Al "Qeada" Gonzalez approved the firing of the US attorneys

[Guest BewareofNick]

The level of incompetence in this administration is staggering. From Dr. Strangefeld's mishandling of the war, to Dick Cheney's "last throes", to Bush in just about everything. Now here comes Al "Jazeera" Gonzalez who created a scandal that never had to happen (sort of like Bush's war in Vietraq). All he had to say was that the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and it would have been over and done with. instead, he lied about the reasons they were fired and then lied that he really had nothing to do with it. Time to go, Al.

[Guest Conway]

This is what happens when a biased media is allowed to influence politics on a intellectually hapless and uneducated public.

The truth of the matter is that in 1993, the Clinton Administration fired all 93 US Attorneys in what many deemed was an attempt to fill the justice department with friendly attorneys in reaction to the then developing White House Post Office Scandal.

We didn't hear a peep from the protectors of the public good, our media, with regard to that issue.

To me, it simply quantifies the fact that "freedom of the press" doesn't equate to accountability on the part of that same press.

[Guest BewareofNick]

>The truth of the matter is that in 1993, the Clinton

>Administration fired all 93 US Attorneys in what many deemed

>was an attempt to fill the justice department with friendly

>attorneys in reaction to the then developing White House Post

>Office Scandal.

I knew someone would bring up the official Fox "News"/Republican Party talking points. Apples and oranges. While "many" (meaning Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh et al) might have deemed it a attempt at something, the fact remains that the Congressional Post Office Scandal (not the White House - more Fox "News" spin) was prosecuted and those guilty were held accountable. The change in US attorneys had zero impact on the case.

The US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Janet Reno and Bill Clinton chose to fire all 93 US attorneys appointed by previous administrations and appoint their own. There's nothing wrong or scandalous about it. If Gonzalez had just came out and said the same thing, there never would have been a scandal. It is the fact that he lied to Congress and to the American people that is the scandal.

>We didn't hear a peep from the protectors of the public good,

>our media, with regard to that issue.

>

>To me, it simply quantifies the fact that "freedom of the

>press" doesn't equate to accountability on the part of

>that same press.

Ah yes, the evil "liberal media", yet another fictional creation of the right wing media juggernaut. If only all media outlets were Fox "News", with fair and balanced coverage from Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.

[Guest Conway]

The point of my original post is: How can there be a scandal regarding dismissals, when the dismissals were carried out clearly within the boundaries of the law and as every other president has.

Today's New York Times reports, with an incendiary headline not belying the truth of the matter, that Gonzalez participated only in a meeting that discussed the roll out of the dismissals, after the decisions as to who would be dismissed had been made by his chief of staff and approved by the White House.

That statement is consistent with what Gonzalez has said all along: He had delegated the decision making process on the firings to his staff members.

Sounds like much ado about nothing to me.

That's irrefutable truth that you, too, could make avaiable to yourself if you'd simply pull your head out of your ass and read a newspaper.

[Guest Riptide]

>The point of my original post is: How can there be a scandal

>regarding dismissals, when the dismissals were carried out

>clearly within the boundaries of the law and as every other

>president has.

You are half correct conway, and the half that you are correct on, still smells worse than a dying beached pregnant whale in 90 degree weather.

Yes, every past President has indeed fired many, if not all, of the US attorneys at the commencement of their first term in office. That’s nothing new and completely within the Framework of the law. It doesn’t make sense, really, to have US attorneys in office which are not sympathetic to the White House agendas.

But that’s not what is happening here. First, these seemingly inappropriate firings (new facts are being uncovered everyday to support wrong doing) happened half way thru the second term of this President’s administration and were carried out with not only typical Bush idiocy, but with a hush don’t tell type mentality.

These outstanding and highly rated and reviewed US attorneys were fired because they refused to prosecute cases within their jurisdictions which the Bush administration ordered them to prosecute, because they felt these cases did not meet the states threshold for prosecution, and, conversely, were also fired for forging ahead and prosecuting cases that did meet their jurisdictions threshold for prosecution, even when the Bush administration ordered them to be buried.

That’s called politicizing our judicial system, and that, my dear conway, is wrong and a crime.

>Sounds like much ado about nothing to me.

