You’re right Jay.
Bush takes a call from his friend, Pete, and then the ball gets rolling.
But no one, no one, no one will finger W.
W hasn’t been held acountable for his actions since he was old enough to raid the cooky jar. Mama would just pat him on the head and give him the whole jar.
But I heard AG is going to blame everything on Harriet.
Of course that’s what happened! All you’ll have to do to prove it is invent several dots and go out of your way to connect them.
Give it up hippies. No one cares about this story because no one did anything wrong. I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Excellent point. The Democrats were swept into power last November because they promised to end the occupation in Iraq. Because of their vacillation, more Americans are being needlessly killed in another quagmire that the United States has, like Vietnam, been sinking deeper and deeper. As Congressman Kucinich has said, the Democrats cannot claim to oppose the war when they refuse to cut off the funds. At times, if not most times, it becomes more and more difficult to tell the Democrats from the Republicans without a scorecard.
New e-mails prompt the question: Did Bush make the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys?
Submitted by crew on 22 March 2007 - 6:51pm. George Bush Harriet Miers Kyle Sampson US Attorneys
McClatchy’s article from earlier today discusses the potentially overlooked role of President Bush in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys:
Internal administration e-mails show that the Justice Department postponed the firings for nearly three weeks late last year while awaiting White House approval. The final consent came on Dec. 4, four days after Bush returned from an overseas trip, once several senior White House officials signed off on the plan. It is not known if Bush himself did.
Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, had warned in a Nov. 15 e-mail to the Justice Department that approval of the firings would be delayed if Bush had to OK the plan.
“Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention. If it does, he just left last night, so would not be able to accomplish for some time,” Miers wrote in the e-mail, which was among a batch of e-mails and other internal documents related to the firings that were released by the Justice Department last week.
As you can see by reading that e-mail interaction here, Miers response prompted Kyle Sampson to ask: Who will determine if this requires the President’s attention?
Interestingly, as Miers forewarned, the decision was delayed, coincidentally, for the amount of time Bush was away for Thanksgiving and a foreign trip:
The e-mail exchange came the day after Bush left Washington for a weeklong trip to Russia and Asia. He returned for a long Thanksgiving weekend at Camp David, then took off to Latvia and Jordan before returning to Washington on Nov. 30, a Thursday. Four days later, on Dec. 4, the White House signed off on the firing plan.
“We’re a go for the US Atty plan,” Kelley told the Justice Department. “WH leg, political and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.”
“WH leg” apparently refers to the White House legislative affairs office, the president’s liaison to Congress. Rove heads the political office. “Communications” is under the purview of presidential counselor Dan Bartlett.
Uh-oh! Finally, the smoking gun leads directly to where all of the other scandals originated - the office of the president himself. It was just a matter of time until all of his devious wrongdoings caught up with him. This one will be the one that tumbles his presidency.
Gonzo is blaming the Office of the President indirectly in the naming of Harriet Miers as his scapegoat. Guess he realizes that his Bud, the Shrub, is planning to throw him under the bush, too.
GDumbya isn’t throwing Gonzo under the bus. Why, just the other day, he was heard to say “you’re doing a heckuva job, Gonzo”. And Darth Cheney is singing his praises, too.
GDumbya is always loyal to his little toadies . . . just so long as they don’t write “tell-all” books or turn state’s evidence on him.
That’s the secret to his success — he screws up, someone steps up to take the bullet for him and then he gives them a Medal of Freedom, an ambassadorship or some such other trinket.
Man I hope you are right. I really hope Gonzales and Bush get away with all of this. There will never be another democratic scandal again! Once we have a democratic president, anyone who even thinks of investigating a democrat will be instantly fired. US Attorneys should understand that they are political appointees and can be fired because the president does not like who they are investigating. And the right-wing cannot say anything about it, because this is what they wanted and fought so hard for. Enjoy it for now repubs, once we have a democratic president the tables will turn and US Attorneys will only be allowed to investigate republicans. That is what you wanted isn’t it?
AND ONE LAST VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT IS THOSE WHO DONOT FOLLOW
THE ETHICS RELATED TO CREW SHOULD JUST BE TOLD
GO
HOME!!!!
