Leahy Wants Testimony

This will be fun to watch:

The Democratic senator leading the inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors said today that he wanted Karl Rove and other top aides to President Bush to testify publicly and under oath, setting up a confrontation between Congress and the White House, which has said it is unlikely to agree to such a demand.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said his committee would vote Thursday on whether to issue subpoenas for Mr. Rove, as well as Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William Kelley, the deputy White House counsel, in the inquiry, which centers on whether the White House allowed politics to interfere with law enforcement.

The question of whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would be forced to step down as a result of the inquiry dominated the Sunday morning talk shows here, a staple of weekend life in Washington. The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, said in a brief interview today that Mr. Bush continues to have confidence in Mr. Gonzales, despite the speculation.

Why not testify? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to hide.

Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.






117 replies
  1. 1
    rachel says:

    Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.

    It might cut down on the weasel-words and lying.

  2. 2
    Darrell says:

    Why not testify? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to hide.

    You serious? Then every time any sitting US President fires US attorneys or other political appointees, we need congressional investigations, even when there is no credible evidence of wrongdoing to be consistent.

    Or is it different this time because it’s B-B-B-bush?

  3. 3
    demimondian says:

    Strict interrogation methods? That’s…that’s…that’s…unamerican! We don’t do that.

    I say we arrange for rendition to Egypt, instead.

  4. 4
    RandyH says:

    Yeah, let’s make Rove stand naked in a cell with panties over his head, tied to a door for 48 hours, with loud heavy metal music playing and all the lights on reeeal bright. Of course it wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t spray him with a cold firehouse every hour or so too. Just to, you know, soften him up before testimony.

    Or let’s get the whole White House Staff, strip them naked, blindfold them and make them into a human pyramid just for fun. They all went to college. After all, it’s just harmless fraternity-style pranks, you know. And hey, if it improves the quality of the interrogation, what’s the harm anyway?

    I’m not serious here. But it’s fun to imagine them getting a taste of what they actively advocate.

  5. 5
    RSA says:

    So many lovely contradictions for Rove and Miers to account for. I look forward to it. How many of their colleagues (especially former colleagues) will they try to throw under the bus?

  6. 6

    It’s not fun, it’s serious. (deadly serious was Valerie Plame).

    These people and the White House have absolutely no reason not to comply to an official investigation, unless they’ve lied.

    Now, they have lied out of the gate, devolving ALREADY to saying they had “hazy memories.”

    We should investigate just so this administration knows it can’t BS so much any longer. Someone has already resigned. It’s not nothing. This issue is something.

    I’m for investigating anyone of any political stripe who’s ruptured the public trust and we need to start with those who’ve done it the most often on the most critical of issues.

  7. 7
    John Cole says:

    You serious? Then every time any sitting US President fires US attorneys or other political appointees, we need congressional investigations, even when there is no credible evidence of wrongdoing to be consistent.

    Or is it different this time because it’s B-B-B-bush?

    Now seems like a pretty amusing time for you to start worrying about setting bad precedents.

  8. 8
    demimondian says:

    How many of their colleagues (especially former colleagues) will they try to throw under the bus?

    And how many of their colleagues have learned the Scooter Libby lesson: you need the goods on the devil, too? Reading between the lines on Sampson’s Friday press release, I’m thinking he’s saying “I kept records, boys and girls — do you really want me to testify?”

    But maybe I’m just showing my own scars from bureaucratic infighting. After a few of those, one develops an unholy, but wholly healthy, cynicism about the motives and means of other actors…

  9. 9
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.

    Just when you think this blog can’t possibly get any dumber, the proprietor suggests equal treatment of terror suspects and government officials (predictably, to high-fives from the Usual Defects). Of course, it’s shamefully simpleminded rhetoric, but whatever keeps your dawgs barkin’… right, Arsenio-of-the-Intertrons?

  10. 10
    RSA says:

    Reading between the lines on Sampson’s Friday press release, I’m thinking he’s saying “I kept records, boys and girls—do you really want me to testify?”

    Sampson was the one I had in mind. I wasn’t even thinking that they would all testify in the same hearing. Wow. I’d pay to see that, and I don’t think I’m the only one. (Deficit reduction, anyone?)

  11. 11
    Darrell says:

    Temple Stark Says:

    It’s not fun, it’s serious. (deadly serious was Valerie Plame).

    Take it up with Armitage then. He’s the one who leaked her name.

    And in case you have a reading disability Temple, the topic of this thread is not Valerie Plame, but a congressional investigation into the firings of politically appointed US attorneys. Try and stay with the discussion, ok?

  12. 12
    Darrell says:

    Now seems like a pretty amusing time for you to start worrying about setting bad precedents.

    Such a substantive reply John. Almost as good as when you got caught fibbing earlier in your claim that the Bush administration had issued a statement that those attorneys were fired for insufficient loyalty when no such administration statement was made.

    Facts are a bitch, huh?

  13. 13
    Andrew says:

    Just when you think this blog can’t possibly get any dumber, the proprietor suggests equal treatment of terror suspects and government officials (predictably, to high-fives from the Usual Defects). Of course, it’s shamefully simpleminded rhetoric, but whatever keeps your dawgs barkin’… right, Arsenio-of-the-Intertrons?

    It’s true. Cole is ridiculous. To be fair, we should sell the government officials to warlords in Afghanistan. That way, they have a chance to possible escape (or be sold into slavery) before they are given to Americans who torture them in Gitmo.

  14. 14
    jake says:

    Drat that pushy Congress! You’d think it was a co-equal branch of the government or something.

    I too am looking forward to what I hope will be a fine game of “Dodge that Bullet” that climaxes with several hours of “Unhappy People Sweating Under Camera Lights.”

    Where can I lay odds on the type of jackalope that will go a-running in response to Admin. Crisis XVI? I’m leaning towards Health Issues but Emergency Trip to the Far Side of the Planet also has a certain appeal as does Spending More Time with the Family.

  15. 15
    John Cole says:

    Darrell-

    The point, which, as always, is whizzing past your head, is that normally I wouldn’t think WH officials should be forced to testify. But since this administration has profitted mightily from the notion that only the guilty have anything to hide, and have used that notion to advance their agenda, which includes any number of horribly bad precedents, chief among them, state sanctioned torture.

