Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog Follow-up: Jumping Ship on Gonzales

Late last week The Fix asked readers whether Sen. John Sununu's (R-N.H.) call for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would be the exception or the rule for endangered Republicans in 2008.

Since that time, Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) has joined Sununu in calling for Gonzales's ouster. Still no word from Sens. Norm Coleman (Minn.) or Susan Collins (Maine) -- both of whom are up for reelection in 2008 and represent states carried by the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004.

Gonzales's fate still very much hangs in the balance, with many speculating that he may be out of a job before the end of the week. We'll be watching to see whether other endangered Republicans jump ship on Gonzales before a final decision is made.

In the meantime, here's a sampling of your best comments from last week's Wag the Blog.

* "Gonzogate is an early preview for the 2008 race. The Administration is reeling from an issue, the hiring and firing of U.S. Attorneys, that should not gain much public attention. Bush/Cheney have lost all credibility with the American people. If I was a GOP senator or representative up for re-election in 2008, I would distance myself from Bush/Cheney too." -- Posted by: ewe2

* "The outcome of this will have no effect on the 2008 elections. I would bet most voters have never heard of Alberto Gonzales and don't care about what happens with U.S. attorneys.

"Yes, the DOJ handled this very poorly. However, this is the ultimate inside-the-Beltway battle. 2008 will probably be about Iraq. Dealing with that is how vulnerable GOPers distance themselves from the White House." -- Posted by: Zach

* "I don't think we'll see a further wave of Congressional Republicans affirmatively abandoning Gonzales and calling for his resignation unless the investigation turns up something truly scandalous.

"But I do think it's likely that the White House and the Congressional GOP will quietly decide not to make a stand on his behalf. Gonzales will resign in the next 2 weeks." -- Posted by: Thrasymachus

* "The three Senators that you mention all have different criteria to establish their 'independence' and all have a different set of obstacles. The one that most resembles Sununu's dilemma is Collins. She's going to have a tough fight already if as expected the Dem Congressman (Allen?) runs against her. This would be a good place for her to show her independence in a meaningless way by joining Sununu in calling for Gonzales resignation.

"Coleman is in an entirely different situation, he's tied by his election and voting record to Bush for better of for worse. Asserting independence now, especially by meaningless gestures (does anyone really think that a handful of GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 calling for Bush to jettison his longtime buddy and hatchet man?), would probably play into his public persona of being the guy that will say anything to get elect/reelected.

"Smith is just fighting an increasingly hostile demographic environment. His reelection campaign will center on Iraq and positions on local issues. Should he assert his independence? Is that who he is? Would that matter?" -- Posted by: Steve

Thanks to everyone who submitted comments. Stay tuned for a new Wag the Blog soon...

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 20, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The YouTube Effect (Part XIII)
Next: Brownback's Iowa Strategy


I notice that in the GOP rankings, the Fix focuses on why HE thinks the Giuliani campaign will face trouble, blah, blah, blah....why do we never hear about why the hate-filled Obama campaign will encounter problems? Surprise, surprise, the Wapo continues as a mouthpiece for the Democratic party.

Since Fenruary 15, the Wapo online edition has featured 12 articles on Obama and one article on Giuliani. Of course, this is the Dems version of fair and balanced!!!!

Posted by: Bruce A. Dembroski | March 23, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

If not chertoff, the other safe choice would be Fred THompson. Then he would not ned to run the gauntlet on two appointments

Against that, I think that the president would hold Thompson in reserve as a Veep appointee for when Cheney resigns for health reasons which I think will happen sooner rather than later.

After all, he has to set up housekeeping at the Palms in Dubai so he can return to Haliburton.

