about Monica's panicked admission and accusations about the caging list because the US press never covered it. That's because, as Griffin wrote to Goodling in yet another email (dated February 6 of this year, and also posted below), their caging operation only made the news on BBC London: busted open, Griffin bitched, by that "British reporter," Greg Palast.

    There's no pride in this. Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet --- except the USA --- only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.

    And now, not bothering to understand the astonishing revelation in Goodling's confessional, they are missing the real story behind the firing of the US attorneys. It's not about removing prosecutors disloyal to Bush, it's about replacing those who refused to aid the theft of the vote in 2004 with those prepared to burgle it again in 2008.

    Now that they have the keys, let's see if they can put them in the right door. The clock is ticking ladies and gents...

    (Ed Note: You can easily contact your Congress Members to call and/or email them this information by clicking here. Let them know they need to take action. Now. And feel free to point them towards this article, URL: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594)

    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4594

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 01:07am

56. look how well the Iraqis are getting along:

    BAGHDAD - Parliament voted Monday in a closed session to remove the speaker after a series of scandals involving the controversial lawmaker, legislators said. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani will be replaced by another Sunni Arab, they said.

    ...Last year, he barely survived a campaign by Shiite and Kurdish politicians to remove him after he said Iraqis who killed American troops should be celebrated as heroes. Last month, he slapped a fellow Sunni lawmaker in the face and called him "scum" at the end of a raucous session.

    An incident on Sunday appeared to have been taken by lawmakers as the last straw.

    Al-Mashhadani got into a shouting match with lawmaker Firyad Mohammed Omar, a Shiite Turkoman, when he complained to the speaker about what he said was the heavy handedness of his personal security guards. Al-Mashhadani responded by heaping abuse at Omar, who complained to fellow legislators that he was also assaulted by al-Mashhadani's guards

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 08:47am

57. more liberal America hating:

    They are. Guantanamo has become a major, a major problem for America's perception - as it's seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo - not tomorrow, this afternoon. I'd close it. And I'd not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well, then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn't that what our system's all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I'd get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial. I would do that because it's more equatable and it's more understandable in constitutional terms. But I'd also do it because every morning I pick up a paper and some authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds. So essentially we have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like the military commission. We don't need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it. But remember what I started this discussion saying, don't let any of them go. Put them in a different system, a system that is experienced, that knows how to handle people like this.-General Colin Powell.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 08:52am

58. BAGHDAD - Parliament voted Monday in a closed session to remove the speaker after a series of scandals involving the controversial lawmaker, legislators said. Mahmoud al-Mashhadani will be replaced by another Sunni Arab, they said.

    ...Last year, he barely survived a campaign by Shiite and Kurdish politicians to remove him after he said Iraqis who killed American troops should be celebrated as heroes. Last month, he slapped a fellow Sunni lawmaker in the face and called him "scum" at the end of a raucous session.

    An incident on Sunday appeared to have been taken by lawmakers as the last straw.

    Al-Mashhadani got into a shouting match with lawmaker Firyad Mohammed Omar, a Shiite Turkoman, when he complained to the speaker about what he said was the heavy handedness of his personal security guards. Al-Mashhadani responded by heaping abuse at Omar, who complained to fellow legislators that he was also assaulted by al-Mashhadani's guards

    Posted by CRABWALK 06/11/2007 @ 08:47am | ignore this person

    Crab,

    Who wrote this? I ask, because it seems to me that reporting in Iraq is getting more and more colonialistic in nature.

    Another Sunni Arab Shiite and Kurdish politicians Fellow Sunni Shiite Turkomen

    I may be being naive, but it certainly seems that the labels are designed to be divisive for our own purposes.

    Posted by freedomplease at 06/11/2007 @ 09:09am

59. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/10/2007 @ 11:30pm

    I use the polls to show that data that they collect as a "snapshot"...yes, you're right.

    It could all change in a matter of months and Gore be topping Hillary.

    But YOU are using it to "prove" that Gore could jump in and win the nomination...and it doesn't prove THAT either. It shows that if he did get in RIGHT NOW...he'd come in third, that's all.

    But like Pelosi and "impeachment is off the table"...you apparently think that polls tell the Ultimate Truth and the people involved are being ...well....slightly untruthful. Remember Gore has still said he isn't planning on running, which means he's being "cagey" about coming to our rescue and sweeping 2008.

    the question is....why? Why toy with our affections? Why not get in NOW, instead of making us wait for his "inevitable announcement in October"?

    What is Al Gore...waiting for? (Hey! It rhymes!)

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 09:18am

60. I never count on GOP to do the right thing. As far as I am concerned the GOP is a party of scammers and criminals who are aided by the corporate media in their lying and criminal pursuits.

    Posted by kevin99999 at 06/11/2007 @ 10:13am

61. By now, we all realize that RIO KORESH has repeatedly, pointedly, and arrogantly refused to answer my straightforward question as to whether as a conservaLoser he supports the molestation of children by elders of the community.

    We also should know that the brainwashed, semi-literature Oklahoma redneck RIO KORESH has a quasi-masturbatory obsession with LA congressman William Jefferson. Below I have excerpted John Dean's 18 May 2007 "FindLaw" column on this matter. Dean argues that the FBI raid on Jefferson's office is of a piece with Gonzales's reckless trashing of legal precedent, one that in this case outraged noted bleeding heart liberal (and then Speaker) Dennis Hastert. In Dean's convincing account, the Gonzo raid predictably DID NOT expedite justice but set it back in part for being interpreted as an unprecedented jackboot tatcic with Congress.

    Truth is, that Congress has a fair measure of power and treating its members like -- like, well, mewling, puking RIO KORESH dwelling in a trailer -- went over very badly with both parties. Remember the thesis on Nixon: he got in to trouble when he went after people with the power to fight back.