UNFIT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE. CONGRESS SHOULD CLEARLY INCLUDE THAT
IN THEIR ETHICS REFORM. NO MAIL, EMAIL, PHONE, NOTHING, IF THEY ONLY
WANT TO WORK 2.5 DAYS OF THE 5 DAY WORK WEEK OR ENGAGE IN ETHICS
VIOLATION AGAINST THE PEOPLE (LIKE YOU & ME) WHO THEY SERVE THEN…
JUST GO HOME!!! NO PAY, NOTHIN
THAT WAY THEY REALLY WOULD BE SERVING THE COUNTRY TO THE BEST
OF THEIR ABILITY AND WOULD DO BOTH YOU AND ME A HUGE FAVOR…
WE CAN START OFF WITH BUSH/CHENEY/GONZALES/ROVE/DELAY/ABRAMHOFF/FRIST/HASTERT/SANTROUM… WHOELSE IS THERE? AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED PROBABLY MOST OF WASHINGTON DC FOR THAT MATTER, PARTICUARLY K STREET
Only another thug would consider that what’s obviously occurred is doing “nothing wrong”. We’ve now outed another turdblossom troll - #5 Mandolin. All criminals think alike and it’s obvious that we have Mandible Mandolin flapping his jaws off and being totally ignorant.
SOMETHING IS VERY MUCH WRONG DUDE. COMPLETE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY,
A COMPLETE SCANDAL AT THE HIGHEST CLASS AND SUPPOSELY MOST SACRED HOUSEHOLD IN THE NATION… A COMPLETE VIOLATION OF LAWS,
A COVERUP AND A FULL BLOWN SCANDAL… VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY — OH YEAH DUDE…. NOTHINGS WRONG DUDE.. NOTHINGS WRONG :) NOW…. I’M CHILLING OUT DUDE TILL SUNSET AND GETTING UP
BEFORE SUNRISE DUDE… JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS THE TRUTH :)
I agree. The FIRST thing the new Democratic President of the USA should do is repeal Executive Order 13233, and OPEN ALL THE RECORDS of TRAITORS Reagan and Bush Sr.
The SECOND thing our new President should do is have Bush, Cheney and all their CRIMINALS
ARRESTED, and sent to Iraq without weapons.
To be SLAUGHTERED by the “liberated”, THEIR HEADS ON A POST.
See you in hell (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
TRAITOR to the USA
Well, they have been saying that the US Attorney’s serve “at the pleasure of the President”. They haven’t been saying they sever at “the pleasure of Alberto Gonzales’ unqualified flunkies”.
So yes, I would say that Bush was the one who fire them.
5. Of course that’s what happened! All you’ll have to do to prove it is invent several dots and go out of your way to connect them.
Give it up hippies. No one cares about this story because no one did anything wrong. I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Comment by mandolin
Hippies? I haven’t heard that term used in a long time? So Mandolin, it’s ignorant people such as yourself that causes people like me to question are you really that stupid? Lets say your a diehard conservative and you like bootlicking anyone that comes along and says they are conservative? Yet, the dictator that you love so much, has done nothing but destroy our constitutional rights, vacation with the terrorists family that supposedly attacked us on 9/11, take us from a superpower to a pooperpower in 4 years, all because he wants to make money for his buddies at Unocal, Halliburton, Carlyle Group… People like you that stand up for this treasonous dictator will someday be held responsible for the sins of your third Reich father. You are either very stupid or a paid troll?
If you truly want to understand the NeoConservative agenda and how it parallels with fundamentalist Islam, then
watch these documentaries? It explains why these people believe what they believe and why we are in the mess we are
in now. This three part documentary from the BBC is the best!
Just a thought, but I would recommend that everyone maintain a level of civility in expressing their opinions. Naiive concept though it may be, it makes it more likely that you will be listened to and respected. Win the argument through better proof and better reasoning, not through louder shouts and stronger insults.
So, when there’s a Democratic President, it will be fine with you if all the U.S. Attorneys targeted Republicans. In fact, it would be ok if everyone who ever registered Republican were subjected to the highest level of Federal scrutiny.
Imagine this:
Every single Republican Tax Return: AUDITED.
Every single Republican WIRETAPPED WITHOUT WARRANT.
Every single Republican BANK ACCOUNTS MONITORED.
Every single Republican HOME BROKEN INTO AND CONTENTS OF THEIR COMPUTER HARD DRIVE COPIED BY THE FBI.