Posted by: poor richard | March 21, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Long long ago the U.S. helped Iraq to get its oil production on its feet. In 75 years Iraq produced a lot of oil. At that time only the U.S. and Germany had knowledge about nukes. Then Iraq grew mature and built an army and got scientists of its own. Saudi Arabia and Israel got afraid of what ones was simply a nation that produced oil. Those growing fears whether real or not are the roots of the war that is going on in Iraq. All preparations for this war were made by the countries mentioned. The U.S. deep in debt could only do what it was told by Saudis and mosad including the prewar lies and the 9/11 atrocities and the manipulation of main stream media, all this is still going on. Questions are how to get rid of the U.S. national debt and how to regain control over your beautiful country ?? The answer is stop spending money you don't have. This government is spending huge amounts of money they don't have, so if you want to make your country healthy again you must DISMISS THIS EXECUTIVE PART OF YOUR GOVERNMENT AT ONES, NOW, NO DAY LONGER IN CHARGE, DISMISS IT NOW BEFORE IT IS TO LATE. ==== When this first thing is done you have to get rid of your personal debts. That means pay it off and get rid of institutes that make a living from lending money to people that cannot afford a loan. That is the toffest part. Try to live with the money you earn and save a little bit every week. When you do this for the next 10 years your nation might get back on its feet.

Posted by: jwh | March 21, 2007 4:34 AM | Report abuse

This is off the subject but I would like to know what others interested in politics think. Then I was young (1940's) when two or three men got together they discussed politics. They were able to disagree and remain friends. After WW2 to the present when men get together they discuss sports.

Now, many seem to treat politics like a sport. Team loyalty, who is "scoring" off whome seems to be more important than the issues facing the country.

As I understand our history our politics started in town hall meeting where everyone was heard with respect. After all they were friends and neighbors that we would have to live with after the meeting.

I think the present tactic of trying to distroy the opposition is very bad for our country.

What do you think? Than you. Jim R

Posted by: Jim R | March 20, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Nor'Easter: Thanks for the info. I never could figure out just what this "ACT" was about in the first place, except it was to give the exe branch more power. The odd thing was how the congress has given so much power to the exe branch when it was controlled by repubs. Chertoff has been a legal eagle for the repubs in a lot of circumstances, and it would not be a suprise for him to be the next AG.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

If Bush whacks Gonzo, the Dems will feel empowered to continue hounding him. They kept on him after he whacked Rummy as well.

Schumer will continue to howl in the mostly-sympathetic mainstream media until Nov 2008. Even now that he's got a blatant COI, given his position on the DSCC. What a scumbag.

The point is, Bush can't win. He should have figured this out years ago, but whatever. So he might as well go to war and not alienate whatever of his base he has left.

Posted by: JD | March 20, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

'BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Mustafa Karim, a fourth-grader, now lives with family members in a squalid camp in eastern Baghdad where displaced Shias go after fleeing their homes, often after relatives have been killed.

The young boy's eyes fill with tears when he recalls the circumstances that led to his exile.

"They killed my father and uncle in front of my eyes," he says.

He then breaks down sobbing. He can no longer speak. The anguish is unbearable.

Such stories are not uncommon in Iraq four years after the U.S.-led invasion. Health officials say the daily hardships -- bomb blasts, gunfire, killings of family members and sectarian violence -- are taking an increasing toll on Iraq's children.

Hundreds of thousands of children no longer attend school. Others have been forced from their homes to camps, while others have fled the nation with family. (Audio slide show: 'All they've ever known is conflict')

For those that remain behind, there is the constant fear of being killed and the mental toll that warfare takes on its most vulnerable victims.

"Our children are surrounded by violence," said Dr. Saied al Hashimi, a professor of psychiatry at Baghdad's Mustansriya University. "Most of them are traumatized."

He says mass displacement, the death and murder of family members and the constant presence of heavily armed troops, militias and death squads have a long-term impact on the children, especially those in and around Baghdad where violence is most intense. (Watch boy feign death, carried away like martyr)

"I call them the silent victims. Our Iraqi children are the silent victims," he told CNN.'

Posted by: here's your 'good news' happy now? | March 20, 2007 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Chertoff was a U. S. Attorney for New Jersey, in Newark, then a Federal Appeals Court Judge and then a Cabinet Secretary. Which is a better background than many Attorneys General have.