    ... Gonzales Ordered the FBI's Historic Rayburn Building Raid

    At dusk on a Saturday in May 2006, at about 7:15 p.m., and operating under the personal approval of Gonzales, not less than fifteen FBI agents wearing business suits arrived at the main entrance of the Rayburn House Office Building to exercise a court- approved search warrant. The FBI agents demanded entrance to Room 2133, the offices of Louisiana Congressman William J. Jefferson, and the Capitol Hill Police, who guard the building, let them in. Eighteen hour later, at about 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, the agents departed with an estimated 19,000 pages of documents and digital copies of computer drives.

    Congressman Jefferson was, it appears, in deep trouble: He had been videotaped taking a $100,000 bribe in $100 bills from an FBI informant (of which $90,000 was later found in the freezer at his home). Yet what was done to him set a baleful precedent, and Speaker Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi were understandably outraged. Neither Attorney General Gonzales, nor anyone else in the Department of Justice or FBI, had even deigned to inform the Speaker of these actions.

    "The Justice Department was wrong to seize records from Congressman Jefferson's office in violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the speech or debate clause of the Constitution, and the practice of the last 219 years," Mr. Hastert and Ms. Pelosi declared. It is possibly the only thing that they have ever agreed upon, and their colleagues on both sides of the House were with them.

    Aggrieved by this executive branch invasion of the legislative branch's territory, Speaker Hastert must have given President Bush an earful when they were together a few days later, for a speech in Chicago. Afterward, the President ordered that the seized documents be sealed and placed in the safe-keeping of the Solicitor General until the matter was resolved. This, however, did little to please the Congress about the tactics that had been employed by the FBI and Gonzales's Justice Department - and it brought the investigation of Jefferson to a halt.

    Was the raid actually a constitutional violation? Probably not - but it was an important violation of tradition. A reporter for the Washington Post, after talking with experts, described the raid as "an aggressive tactic that broke a long-standing political custom," and concluded that "while it might violate the spirit of the Constitution, it might not violate the letter of the document."

    At issue is the Speech and Debate Clause. "An official legislative act is immune, but interference with anything beyond that is not covered by the constitutional provision," Michael J. Glennon, a former legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told the Post. The Post then added, "the taboo against searching congressional offices was a matter of tradition, not black-letter constitutional law." "It's really a matter of etiquette," Yale law professor (and FindLaw columnist) Akhil Reed Amar added.

    Delaying the Investigation of Jefferson by Testing the Speech and Debate Clause

    If Gonzales had looked at the prosecution guidelines for U.S. Attorneys, or if he had been properly briefed, he would have understood that it was all but certain that resorting to the FBI raid would impose tremendous delay in the investigation. It should have been clear from the start that the target of the investigation, Congressman Jefferson (who won reelection in November 2006 - thanks to Gonzales's actions), was certain to contest the FBI's actions under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution. Had Gonzales simply called Speaker Hastert to explain the situation, surely some arrangement could have, and would have, been worked out. No member of Congress, after all, believes that any Congressperson, William Jefferson included, is above the law. And it was well understood that Jefferson was hardly the first member of Congress to be investigated by the FBI and Justice Department while in office. In the past, there have been many investigations into offenses similar to Jefferson's, and many convictions. But never before Alberto Gonzales arrived in the Attorney General's office had the Department authorized a raid on a Congressional office, particularly a raid without first seeking the cooperation of Congressional leaders in an attempt to obviate the need for such a radical tactic.

    Gonzales's violation of tradition gave Congressman Jefferson powerful allies in his fight. A Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, composed of the House leadership, filed an amicus brief to join Jefferson in contesting the action...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/11/2007 @ 10:38am

62. Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/11/2007 @ 10:38am

    So, Glenn, in your world a Congressman stashing $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer is equivalent to an AG firing political appointees at will?

    [cue 'Twilight Zone' theme]

    Posted by pontificus at 06/11/2007 @ 11:23am

63. Posted by CRABWALK 06/11/2007 @ 08:47am

    CRABBIE, your devotion to dubious articles of faith would do an Inquisition monk proud. Let's look at a partial catalog:

    - Everything Bush does is criminal - Everything Bush does to protect the US from terror is PARTICULARLY criminal - Guantanomo detainess are mostly innocent Islamists terrorized and tortured by BusHitler goons - There's no question that Bush and Cheney should be impeached, we just need to find a reason why and prove it.

    LOL

    Posted by pontificus at 06/11/2007 @ 11:26am

64. Hey Brave river, everyone is still waiting for your reply to the indicted/found guilty/going to jail body count comparison. (Kinda walked into that one, didn't you?)

    Posted by The Goods at 06/11/2007 @ 11:29am

65. Hey, here's an interesting article. Does anybody think Tennessee is going to pass a law that makes Al Gore give up his 20,000 sq ft house? Lear Jet trips to Davos? How about Edwards 11,000 sq ft mansion in NC? Any bets on these?

    Denver targets global warming Goal is equivalent of taking 500,000 vehicles off road Linda Mcconnell © Special To The Rocky

    Ronnie LaTulip, left, and Daniel McGee of Waste Not Recycling, stack computer monitors for wrapping at Front Range Community College in Fort Collins on Saturday. Fort Collins bans the disposal of electronic waste in its landfills, an idea considered by Denver's Greenprint Council. STORY TOOLS Email this story | Print MORE STORIES

    By Stuart Steers, Rocky Mountain News June 11, 2007 Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.

    The new plan is aimed at making Denver a national leader in reducing gas emissions that have been linked to global warming, giving a major push to alternative energy, stepping up recycling and changing building codes to encourage energy conservation.

    Posted by pontificus at 06/11/2007 @ 11:31am

66. get a backbone and grow a spine congress and impeach this cockroach who disguises himself as a attorney general

    Posted by studlyguy at 06/11/2007 @ 11:33am

67. Here is a striking footnote in the court order Judge Reggie Walton issued allowing Scooter Libby's powerful legal friends -- 12 top-shelf lawyers, including Robert Bork -- to issue briefs on Libby's behalf:

    "It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.

    The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."

    It is interesting to remember that Judge Walton is a Bush appointee, known for his no-nonsense style.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/11/2007 @ 11:34am

68. Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/11/2007 @ 09:09am

    Sorry, here is the source.