And anything incriminating or embarassing becomes front page news.
Are you ready to live in a glass house? You better be, because that’s what you’re arguing for.
Recipe for the 2007 American Pie = Combine information from one dozen investigations, season to taste with impeachment and prosecutions, serve cold. Goes well with a semi-dry white wine (or, if you’re a neocon, you will probably take yours with a dry red whine).
For the record, Jake has already violated his own “ignore list,” so when he starts with the “for the record” stuff, it’s because he wants to answer someone on the list.
Where’s Osama? How long until his next attack on America? Just because you seem to have forgotten him, don’t think for a second that he has forgotten you.
Uh-oh! Finally, the smoking gun leads directly to where all of the other scandals originated - the office of the president himself. It was just a matter of time until all of his devious wrongdoings caught up with him. This one will be the one that tumbles his presidency.
Comment by ForTruth — April 15, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Smoking gun ?
Perhaps you might like to track down that Daily Show clip where 48 different people pointed out 242 times that these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. The joke there was supposed to be that they over emphasised this.
Apparently it was lost on some if you think him approving the firing of people he has the authority and responsibility of firing is a key piece of evidenece implying guilt.
Tomorrow’s headlines:
“Discovery of Poker Machines Expected to bring down Casino”
“Coast Guard caught red handed with boats”
“Paramedics caught on camera in ambulances hailed as smoking gun”
It sounds like David Iglesias’ firing was about as political as it can get. Since Pete Domenici is the power broker behind this one, it would be great if there was a formal inquiry into his behavior. A US senator can’t be allowed to use his power to destroy people’s careers and reputations.
It also sounds like Iglesias had the exact same priority as the Bushies. . . illegal immigration. So, using Bushlogic, they fired Carol Lam for not prioritizing illegal immigration and fired David Iglesias for prioritizing illegal immigration. It’s hard to win in Bushville, where very little makes sense.
why don’t you detail for us what “teh sucess” of the surge is? Is it the bombing inside the green zone? is it the worst death rate of american servicemen since the invasion? Maybe you’re referring to the record high profits for oil companies here in the US? oh yeah, that’s it.
Back on March 13, President Bush brushed aside questions about the exploding scandal and the possibility of his own heavy hand in it:
“I’ve heard those allegations about, you know, political decision-making. It’s just not true. What the Justice Department did was appropriate … What was mishandled was the explanation.
“I never brought up a specific case nor gave him [Alberto Gonzales] specific instructions. When members of the Senate come up and say to me, `I’ve got a complaint,’ I think it’s entirely appropriate and necessary for me to pass those complaints on.”
President Bush reiterated his description of his own passive role a week later on March 20th:
“It is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.”
But the revelations in today’s Albquerque Journal piece paint a far different picture:
In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.
Did you know that Carter personally decided to fire Marston? He was actually urged to do so by a TARGET of Marston’s investigation. At least Iglesias was not investigating Domenici, right? Read more here:
yep…. Harriet is being set up as the fall guy, just as John Wesley Dean III was set up as the fall guy for Nixon. What is it about White House Council that Preznits think is expendable? Will the little nun turn states and burn W?
Or…
Will she have a convenient accident in the shower… or on the freeway… or …?
Sorry, I don’t wish her ill at ALL, but I fear for her.
Since the day he arrived at the Department of Justice in February 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has “shattered” the department’s tradition of independence and politicized its operation more than any other attorney general in more than 30 years.
So says Daniel Metcalfe, a senior attorney at the department who retired in January, before the current controversy over the firing of U.S. Attorneys erupted.
“The day that I decided to retire, for example, was one on which I was asked to participate in a matter in which a significant part of the department’s position was aiming to be — there’s no other word for it — false. ”
[T]he process of agency functioning, however, became dramatically different almost immediately after Gonzales arrived. No longer was emphasis placed on accomplishing something with the highest-quality product in a timely fashion; rather, it became a matter of making sure that a “consensus” was achieved, regardless of how long that might take and with little or no concern that quality would suffer in such a “lowest common denominator” environment. And heaven help anyone, career or noncareer employee, if that “consensus” did not include whatever someone in the White House might think about something, be it large, small or medium-sized.