I believe the Captain of the Titanic also believed that for a period of time.

But I do hope that we do not spend too much time with this fight. There are way too many other, more important issues of the day (sadly) to keep this Presidents feet held to the fire for. There is nothing more than this President would like, than for the Dems to take this to the top of the mountain and take the focus off Iraq and other Global disasters which have his name written all over. I say choose your battles wisely. This for me (sadly again) is not one of them.

>That's irrefutable truth that you, too, could make avaiable to yourself if you'd simply pull your head out of your ass and read a newspaper.

A typical snippy response from someone who gets his news strictly from Alice and the looking glass.

[Guest BewareofNick]

>That's irrefutable truth that you, too, could make avaiable to

>yourself if you'd simply pull your head out of your ass and

>read a newspaper.

Not sure why you had to engage in a personal attack on me.

I read the Atlanta Journal Constitution daily. The fact of the matter is that Gonzalez lied to Congress and to the American people. You have to realize that Fox "News" is not a legitimate news channel but simply the propaganda arm of the Bush Administration.

I'll let this blog from the Washington Post make my point (note to BN: always quote your sources)

Gonzales And His "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Moment

If, as the Cowboy Junkies memorably sing, "good news sleeps 'till noon," than a cardinal rule of politics and journalism is that bad news is dumped upon the collective doorsteps of the nation's media outlets late in the evening on a Friday, when the weekend news cycle already has clicked in and the attention of news consumers is likely to be elsewhere. We've seen it over and over again and we saw it Friday night, when the Justice Department tried (but clearly failed) to whisper to the rest of the world the news that Alberto Gonzales was more closely involved in the firing last December of eight U.S. Attorneys than he told us he was last week. If the Attorney General's reputation and status were shaky before this latest revelation, surely this morning they are downright dissolved.

Why? Because now he is established in the court of public opinion if not yet in a court of law either to be a liar or a fool. Either he misled us all, via live television a la former President Clinton, when he told us two weeks ago that he wasn't involved in these sorts of conversations, Or he wasn't sharp enough to remember his presence and role at this meeting and comprehend the notion that,eventually, this information would tumble into the public realm. Either way, this latest embarrassing episode alone (never mind all the other reasons) disqualifies Gonzales to serve as the nation's top lawyer and its chief law enforcement official. Either way, it undercuts a core premise of the defense the Justice Department and the White House had tried so hard this past week to sell us: the Attorney General is a good guy who was shocked-- shocked!-- to find his subordinates playing fast and loose with well-established (if unwritten) rules about the political dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. It's no wonder that there are now two separate investigations underway at the Justice Department to determine the scope of the wrongdoing.

On March 13, Gonazales looked both you and me in the eye and under a sweaty brow said this about the burgeoning scandal over the dismissal of the eight prosecutors: "What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General." (Emphasis Added).

This directly contradicts the documents released last night. How? Because Gonzales "met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys," the Washington Post and about a thousand other outlets are reporting. Because, reports the Post's Dan Eggen, "the hour-long November meeting in the attorney general's conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show." It is no wonder that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) already is turning up the heat on Gonzales to resign-- and that yet another Republican lawmaker urged the Attorney General to quit. The Post reports: "Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (Ohio) said Gonzales has become a 'lightning rod' for criticism. 'It would be better for the president and the department if the attorney general were to step down,' Gillmor said.

Indeed.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconfer...03/post_21.html

[Guest eastburbguy]

< How can there be a scandal regarding dismissals

Because, my dear Conway, as BON accurately points out, the scandal is rapidly spreading from the crime of lying and covering up, to a clear case of a blatant attempt to politicize the US Attorney system. Now, if you like that and think that's just hunky dory, ponder this: if this allowed to stand, and a Democratic Administration were to follow suit (likely in 2009, given the current trend lines), you and/or your right-wingnut friends might find themselves on the receiving end of some nasty political vendettas/prosecutions executed by the (new) US Attorneys.

Just as I would find that disgusting, so do I find the Abu Gonzalez/Karl Rove conspiracy equally disgusting.

In this country, the scales of Justice are supposed to be non-partisan, non-political, and equal for all. If you cannot either grasp or accept that concept, maybe you're better off living in a Banana Republic.