    Additionally, I never said the administration issued a “statement.’ I said, and I quote:

    Darrell-

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush. THose are not my words. it is not a huge leap in logic to assume the others were fired for insufficient loyalty. As such, it thus calls into question the behavior of all other attorneys that were not fired.

    I didn;t create that problem. I didn’t claim they are all Bush lackeys. I am merely pointing out the problem BUSH and company created, which is that there judgement is noq in question because this administration politicized the mess.

    That is what was stated in the memos. That is the perception that was created. Not my fault it stinks.

  16. 16
    demimondian says:

    normally I wouldn’t think WH officials should be forced to testify

    You know, I used to agree with you, but I’m starting to wonder. I’m starting to wonder whether executive privilege has become too powerful.

    Maybe they have more courage than I think, but I’m of the opinion that Rove et al. would have been far less willing to pull the string of tiresome fraternity pranks they’ve pulled over the last six plus years if they honestly thought they could ever be called before the Congress to testify.

  17. 17
    Tsulagi says:

    Why not testify? After all, if you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to hide.

    Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.

    Exactly. We must use all the tools at our disposal and any we can take to get the truth, otherwise the terrorists have won.

    Don’t be content with pansy ass subpoenas. Gonzo needs to have his phones tapped; mail opened; phone and credit card records examined. See if he’s bought some middle eastern cookbooks which would be a sure sign of his sympathies.

    Only reason he’d object is if he has something to hide. Known fact. At the very least he needs to prove that al Qaeda hasn’t been calling.

  18. 18
    RSA says:

    I’m leaning towards Health Issues but Emergency Trip to the Far Side of the Planet also has a certain appeal as does Spending More Time with the Family.

    I was thinking Aliens Invade From Outer Space, but that’s kinda hard to arrange.

  19. 19
    demimondian says:

    I was thinking Aliens Invade From Outer Space, but that’s kinda hard to arrange.

    Meh. They just need to reuse the old Apollo 13 sound stage. I hear it’s still in near perfect condition.

  20. 20
    Andrew says:

    Where can I lay odds on the type of jackalope that will go a-running in response to Admin. Crisis XVI?

    You didn’t hear about the OMG! TERRORISTS ARE DRIVING YOUR KIDS’ SCHOOL BUSES! non-story that was floated at the end of last week?

  21. 21
    Darrell says:

    Additionally, I never said the administration issued a “statement.’ I said, and I quote:

    Darrell-

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush. THose are not my words. it is not a huge leap in logic to assume the others were fired for insufficient loyalty. As such, it thus calls into question the behavior of all other attorneys that were not fired.

    I didn;t create that problem. I didn’t claim they are all Bush lackeys. I am merely pointing out the problem BUSH and company created, which is that there judgement is noq in question because this administration politicized the mess.

    Actually John, here is what you actually wrote in your initial response to me on the other thread

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush

    It’s right here. So yeah, you definitely did say it was an administration statement that those attorneys were fired because they were not sufficiently loyal, and now you’re backpeddling having been called on your words. Whatever

    The point, which, as always, is whizzing past your head, is that normally I wouldn’t think WH officials should be forced to testify. But since this administration has profitted mightily from the notion that only the guilty have anything to hide, and have used that notion to advance their agenda, which includes any number of horribly bad precedents, chief among them, state sanctioned torture

    Except that Bush wasn’t the only or the first President to “sanction” torture, as Clinton ‘outsourced’ torture as did other Presidents, but since you insist on holding Bush to a special higher standard even in wartime, although it’s not consistent or principled for you to do so, it’s certainly your perogative

  22. 22
    RSA says:

    OMG! TERRORISTS ARE DRIVING YOUR KIDS’ SCHOOL BUSES!

    . . .along with (top Google hit on extremists+school+buses):

    “There is no plot. There is no threat. And parents and children can feel perfectly safe,” FBI spokesman Richard Kolko told FOXNews.com.

    I think I speak for most Americans when I say, WTF? TERRISTS R IN UR BUSZ, BLOWIN UP UR KIDZ, but there’s nothing to worry about, really. We’re just sayin’.

  23. 23
    RSA says:

    I find the juxtaposition of this, from JC then Darrell,

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush

    It’s right here. So yeah, you definitely did say it was an administration statement that those attorneys were fired because they were not sufficiently loyal

    and this, from JC in an earlier thread,

    a huge leap in logic

    to be funny, for obvious reasons.

  24. 24
    Pb says:

    Indeed, send them all to Club Gitmo–our valiant public officials could use a vacation, with a nice hot stone massage, and the lemon chicken with two types of fruit.

  25. 25
    Richard 23 says:

    Leaky Leahy cannot be trusted. I hope Karl, if he even is “frog marched” to the Senate will simply say “I do not recall” or, better yet, invokes Executive Privilege.

    That’ll make moonbat heads explode! LOL.

  26. 26
    Larry says:

    but since you insist on holding Bush to a special higher standard even in wartime

    I think we have to hold the president we have to a standard, not the president you wish you had.

    Yes?

  27. 27

    I hope Karl, if he even is “frog marched” to the Senate will simply say “I do not recall” or, better yet, invokes Executive Privilege.

    I hope so, too.

    Ah, Watergate. The good old days, when the Dems held 75 seats in the Senate and more than two thirds of the House. How I long to return to those good old days, days of good government and roses.

  28. 28
    demimondian says:

    our valiant public officials could use a vacation, with a nice hot stone massage, and the lemon chicken with two types of fruit.

    Hey, the two types of fruit is classified information! Who told you about the two types of fruit?

    (Have you heard about the head-down water massages, by the way? Wow. Don’t you think that would really let you focus on the important things in life, so that you could put all your problems in proportion?)

  29. 29
    Richard 23 says:

    I can’t believe all the torture catcalls coming from the “principled” libs here (including moonbat provacateur John Cole). I thought extreme interrogation techniques were somehow “immoral.”

    Not where Karl Rove or the other “Bushies” are involved. Then it’s string ’em up and waterboard them.

    So principled are the progressives. They’ve already progressed to torture. Nice principles, leftards.

    [golf clap]

  30. 30

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:

    >>Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.

    Just when you think this blog can’t possibly get any dumber, the proprietor suggests equal treatment of terror suspects and government officials (predictably, to high-fives from the Usual Defects). Of course, it’s shamefully simpleminded rhetoric, but whatever keeps your dawgs barkin’… right, Arsenio-of-the-Intertrons?