As Blarg pointed out, a Chertoff appointment just opens up another Cabinet position which then needs to be filled.

Also, Gonzales is as high a level Hispanic ever to serve in the Executive Branch, and first Hispanic Attorney General. If he doesn't finally face reality and "take one for the President" by resigning, what will his having to be fired do within the Hispanic voting community?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 20, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Chertoff would be a terrible choice to take over for Gonzales.

Not because of anything about him personally. I don't know enough about Chertoff to say whether he could do the job or not. But whoever takes over as AG (Attorney General or Alberto Gonzales; take your pick) needs to be confirmed by the Senate. If it's Chertoff, then a new Homeland Security secretary needs to be confirmed by the Senate also. That will give Senate Democrats two big opportunities to investigate the failings of the Bush administration. And Bush can't want that.

Politically, firing Gonzales now might be a mistake, for that reason. Bush might want to wait a few months before asking for Gonzales' resignation. That way the media will have forgotten about this whole issue, and they'll cover the replacement AG confirmation in less detail. Also, firing Gonzales now would admit that someone in the administration made a mistake, and Bush doesn't do that. So don't be surprised if Gonzales stays in office for at least a few months longer.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Lyle: what it restores is the limited 120-day interim appointment by the Administration, succeeded if necessary, by an interim appointment by the U.S. District Court, while the Administration submits the permanent appointment to the Senate for confirmation.

The Senate was never part of the interim appointment process, so was never removed from that process.

It was skirted by the Patriot Act amendment which allowed an Administration to make interim appointments for indefinite periods of time; and, probably correctly according to the Separation of Powers, removed the Judicial Branch from appointing Executive Branch officials.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 20, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Watching this much spin control and political maneuvering can be interesting. As a former player though, what I watch for at this point is a random event coming out of the blue and biting the plotters on the...uh...well...behind for lack of a more anatomically correct phrase.

Cheney's Deep Vein Thrombosis. Was a Veep replacement in the works when this blew up? Could it still happen if the situation is worse than what was mentioned this morning?

Or. Lets say Chertoff gets moved into Gonzalez's spot. A hurricane hits New Orleans and those already admittedly under-designed levees don't work. Short Cuts on his watch get publicized. Off with his head. Two Attorneys general in six months.

And how many ways can the president paraphrase "Stay the Course"?

Have to wonder what the scandal du jour will be for next weeks news cycle if the President decides to tough it out on Gonzalez.

Oh, to be a Republican running for reelection in 2008!!

Posted by: poor richard | March 20, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Most of cable has picked Gonzales to be gone by weeks end. Senate just passed a bill taking parts of The Patroit Act that would restore the confirm part before the Senate.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

'SISTERS, Oregon (AP) -- During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.'

the loons out there, trying to derange children's minds... sick.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, maybe judge, -- like that 'Unity '08' deal that Fogey Brody likes to write about -- how 'bipartisan' it is and all, except it isn't -- just republican cover, with the usual suspect [lieberman] pretendng he's a dem... [did you know his campaign was bankrolled almost entirely by republicans? what a surprise].

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Bush Shows Gonzales Support (current headline on

The classic Kiss of Death from a baseball owner.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 20, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: maybe they are trying to generate a platform for R presidential candidates to hide behind? One or more of the non-Congressional candidates (Guiliani comes to mind) who isn't compromised by a voting record could jump on this without a whiff of hypocrisy.

Glad that the D's are going after the prosecutors who have been going after D candidates. That epluribusmedia study makes it very clear that the DOJ has been twisted toward being a key cog in a political machine designed to generate and perpetuate a permanent R majority. The completely unpatriotic perversion of the Patriot Act is yet another example.

The wingers will complain endlessly but Congress served more than 3 subpoenas/week between '94 and 2000 so the 110th will be waaaay off that benchmark of political witch hunting. Another inconvenient fact that R's will constantly ignore along with Bush, Reagan, etc firing all of the US attorneys when they took office.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 20, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Bob Barr pointman for anything apolitical? Not a chance. See Borat for an accurate picture of Barr.