    By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 11:42am

69. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/11/2007 @ 11:26am |

    Plame was covert.

    You are a moron, even when given prof that your worldview ids based on fallacies, you won't change your viewpoint. Your continued attempts to place ideas in my posts does nothing to sway me from mine.

    I assume from your inability to address the issue of non-terrorists being held for years that you support the Chinese occupation of Tibet and the Quigar homelands, and you support the Chinese intimidation of ethnic and religious groups, up to and including executions, inside their country.

    I am not surprised. that in your pants shitting fear, you you are quite willing to overlook gross human rights abuses.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 11:48am

70. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/11/2007 @ 11:23am

    You really are fucking irredeemably stupid, aren't you? Did so much as read the fucking bold print that I carefully highligted for people in a hurry?

    Nope, too fucking lazy, just like your piece-of-shit Cheerleader hero ...

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/11/2007 @ 11:49am

71. Posted by PONTIFICUS 06/11/2007 @ 11:31am

    Am proud to say that I rarely so much as get in car, use public transit when I don't walk, and rarely fly.

    But it's interesting that the intellectual midget PONTI provides endless blather about other people and is rigorously silent about his own carbon footprint.

    Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/11/2007 @ 11:53am

72. more foolish projections from a Religo-Fascist fool.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2007 @ 9:03pm

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/11/2007 @ 12:23pm

73. "What is Al Gore...waiting for? (Hey! It rhymes!)

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 09:18am

    What is Gore waiting for?

    To be shown the front door,

    as his time is no more..

    ..for when he speaks he is a bore

    and the crowd that loved him shouts galore,

    "god help us...NO More!!"

    No More!! ALGORE..near my front door.

    You are right...it deos rhyme.

    Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 12:56pm

74. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/11/2007 @ 12:56pm

    Sounds like Dr Seuss....heheh.

    I am anticipating this fall and wondering what excuses HSUBFOOLS will offer for his numerous prognostications...from impeachment to the Gore '08 candidacy. Despite his deadline of Halloween'ish for both....I have a feeling when the time comes he'll do a "There's still time for it to happen" or "There's still time for him to enter and win the nomination".

    Then as it passes Thanksgiving and into Christmas and New Year's....he either keeps that up, or ignores any comments asking him about it. But not anticipating ANY sort of "I was wrong" forthcoming.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 1:07pm

75. "Sounds like Dr Seuss...."

    So does Gore, if you listen to him...

    As to Bushfools and his poll addiction..

    ...my guess is when none of what he wants to happen, in fact doesn't happen, and if Phred enters the WH, or God for bid for him, the GOPers retake the swamp....that with in 2 days of Inaguration...he will post a poll on how most Americans think the new president and congrews have a low favoring and may be impeachable...soon....

    Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 1:11pm

76. Posted by CRABWALK 06/10/2007 @ 12:15pm

    You might recheck your own facts.. Frazier was appointed by Clinton and not Bush.

    Posted by antiliberal at 06/11/2007 @ 1:34pm

77. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/11/2007 @ 1:11pm

    Well, again...he CAN go full-blown nutty and keep claiming that "impeachment is still possible"...right upto January 19, 2009.

    And even "Gore may run as a 3rd party candidate...Greens may nominate him" upto November 2008.

    But, have a gut feeling that HSUB isn't that bonkers...and he'll merely pull the "Gore may run in 2012, if Hillary loses or sells us out" route...and we start in for another 4 years of "Any day now" posts from HF.

    And on impeachment, he'll claim the Dems have "neutered" Bush and Cheney (like they haven't already) and that "it's legal to impeach a President after his Presidency and Shrub and Darth may be looking at jail-time for their part in ******"

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 1:38pm

78. Posted by CRABWALK 06/10/2007 @ 12:15pm

    You might recheck your own facts.. Frazier was appointed by Clinton and not Bush.

    Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 1:34pm

    ROFL.....I hadn't spotted that "since 1999"...good eye, A.L.

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 1:40pm

79. "he'll claim the Dems have "neutered" Bush and Cheney (like they haven't already) "..

    My only disagreement..

    Bush has already neutered himself..by isolating and angering the very people who elected him..the conservative base..

    Posted by john maasch at 06/11/2007 @ 1:43pm

80. But YOU are using it to "prove" that Gore could jump in and win the nomination...and it doesn't prove THAT either. It shows that if he did get in RIGHT NOW...he'd come in third, that's all.

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 09:18am

    The polls show that Al Gore's electability numbers are moving up while Obama's are stagnant and Clinton's are lowerring. Simple as that. Don't need no simple ryhme cut to prove Al's numbers are amply on the move up...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 1:59pm

81. But like Pelosi and "impeachment is off the table"...you apparently think that polls tell the Ultimate Truth and the people involved are being ...well....slightly untruthful. Remember Gore has still said he isn't planning on running, which means he's being "cagey" about coming to our rescue and sweeping 2008.

    the question is....why? Why toy with our affections? Why not get in NOW, instead of making us wait for his "inevitable announcement in October"?

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 09:18am

    Are you saying that Al Gore could start being president like as soon as he announces that he's running? Or are you saying just subjectively that you personally will feel emotionally satiated if Al Gore announces he's running for president? Geezes Masky you do know Gore's not like Jesus right? He's just going to be running for president when he announces, that's all. No biggie. Plus he's being totally honest, he's not the one doing any of the planning-- it's lots of other people that are doing the planning (legal) and when the times right to announce he will. And he gets to focus more now on what he's currently interested in and not 'have to' start campaigning... which then forces him to focuss on lots more issues at once.

    And I said 'by' Oct/Nov per a lot of 'campaign experts' that have worked for Gore and others before. And as I've stated before, if it doesn't happen, I'll say I was wrong. Remember, there is still about a 2% chance he might not enter. But I'm going with the better odds-- otherwise why do a lot of polls even bother to include him? The pollsters do have a clue Masky.