    Or it’s a dry joke

  31. 31
    demimondian says:

    Not where Karl Rove or the other “Bushies” are involved. Then it’s string ‘em up and waterboard them.

    You know, I’ve looked through the entire thread, and I haven’t seen anybody suggest that any of the White House aides be waterboarded. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only person who has mentioned waterboarding is you, R23.

    You might want to go talk to someone about these sadomasochistic fantasies you’re having. They obviously cause you some discomfort, and coming to terms with them will make you a happier person.

  32. 32
    demimondian says:

    it’s a dry joke

    Oh, no, Temple. Us leftards have no sense of humor. We’re dry and humorless, without any understanding of irony. it’s never “just a joke”, but rather a direct incitement or a conscious, vicious insult.

    That’s why we’re so shrill, you see.

  33. 33
    Richard 23 says:

    I thought you weren’t going to respond to me anymore, demi-thing. How “honest” of you to break that vow.

    John originally said:

    Personally, I say we subject them to strict interrogation methods. After all, those methods aren’t torture.

    Oh, I guess you’re right. Since waterboarding isn’t torture.

    Still, we aren’t on speaking terms, or so I hoped.

  34. 34
    ThymeZone says:

    They’ve already progressed to torture

    Yes, it’s ironic that John speaks of torture, and then lets Darrell post here, don’t you think, Dick?

  35. 35
    Larry says:

    So yeah, you definitely did say it was an administration statement that those attorneys were fired because they were not sufficiently loyal, and now you’re backpeddling having been called on your words

    President Bush said that “mistakes were made.”

    What mistakes would you say he was talking about?

  36. 36
    demimondian says:

    thought you weren’t going to respond to me anymore, demi-thing. How “honest” of you to break that vow.

    Well, not exactly, R23. I asked you not to respond to me. I never said anything about not responding to you.

    I admit, I’m impressed. I never thought you’d recognize honesty; you’ve shown so little familiarity with it in the past.

  37. 37
    Rome Again says:

    Yes, it’s ironic that John speaks of torture, and then lets Darrell post here, don’t you think, Dick?

    Apparently torture is fun for the one who is giving it, that said, I might as well enjoy torturing others too, since I apparently have no life. One day I’ll break this habit, one day… apparently today isn’t it though.

  38. 38
    demimondian says:

    What mistakes would you say he was talking about?

    Allowing the 2006 elections to go forward during wartime, I think. The new congress is proving to be shrill, not to mention tiresome to work with.

  39. 39
    Rome Again says:

    Allowing the 2006 elections to go forward during wartime, I think. The new congress is proving to be shrill, not to mention tiresome to work with.

    Elections can be such pesky things, when they aren’t rigged, I mean.

  40. 40
    RSA says:

    Definitely quaint.

  41. 41
    demimondian says:

    Seriously, do you think it would idea for Rove et al to invoke Executive Privilege in this case? I can’t see the lower level employees (Sampson et al.) being able to make a case for privilege with straight faces, but Rove might be able to get away with it.

    Do you think it would be a successful gambit? Would the political cost be worth the risk?

  42. 42
    jake says:

    I was thinking Aliens Invade From Outer Space, but that’s kinda hard to arrange.

    Darn, Independence Day 4 Realz would pretty…something. President 43 could finally put his fighter pilot training to use. The McCainiac could play the Vietnam vet who has been driven round the bend by too many alien probings. Not sure who would fill in for Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum though.

    …and the lemon chicken with two types of fruit.

    [Insert J. Gannon, T. Haggard joke here. Or not.]

  43. 43
    jake says:

    Do you think it would be a successful gambit? Would the political cost be worth the risk?

    Successful in terms of not having to answer to the shrill pesky Congress? Sure. Or at least it would muddy the discussion enough for folks to get bored (if they aren’t already). Call it the Executive Jackalope.

    As far as political costs go, do you really think Rove gives a flaming fuck about political costs anymore? He’s done, he knows it, he just has to sit out the next couple of years without saying anything that will get him in real trouble. Any “payment” will be made by members of the GOP who might perish in an attack of guilt by association with this Administration in 2008.

  44. 44
    DougJ says:

    How come we never hear about the US Attorneys who weren’t fired? Why is it that we never hear their stories? Is this just like Iraq, where most Iraqis live in safety and comfort, but the media focuses on the few hundred who are murdered each week?

  45. 45
    ThymeZone says:

    How come we never hear about the US Attorneys who weren’t fired

    We do, Gonzo had to call them the other day and apologize for making them look like stooges.

  46. 46
    DougJ says:

    But what about all the good work they’re doing? Why don’t we hear about that?

  47. 47
    Andrew J. Lazarus says:

    No one on Earth (except Darrell) will be surprised to learn that Kyle Sampson came down on Carol Lam the day after she let DoJ know she intended to serve search warrants on Dusty Foggo, the #3 CIA guy who was involved with the big Wilkes-Cunningham corruption scandal. This part of the investigation will have to be super-duper serious because it involves that Highest Crime and Misdemeanor, the blow job.

    No wonder she had to be fired.

    Hey, Darrell, here’s some mental exercise for you. How many USAs did Clinton fire midterm? Bush 41? Reagan? And for extra credit, how many did they get to replace with permanent “interim” appointments that didn’t need Senate confirmation. (The answer to the extra credit, to give you a hint, is zero, since that little provision of the law was added to the PATRIOT Act on renewal. Yeah, knowing that Bush can pick US Attorneys and not get them confirmed, that made Osama piss his pants.)

  48. 48
    Larry says:

    But what about all the good work they’re doing? Why don’t we hear about that?

    It’s all secret.

  49. 49
    Richard 23 says:

    Weird. There were whole bunch of new formatting buttons and when I reloaded the page they disappeared. I blame ThymeZone.

    No wait. I blame Darrell. He owns this blog.

  50. 50

    To back up what John Cole correctly stated and what Darrell incorrectly disputes:

    On Thursday, ABC News revealed previously undisclosed emails showing presidential advisor Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directly engaged in the process to force out the prosecutors as early as January of 2005. In one email, former aide Kyle Sampson says he and Gonzales spoke about replacing up to one-fifth of the ninety-three US attorneys.Sampson added they had discussed retaining “[those who] are doing a great job [and] are loyal Bushies.” In another message, Sampson wrote: “Due to the history, it would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only… That said, if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I.”