[KYTOP]

>Because, my dear Conway, as BON accurately points out, the

>scandal is rapidly spreading from the crime of lying and

>covering up, to a clear case of a blatant attempt to

>politicize the US Attorney system. Now, if you like that and

>think that's just hunky dory, ponder this: if this allowed to

>stand, and a Democratic Administration were to follow suit

>(likely in 2009, given the current trend lines), you and/or

>your right-wingnut friends might find themselves on the

>receiving end of some nasty political vendettas/prosecutions

>executed by the (new) US Attorneys.

But they are political positions. Not only does a new President change US Attorney's in each state when elected , he asks for recommendations from any US Senator of his own party of that state who to appoint.

I agree with Conway on this one. Just a witch hunt about something that has gone on forever in this country. I understand one was fired for not going after illegal aliens in a border state. Sounds to me maybe they should have been fired.

Geez we have enough to criticize this Adminiatration about (Iraqi War) without making a big to do about nothing? Be a little more open minded and don't jump on every anti-Bush thing that pops up. There are plenty of legit things to criticize about.

[Guest BewareofNick]

KY, the whole point here is that there would be no scandal had Gonzalez not lied. When questioned, if he had just said that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, there would not have been a scandal. I certainly would not have taken issue with a statement like that.

It's not so much the firing that's the issue. It's Gonzalez being dishonest when he hed no reason to be.

[Guest BewareofNick]

Gonzales And His "I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman" Moment

If, as the Cowboy Junkies memorably sing, "good news sleeps 'till noon," than a cardinal rule of politics and journalism is that bad news is dumped upon the collective doorsteps of the nation's media outlets late in the evening on a Friday, when the weekend news cycle already has clicked in and the attention of news consumers is likely to be elsewhere. We've seen it over and over again and we saw it Friday night, when the Justice Department tried (but clearly failed) to whisper to the rest of the world the news that Alberto Gonzales was more closely involved in the firing last December of eight U.S. Attorneys than he told us he was last week. If the Attorney General's reputation and status were shaky before this latest revelation, surely this morning they are downright dissolved.

Why? Because now he is established in the court of public opinion if not yet in a court of law either to be a liar or a fool. Either he misled us all, via live television a la former President Clinton, when he told us two weeks ago that he wasn't involved in these sorts of conversations, Or he wasn't sharp enough to remember his presence and role at this meeting and comprehend the notion that,eventually, this information would tumble into the public realm. Either way, this latest embarrassing episode alone (never mind all the other reasons) disqualifies Gonzales to serve as the nation's top lawyer and its chief law enforcement official. Either way, it undercuts a core premise of the defense the Justice Department and the White House had tried so hard this past week to sell us: the Attorney General is a good guy who was shocked-- shocked!-- to find his subordinates playing fast and loose with well-established (if unwritten) rules about the political dismissal of U.S. Attorneys. It's no wonder that there are now two separate investigations underway at the Justice Department to determine the scope of the wrongdoing.

On March 13, Gonazales looked both you and me in the eye and under a sweaty brow said this about the burgeoning scandal over the dismissal of the eight prosecutors: "What I know is that there began a process of evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers. And so far as I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers. Where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew. But again, with respect to this whole process, like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the department. But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General." (Emphasis Added).

This directly contradicts the documents released last night. How? Because Gonzales "met with senior aides on Nov. 27 to review a plan to fire a group of U.S. attorneys," the Washington Post and about a thousand other outlets are reporting. Because, reports the Post's Dan Eggen, "the hour-long November meeting in the attorney general's conference room included Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and four other senior Justice officials, including the Gonzales aide who coordinated the firings, then-Chief of Staff D. Kyle Sampson, records show." It is no wonder that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) already is turning up the heat on Gonzales to resign-- and that yet another Republican lawmaker urged the Attorney General to quit. The Post reports: "Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (Ohio) said Gonzales has become a 'lightning rod' for criticism. 'It would be better for the president and the department if the attorney general were to step down,' Gillmor said.

Indeed.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconfer...03/post_21.html

[Guest eastburbguy]

< But they are political positions

Correction, KY, they are political appointees, but the positions themselves are legal, hence the name US Attorney.