Saw Eliot Abrams' name crop up in the U.S. Atttorney firing mess. Maybe he's the coach for Administration officials on how to lie to the Congress. You'd think that they'd know better than to use a felon convicted of exactly that, but this group doesn't seem to learn from history.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

'Via this interview, between Paul Gigot and Joseph diGenova: This is the first phase for the Democrats. It's to look at the Justice Department. The next phase is going to be to look at the U.S. attorneys' offices specifically to see if the U.S. attorneys who were kept were bringing politically motivated prosecutions against Democrats in their districts. And they're already lining up specific districts to look at. That's the danger here for the Republicans.... Get mad and get involved.'

Here's an example. A winger website that finds it perfectly okay to bring politically motivated prosecutiions against dems, and wants to stop dems fron investigating. This is how far the con movement has lost its bearings and wandered off the reservation... there's no integrity left whatsoever. And they can't even see it.

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Absoutely, judge -- I'm just trying to figure out why they would do it now -- in the run-up to the 2008 election. I cannot imagine that someone like the Mullah Dobson would be happy about this --the social cons like him don't give a rat's a** about the constitution --they'd love to be looking through peephole into everyone's bedrooms.

So will it have any legs? Maybe these people actually DO believe in small gov't -- althouh this is the first peep we've had about in 6 years so I'm a little suspicious too. But what's theri motive then?

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

'Ward's endless stream of mandates, the source revealed, were a source of frustration to many US Attorneys. "There were countless child obscenity cases crying out to be prosecuted," the source told me, "but [Brent] Ward wanted to focus on cases involving consenting adults. That's just not a good way of dedicating resources. When you have so many children being harmed, why not allocate your resources towards that?"

Ward's heedless prosecutions of legally available pornography reflected more than his ideology; they also defined his power within the Justice Department. Once Bush began his second term in the White House, Gonzales declared the prosecution of pornography portraying sex acts between consenting adults "one of the top priorities" of his department'

This gets weirder -- one prosecutor forced out because he wanted to prosecute child pornography over consenting adult porn. these people are just plain weird.

Posted by: Sally | March 20, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Drindl: interesting development but it's funny how they waited until the D's developed a Congressional majority before taking such a principled stand. Is this true concern or just bald-faced "me-tooism?" I'd be far more impressed if they'd put out this manifesto in 2005.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 20, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that in testimony under oath to Congress, McNulty told the truth about the politics of the Arkansas U.S. Attorney appointment, while AG Gonzales testified the changes were not politically motivated, but performance related? Isn't perjury what we should expect from the Attorney General of the United States?

The e-mails show the influence of the WH political operatives clearly in the firings, and there's not a shred of thought given to the effect on the reputations of these Bush appointees. What arrogance and "compassionate conservatism!"

Posted by: pacman | March 20, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

'Four prominent conservative thinkers are set to launch a campaign to "to restore checks and balances and civil liberties protections under assault by the Executive Branch," arguing that true conservatives value civil liberties.

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who led the effort to impeach President Clinton, is one of the organizers of the effort, called the American Freedom Agenda, along with David Keene of the American Conservative Union, writer and conservative direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie, and constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who served in the Reagan administration as associate deputy attorney general.

At a 1 p.m. news conference at the National Press Club, they will pitch a legislative package "to restore congressional oversight and habeas corpus, end torture and extraordinary rendition, narrow the president's authority to designate 'enemy combatants,' prevent unconstitutional wiretaps, email and mail openings, protect journalists from prosecution under the Espionage Act, and more."

Well, well. What do you make of this, CC? Major split in the republican party? i can't stand any of these people, but at least I DO believe they care about the Constitution... and they are right.

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

'Four months after the San Diego United States Attorney's office launched an investigation into whether he had accepted bribes from defense contractors, and little more than a month before he pled guilty to those charges, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) signed on to a letter criticizing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's "lax" handling of immigration crimes.

The letter, signed by 18 other Republican lawmakers, was sent October 20, 2005. Cunningham pled guilty November 28 to bribery charges and resigned from office.'


Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that in testimony under oath to Congress, McNulty told the truth about the politics of the Arkansas U.S. Attorney appointment, while AG Gonzales testified the changes were not politically motivated, but performance related?

The e-mails show the influence of the WH political operatives clearly in the firings, and there's not a shred of thought given to the effect on the reputations of these Bush appointees. What arrogance!

Posted by: pacman | March 20, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that in testimony under oath to Congress, McNulty told the truth about the politics of the Arkansas U.S. Attorney appointment, while AG Gonzales testified the changes were not politically motivated, but performance related?

The e-mails show the influence of the WH political operatives clearly in the firings, and there's not a shred of thought given to the effect on the reputations of these Bush appointees. What arrogance!

Posted by: pacman | March 20, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that [former San Diego US attorney] Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA's top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The next day, on May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel's office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.

Posted by: obstruction of justice is the charge | March 20, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Mike Allen said this and he's a republican operative so he should know:

'Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose support among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has collapsed, according to party sources familiar with the discussions.

Among the names floated Monday by administration officials are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff--

ROFLOL -- why not Brownie?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:34 AM | Report abuse

'The Politico's Mike Allen: Democrats Are Bloodthirsty Dogs, Gushes Over Fox News & Matt Drudge, Makes Fat Jokes About Al Gore

The Politico, the 'hot' new DC insider publication, hypes itself like this: "journalism that insists on the primacy of facts over ideology".

So Mike Allen, the publication's "chief political correspondent" and a certified member of the beltway cocktail club set, appears on Matt Drudge's syndicated radio program. Ok, fine. Drudge reaches an audience and Allen's function is to get the Politico's name out there. But then, this man who is supposedly a top person at a publication that isn't just another partisan outlet proceeds to sound like any other right-wing hitman.

Allen calls Democrats bloodthirsty for having the nerve to serve their oversight function. He squeals like a schoolgirl with a crush when he tells conservative gossipmonger Matt Drudge that Drudge is an idol and someone he sets as his home page in order to take direction from, then he gushes about the success of Fox News' propaganda network.

Then the cherry on top, Allen simply dismisses the substance of why former Vice President Al Gore is testifying in front of congress on global warming - why bother, there are fat jokes to be made, and attacks on Gore's speaking style to be done.

This isn't the first time Allen and the Politico have carried water for the right. And it won't be the last, but this is the sort of "journalism" that passes for being fair in the modern world. You've got to kick Democrats in the teeth and kiss the rear end of Republicans in order to be seen as "serious".

Why do all the boys at the Post have a mancrush on Drudge, hmm? Wonder if they feel the same way about Jeff Gannon?

Posted by: bottom of the barrel | March 20, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

'On St. Patrick's Day, Eric Verlo's children watched as their father, along with 65-year old Elizabeth Fineron (pictured at left), were yanked by police out of his bookmobile in the middle of a parade and thrown to the ground.

Photos show Fineron, who ordinarily walks with the assistance of a cane, subsequently being dragged across the street. Verlo, a Colorado Springs businessman and chairman of the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission, was pushed face down on the street, and handcuffed. Police seized control of his bookmobile, and drove it away from the parade.

Bill Durland, who was part of a group of about 45 marching with the Bookman bookmobile, says he watched as Colorado Springs police, some wearing riot helmets, descended into the crowd.

One cop kneed a woman in the groin as she lay on the ground. Another broke a wooden peace sign that one of the participants had been carrying, across her back.

One photo shows a cop with his arm around the neck of a retired priest, Frank Cordaro, in an apparent chokehold.

In another shot, a cop hoists a Taser.'

when and where will the next kent state occur?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

'Wall St. Fears Far-left Hijack' reads crawl on Fox News -- then they show all the Dem candidates.

pathetic joke fox is... just pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

"I did a little checking and to my suprise found that some of the folks on "The Fix" are putting stuff out here claiming to be dems but are not in any way, shape or form"

Wow. This is kind of a troubling post.....