    Found here

    So Darrell, the emails implicitly state that the attorneys who were not loyal to Bush were replaced and explicitly states that the attorneys who were loyal to Bush were kept.

    Anyway you slice it, the administration has got its hands caught in the cookie jar because they tried to blame former white house counsel and withdrawn Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers for the attorney firings. If that’s not enough what about the implications that a person Bush thought was eligible to serve on the Supreme Court was also the fall guy for the administration’s blunders. This is like a soap opera- As corruption turns! Dude!!!

  51. 51
    ConservativelyLiberal says:

    John, if they cooperate, no need for torture… ;)

    Will they cooperate? Well, if they have done nothing wrong (to use an oft parroted phrase since the Patriot Act came to be), thne they have nothing to fear. I have a feeling that they are not going to cooperate, and that alone speaks volumes. They will stall and stall, with the goal of running out Chimpy McChief’s clock. At least that is what I think.

    Gonzo shot himself in the foot, and so did BushCo. The US Attorneys office now looks like a partisan branch of the right and the credibility of every single US attorney is in doubt. And the fired attorneys? They are obviously people of the highest caliber as this White House could not push them to do their bidding like they could the other 93.

    Soap opera is right. But it is more like

    ” Welcome to ‘As the White House Spins’ “, brought to you by Haliburton…

  52. 52
    Punchy says:

    as Clinton ‘outsourced’ torture as did other Presidents

    There isn’t anything they won’t blame on Clinton, eh?

    And this:

    Yeah, knowing that Bush can pick US Attorneys and not get them confirmed, that made Osama piss his pants

    Brings up a great point. What the hell did/does this provision have to do with national security, anyway? What national security purpose does it play in the Patriot Act? Is there also a clause in there allowing Gonzo to cleveland steamer his secretary if it keeps AQ off our soil?

  53. 53
    jenniebee says:

    I like the part where John pulls a blockquote to tell Darrell exactly what he said before, and then Darrell “corrects” him by quoting the opening sentence of John’s own blockquote. And then links, in case John wants to dispute it.

    Classic.

  54. 54
    Zifnab says:

    Brings up a great point. What the hell did/does this provision have to do with national security, anyway? What national security purpose does it play in the Patriot Act? Is there also a clause in there allowing Gonzo to cleveland steamer his secretary if it keeps AQ off our soil?

    I imagine the logic went, “If Attorney Generals start getting assassinated by terrorist infiltrators during vital criminal investigations of other terrorist cells, the President needs to be able to replace them quickly and easily in the event that the terrorist-infiltrated ACLU attempts to filibuster the confirmation process in the Senate.”

    They were preparing for Jack Bauer senarios. In the even America was flung into a prime-time TV drama where only one man can save his country by kicking ass and taking names, the legal system would be prepared to support his totally sweet ass-kicking for justice.

  55. 55
    demimondian says:

    Well, if they have done nothing wrong (to use an oft parroted phrase since the Patriot Act came to be), thne [sic] they have nothing to fear.

    Unfortunately, that’s not true. Skilled interrogators can make innocent communications sound guilty quite easily — in fact, the more innocent, the easier a conversation is (typically) to distort, because the guilty are careful and precise, and the innocent are neither.

    That’s why retention of an attorney isn’t something that can be considered in court — the innocent can easily say things which can be misinterpreted by a motivated party.

  56. 56
    jenniebee says:

    What the hell did/does this provision have to do with national security, anyway? What national security purpose does it play in the Patriot Act?

    It only makes sense as an enhancement of security if you assume that aggregation of power to a unitary executive increases security.

    Come on, the Patriot Act had very little to do with actually enhancing security (US Ports, anyone?) and everything to do with using demagoguery and political momentum to push through a wish list of expansions of executive power.

  57. 57
    demimondian says:

    I think the PATRIOT act was originally intended to push through a wish list of extensions to police powers. It didn’t really have anything to do with executive power, per se, except insofar as the police powers are vested in the executive branch. Some of the second-gen PATRIOT provisions, however, were clearly intended to increase executive power, no doubt about it.

  58. 58
    Jay C says:

    PATRIOT Act nonsense aside, the whole USAttorneygate mess is starting to look like a lose-lose situation for the Administration: despite all the Bush gang’s efforts, the scandal is going to hit them in the area where they are most vulnerable: good old-fashioned sleazy partisan corruption: and, for good measure, corruption aimed at thwarting (or seeming to thwart) investigation into more sleazy corruption by Republicans. Just the issue the GOP would love to have aired yet again, sonce it was so helpful to them in the last election [/sarcasm].

    And an issue that, for once, can’t be spun away by the WH and its creatures as relating to “national security” or tied into their BS “War on Terror” – nope, just basic cheap partisan muck: with only “executive privilege” and their overblown theories of the “Unitary Executive” to fall back on – just like Nixon (and we see how well that truned out for him!).

  59. 59
    John Cole says:

    I like the part where John pulls a blockquote to tell Darrell exactly what he said before, and then Darrell “corrects” him by quoting the opening sentence of John’s own blockquote. And then links, in case John wants to dispute it.

    Classic.

    I am glad someone else noticed that. I laughed out loud when I saw it.

  60. 60
    Randolph Fritz says:

    …and if the WH staff refuses to testify? What authority does Congress have left, then?

  61. 61
    Punchy says:

    …and if the WH staff refuses to testify? What authority does Congress have left, then?

    Paging Myriad Steves and their superlative lawyerin’ skillz to break this down.

    I’m guessing Congress has authorities/powers/recourse, but will not be able to use them, as the Republicans, corrupt to the core, will do anything and everything to block it.

    Of course, Americans are seeing thru the bullshit. Getting canned for no real reason at all is something to which nearly EVERYONE can relate, and something that everyone abhors.

    How Speedy continues to steal paychecks using my tax dollars from this day forward is a testiment to how crooked this Admin. is….

  62. 62
    Rome Again says:

    They were preparing for Jack Bauer senarios. In the even America was flung into a prime-time TV drama where only one man can save his country by kicking ass and taking names, the legal system would be prepared to support his totally sweet ass-kicking for justice.