This three part documentary from the BBC is the best! The Power of Nightmares
Yes, a documentary that reveals that terrorism is nothing more than PR hype and that al Qaeda isn’t an international terrorist organisation.
It’s hard to describe just how great such a documentary is when it’s worldwide release was a year after the Madrid train bombings and after al Qaeda had attacked targets in more than 10 countries.
Personally I don’t know if I would call it “the best”. There’s a little known Russian documentary from the 90’s about why capitalism is a doomed enterprise that may be more deserving of the title.
Mandolin: I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Yep, so why work so hard to pretend there was some justification if no justification is legally needed?
If Bush is behind this, best case for Bush is he is shown to be the Great Political Hack that we know he is. Worst case: obstruction of justice.
BTW: hippies? Get a grip. Who’s the drunken cokehead with the frat boy party history? I’ll happily contrast my rap sheet against that of the Cowboy in Chief anytime, anyplace.
Jake just quoted an article from Monday, Feb. 06, 1978 about Carter. Now that is true desperation. Fine Jake, you just talked me out of voting for Carter. BTW, who is the enemy in Iraq Jake?
are you referring to the house of the highest level of integrity, where
everything has to be just so perfect… infact the residence is just that
so pefect… faithfully carressed chosen by god to be entrusted to serve
us, would actually choose to participate in criminal activity? the white
house staff is suppose to be sacred, most honesty and utmost integrity
not a bunch of thugs/hoodlums.
anyhow, jimbo dude is chillin just before sunset hits because sunrise
is just around the corner when i get up dude/dudettes, so i’m chillin
dude chillin
At the same time, China, still ruled by a Communist Party, has accumulated an eye-popping $1 trillion in foreign currencies, a figure never before attained by any nation. This sum is so formidable, so huge, that there is a palpable fear in Washington that Beijing may develop a version of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank,
Heckuva Job Bush and Wolfowitz!!
+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = +
Does anyone not on my ‘Jake list’ wish to discuss obstruction of justice instead of political replacements?
Jake: “Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to discuss whether EVERY President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?”
As if, even at this late date, you have not been able to see any distinctions between historical precedent and the recent activity of the Bush administration?
I know this has already been discussed extensively both here and in the MSM, so why would anyone still be floating this red herring?
Tell you what, why don’t you start the discussion by first enumerating the differences between historical precedent and the recent firings. Give a comprehensive and honest overview. Then, describe why you think these distinctions are not relevant. Having done that an honest dialog can ensue.
I assume Daniel Metcalfe is not on Jake’s “Ignore List” therefore I will let the retired U.S. Attorney speak for me:
I won’t presume to speak for the noncareer appointees at Justice when it comes to morale (though I have a good basis for doing so), but I certainly can say that morale among the career ranks, especially the more experienced folks, is as low as you would expect it to be.
You have to remember that this is a Cabinet department that, for good reason, prides itself on the high-quality administration of justice, regardless of who is in the White House. Ever since the Watergate era, when Edward Levi came in as attorney general to replace former Sen. William Saxby soon after Nixon resigned, the Justice Department maintained a healthy distance between it and what could be called the raw political concerns that are properly within the White House’s domain. Even Reagan’s first attorney general, William French Smith, did not depart greatly from the standard that Levi set; as for Meese, I knew him to be more heavily involved in defending himself from multiple ethics investigations than in bringing the department too close to the White House, even though he came from there.
More recently, of course, the DOJ-White House distance hit its all-time high-water mark under Janet Reno, especially during Clinton’s second term. And even John Ashcroft made it clear to all department employees that, among other things, he held that traditional distance in proper reverence; he proved that this was no mere lip service when, from his hospital bed, he refused to overrule Deputy AG Comey on what is now called the “terrorist surveillance program.” Especially in the wake of 9/11, which strongly spurred the morale and dedication of Justice Department employees, myself included, I saw only a limited morale diminution in general during the first term.
But that strong tradition of independence over the previous 30 years was shattered in 2005 with the arrival of the White House counsel as a second-term AG. All sworn assurances to the contrary notwithstanding, it was as if the White House and Justice Department now were artificially tied at the hip — through their public affairs, legislative affairs and legal policy offices, for example, as well as where you ordinarily would expect such a connection (i.e., Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel). I attended many meetings in which this total lack of distance became quite clear, as if the current crop of political appointees in those offices weren’t even aware of the important administration-of-justice principles that they were trampling.