    As for Pelosi putting impeachment back on the table. You do know that's possible if the circumstances are right, right? There's no law that says she can't, nor especially if 'newly produced documentation of wrong doing is presented and warrants impeachment, no one would blame her. Or you saying even with evidence of a crime by the hsuB/cHeney admin, they should not be impeached? Are you saying that it is ok for the hsuB/cHeney admin to commit crimes and not get impeached for committing them? Simple question really.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 2:26pm

82. Dems Push Monday Vote on Gonzales

    LAURIE KELLMAN | June 11, 2007 02:39 PM EST | AP

    "They can have their votes of no-confidence but it's not going to make the determination about who serves in my government," Bush said Monday in Sofia, Bulgaria, the last stop on a weeklong visit to Europe.

    "This process has been drug out a long time," Bush added. "It's political."

    Am I wrong, but I was always under the impression that it was our government, and isn't the process hsuB is talking about really 'oversight', which is the congress' job-- duty? And cannot the 'our' congress impeach Frito, cHeney or hsuB? I think hsuB believes himself to actually be a dictator now--- not merely wanting to be one.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 3:12pm

83. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/11/2007 @ 2:26pm

    Sorry, HSUB...you've got a better answer on Pelosi and why she's putting off now (or will be "forced into" later) impeachment...."we need the hearings to get the evidence!"

    than the answer on Gore. If he was SERIOUS about running...he'd be running. Why is it taking him until October/November to put together his team, hash out the money, etc., etc.?

    No reason except...he isn't running. If he thinks he'll ride in as the "anti-Hillary"....now's the time to do that. IF as you said, Obama is stalled and if Edwards was going to be the "anti-Hillary", he'd be it.

    To wait, until the Fall, means that Hillary becomes "inevitable", which is what she's been trying to put in the mind of the voters since it started. Gore jumps in at Halloween as Hillary has 40-50% numbers...and tries to be "Bill Bradley" to HER "Al Gore-2000"...he'll have the same luck as Bradley did.

    By then the Party Bosses will be working on the General Election, not wanting to go with "new Al", and it'll be LESS THAN TWO MONTHS until the primaries. Not enough time for Gore to win over Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina (despite all the "untapped money" you claim is out there).

    Gore would have an easier time getting a slot on the Space Shuttle, for a launch on Valentine's Day 2008....than swooping in and stealing the nom from Her Nibs.

    BTW..."Are you saying that it is ok for the hsuB/cHeney admin to commit crimes and not get impeached for committing them? Simple question really."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/11/2007 @ 2:26pm

    No, I'm not saying that....I'm saying that the MOMENT DARLADOON's idol said "off the table"...it was "off the table". So why keep dreaming about "eventual justice"....the Universe doesn't care, might as well "move on".

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2007 @ 4:51pm

84. than the answer on Gore. If he was SERIOUS about running...he'd be running. Why is it taking him until by October/November to put together his team, hash out the money, etc., etc.?

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 4:51pm

    There is a reason some candidates start early and other start later. Early if you have less name recognition, high disapprovals, etc. However, in Als case his approvals are going up and his disapprovals are going down by not campaigning! Not campaigning yet anyway. (Or is he?) And he already has name recognition and he's getting more and better name recognition doing what he's currently doing. It's rather odd that you still don't understand the dynamic in play. Sad really.

    I've already explained the campaign funding and organizational situation to you ad nauseum, but if you can't understand it, can't help you there. Since the experts are ok with my call, I'm certainly not worried about what a caveman thinks. er, mask.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 5:11pm

85. BTW..."Are you saying that it is ok for the hsuB/cHeney admin to commit crimes and not get impeached for committing them? Simple question really."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/11/2007 @ 2:26pm

    No, I'm not saying that....I'm saying that the MOMENT DARLADOON's idol said "off the table"...it was "off the table". So why keep dreaming about "eventual justice"....the Universe doesn't care, might as well "move on".

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 4:51pm

    Sounds like you're absolutely saying hsuB/cHeney committed crimes and it's ok with you... everyone should just ignore it. You sound just like an insane new con hsuB base player.(..or a caveman that lost your mask and no cave or tree to hide in).

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 5:16pm

86. Sorry, HSUB...you've got a better answer on Pelosi and why she's putting off now (or will be "forced into" later) impeachment...."we need the hearings to get the evidence!"

    Posted by MASK 06/11/2007 @ 4:51pm

    What I just said does not contradict what I said before. Now you're just getting desparate again. As always.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 5:19pm

87. It's called a grocery store. Has bananas...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 5:23pm

88. Hey anybody looking at the Senate? Wow, dems are cooking a good stew for no confidence vote. Repubs are looking pretty sheepy... Not a good day for repubs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/11/2007 @ 5:31pm

89. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/11/2007 @ 1:34pm

    Under whose watch did the misdeeds take place?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/11/2007 @ 7:15pm

90. Rio Rovo, if I went back to 50 years of repub corruption it would be several hundred pages long. What's wrong with simply keeping it within the last 10 years? But it really doesn't matter as there's still a lot more big time repub criminals than the few small time dems and you know it.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 01:39am

91. Democrats claimed a measure of victory. Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was one of the resolution's chief sponsors, said that because a majority of the Senate had voted to move ahead with the resolution, the result could be interpreted as a no-confidence vote.

    "When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot," Mr. Schumer said at a news conference after the vote. "He ought to have the decency himself to resign. Clearly, he is not up to the job."

    The Republicans stopped the no-confidence vote under Senate rules that allow a minority to block consideration of a measure. Their move came despite months of searing criticism of Gonzales by members of both parties.

    Seven Republicans split with their party and sided with Democrats. Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said the Democratic motion was "political chicanery" but he had decided the interests of the country, including needed improvements at the Justice Department, were more important.

    "There is no doubt that the (Justice) department at the present time is in shambles," Specter said. "Have I lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales? Absolutely, yes."

    Instead of defending Gonzales, Republican critics of the Democratic resolution argued it was a waste of time as well as a political stunt sponsored by the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee, New York Sen. Charles Schumer.