    What do you expect when they keep putting Hollywood personalities into public office:

    Ronald Reagan: movie star (governor of CA, president – R)
    Arnold Schwarzeneggar: movie star (governor of CA – R)

    Sonny Bono: television personality (congressman: R-CA)

    Fred Grandy: television personality (former congressman from IA – R)

    and they say Democrats are the ones supporting “Hollyweird”… yeah, RIGHT!

  63. 63
    Rome Again says:

    whoops, mean to update Sonny Bono’s status to former congressman/deceased… sorry, got ahead of myself.

  64. 64
    Mr Furious says:

    Perhaps if Gonzalez and others had told anything resembling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when they previously testified under oath, these subpeonas would be unneccesary.

    Thoughts, Darrell?

  65. 65
    mclaren says:

    Why is this “fun”? America has got a lot of serious problems. They’re solvable, but we need to get cracking _now_. We don’t have time or energy to waste on this mindless interminable internecine squabbling. Spending the next 2 years in a constituional crisis over subpoenas and Executive Privilege fills me with disgust too deep for words.

    There are plenty of simple striaghtforward things that could be done today to fix the mess America finds itself in. First and most obvious, cut the U.S. military budget by some huge amount — if we can’t defeat a bunch of 15-year-old kids carrying AK-47s, then the U.S. Amry is worthless and we should downsize it. Go back to a 30,000 man standing army of the kind we had back in 1930 and spend the money saved on paying down our debt (so the Chinese can’t blackmail us by threatening to yank their current accounts out of our economy) and rebuilding America’s crumbling briges and roads and sewers and water mains. Put the usury interest caps back in place nationwide — there’s no damn excuse for allowing predatory lenders to charge 300% per annum, as we do now. Riase the tax on the wealthiest Americans, as Warren Buffet and Donald Trump and many other wealthy Americans have advocated, back to a reasonable amount, and plow the revenues right back into paying down our national debt — right now 25% of every government dollar goes to servicng our debt, and that’s just unacceptable. Limit credit card interest rates to a fair rate of return above inlfation. Nationalize health care. Embark on a crash program to increase autombolile mileage. Crank up a modern network of safe TRIGA-design or pebble-bed thorium breeder reactors to remove our dependence on middle eastern oil. Put big tax incentives in place for homeowners to make their houses more energy-efficient and less polluting.

    These are easy to specify. There’s nothing mysterious about any of this. We can do these things. We need to do these things. We can climb out of our mess. But if we spend the next 2 years wallowing in legal wranngling and Nixonoid evasions and congressional subcommittees issuing subpoenas, we’re not gonna get anything done.

    The drunk-driving C student is a sociopathic criminal. Realistically, there’s not enough of a mandate yet to arrest him and try him for treason and have him shot. So let’s move on and solve America’s problems instead of pissing away our lives on this meaningless crap.

  66. 66

    and if the WH staff refuses to testify? What authority does Congress have left, then?

    Comtempt of Congress for Rove et al., impeachment for others.

  67. 67
    RSA says:

    As far as political costs go, do you really think Rove gives a flaming fuck about political costs anymore? He’s done, he knows it, he just has to sit out the next couple of years without saying anything that will get him in real trouble.

    On this point, I’m reminded of the Libby trial. FItzgerald went back to Rove what, five times? With the general feeling being that Rove was adjusting his story to meet the facts. I don’t know, of course, because we didn’t see any of it. But whatever the case, I don’t think that Congress will be as patient.

  68. 68
    Zifnab says:

    Spending the next 2 years in a constituional crisis over subpoenas and Executive Privilege fills me with disgust too deep for words.

    Republicans are in damage control mode. A great many of them did a great many illegal things. If they don’t all hang together than block every motion of investigation, a great many of them will be in deep, deep shit.

    This is what happens in a corrupt system. Getting out of it is infinitely more hairy than getting in. The guys making the mess have way more invested in keeping the house dirty than the guys doing the cleaning.

  69. 69
    Pb says:

    mclaren,

    America has got a lot of serious problems.

    Serious problems require serious people–I’ll tell you how your proposals will go over today–it’s all about patriotism, American exceptionalism, and ignorance, baby!

    cut the U.S. military budget by some huge amount

    Why do you hate our troops?

    the U.S. Amry is worthless and we should downsize it

    Traitor! You want the terrorists to win!

    spend the money saved on paying down our debt

    And you’ll destroy our economy by taking all of our hard-earned dollars out of the country and giving it to foreigners!

    rebuilding America’s crumbling briges and roads and sewers and water mains

    America has the best bridges, roads, sewers, and water mains in the world!

    Put the usury interest caps back in place nationwide

    Let the free market work!

    Riase the tax on the wealthiest Americans

    Class warfare!

    plow the revenues right back into paying down our national debt

    Punish the wealthy, and give it all to the foreigners–with plans like this, you might as well be working directly for al-Qaeda!

    Nationalize health care.

    Socialist!

    [also insert blathering about letting the free market work in all the appropriate places…]

    if we spend the next 2 years wallowing in legal wranngling and Nixonoid evasions and congressional subcommittees issuing subpoenas, we’re not gonna get anything done

    And the Darrells of the world win again! As to what they win, well, it’ll be all theirs, even though they will (of course) still blame it all on us.

  70. 70
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Comtempt of Congress for Rove et al., impeachment for others.

    Who arrests them? Who jails them? …Justice Department employees, perchance?

  71. 71
    Pb says:

    Who arrests them? Who jails them? …Justice Department employees, perchance?

    More likely capitol police and DC cops, I’d think.

  72. 72

    Justice Department employees, perchance?

    In the case of impeachment? Impeachment cannot lead to imprisonment. In the case of CofC? Yes, of course, DoJ employees. Oh, you say, but what if they won’t? Remember the “impeachment” word?

  73. 73
    Darrell says:

    I am glad someone else noticed that. I laughed out loud when I saw it.

    Yeah, stupid me. John Cole lied his ass off when claimed that “the administration” claimed the attorneys were fired because they were not sufficient enough lackeys.

    When challenged on that lie, and it was a lie, John Cole produces a memo that quotes Kyle Sampson, and even that quote is vague.

    So to be clear, John cole lied flat out (out of principle?) about what “the administration” has said, and when called on it, he produces a memo which doesn’t show much of anything. Go figure

  74. 74
    Pb says:

    Impeachment cannot lead to imprisonment.