This matters greatly to Justice Department employees of my generation. They are now the senior career cadre there, with the high-grade institutional knowledge that carries the department from one administration to the next, and when they see a new attorney general come from the White House Counsel’s Office with a wave of young “Bushies” in tow and find their worst expectations quickly met, they just as quickly lose respect for nearly all of the department’s political leadership, not to mention that leadership’s “policy concerns.” That respect is a vital thing, as fragile as it is essential, and now it’s gone.
Of course Bush fired him. They have been saying all along that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. That means he is the only one who can fire them. So, he fired all of them. Why isnt the media picking up on this? IT WAS BUSH’s DECISION TO FIRE THEM B/C THEY SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. HE HAD TO BE IN ON IT. DOESN’T ANYONE ELSE GET THIS???
Why is this even being asked? Of course Bush was involved in the firings. Legislation states U.S. attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and the buck stops there. I know Bush has underwhelmed us for 7 years but we don’t need to dumb it down on his behalf, especially because he wants us to, yeesh.
BnF, you really should try to get on to ThinkProgress as a writer. Just my opinon.
Comment by chris L — April 15, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks for the compliment. I did try. Seems I am a bit over-qualified. And I cannot devote 20 hours/week for 6 months for their fellowship program.
Soon I will either leave teaching and take a job with a law firm, or keep teaching and open my own practice part time. Either way will drastically cut into my time here. So, when my posts drastically fall off, you’ll know the reason why.
“Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to discuss whether EVERY President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:22 pm”
OK. Hasn’t the Duke case demonstrated to you that it’s a bad thing for prosecutors’ offices to be politicized?
Of course the President can appoint whomever he wants as United States Attorney, and pick his nominees based on their compatibility with his values and priorities - but after that, he’s supposed to leave them alone. They need to have the independence to follow the facts and be professionals, not some party hacks. That’s why U.S. Attorneys have traditionally been chosen by a bipartisan commission and confirmed by the Senate.2
The Clinton Administration was plagued by actual deaths and untimely demises. Admiral Mike Boorda, Chief of US Naval Operations, was found shot dead at his desk in 1996 and his death was called a suicide. This was the third death of a high-ranking Administration figure during Clinton’s first term, after Vince Foster, and Ron Brown, who both suffered violent ends. Both Boorda and Foster’s deaths were very quickly declared to be suicides, and left at that. Foster shot himself with a gun, supposedly leaving no fingerprints. Brown died with a .45 caliber hole in his skull, after a plane crash in Bosnia. There is also the case of former CIA Director William Colby, who disappeared in March 1996, then was discovered floating in the Wicomico River in Maryland ten days later. At least Goodling and Miers are still alive : )
If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” has a question about my alleged “threat” (I did not so threaten — innocent until prove guilty) to blow up the NYT Building, let me know.
Uh huh, a real hard-core prober into the dark underbelly of the corrupt government, our jake.
Except for prosecutors being leaned on to push partisan prosecutions and influence elections. That’s totally cool and/or only a kook would believe that happened.
“For the record,” is poor Jake’s pathetic attempt to argue without talking to you directly, like some prima donna, who thinks the rough-and-tumble of on-line debate is beneath him - so he does a little semantic dodge.
He recently tried it with me, as well:
The FIRST job of the government is to PROTECT the people. Jake
Um, I thought it was to uphold the Constitution? Or has that changed since 9/11?Comment by barfly — April 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
For the record, if all the People are killed by terrorists with suitcase nukes, it matters no longer to uphold the Constitution. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Problem is, Jake, you ignore the truth. Repeatedly. Do you ever bother to read my posts? Your comments indicate you do not. You are being willfully ignorant.
You show absolutely no interest in any form of debate and no willingness to address the real issues.
And your “ignorance list” is just that: you’re advertising that you are going to maintain your ignorance.
For the record, I have answered that question several times on other threads — for instance, see below — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to answer MY question, let me know:
Craig Jackson:
The “enemy†are the TERRORISTS who are trying to kill Americans — using that definition, please name one country where there are more of said enemy than Iraq?
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:52 pm Here is yet another thread that has been clobbered by good ol Jake.