    Some Republicans however voiced that impeachment would be the proper solution.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 01:50am

92. Not one repub recalled their Terry Schivo legislative debacle in their criticism of the dems.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 01:55am

93. Since the strategy of the new con insane is now to attack the messanger-- Reids 19% approval polls that aren't based on 6 month old info that Limppaw is spouting today. They're getting desparate.

    ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as majority leader of the Senate?"

    Date_______Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    4/12-15/07____46_________33_________21

    Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 21-25, 2007. N=750 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

    "Do you approve or disapprove of the way Harry Reid is handling his job as Senate majority leader?"

    Date_______Approve___Disapprove___Unsure

    3/21-25/07____32_________22________46

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 07:39am

94. er, http://www.pollingreport.com/R.htm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 08:03am

95. Not that it matters because Bush is not running for any office again. Only foolish libs care.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 06/09/2007 @ 9:06pm |

    talk about out to lunch. the next election, like the last, is a referendum on Bush's administration. and all repub politicians know it.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 06/12/2007 @ 08:59am

96. "Democrats claimed a measure of victory. Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who was one of the resolution's chief sponsors, said that because a majority of the Senate had voted to move ahead with the resolution, the result could be interpreted as a no-confidence vote."----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/12/2007 @ 01:50am

    Besides "interpretations"....did the resolution pass?

    No.

    So, how, if the OVERWHELMING evidence of Gonzales' lying doesn't get the Senate to pass a NON-binding resolution....will there become enough evidence (in less than 4 months)...to convince them to remove Bush and Cheney from office after an impeachment trial?

    One Republican who had been critical of Gonzales....voted "present" rather than support the "no confidence" resolution, for crap's sakes!

    Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 09:11am

97. Posted by CRABWALK 06/11/2007 @ 08:47am

    Looks like full-blooded parliamentary democracy at work Crabs. Guess you wouldn't know what that is though.

    In the old days Saddie solved these sorts of disagreements by inviting such troublemakers into the passage outside the cabinet room before putting a bullet between their eyes. You progressives have some unusual perspectives but it seems to me that a vote by the legislators is an advance on the former preferred Iraqi method of getting rid of those who don't play by the rules of the day.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/12/2007 @ 09:22am

98. "You are either with us, or against us."

    American Jews have the right to support and defend Israeli interests by any and all legal means, but some, seeing Israeli interests as paramount to the interests of the United States, go beyond what is acceptable to most Americans. When loyalty to a religion, or to another country has precedent over loyalty to America, the most natural result is for most Americans to reply: "You are either with us, or against us."

    A word to the wise is enough, but fools hear no warning.

    When a lawless American President says: "You are either with us, or against us," he is subverting the democratic process and challenging the Constitution. What he is really saying is: "You are either with me, or against me."

    George Bush calls himself the Decider, boldly proclaiming himself the "Man who Would be King." He also foolishly debunked the myth of government by Checks and Balances, and by doing so, risks the consent of the governed. Nazis proclaimed that "Hitler is Germany, and Germany is Hitler." That played in Germany, but will it play in America?

    With occasional slips, America has been a country governed by laws written to protect the rights of all Americans, not just the few. George Bush and the Republican party have changed all that. And now, more and more Americans are standing up to say, "You are either with us, or against us."

    A word to the wise is enough, but fools hear no warning.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 06/12/2007 @ 11:31am

99. George Bush.....debunked the myth of government by Checks and Balances,...

    ....George Bush and the Republican party have changed all that....

    Posted by RABBLEROWZER 06/12/2007 @ 11:31am

    RA..ZER, the Dems have controlled BOTH houses of Congress for half year now, how's the Restoration of Checks & Balances coming along?

    Let's see.... I already agree and applaud Edwards for his "Restoration of Checks"--from his campaign fund for fancy haircuts--w/personal funds (that he likely write off as `campaign' make-up expenses)...even though he is a Dem. I also agree that all the Dem Presidential Candidates have done their collective "Restoration of Balances" by harping in unison for ASAP surrender in Iraq.

    I believe credit is due when earned. Now, what else you got for us to marvel over all 6 months worth of "Restoration of Checks & Balances"......

    P.S.: Attempts to pass Non-Binding `No Confidence' vote or passing sure-to-be-vetoed war funding bills DO NOT COUNT....this ain't Horseshoe time! Well, maybe it is for you folks!

    Posted by Happy at 06/12/2007 @ 11:57am

100. Posted by HAPPY 06/12/2007 @ 11:57am

     After 6 years of bullshit do nothing but screw Americans Repug congress, I would think it would be a welcome relief.

     And don't worry, investigations take time. We'll clean house of all your corrupt Repug heros. We'll haver to buld more jails to house all of them, but we can do that, too. Maybe Cunningham and Ney and Abramoff can share a cell and swap hooker / bribery tales.

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/12/2007 @ 12:03pm

101. "You are either with us, or against us."

     Posted by RABBLEROWZER

     This comment was made after 911. It was a direct threat to the Saudis. King Saud used this as his rallying cry to unite the tribes of Arabia. It has nothing to do with anything that Rabble said.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2007 @ 12:57pm

102. So, how, if the OVERWHELMING evidence of Gonzales' lying doesn't get the Senate to pass a NON-binding resolution....will there become enough evidence (in less than 4 months)...to convince them to remove Bush and Cheney from office after an impeachment trial?

     Posted by MASK 06/12/2007 @ 09:11am

     Did you even try to hear the senate repubs whining about what a waste of time it was (totally forgeting their Terry Schivo debacle)? But then they also stated why not rather do an impeachment!?!?!?!

     Masky are you not only not able to understand evolution at all, but also not able to hear what actually comes out of repubs mouth? Either way, you are a pretty sorry debater--- not using known facts, but rather running away from them ala right wing talking points.

     That 38 repubs, 8 more than I had hoped, but still not 40, voted against closure is troubling in that hsuB still has some weird control on them considering his self-torpedoed poll numbers and the obvious corruption, as you so vigorously point out, is it then not also obvious that repubs and corruption are synonymous? Why is that not more troubling to you? One can only conclude that you are affiliated with an insane new con base.