    Well, it’s a good start–given an impeachment and a conviction, surely some high crimes and misdemeanors could be subsequently justiciable.

  75. 75
    3reddogs says:

    Then every time any sitting US President fires US attorneys or other political appointees, we need congressional investigations, even when there is no credible evidence of wrongdoing to be consistent.

    Not every time, Darrell, just when there’s evidence of felony obstruction of justice (or do you think it’s just a coincidence that Carol Lam was the subject of an email from Gonzales’ chief of staff to the WH general counsel’s office the day after she served notice that she intended to serve search warrants in places controlled by Dusty Foggo, who had just resigned as executive director of the CIA?)

  76. 76

    given an impeachment and a conviction, surely some high crimes and misdemeanors could be subsequently justiciable

    Absolutely. Impeachment and conviction does not count towards double jeopardy. The original question was about who would enforce such a judgment — after all, you’ve just impeached someone who theoretically controls the police powers, and who imprisons the jailer? (Russell’s paradox, redux…)

    The out is that after impeachment, he’s not the jailer any more.

  77. 77
    Pb says:

    he produces a memo which doesn’t show much of anything

    Did he link to the whole thing? It’s interesting reading. Start with what the House judiciary committee released (under “What’s New”); the document at the beginning of Part 4 (“USA replacement plan.doc”) lays it out pretty well. For example:

    STEP 3

    Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval: U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their jobs (aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department community), likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in ofice.  We should expect these efforts to be strenuous.  Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration’s determination to seek these resignations likely will be directed at: various White House offices, including the Office of the Counsel to the President and the Office of Political Affairs; Attorney General Gonzales and DOJ Chief of Staff Sampson; Deputy Attorney General McNulty and ODAG staffers Moschella and Elston; Acting Associate AG Bill Mercer; EOUSA Director Mike Battle; and AGAC Chair Johnny Sutton. Recipients of such “appeals” must respond identically:

    What? U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President (there is no right, nor should there be any expectation, that U.S. Attorneys would be entitled to serve beyond their four-year term).
    Who decided? The Administration made the determination to seek the resignations (not any specific person at the White House or the Department of Justice).

  78. 78
    Darrell says:

    Found here

    So Darrell, the emails implicitly state that the attorneys who were not loyal to Bush were replaced and explicitly states that the attorneys who were loyal to Bush were kept.

    First, that was an internal memo from an aide, not an “administration statement” as John cole falsely alleged. Second, that memo did not say loyalty was the “only” criteria, in fact the memo explicitly mentions “doing a great job” as part of the criteria for staying on the job as well. Not just loyalty, and “loyalty” was never defined, but doing one’s job well too, which several of those attorneys had poor records.

    Several, if not all of those attorneys should have been fired, and not because they were insufficiently “lackey” as the blog host has so dishonestly asserted, but because they were doing a poor job. But hey, lowest common demoninator to get approval from the giggling groupies.

  79. 79
    mrmobi says:

    …and if the WH staff refuses to testify? What authority does Congress have left, then?

    As Demi says above, “Contempt of Congress for Rove et al., impeachment for others.”

    As a “leftist whackjob” I’m coming to the conclusion that this war is going to continue no matter what Congress does. I don’t see the Congress passing laws which defund the military while it is in the middle of two wars.

    I’m really pretty happy with the new majority so far, and I don’t see why anyone would expect them to climb out on a limb and saw it off, do you guys?

    With great sadness on this fourth anniversary of the worst foreign policy mistake ever made, I believe our focus with regard to the war should be to provide vigorous oversight, support the active military by giving them the best equipment and training possible, see to it that returning troops receive the best and most timely in- and out-patient care and make sure that, as far as the American People are concerned, whenever they see the words “Iraq War,” they think, “Incompetent, Criminal, Republican Catastrofuck.”

    That shouldn’t be too hard, given how badly this administration has screwed the pooch.

    There are going to be some nasty fights coming up, and I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will be involved sooner or later. I just hope they get to render a verdict as in United States v. Nixon.

  80. 80
    Darrell says:

    Not every time, Darrell, just when there’s evidence of felony obstruction of justice

    Where the fuck is their evidence of “felony obstruction”? I know it sounds good to say it for dramatic effect, but do you have any, you know, evidence? Because without solid evidence, all you’ve got is leftwingnut lying smears.

    Here is solid evidence on Lam’s record, and it doesn’t look good for her

    From fiscal 2002 through 2006, Lam’s office sentenced 88 people for firearms crimes, according to figures the Justice Department provided Sessions. Those numbers track closely with figures from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, an independent agency under the federal judiciary system. The commission defines firearms violations as illegal possession, transportation or trafficking of firearms or their use during a felony.

    During the same period, 946 people were sentenced for the same crimes in the Southern District of Texas, 894 in the Western District of Texas, 897 in the District of Arizona, 437 in the District of New Mexico and 439 in the Southern District of Alabama, where Sessions was U.S. attorney for 12 years and which he contends had one-fifth of Lam’s resources

  81. 81
    mrmobi says:

    By the way, after reading some of the other threads here in the last couple days, I’ve decided to re-activate my “Darrell” filter. It’s like nuking the aliens from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

    I like pie too, Darrell!

  82. 82
    Darrell says:

    Think about an entire class of people on this blog who are so stupid to believe hook, line and sinker without a shred of independent thought.. that all those attorneys were fired, only because they were not sufficient enough lackey bootlickers to Bush. That’s exactly what has been asserted and that is what has been swallowed by the “deep thinking” commentariat here.

  83. 83
    John Cole says:

    Still wondering where I claimed there was some sort of official statement on WH stationery and everything.

    Oh, wait.

    I didn’t.

    Keep spinning, Darrell. Keep on spinning.

  84. 84
    Punchy says:

    Here is solid evidence on Lam’s record, and it doesn’t look good for her

    Too funny. Should we fire the US Atty in Ft. Lauderdale for not enough stolen Zamboni convictions? The US Atty in Arizona for not enough maple syrup theft prosecutions? The US Atty in Alabama for not enough hate-crimes-on-Mormons indictments?

    Maybe, just maybe, in Lam’s District many people don’t brandish firearms. Maybe, just maybe, they follow the law.

    This, or course, is probably too confusing for Darrell.

