WTF WTF WTF…………will someone organize a militia and overthrow the American government, please. Let the bombs go off in Cleveland, Chicago,LA, everywhere & wake the sonorous Americans up. You are an occupying, militaristic people!!!

YES INDEEDY, WILD BILL CLINTON!!!!! BLOG CAN INDEED PROMOTE A MORE EVEN, FAIR, BALANCED AND TRUTHFUL DISCUSSION OF POLITICS THAN THE BIASED MSM AND Bush LAPDOGS OF THE MSM IN BOTH PRINT, TELEVISED AND RADIO DO AT PRESENT!!!!! WE CAN INDEED DO RESEARCH, GET THE FACTS OUT WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE STIFLED BY POLITICAL PRESSURE, THOUGH AS FAR AS BAD-MOUTH IS CONCERNED, WE ARE DOING ONLY THAT WHICH THE repugnant-repubs and their TOADY trolls HAVE BEEN DOING—–PAYBACK TIME, IN SPADES!!!!! HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!!!!! HAH!

Julie MacDonald ALTERED to MINIMIZE PROTECTIONS—SAID CHIMPya, “Give that girl a medal and PROMOTE her–she’s a TEAM player Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh!” TYPICAL Bushland Uber Allies SYSTEM—-REWARD THE F*CK-UP, INCOMPETENT WRONGDOERS(to Bushland’s ENEMIES) AND PUNISH THE HARD-WORKING, EFFECTIVE CORRECT INDIVIDUALS(who help Bushland’s ENEMIES by their actions)!!!!!

Ah Yes, FAT-F*CK Rove CALLING THE SHOTS—–Rove SHOULD BE SHOT, NOT CALLING THEM!!!!!

Gates MAY BE PART OF Bushland Uber Allies BUT AT LEAST HE HAS AN OUNCE OF DECENCY AND EQUANIMITY IN HIS BODY!!!!!

ALOHA OE, Peter Wehner—WERE YOU A WHINER, OR A WINER, OR A WINNER IN THE END!!!!!

Dear Miss Piggy FAT-F*ck Rove, This is to hereby inform you that your immediate response to this request in absolutely mandated by the fact that I will kick your fat ass from here to Kalamazoo if you do not comply immediately. With sincere best wishes that you drop dead from rectal bleeding if you choose not to reply…Yours Truly,…………

AND Boehner SHOWED CHIMPya HIS BONER, WHICH CHIMPya IMMEDIATELY POUNCED UPON WITH GLEE!!!!!

CHIMPya WAS OFFERED SOME BLACKBERRIES BY A TOADY LOBBYIST WHO WANTED TO BRIBE HIM SO THE LOBBYIST ASKED CHIMPya,
“Mr, President, I have some blackberries for you…where shall I leave them?” CHIMPya “Jus’ leave the bushel in the kitchen boy—I hav’ a hankerin’ to eat some of them blackberries for dessert tonite! Huh Huh Huh Huh Huh!!!!!”

That sent horrible chills up my back, and made me want to puke.

Good one…

Chimpy: Can I use my tongue this time?

Abdullah: Son of a camel – make my tonsils dance

Yes, but you’d tease me mercilessly, so I’ll keep up the pretense. :-)

So -you were aware that you had commented on the attorney scandal in the past, yet today you protested against posting anything at all because you knew “nothing about it”. Right. Got it.

See, this is the downside of a blog for liars, cheaters, and generally deceitful people like you: you cannot run from what you wrote.

But do keep coming back; help us show everyone out there (”the lurkers” as your brother-in-arms Jake calls them) what the loyal Bush minion base is really made of.

If you can’t stand the heat, please leave the kitchen.

You have already been provided with enough facts. Acknowledge them and stop discombobulating.

And, are you in the habit of commenting on things you know “nothing about”? Because you seemed plenty happy of commenting on the attorney firing barely a week ago. Or did you lose all knowledge on the subject between then and today?

Inquiring minds want to know…

But I guess next time I’ll just tell everybody that I can’t do what they need, cause hendler needs some answer ASAP.

First of all, because who needs answers? You feeling OK?

Second, as I said before, the central issue here is the fact that you tried to lie to me. Your oh-so-busy schedule didn’t seem to interfere with that.

Dale, you’re busted. Give it up.

And your claim has already been addressed as well. As you can plainly see, many people refuted Jake’s nonsense. Not to mention entire threads dedicated to the attorney firing.

This, in turn, makes your comment:

And now, cue the “oh, we’re not going to bother responding to Jake” chorus.
Comment by Dale — March 30, 2007 @ 10:29 am

even more nonsensical.

It seems to me it is you and Jake who have no use for facts.

’ll take that as an admission of guilt. Despite the delay in getting that admission to us, I still forgive you.

Oh glory day.

What I wanted was the truth from you. It’s really shameful that it took two and a half hours to beat it out of you.

Well, gee, I guess some of us have jobs that won’t let us spend all day just looking for things to post. But I guess next time I’ll just tell everybody that I can’t do what they need, cause hendler needs some answer ASAP.

TMM, okay, so I posted more than I thought… but I have *not* looked into the scandal much, I don’t *plan* on looking into the scandal much… I don’t have *time* to look into the scandal much.

I’ll take that as an admission of guilt. Despite the delay in getting that admission to us, I still forgive you.

The only thing I mentioned about the atty’s in this thread is that it seemed everybody was ignoring Jake’s post…

And three separate posters, myself included, explained to you why were were ignoring him…and you responded by crowing once again about how we can’t handle facts, and then asking if Jake’s points had been debunked.

Sorry, I’m not going to take the time to look into it.