     Still, I do think by this repub filibuster, most people understand both that repubs accept being corrupt easily and defend corruption and as well recognize that a 'majority' of the senate have no confidence in Frito. That you can't understand that-- is simply sad.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 1:11pm

103. no confidence in Frito.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS

     Is this some racist remark against Latino Americans?

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2007 @ 1:14pm

104. If only people posted their "true" feelings about this war when asked in a poll, the support for this war would be at 90%

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2007 @ 1:16pm

105. That 38 repubs, 8 more than I had hoped, but still not 40, voted against closure is troubling in that hsuB still has some weird control on them considering his self-torpedoed poll numbers and the obvious corruption, as you so vigorously point out, is it then not also obvious that repubs and corruption are synonymous? ---Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/12/2007 @ 1:11pm

     Sure...but that still means in the face of a LYING Attorney-General, they can't get a useless "non-binding resolution", when the guy SHOULD be impeached (yeah, you read it right).

     Maybe I don't make myself clear to you....I WISH you were right, HSUB. But you're pushing molasses up a sand hill and wasting time on something(s) (including Gore in '08) that AREN'T going to happen and using flimsy "evidence" (Bush poll numbers, Congressional Repub poll numbers, "wish Bush had never been elected" polls) to try to hold your house of cards together.

     If Bush and Cheney get impeached...happy to celebrate with you at Halloween (or was it Thanksgiving)....but it ain't going to happen....sorry, dude.

     Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 1:22pm

106. If only people posted their "true" feelings about this war when asked in a poll, the support for this war would be at 90%

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/12/2007 @ 1:16pm

     But, hey, HSUBFOOLS, good news...there IS one guy who's a LOT more delusional than you.

     Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 1:22pm

107. I was just using the same logic that chuck Schumer was using during the Gonzales debate. And I agree with you that Schumer is pretty delusional

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2007 @ 1:28pm

108. Do you know the mostt dangerous place in Washington? The place between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

     Posted by abell12ct at 06/12/2007 @ 1:29pm

109. no confidence in Frito.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS

     Is this some racist remark against Latino Americans?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/12/2007 @ 1:14pm

     That's what hsuB really called/calls Alberto Gonzales-- not the made up Fredo to cover up the hsuB slur. Think about it. The explanation for the nickname Fredo never made sense like the slur Frito-- considering how hsuB likes to give staff diminative names:

     Quasimodo - Dick Cheney, Ari-Bob - Ari Fleischer, Danny Boy - Dan Bartlett, Hurricane Karen - Karen Hughes, Brownie - Michael D. Brown, Pablo - Paul Wellstone, Pootie-Poot - Vladimir Putin, Freddy Boy - Fred Upton, Big O - Olympia Snowe, Nellie - Ben Nelson, Bama, Rock - Barack Obama, Kenny Boy - Kenneth Lay, The World's Greatest Hero - Colin Powell, Turd Blossom - Karl Rove...

     hsuB gives names that tell a story or a make into a pet like concern, so Fredo never made sense not like the similar sounding frat boy cut-- Frito.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 1:40pm

110. no confidence in Frito.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS

     Is this some racist remark against Latino Americans?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/12/2007 @ 1:14pm

     That's what hsuB really called/calls Alberto Gonzales

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/12/2007 @ 1:40pm

     hahahahahahahaha.

     Looks like you are asking thw wrong guy, Abell.

     Posted by Hman23 at 06/12/2007 @ 2:17pm

111. talk about out to lunch. the next election, like the last, is a referendum on Bush's administration. and all repub politicians know it.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 06/12/2007 @ 08:59am

     I would agree. And as you stated, the people voted in the 2004 referendum that Bush should stay and Kerry was wrong for America.

     In 2000 there was a referendum on Clinton by your standards and Clinton lost (via Gore).

     I agree that every election is a referendum of sorts.

     Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 3:49pm

112. f only people posted their "true" feelings about this war when asked in a poll, the support for this war would be at 90%

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/12/2007 @ 1:16pm

     Only if your son or daughter were in Iraq-- then the poll numbers would show 99% disapproval of the war. No way would anyone ever see a cowardly AWOL hsuB or a cowardly deferment GFY cHeney in Iraq participating in the fight they created out of lies. New cons conned US citizens into handing over our treasure for the GOP/MIC/big business servicers of dic'tator philosophy.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 4:35pm

113. Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/12/2007 @ 3:49pm

     er, don't forget about the grand GOP tradition of 'caging' and transferring our DoJ into a GOP gastapo. Let's put 'referendum' into some context. Doesn't seem to mean sqwat to the new con repub's insane base as corruption is it's synonym.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 4:41pm

114. Is this some racist remark against Latino Americans?

     Posted by ABELL12CT 06/12/2007 @ 1:14pm

     No, are you some pepper-belly bean-eating Mojado? The smirking lttle shit is a moron. Nothing "racial" about it. What do you think the term "gringo" means? You think it is a term of endearment?

     Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/12/2007 @ 5:16pm

115. er, don't forget about the grand GOP tradition of 'caging' and transferring our DoJ into a GOP gastapo. Let's put 'referendum' into some context. Doesn't seem to mean sqwat to the new con repub's insane base as corruption is it's synonym.

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/12/2007 @ 4:41pm

     Hyperbole is your favorite form of communications.

     (German: "Secret State Police") Political police of Nazi Germany. It was created by Hermann Goring in 1933 from the political and espionage units of the Prussian police and by Heinrich Himmler from the police of the remaining German states. Himmler was given command in 1934. The Gestapo operated without civil restraints, and its actions were not subject to judicial appeal. Thousands of Jews, leftists, intellectuals, trade unionists, political clergy, and homosexuals disappeared into concentration camps after being arrested by the Gestapo. In World War II the Gestapo suppressed partisan activities in the occupied territories, and a section of the Gestapo under Adolf Eichmann organized the deportation of Jews to the extermination camps in Poland.

     Oh but according to the hate filled world of "ImafoolishBushhater", this is exactly what has happened. The only problem is that it is all in his tiny twisted excuse for a mind.