  85. 85
    gex says:

    ooh! this post gives me the added satisfaction of turning the “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide” argument against them! it turns the stomach to be endlessly confronted by this argument after civil right after civil right is trashed in the name of creating the executive dictatorship combatting terrorism.

  86. 86
    Pb says:

    Interestingly enough, David Iglesias was loyal before he wasn’t–he was bolded, i.e., doin’ a heckuva job! However, he was on the list as of 11/15/06… What happened?

    “He wanted to know if the [indictments] would be filed before November. … I gave an answer to the effect of I didn’t think so. … He said, “I’m very sorry to hear that,” and the line went dead, the telephone line went dead. I thought to myself, did he just hang up on me? … He didn’t call back; I didn’t call back. I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that something bad had happened, and within six weeks I got a call from [senior Justice Department official] Mike Battle saying that it was time for me to move on.”

  87. 87
    Darrell says:

    John Cole Says:

    Still wondering where I claimed there was some sort of official statement on WH stationery and everything.

    Oh, wait.

    I didn’t.

    Keep spinning, Darrell. Keep on spinning.

    John, you were caught in a lie, but you lack the integrity and principle to own up to it. You said:

    The stated reason, by the administration, not me, that the other attorneys were not fired is that they were sufficiently loyal to Bush

    Yet, there was no “administration” statement saying that, was there? No spin required, just quoting you verbatim in context.

  88. 88
    Tim F. says:

    Several, if not all of those attorneys should have been fired, and not because they were insufficiently “lackey” as the blog host has so dishonestly asserted, but because they were doing a poor job.

    If the attorneys did a poor job then at least one of them must have had a negative job review. A warning from a superior, some indication that the DOJ was dissatisfied with their job. It is exeedingly poor form to can an important imployee without giving them the faintest hint of dissatisfaction.

    So here’s your assignment Darrell – find a single negative performance review that indicates that the DOJ believed that these people were doing a poor job. If you are not full of shit then they must exist out there in some form. Maybe when you can do that these boring, smallminded character smears of yours will have some weight.

  89. 89
    John Cole says:

    Yes. That was stated by internal memos in the administration, Darrell. That does not make it a formal administration statement, but it does make it a stated reason from the administration.

    Not that hard to figure that out, and it is not Clintonian parsing.

    There have been several “official” statements as to why they were fired, but those keep changing. Why do they keep changing? Because each one one keeps being exposed as bullshit and then each subsequent reason becomes worse and worse and less and less believable.

    With this administration, you cut to the simplest and the most base reason to explain their behavior. In this case, the memo pretty much cuts to the core of the case- they were insufficiently “loyal” to Bush. And they were fired.

    And we have the memo in which an administration official stated that, explicitly.

  90. 90
    Pb says:

    Heh, actually there is some irony there, if Carol Lam got canned for doing her job smarter as well:

    Lam tightened the guidelines for deciding which smuggling and immigration cases her office would undertake, meaning fewer cases went to court. Instead of going after coyotes, the guides who bring illegal crossers into the United States, her office targeted the leaders of smuggling organizations. It also prosecuted corrupt Border Patrol agents and border inspectors.
    […]
    One corrupt Border Patrol agent could be responsible for letting hundreds of illegal immigrants into the country, Lam said. Investigating and prosecuting that agent – Lam’s office had seven such cases – could reduce illegal entries into the country but be counted only as a single effort.

  91. 91
    RSA says:

    David Iglesias was loyal before he wasn’t—he was bolded, i.e., doin’ a heckuva job!

    Arranging to have Ignatius fired had been a real black eye for him, Gonzales was forced to conclude. He was positive that President Bush had never forgotten it, even though he was positive that President Bush didn’t even remember it, which was really very unjust, Gozales lamented, since the idea of firing Ignatius itself should have been a real feather in his cap, even though it had been such a real black eye.

  92. 92
    dreggas says:

    Darrell Says:

    Think about an entire class of peoplethe 3 people on this blog who are so stupid to believe hook, line and sinker without a shred of independent thought.. that all those attorneys were fired everything bush says is the truth and this administration never lies, only because they were not are sufficient enough lackey bootlickers to Bush. That’s exactly what has been asserted and that is what has been swallowed by the “deep thinking” commentariat here proven to be a known fact.

    Fixed.

  93. 93
    RSA says:

    Dammit, Iglesias, not Ignatius, in my lame riff.

  94. 94
    Mary says:

    Several, if not all of those attorneys should have been fired, and not because they were insufficiently “lackey” as the blog host has so dishonestly asserted, but because they were doing a poor job.

    Nice try, Darrell.

    Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker:

    It’s becoming one of the central rules of the U.S. attorney purge scandal: whatever “performance related” complaint the administration claims as the justification for a U.S. attorney’s firing, it’s actually an area of performance for which that U.S. attorney was lauded. In this instance, the White House has said that U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico was removed in part due to his handling of voter fraud complaints. That’s backed up by the numerous instances of powerful New Mexico Republicans (including Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM)) complaining to Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, and President Bush about Iglesias’ decision not to prosecute certain cases of voter fraud.

    What does this mean? It means that Iglesias must have been lauded by the Justice Department for his handling of voter fraud cases. And not just lauded — but cited as an example for U.S. attorneys across the country. From The Washington Post: “One of the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration after Republican complaints that he neglected to prosecute voter fraud had been heralded for his expertise in that area by the Justice Department, which twice selected him to train other federal prosecutors to pursue election crimes.” …

    Similarly, San Diego’s Carol Lam was supposedly fired because of her office’s failure to prosecute immigration cases. But it turns out that the Justice Department vouched for Lam’s handling of such cases just three months before she was fired, citing, for instance, the fact that half of her staff was devoted to prosecuting such crimes.

    There’s more at the link.

  95. 95
    Mary says:

    (“There’s more at the link” slipped inside the blockquotes. That’s my comment, not Kiel’s.)

  96. 96

    Marshall and Kurtz over at TPM have been all over that. This morning they pointed out that several of the alleged areas in which the fired USA were deficient were actually areas in which they’d excelled. Lam was a star at handing illegal immigrant cases. Iglesias had actually been used to teach other USA’s how to go after voter fraud cases. McKay had been teaching others how to automate their offices.

    Heckuva job, Drownie!