TP please do us a favor and use forum software like phpBB rather than this comment system! Users could actually add Jake to their own “real” ignore list and Jake could have one too. Users masquerading as other members would be ended one fell swoop. Topics would tend to stay on track since there would be moderation.
A petulant child, refusing to talk to someone, instead talking to the person next to them: “Tell them I’m not speaking to them, but I think they suck!“
Jake: “Carter fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. So did Clinton. What’s the big deal this time?”
The big deal this time is a) the number of attorneys fired for political expediency, and b) Jake’s failed attempt to diffuse Bush’s transgressions in this case by calling attention to the transgressions of a former Democratic president.
Lame, yo.
Clinton, on the other hand, didn’t fire attorneys for political reasons (i.e. investigating Democrats or failing to investigate cases Clinton wanted investigated), Jake. There is nothing unprecedented about U.S. presidents hiring U.S. attorneys of their choosing at the beginning of their terms. Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and Bush Jr. did this.
Nobody disputes the president’s ability to fire or not renew the jobs of federal prosecutors. They’re political appointees who serve at his pleasure.
When the party in the White House changes hands, it is common for the new president to fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as Ronald Reagan did in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. By contrast, Bush allowed some to stay on the job for several months when he took office in 2001, although all were replaced eventually.
If you need more formal proof that Bush Jr. fired and hired new attorneys upon being sworn in Jake, here’s a Justice Department statement.
In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals. Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year.
To reiterate. Clinton firing/hiring new attorneys is not the issue. The issue is Carter firing one U.S. attorney for investigating a Democratic candidate who was running for reelection, and Bush Sr. firing several U.S. attorneys as payback for investigating Republican politicians and failing to investigate Democrats. Capiche, partisan?
ever wonder what everyone’s favorite [supposedly] 75-year-old troll was doing on friday night? for the lurkers:
“Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†wants to discuss the specifics of how an OB/GYN can examine the hymen on females, or any other possible options, let me know.
The “enemy†are the TERRORISTS who are trying to kill Americans — using that definition, please name one country where there are more of said enemy than Iraq?
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
#
Great, so if we leave there will no longer be people there trying to shoot Americans, hence no enemy. And to answer the second part, Saudi Arabia, or have you forgotten 9/11?
I like the neocon trolls. It shows how desperate and really, I mean really dumb the neocons are. Can’t wait for 08′. The more neocons post and talk, the more votes they lose everyday.
For the record, George Bush does not subscribe to the Sheryl Crow School of Political Science: “The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.” Lucky for the rest of us, too, living in the REAL world.
BTW: 3,000 Americans have not been killed in Saudi Arabia ; )
Hey Jake. 3000 Americans were killed by 15 Saudi nationalists on 9/11. I know how you neocons like to forget about 9/11, unless it’s a Bush townhall meeting or the Republican National Convention. You neocons hate New Yorkers, unless you can use them for some votes. Right Jakey.
BTW: 3,000 Americans have not been killed in Saudi Arabia ; )
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
No, 15 Saudi nationals came here to kill them. Now, thanks to Bush, there are more terrorists than ever. Terrorists are patient. They will wait a few years and plan as always, then launch another attack on our soil. Because of Bush breaking our military and funding the Sunnis, we are now more vulnerable than ever before.
I agree. So are you saying this concept should apply to you alone, and not to Bill Clinton. You imply he or his operatives killed off three appointees to get rid of them. Proof?
But never mind. Your assignment was to show how the precedent of dismissals in previous administrations differs from that of the current administration, and then describe why you find these distinctions irrelevant. You have done neither of these steps yet.
If Clinton is a murderer, prosecute him. I’m all for that. But, that would have nothing to do with whether or not the Bush dismissals have been unprecedented, improper, and possibly illegal.
Can you answer to this clearly and specifically, or are you just a mindless troll as has been suggested by others? I’m not calling you names - I’m giving you the opportunity to clearly present your compelling case for why the Bush dismissals follow direct precedent, are proper, and have been shown not constitute obstruction of justice.