Yes, they are almost always of the same political party as the President (there have been exceptions), but once they are confirmed and sworn in, they are sworn to dispense justice (prosecute) without regard to the political affiliation of any potential defendant.

Thankfully, there were 8 now former US Attorneys, all Republicans appointed by this Administration who understood that simple but vitally important concept (equal justice without regard to political affiliation) and who refused to allow their offices to be pressured into pursuing poilitical prosecutions against Democrats when they had no evidence, or to be pressured into declining to prosecute Republicans where they clearly had the evidence.

Case in point - Carol Lam in San Diego. She successfully prosecuted Republican former Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham who is now in prison. She was pursing a case against another Republican, current Congressman Jerry Lewis, when the Administration suddenly "discovered" a "Carol Lam problem," and she was dismissed.

(It is Carol Lam about whom you said, "I understand one was fired for not going after illegal aliens in a border state." That was an after the fact excuse made up by the Administration which has since been debunked after it was revealed that her performance reviews consistently showed a higher than expected rate of prosecution of illegal immigrants.)

With all due respect, if you can't connect the dots, then I have some nice oceanside property just outside of Louisville I'd like to sell to you.

Another case in point: David Iglesias in New Mexico. He refused to prosecute some Democrats because he didn't have the evidence, and when he would not succumb to pressure from NM US Senator Pete Demenici (Republican) and NM Congresswoman Heather Wilson (Republican), he was among those fired notwithstanding consistent high marks by his (non-political) superiors in the Justice Department.

The same applies to John McKay in Washington State, who refused to prosecute Democrats because he had no evidence.

Seriously, if anyone thinks these are mere coincidences, or nothing more than "something that has gone on forever in this country", then I invite you review history. YES, Ronald Reagan replaced all US Attorneys when he took office, as did Bill clinton when he took office. The difference is, these recent eight dismissals took place mid-term amid attempts by this Administration to pursue purely political prosecutions. That, I submit, is NOT "something that has gone on forever in this country."

Fortunately, KY, we agree on something: "Geez we have enough to criticize this Adminiatration about." You're absolutely right. There are so many scandals in this Administration that it will fill volumes of history books for years and decades to come.

One final point about the notion that this is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. Equal justice under the law is a bedrock concept in our democracy and our federal criminal justice system (state and local jurisdictions can be another matter altogether, unfortunately). The US Attorney offices have been aptly described as the "Crown Jewel" of our federal justice system. If someone can be prosecuted by a US Attorney because of their political affiliation even if no evidence exists, or if someone is not prosecuted because of their political affiliation even though evidence does exist, we have abandoned the concept of equal justice under the law. That, I submit, is far more than a tempest in a teapot - it runs to the very foundation of our country.

[Guest eastburbguy]

< if he had just said that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, there would not have been a scandal.

Therein lies the irony, BON. If he (and damn near everyone in this Administration who has had any comment about it) had not lied, there would be no scandal, and if there was no scandal, the evidence about the blatant attempts to politicize the US Attorney offices would not have been exposed by the emails and other communications demanded and received by the Congress.

I join all those who condemn the gross incompetence this Administration has exhibited almost from Day One (Iraq, Katrina, anyone?), but in this case, I say HOORAY for their incompetence, as it has finally begun to unmask not only their incompetence but their utter corruption through and through.

It really does give a whole new meaning to "hoisted on their own petard." }(

[Guest eastburbguy]

A few more comments about the notion that this is "something that has gone on forever in this country."

As I and others have noted, it is indeed customary, when the political party of the President changes hands, for all (or most) of the 93 US Attorneys to be replaced - Reagan did it in 1981, Clinton did it in 1993, and Bush did it in 2001. I have no problem and no argument with that.

However, as also noted, the recent firings of 8 US Attorneys stand out as a huge exception to that tradition - they were replaced mid-term for reasons still not revealed or explained by this Administration. Furthermore, according to the Congressional Research Service (the non-partisan research arm of the US Congress), in the past 25 years there have been 468 US Attorneys. Of that number, many were replaced when the Presidential party changed hands, but only 10 left involuntarily, and 8 of those were for criminal misconduct.