  97. 97

    Phooey. Mary beat me to it.

  98. 98

    I guess it’s not surprising to see Darrell here parroting the party line like a good little Stalinist, but christ you’d think at some point he’d see Pravda for what it is.

  99. 99
    Pb says:

    I guess it’s not surprising to see Darrell here parroting the party line like a good little Stalinist, but christ you’d think at some point he’d see Pravda for what it is.

    So what if he did?

    “But the way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I’m just going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried.” — Rush Limbaugh, 11/08/06

    Would it really change anything?

  100. 100
    Ted says:

    First, that was an internal memo from an aide, not an “administration statement” as John cole falsely alleged.

    I love this stuff! Can’t get enough of it.

    Does anyone think for a moment Darrell would apply this same standard to a Democratic president?

    Obvious and hilarious.

  101. 101
    ThymeZone says:

    John, you were caught in a lie, but you lack the integrity and principle to own up to it.

    Amazing.

    Even when we disagree with him and have flame wars with him, we know one thing for a fact, John operates out of integrity and principle.

    This kind of crap makes me sure that you must be spoof, Darrell. Even a moron like you can’t think that John is about lying and covering it up. Not possible.

  102. 102

    If the attorneys did a poor job then at least one of them must have had a negative job review. A warning from a superior, some indication that the DOJ was dissatisfied with their job. It is exeedingly poor form to can an important imployee without giving them the faintest hint of dissatisfaction.

    You can’t very well put down “Failed to carry out Herr Leaders request to go after political enemy” on a job review though, now can you?

  103. 103
    Pooh says:

    Think about an entire class of people on this blog who are so stupid to believe hook, line and sinker without a shred of independent thought

    I love the smell of projection in the morning…smells like Senator Cornyn…

  104. 104
    Dress Left says:

    How is it possible that Darrell has not been recruited into the Administration?

    Has the stock ever been higher for relentless Blind Loyalty?

    Seriously.

  105. 105
    Punchy says:

    A warning from a superior, some indication that the DOJ was dissatisfied with their job.

    Call me crazy, but I’d say personal phone calls from home state Reps qualifies here. Not technically a “superior”, but in the Republican party….well…yeah they are.

    Can we get an answer to the above Q? What happs when Bush goes all “executive secrets, bitches” on Team Leahy? Who votes for “comtempt”, how many votes are needed, who ajudicates the charge, and how long does it take?

    TIA. My expertise with civics starts and ends with Honda.

  106. 106

    The committee would issue the citation, it takes a majority vote only, the judicial branch adjudicates…and it’s freeking fast, if the Congress wants it to be.

    That said, imprisonment for contumaceous behavior towards Congressional inquiries is unheard-of. I don’t know how long it’s been, but it’s been quite a while.

  107. 107
    Randolph Fritz says:

    Darrell seems so impervious to reality, I wonder if he is a paid party flack–there are some out in the blogosphere.

    As to the subject at hand, I hope this will be “fun to watch” and not constitutional crisis; there’s at least a chance that the W. Bush administration will disobey the Constitution, should Congress attempt to invoke its constitutional authority, and Congress be unable to enforce its orders. Tradition, luck, and circumstance may combine to restrain the administration, but it’s never wise to count on those.

    “I deeply resent the way this administration makes me feel like a nutbar conspiracy theorist.”

  108. 108
    Paul L. says:

    The question of whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales would be forced to step down.

    I guess the left is correct and he should step down. The Dismissal of federal prosecutors is just as bad as the FBI setting fire to bunch of women and children on his watch.

  109. 109
    Tim F. says:

    What, no mention of Vince Foster? Good old Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

  110. 110
    Paul L. says:

    Tim F. Says:
    What, no mention of Vince Foster? Good old Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

    Using the other commenter standards (Dreggas) here I can call you a Clinton Buttlicker.

  111. 111
    Darrell says:

    With this administration, you cut to the simplest and the most base reason to explain their behavior. In this case, the memo pretty much cuts to the core of the case- they were insufficiently “loyal” to Bush. And they were fired.

    A textbook example of BDS. “They didn’t suck up sufficiently to Herr Bush”. That must be it.

  112. 112
    Zifnab says:

    I guess the left is correct and he should step down. The Dismissal of federal prosecutors is just as bad as the FBI setting fire to bunch of women and children on his watch.

    Did they light people on fire at Gitmo? I must have missed that.

  113. 113
    Zifnab says:

    A textbook example of BDS. “They didn’t suck up sufficiently to Herr Bush”. That must be it.

    What’s the old rule called? “Upon eliminating all other possibilities the result must be your answer” or something like that. Not Occam’s Razor… :-p It’ll come to me.

  114. 114
    Tim F. says:

    Using the other commenter standards

    Hah! Our commenters will tell you that we don’t have any standards. CDS man.

  115. 115
    Carl Gordon says:

    As if you couldn’t tell that most of GWB’s, I mean, Cheney’s attentions have been elsewhere over the last few months, there’s this creeping sense of impending feeble disintegration spreading mange-like through the White House and it’s herd, as I heed a flange of greenery and blue skies a-coming. I mean a change of scenery. Freshly traumatized from their selling of what passes for a soul, Karl, DICK, and Georgie must be secreted in some dark dank cubby-hole in a forgotten rat-shit infested corner of the basement where Tricky Dicky used to drink his Kessler on the rocks and pray to his god/devil/mommie, still reeling from the stunning conclusion that their “party” has about as much soul as a Mormon Potluck. Now it just seems surprising that they didn’t bail out twelve months ago and live in the woods, a tarp over a badly stained mattress (Oh DICK! Shame!), his Fisher-Price record player balanced on a cheap $1.89 Styrofoam ice chest full of Blatz and head cheese. I’m guessing that people are sick of them telling them that they’re unpatri-idiotic; they all don’t know what it’s like living on the receiving end of this dirty sham. No exaggeration is too excessive, no posture is too screwball.

  116. 116
    RSA says:

    “Upon eliminating all other possibilities the result must be your answer” or something like that. Not Occam’s Razor…

    “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four. Usually quoted in declarative form, of course.

  117. 117

    Our commenters will tell you that we don’t have any standards. CDS man.

    Not true in the least, you biologist scum. We have standards: 60Hz, 120VAC, two-phase current, for instance.

Comments are closed.