Posted by: Pdoggie | March 20, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

'The Post also notes the email cited last night by U.S. News as the "most worrisome" to Justice Department officials -- one that has Gonzales "extremely upset" at his deputy Paul McNulty because McNulty had the gall to admit that U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins was pushed out for no other reason than to install Karl Rove's former aide. But why was he really so upset? As Gonzales' spokesman put it in the email, "I think from a straight news perspective we just want the stories to die."

I'll bet they do. This is the best his own spokeman can manage? Kinda weak, wouldncha say?

Posted by: Shaleigh | March 20, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

China's got $1,000,000,000,000 in reserve -- and we have -- nothing -- zero -- nada. All surplus gone, in debt up to our eyeballs -- to China.

Now, who d'ya think will be the superpower of tomorrow?

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 9:59 AM | Report abuse

'Silent victims': What will become of Iraq's children?

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children no longer attend school. Many are forced to deal with mass displacement and killings of loved ones. Some are so shaken by the war, health experts say, they suffer from seizures and other mental health problems. "They killed my father and uncle in front of my eyes," one boy wept.

Posted by: this is your responsibility--your tax dollars did this | March 20, 2007 9:56 AM | Report abuse

'An ABC News survey in 2005 found that 57 percent of Iraqis say they want a democracy, that number has now gone down to 43 percent. Meanwhile, 94 percent of Sunnis, and 51 percent of Shiites said that attacking U.S. troops is an acceptable political act. And 83 percent of Shiites and 97 percent of Sunnis oppose the presence of coalition troops in Iraq.'

Posted by: our people are dying for 'iraqi freedom?' | March 20, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Here's your answer, CC...

'In reference to a question about Gonzales, White House press secretary Tony Snow said, "We hope he stays." '

--He's gone. This Friday afternoon about five...

Posted by: drindl | March 20, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'You're playing the same game as Coulter and Limbaugh. And you're just as useless as they are.'

sorry, that's not even possible. no one could be.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Of course, a lot of Democrats and independents also agreed with the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. But I guess you have to ignore that in order to consider your pointless crusade to insult every member of the Republican Party.

You're playing the same game as Coulter and Limbaugh. And you're just as useless as they are.

Posted by: Blarg | March 20, 2007 9:44 AM | Report abuse

The party of Big Brother, of Big Government, has sold you repug suckers another bill of goods -- you say the care about freedom, about privacy, but you no lonnger have any. and you did it to yourselves:

'In 1986, Congress first authorized FBI agents to obtain electronic records without approval from a judge using national security letters. The letters can be used to acquire e-mails, telephone, travel records and financial information, like credit and bank transactions. They can be sent to telephone and Internet access companies, universities, public interest organizations, nearly all libraries, financial and credit companies.

In 2001, the Patriot Act eliminated any requirement that the records belong to someone under suspicion. Now an innocent person's records can be obtained if FBI field agents consider them merely relevant to an ongoing terrorism or spying investigation.

Fine's review, authorized by Congress over Bush administration objections, concluded the number of national security letters requested by the FBI skyrocketed after the Patriot Act became law. Each letter may contain several requests.

In 2000, the FBI issued an estimated 8,500 requests. That number peaked in 2004 with 56,000. Overall, the FBI reported issuing 143,074 requests in national security letters between 2003 and 2005. In 2005, 53 percent were for records of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

In a sampling of 77 case files in four FBI field offices, Fine discovered an additional 8,850 requests that were never recorded in the FBI's database, and he estimated there were many more nationwide.'

Posted by: Anonymous | March 20, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

This is how gullible repugs are:

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War dominates the news now; it's an obvious milestone. Less obvious -- but perhaps more telling -- is that, over the weekend, Iraq passed the Civil War as the second longest in our history. Only in Vietnam were Americans in conflict longer -- more than eight years.

And there's one more benchmark that may count for much more than the first two: If we count the run-up to the war, and the early start to the next presidential race, then we are approaching the fourth national election in which this war will play a major part.