Sorry, but after that much caterwauling, you’re in the discussion, whether you like it or not. I asked you a valid question…a question I knew you could answer, since we had already discussed it in depth on the 23rd. But instead of an honest answer, you feed me this BS about how you’re ‘not following the firings’.

Pathetically lame, Dale…even for you. Positively Jake-esque.

yet you want me to start posting on the atty scandal?

What I wanted was the truth from you. It’s really shameful that it took two and a half hours to beat it out of you.

The only thing I mentioned about the atty’s in this thread is that it seemed everybody was ignoring Jake’s post… yet you want me to start posting on the atty scandal? Sorry, I’m not going to take the time to look into it.

gee TMM, I’m so sorry my work interfered with you getting the answers you wanted.

That’s funny…it didn’t seem to interfere with you trying to lie to me.

Yes, I looked back at the 3/23 thread… all I basically posted was that I felt the attorney scandal was overblown, and that I felt Pres. Bush had the right to replace attorneys. I still do.

Oh, is that all?

From the thread in question:

#29 and #32, chimpeach, do you have any proof of what you’re stipulating? As far as the ‘mole inserting a provision (etc)’, it was a congressional staffer who ‘inserted’ the provision, which provision was then approved without debate by Congress. But the provision only allows for a 120-day ‘interim appt’, it doesn’t allow the President to make the appt. permanent.

#33, does it make you feel better thinking we’re all one person?

Comment by Dale — March 23, 2007 @ 10:09 am

And then a response from Yours Truly:

Dale sez:

As far as the ‘mole inserting a provision (etc)’, it was a congressional staffer who ‘inserted’ the provision, which provision was then approved without debate by Congress.

Well, if what you say is in fact true, that raises disturbing questions. Congressional staffers are not members of Congress, and are not allowed to directly author legislation. You were aware of this, weren’t you?

But the provision only allows for a 120-day ‘interim appt’, it doesn’t allow the President to make the appt. permanent.

You’re tragically misinformed, Dale. the 120-day interim appointment limit was the law before the PATRIOT Act provision changed it to erase any time limit on the ‘interim appointments’. It was this provision that the administration attempted to abuse to place political operatives in U.S. attorney positions, while sidestepping the normal Senate confirmation process.

Sheesh…this story has been around for a while, Dale…assuming you’re not being intentionally obtuse, you really need to educate yourself. Joshua Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo would be an excellent place to start.

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 23, 2007 @ 10:20 am

To which you replied:

#48, you’re correct in one respect, the Patriot Act removed the consecutive 120-day appt by a judge. But instead of getting your data from a blog, why don’t you read the testimony before Congress of the Deputy A.G.?

Comment by Dale — March 23, 2007 @ 10:33 am

Which prompted this reply from me:

#

Dale sez:

But instead of getting your data from a blog, why don’t you read the testimony before Congress of the Deputy A.G.?

Well, let’s see. From your link:

At no time, however, has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim U.S. Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination, confirmation and appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. The appointment of U.S. Attorneys by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is unquestionably the appointment method preferred by both the Senate and the Administration.

In every single case where a vacancy occurs, the Bush Administration is committed to having a United States Attorney who is confirmed by the Senate. And the Administration’s actions bear this out. Every time a vacancy has arisen, the President has either made a nomination, or the Administration is working—in consultation with home-state Senators—to select candidates for nomination. Let me be perfectly clear—at no time has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim United States Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination and confirmation of a new United States Attorney. Not once.

This, I assume, is the reason you linked to this, correct?

However, the reality is far different, as these email excerpts show:

‘interim may be a source of confusion or, worse, a term that Pryor’s and Lincoln’s office can springboard from to press for their own nominee rather than rallying behind Tim. What are your thoughts? If this is a Section 546 AG appointment for unlimited duration, Tim can call himself ‘US Attorney’ rather than ‘interim’ or ‘acting’ and our talkers should avoid referring to him as ‘interim.’” (Email from Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, to Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, 12/19/06)

“I think we should gum this to death … There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it?” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Chris Oprison, Office of White House Counsel, 12/19/06)

“I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed — it will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don’t have replacements ready to roll immediately. In addition, I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments. We can continue to do selection in JSC, but then should have DOJ take over entirely the vet and appointment. By not going the PAS route. We can give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.” (Email from Kyle Sampson, Chief of Staff to AG Gonzales, to Harriet Miers, Office of White House Counsel, 09/17/06)

Any questions?

Comment by TripMaster Monkey — March 23, 2007 @ 10:56 am

As you didn’t reply after this post, I assumed you didn’t have any questions.

So…still want to claim that all you talked about was how you “felt the attorney scandal was overblown”, and that you felt Pres. Bush had the right to replace attorneys”? Or will you now admit your LIE?

The NYTimes article is still available. If you really wanted to read it , all you’d have to do is register. It’s free.

My point is that all presidents replace US attorneys at the beginning of their terms, and that the firing of a number prosecutors in the middle of the term of the president who appointed them is unprecedented.

My larger point -which you ignored, of course- is that Jake’s claim has already been addressed multiple times. That was in response to your question. Do you forget your own questions that quickly?

See, Dale, this is what people are talking about with respect to you. One more time and that’s it: THE POINT IS THAT IT’S STANDARD PROCEDURE TO REPLACE PROSECUTORS AT THE BEGINNING OF A TERM. IT IS NOT STANDARD PROCEDURE TO REPLACE PROSECUTORS IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TERMS. AND, IF THEY ARE INVOLVED IN CASES WHICH MAY BE HARMFUL TO THE PEOPLE IN POWER, THERE MAY BE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE INVOLVED.

Get it?

Re: the second link; it shows that only 10 atty’s have been let go in the middle of their terms; Clinton let all the prosecutors go, but at the beginning of the term, not the middle. Your point?