Not even the Bush Administration is claiming that any of the current 8 who were dismissed involuntarily were suspected of criminal misconduct. It does indeed make one wonder why this Administration found it necessary to act contrary to a long standing tradition with respect to the appointment and retention of US Attorneys, especially when many of those 8 (all of them Republicans, remember) allege that they were fired for political reasons.

Of course it gets even curiouser when you factor in the initial intention of the Administration to replace them using the new provision secretly inserted into the extension of the "Patriot Act" which allowed the Administration to appoint successors without confirmation by the US Senate. Fortunately, that provision was recently rescinded by the US Senate by a vote of 94-2. Even the Senate Republicans couldn't accept that atrocity.

In summary, Watergate was originally dismissed as a "third rate burglary." Eventually Nixon was impeached because of it and was forced out of office. "Purgegate" is similarly dismissed by many as an "overblown personnel matter." One can only hope that, as and when Congress pieces together the facts of this scandal and adds them to all the other examples of misconduct by this Administration, King George suffers the same fate.

[cougar]

>Of course it gets even curiouser when you factor in the

>initial intention of the Administration to replace them using

>the new provision secretly inserted into the extension of the

>"Patriot Act" which allowed the Administration to

>appoint successors without confirmation by the US

>Senate. Fortunately, that provision was recently

>rescinded by the US Senate by a vote of 94-2. Even the

>Senate Republicans couldn't accept that atrocity.

Finally someone brings this point up. This is the reason, most people look at this and say "it stinks" It would be a big leap of faith for me to believe that these firings would not have taken place had this little thing not been sneaked into that damn Patriot Act.

As I heard some one say one time..."you can put lipstick on it, but it is still a pig"

[TampaYankee]

>I agree with Conway on this one.

I have to disagree this time.

>Just a witch hunt about

>something that has gone on forever in this country.

Possibly. The arbitrary replacement of US attorneys... definitely -- probaby since Jackson. Maybe before.

I don't quibble that he has the power of removal for cause or arbitrarily. However, if the removal is in support of political abuse of the opposition or to obstruct an investigation of criminal behavior by his own party members, then I think there is grounds for investigation to shed light on the facts. There is more to consider than whether he is on firm constitutional ground. Not all corruption is illegal. That doesnt necessarily make it any the less corrupt. Sometimes we have to leave the case to the Court of Public Opinion. And if it is a Tempest in a Teapot, they will see that too. In either case they need the facts for a determination.

[Guest BewareofNick]

I think another aspect of this that is important is that the Administration is not used to oversight of any kind. The previous Congress was basically a rubber stamp and went along with most everything the president wanted. Now, with the Democrats in control, Congress is finally utilizing its oversight authority and I think that pisses the Administration off more than anything else. Their imperial presidency is at an end.

[Guest eastburbguy]

< Their imperial presidency is at an end.

How I wish it were so, BON. Forgive me for being totally pessimistic on that point, but Dubya has made no bones for 6 years about not giving a flying fuck what Congress does or what public opinion says. His dozens of infamous "signing statements" are one of the best examples in which he arrogates to himself the power to "interpret" a law passed by Congress. Add to that the doctrine of the Unitary Executive most prominently advanced by "Shooter" Cheney and you can see the handwriting on the wall - Bush will continue to ignore Congress and stonewall unless or until he is impeached.

Congress has less than 2 years to find its co-equal set of balls, and I'm not betting they'll be successful. So, IMHO, the best we can hope for is a political tsunami in 2008 which relegates the Rethugs to minority status for decades. }(

[Guest BewareofNick]

Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) was on This Week with George Stephanopolous and implied that if the pretendident doesn't start playing nice, impeachment is always an option. Imagine how Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of the Fox "News" spin team will be smearing Hagel over the next few weeks. Fox will probably put a chyron up stating Chuck Hagel D-Neb, just like they did when Mark Foley got caught.

[Guest StuCotts]

The air is thick with talk about removing Gonzales from his post. I think there is much to be said for leaving him in place.

Firstly, it would spare the nation the weeks or months of pervasive bullshit while his succesor is found, appointed and confirmed (or not).

Secondly, he would remain as the Republican Party's most visible festering, maggoty sore that won't heal, assuming a more visible one doesn't eventually displace him.