Iraq was a shadow issue even before the war began, in the 2002 midterms, when the specter of the September 11 attacks and the "war on terror" gave President Bush huge job approval ratings -- and helped the Republicans narrowly win back the Senate.

The war was launched in March 2003. It was a war begun with a series of assertions -- that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, but also that Iraq's oil would finance the country's rebirth.

As the war began, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confidently said, "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." Bush's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, was cashiered in part for arguing that the cost of the war might go as high as $200 billion. (The war has now cost more than $400 billion, and according to two Brookings Institute researchers, the monthly cost is some $9 billion.)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forcefully pushing the idea that a rapid military victory would be followed by a rapid withdrawal of American forces. His special assistant, Larry DiRita, was quoted as telling top Iraq officials that "by the end of August we're going to have 25,000 to 30,000 troops left in Iraq."

they swallowed every word -- and the really stupid ones still believe it. you can lie to their faces and laugh behind their backs, and they still swallow it whole. that is what an ideologue is. and the movement 'conservatives --bushists --' are just as brainwashed as stalinsts & maoists, any communist or fascist.

Posted by: a repug sucker born every minute | March 20, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse


"Hillary Clinton's campaign is spending more than $20,000 per week with's Liberal Blog Advertising Network to place ads on the biggest liberal blogs, including, Talking Points Memo and Crooks and Liars...

Though Clinton's advertising campaign may not impact blog coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, it raises the appearance of conflict of interest for leading liberal bloggers who, like the mainstream media, report on and break news stories daily. It also raises the question of whether Clinton is subsidizing liberal bloggers in an attempt to shape their content."

Posted by: William | March 20, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

This is a "non-story", with the exception of the voracious MSM which is getting tired of Iraq, has peaked on the issue of Schooner Libby and Plame, and can't get any other traction on "stories" out of the White House. Did they do this right?(Firing political appointees), No, but did they break any laws, or compromise any cases? Not that it appears.... Gonzales may deserve being publically flayed for other reasons. This is not one of them. This will be a non-issue, and barely remembered come June.

Posted by: L.Sterling | March 20, 2007 9:01 AM | Report abuse

It's hard to say how much people really pay attention. Certainly it's clear to the average person who reads a decent newspaper that it's yet another example of cronyism, clubfooted incompetence and illegallity, and clumsy coverups and lying. But republicans don't read much, do they?

The spirit of watergate lives on -- but of course, this administration has its roots in the Nixon administration. But republicans won't care - they'll find a way to pretend it's not happening, or it's all political, or there's no crime... when you have a party as ideologically blindered and lockstep as the current repuplican party, you can get away with murder and your serfs will still kiss your feet.

Posted by: sue | March 20, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

A typical day at the DOJ:

Rove: Let's change the laws to imprison only Democratic criminals and let Republican rapists and murderers roam the streets. That way, they can be out of jail to vote for us.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea! After all, no laws would be broken. Except by Democrats.
Rove: We can start by letting Ted Bundy out of prison. He has useful campaign experience involving the re-election of Republicans.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea! After all, no laws would be broken.
Rove: Oh, wait, Bundy's dead.
Gonzales: Darn.
Rove: Doesn't this dialogue seem condescending?
Gonzales: Why yes, it does.
Rove: It might hurt a Republican's feelings. Let's make condescending remarks illegal while letting Republican rapists and murderers roam the streets.
Gonzales: Hey, great idea!!!! After all, no laws would be broken. Except by Democrats.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | March 20, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Tony Snow's recent comments about "hoping" Gonzales will continue but never being sure how long someone will say on suggests the handwriting is on the wall.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | March 20, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

This is but another example of the DOJ, and yet another lawman in Texas was just sentenced to a year and a day in jail for trying to protect our border. Fron early reports I have heard, it is the same US Attorney involved in the two border guards that got 10 years or so, only a short time ago, when the criminal was granted immunity to testify against them. How these Senators react to Gonzales will make little, if any difference in their 08 race.

Posted by: lylepink | March 20, 2007 6:51 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company