     Posted by antiliberal at 06/12/2007 @ 5:20pm

116. Hyperbole is your favorite form of communications.

     Oh but according to the hate filled world of "ImafoolishBushhater", this is exactly what has happened. The only problem is that it is all in his tiny twisted excuse for a mind.

     Posted by ANTILIBAL 06/12/2007 @ 5:20bm

     Oh excuse me Ms. Anti-Libal-er, aren't you the grand hypocrit, 'turning into' refers to a process, which you are apparently all for.

     You don't get to read the news much, aye? Oh-- just faux news, how sad it must be for you. Gush Limppaw is you master I see. He got out of going to fight in the war, via his own admission, because he had a zit on his ass. (What's your excuse-- zit in the brain?)

     Thus all you new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are cowards huddling together fearing your freedom so much you give it away for the security of some brownskins disappeared without habeas corpus, tortured, mutilated, killed, all in secret, the way you like it. You insane new con repub base like to fire some of the best US Attorneys because they wouldn't go after dems enough at the lower level elections to grow a base with flimsy evidence, but the Frito AG/WH plant can commit perjury, without shame, obstruct justice by politicizing our federal law enforcement. Where have you been? Oh, the zit again. Well, in your case don't pop it, it's all you got.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 6:15pm

117. er,' transferring into'/'turning into'...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 6:21pm

118. Oh and Masky FYI per your 'has never happened before' BS:

     "Bill Clinton got into the race in October 1991."

     A lot different race, but then Gore has a hell of a lot more name recognition than Clinton did at that point already.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/12/2007 @ 6:42pm

119. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/12/2007 @ 6:42pm

     And Kennedy announced in January 1960, 11 months before the election...but guess what, this isn't 1960 or 1992.

     But in less than 4 1/2 months...we'll know. We'll know if all the "monumental evidence" emerges from the hearings and forces a Congress that couldn't pass a non-binding "no confidence resolution" against a liar like Gonzales...will impeach Bush and Cheney...

     and we'll know if Al Gore can jump into a primary election LESS THAN THREE MONTHS before the first primary.

     (BTW, October 1991 was when Clinton entered and he LOST Iowa and New Hampshire...but he spun it into a "come-back" to defeat weak candidates like Tsongas and Harkin and Kerrey...not powerhouses like Hillary. Gore loses to Hillary in IA and NH and the "energy" peters out almost immediately.)

     Posted by Mask at 06/12/2007 @ 9:59pm

120. And Kennedy announced in January 1960, 11 months before the election...but guess what, this isn't 1960 or 1992.

     Posted by MASK 06/12/2007 @ 9:59pm

     But Masky you said it had 'never' happened before.... Again you inability to see in terms of evolution or time-- is 'now' forever you you? _______________How about now? SSSssuuuurrree.

     So you just pull it out of your ass whenever you feel like 'lying'! I think you're getting a little too close to the hsuB/cHeney new con supporters, servicers to dic'tator philosophy.

     How about now?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 12:40am

121. er, is 'now' forever for you?

     er, your

     How about now?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 12:42am

122. Masky, is it still forever___________________________now?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 08:35am

123. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/13/2007 @ 12:40am

     Believe I said "in the modern primary season"...primaries are earlier and faster together now than they were in 1992. (didn't hardly exist in 1960).

     BTW, YOU claimed that the reason a person enters the race early is because of "low name recognition, high disapprovals, etc."....okay, which did John Edwards have?

     HSUB, both these fantasies of yours (impeachment, Gore in '08) have the same theme..."compensation and eventual justice". Punishment for Bush and Cheney and a "putting right" of 2000 by having Al Gore become President "as he was meant to be".

     Well, I'm sorry, ol' buddy...but the Universe is a cruel and UN-fair place. And the karmic justice we seek rarely comes as WE want it to come. Will Bush and Cheney be punished?...in the annals of history, sure. They've been monumental failures and less than Nixon, they'll never be able to redeem their reputations or embaressment of their families (Possibly we'll see little Sam Cheney ((Mary's kid)) writing a book in 2039 talking about how his grandfather Dick was a nice guy, but a terrible Vice-President...to try to save the family name).

     As for Gore...a guy once said "There are no second acts in politics"...and I'm afraid ol' Al has had two "second acts" (1988 nomination run, 2000 election) and is not likely to get a third. The Clinton people have the DLC and moderate Democrats....Obama has the "young progressives" and black vote...and Edwards a distant third has the "pure progressives" (who aren't "Dems just as bad" ZERO/Empty Spence types)....and you're betting that they are disloyal and will dump their respective candidates...just on the mere thought of wonderous Al as Prez.

     Sorry again, but I think your poll data is correct...and SOLID. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, and Gore....Gore comes in third....and stays there.

     Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 09:07am

124. BTW, YOU claimed that the reason a person enters the race early is because of "low name recognition, high disapprovals, etc."....okay, which did John Edwards have?

     Posted by MASK 06/13/2007 @ 09:07am

     You mean 'which does Edwards have'? I believe it's a convincing resume unlike Gore which is beating him in a lot of polls. Edwards basically hasn't stopped campaigning since he started 2004, a few years ago, but wasn't ever a real VP, governor, just a one term senate, mostly just a candidate, didn't win any state as pres candidate. Thus he's going for credibility of some name recognition. Good likability though, (but then that got us hsuB...) But can't really go on the attack without H.Clinton or Obama push back. Edwards credibility with college students may be in jep per promising not to be running for pres while he was touring campuses the last few years promoting his programs.

     Look at Gore's resume, credibility out the wazoo, name recognition, current momentum in the polls, top movie, top books, about to be put up for nobel peace prize, etc. Plus he was the 1st 'good' most powerful VP before there was the 'bad' cHeney 2nd mpvp.

     My money is still on Al.

     Oh Masky is it forever_________________________________now!?!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 09:57am

125. Believe I said "in the modern primary season"...primaries are earlier and faster together now than they were in 1992. (didn't hardly exist in 1960).