Finally, he would be a constant reminder to the world of some of the dark implications of what being a staunch Republican and loyal Bushie means in this day and age.

[AdamSmith]

The hapless Gonzales looks to be sinking ever deeper into the doodoo. Ex-aide Sampson just now testified the AG was indeed in the loop, directly contradicting G's own statements. And NYT reports federal prosecutors yesterday gave G a blistering earful about the firings putting the dept. into disarray and a funk -- a tune that Specter et al. have picked up today.

Any bets on how long until his pompadour vanishes forever beneath the shit?

[Guest Riptide]

>The hapless Gonzales looks to be sinking ever deeper into the

>doodoo. Ex-aide Sampson just now testified the AG was indeed

>in the loop, directly contradicting G's own statements. And

>NYT reports federal prosecutors yesterday gave G a blistering

>earful about the firings putting the dept. into disarray and a

>funk -- a tune that Specter et al. have picked up today.

I say, Thank God for Arlen Specter. I respect the man and mostly always have. If more civil servants were like him and capable of looking outside of their party affiliations and lobbyists pockets, this democracy which we call The USA, would be stronger and more united than ever.

Do you have to be dying or at least battling death these days to be effective in govt?

>Any bets on how long until his pompadour vanishes forever

>beneath the shit?

It'll happen on a late Friday afternoon for sure, after 3pm EST and my wild guess would be April 6, 2007.

Is there a prize for the winner? :+

[AdamSmith]

>I say, Thank God for Arlen Specter. I respect the man and

>mostly always have. If more civil servants were like him and

>capable of looking outside of their party affiliations and

>lobbyists pockets

Hear, hear. And for his honest speaking, his party nearly denied him chairmanship when they were in majority.

>Do you have to be dying or at least battling death these days

>to be effective in govt?

Sharp insight. (Sort of like that line in a Flannery O'Connor short story, "She would of been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life.")

>It'll happen on a late Friday afternoon for sure, after 3pm

>EST and my wild guess would be April 6, 2007.

Sounds likely. Bets are on!

>Is there a prize for the winner? :+

The thing will be its own prize, no?

Not that the replacement is likely to be much better, but that each setback takes a little bit more out of the administration's ability to keep up its more outrageous predations. And possibly emboldens the party's reasonable elements (yes, Virginia...!?) to try and assert more control.

[Guest eastburbguy]

< I say, Thank God for Arlen Specter

Sorry, Rip, but I say, Thank God he is no longer Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He sold his political soul to recover that position and proved it all during his tenure when he did the Administration's bidding. The final straw for me was when he caved and voted to end Habeas Corpus as we know it, which was utterly unforgivable. Of course, while he denies knowledge of it, it was he (or his staff) which secretly stuck the provision in the extension of the "Patriot Act" which allowed US Attorneys to be appointed without confirmation by the Senate (recently repealed, Thank God).

In truth, however, Snarlin Arlen's real stripes were on full display years ago when, during the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, Arlen led the charge to rip Anita Hill to shreds.

IMHO, he's always talked a "moderate talk," but he almost always walks a right wing walk. Like I say, he proved it in spades during his last tenure as Judiciary Committee Chairman.

If he's your hero, you've welcome to have him. My only regret is that I don't live in Pennsylvania so I can't vote against him.

[Guest eastburbguy]

< Any bets on how long until his pompadour vanishes forever beneath the shit?

FWIW, my three cents:

First, barring a bombshell bigger than today's testimony from Kyle Sampson in which he called Gonzo a liar without using the "L word," he won't be gone before he testifies after Easter.

Second, as long as he stays where he is, he serves to deflect the heat from Karl Rove who, of course, is always the ultimate culprit, so he's useful to Bush in that regard. The fact that he's corrupting and demoralizing the Justice Department is of no concern to W.

My bet? Not until May, and maybe not even that soon. And I agree with the observation that it's in the Dems' interest to have him around for as long as possible - it just makes the stench stronger and makes it more and more inevitable that there will be a political tsunami in 2008. }(

[Guest StuCotts]

Don't be in a hurry. The longer this lasts, the better the chances are that some of the 75% of Republicans who still support this administration and all its works will see the light and actually convert to rationality. I'm not optimistic about the possibility, but it's worth a few more days' wait.