     Posted by MASK 06/13/2007 @ 09:07am

     er, Masky, I never brought up 1960-- you did. Your tricks are getting old. By all historians, 1991-2 is considerred 'MODERN'. And Iowa caucus was in January. You are still to be considerred a misinformed BS-er. Now instead of apologizing for making a mistake-- you're trying to talk around it.

     Hey Masky, is it forever___________________________now!?!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 10:10am

126. Hey Masky, is it forever___________________________now!?!

     Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/13/2007 @ 10:10am

     Nope, just Halloween 2007. By then, you'll have your wish...or be digging and scraping around for excuses.

     (BTW, word of warning--try "Gore can still run as a third party candidate" until the FOLLOWING Halloween ((2008))...and you will just be embaressing yourself!)

     Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 12:27pm

127. (BTW, word of warning--try "Gore can still run as a third party candidate" until the FOLLOWING Halloween ((2008))...and you will just be embaressing yourself!)

     Posted by MASK 06/13/2007 @ 12:27pm

     Bwahahahahahah. Why should I-- you're the clown with the mask!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 12:37pm

128. Okay, HSUB....I'll just hang onto that for a year or so....heheh.

     Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 1:02pm

129. But the question is when you continue to be all wrong-- will you 'hang' up your mask at holloween or continue wearing it!?!

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 1:07pm

130. HSUB, I've said I'll gladly admit that you were right and I was wrong....if impeachment comes or Gore runs in '08.

     And I take you on your word that you'll do the same if either or both events don't happen.

     BTW, I assume since you want the man to be President, you have some trust in Gore's judgement....right?

     SO...was it "old Gore" or "new Gore" or "new Gore-II" that chose Joe Lieberman for his Vice-Presidential running mate?!?!??!

     by Robert Scheer

     Robert Scheer is editor of TruthDig, where this essay originally was published.

     "What if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election but died in office? Would President Joe Lieberman have been worse than George W. Bush? His recent actions suggest that he could have descended even lower in his illogical and immoral responses to the tragedy of 9/11."

     Posted by Mask at 06/13/2007 @ 2:07pm

131. Who knows what Lieberman would've morphed into if his history were different? You're always asking for one non-answerable conclusion to a non-logical question. Like what if hsuB had actually gone to the Vietnam War, he would've been a lot more hesitant to go to Iraq. Perhaps had more discipline and shook the trees and found the terrorists before 9/11 and it would not have happened. Or what if hsuB had choked to death on the pretzel and cHeney were president, and then his heart gave out? And then and then and then... Pretty much playing with yourself. Lets talk about what actually happened and take it from there.

     Remember that Gore used Lieberman to immunize himself from the Monica /Clinton scandal as Lieberman was the first to condemn the lie of the affair. Plus they were pretty similar on the issues back then: pro-choice on abortion; pro-gay rights; pro-gun control, pro-SDI; pro-death penalty; pro-free trade, disagree on a couple of issues: "Lieberman supports school choice vouchers and Gore is dead set against them; Lieberman would limit federal involvement in health care but Gore is for universal coverage; Lieberman has a mixed environmental voting record and Gore wrote the book on the subject. Notice how on the three that they differ, Lieberman is to the right of Gore -- that's what makes him appealing to independent centrists."

     Funny to read what people wrote back then and how wrong they were about hsuB.

     http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/lieberman.htm

     Gore to Name Sen. Lieberman as V.P. Running Mate

     Aired August 7, 2000 - 7:01 a.m. ET

     CNN told by a senior Democratic source that Vice President Al Gore has settled on Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to join him on the Democratic ticket. The 58-year-old senator, like Gore, a member of the Democratic Leadership Council. He is viewed as a Democratic moderate, and most notably, he was among the first Democrats to speak out and condemn President Clinton's conduct during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

     There was some talk over the weekend that perhaps Mr. Lieberman would be passed over, even though he was among the vice president's favorites, because he is an Orthodox Jew. Some in the Gore campaign worrying there would be lingering religious prejudice against him.

     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0008/07/bn.01.html

     What they didn't know abbout Lieberman then and do now are very different. Just like hsuB not being able to distroy our american way of life...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 4:12pm

132. Gore picking Lieberman was consisered a bold move back then as Lieberman was the first Jew to be considerred for a top spot. And probably cost him votes per anti-semetic typres, small state...

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 4:16pm

133. er, types

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 4:17pm

134. Three recent polls have hsuB approval polling in the 20's, six others at or just above 30%. Considering the 3% +/- margin in error, hsuB could have 6 major polls with approval numbers in the 20's. Only 2-3 polls show hsuB close to 34%.

     PRESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls

     Survey__________Dates__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure___Dif

     Quinnipiac RV__6/5-11/07___28________65________7_____-37

     Pew_______5/30 - 6/3/07___29________61_______10_____-32

     Newsweek____5/2-3/07 ____28________64________8_____-36

     http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 5:36pm

135. Congress' polls as a whole are dropping also, but not as fast or as drastic as hsuB's or congressional repubs independant of dems. Dems polling much better than repubs across the board.

     ABC News/Washington Post Poll. May 29-June 1, 2007. N=1,205 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.

     "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?"

     ____________Approve__Disapprove__Unsure

     5/29 - 6/1/07____44_______49________6

     XXXXXxxxxxXXXxxxxXXxxXXxxXxxXxx

     The Harris Poll. April 20-23, 2007. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "How would you rate the job Democrats in Congress are doing: excellent, pretty good, only fair, or poor?"

     ____________Excellent/Pretty Good____Only Fair/Poor

     4/20-23/07__________35_________________58

     XXXXXxxxxxXXXxxxxXXxxXXxxXxxXxx

     USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 9-11, 2007. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are handling their job?"

     __________Approve____Disapprove___Unsure

     2/9-11/07_____41________50__________9

     XXXXXxxxxxXXXxxxxXXxxXXxxXxxXxx

     CBS News Poll. Feb. 8-11, 2007. N=1,142 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. "In general, is your opinion of the Democrats in Congress favorable or not favorable?"

     _______________Favorable___Unfavorable___Unsure

     2/8-11/07__________54__________35_________11

     Posted by hsuBfools at 06/13/2007 @ 5:43pm