Gonzo sent his opening statement to Congress and said he doesn’t remember. Next he moved on and told Congress he did great things while Attorney General and looks forward to working with Congress in the future. Now that’s letting the Congress know that they can just get over it and move on because he said so. Gonzo doesn’t have to answer anything and can lie at will. Let’s see how Congress feels as they are dismissed by Gonzo. Yes Bush did have attorneys fired by request GOP friends. But if it comes to Bush getting caught he will fire Gonzo and blame it on him. Ask Libby as he gets ready to go to jail for lying and covering up the crimes by Rove and Cheney. Gonzo will talk down to Congress and in so many words let them know he can commit crimes and get away with it and no one can do anything about it. Americans like the idea of having a White House that lies and is corrupt as they send our troops to die in the Iraq Civil War. If Americans stood up Bush would be gone but Americans don’t mind young soldiers coming home in body bags and dying in Walter Reed as maggots eat their open wounds. Just as long as Bush doesn’t bring back the draft then this so called war would end. Americans would never have their children die in Iraq for oil. Bush now is planning on hiring men from overseas to fight in the Iraq Civil War, that way the Americans wont have to dead for the oil. First a Czar now a hired military of men from other countries. Now the GOP wants the immigrates to go home maybe they can hire them to fight in Iraq/Afghan/Iran/Syria and who ever Bush wants to invade. Americans can sit back an watch others die for President Bush’s policy.
It’s good entertainment to have a troll as stupid as Jake on this site since he doesn’t seem to realize how much of a fool he makes of himself. Ah, ignorance is bliss. Or is it, an “ignorance list” is bliss. I love this site.
All par for the course with this administration. Outing Plame cause Cheney didn’t like what Wilson had to say about Iraq. Outing attorneys cause they couldn’t find any voter fraud against Democrats. Etc. Etc. Etc…. Anybody see a pattern here? Just saying.
For the record, I can’t wait until the repubs lose even more seats and the presidency in ‘08. We’ll remove the bullsh*t restrictions on the information which Bush enacted to cover his incompetent ass, and then we won’t be talking impeachment, but treason.
I’m starting to think that Jake is planted here by TP to add some ‘heat’ to the threads. He trumpets “party line” no matter what. I object to the fact that far too many threads here wind up becoming these “Jake is (not) the center of reason” threads. I do object to the fact that he seldom points to any credible facts nor does he stay on topic.
jake is a lying phony plagiarizing scumbag. don’t waste your time engaging him in honest discourse because he will ignore logic and lie. he is a coward.
And his republican controlled congress did nothing about all of this, but complaned when he got blown?
BTW, who is the enemy in Iraq?
Comment by chris L — April 15, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Remember that Clinton replaced the attorneys at the beginning of his first term, as the idiot trolls here will defend him for doing so, and the Republicans in Congress went nuts. It’s here on TP. Dole, among others, suggested it was a criminal act and called for investigations.
Here:
Glenn Greenwald: “Republicans sought in 1993 to depict the routine and standard replacement of U.S. attorneys by the Clinton administration as some sort of grave scandal which threatened prosecutorial independence and was deeply corrupt.”
and…
Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a “severe blow to the administration of justice in this country.”
He said, “The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently.”
It’s here on TP. Use the Search function if you want the exact sources.
Oh, and Jake! For weeks now you still haven’t told us what that little provision in the Patriot Act, which says the Pres can bypass Senate confirmation for his US Attorney nominees, has to do with national security. Do you support this provision or not?
If anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†has a question about my alleged “threat†(I did not so threaten — innocent until prove guilty) to blow up the NYT Building, let me know.
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I submit the following:
For the record, I do not want any “innocents†killed when we bomb the New York Times building — just the traitorous editors and reporters.
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
(emphasis added)
The use of the word “we” indicates a conspiracy. Taken together with the pronoun “I” in the same sentence, the writer is an integral part of the conspiracy.
The targets of the conspiracy are named, both the New York Times building and the “traitorous editors and reporters.” Apparently “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to the targets of Jake’s conspiracy.
And the method of carrying out the conspiracy has been identified, “when we bomb…”
The only things not mentioned are the names of Jake’s co-conspirators and the date and time of the bombing. But there’s certainly enough here to put Jake on an FBI and NSA watch list.
(A) OFFENSE DEFINED.– A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
And the Feds don’t mess around:
(e) Whoever, through the use of the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, willfully makes any threat, or maliciously conveys false information knowing the same to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made, or to be made, to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property by means of fire or an explosive shall be imprisoned for not more than 10 years or fined under this title, or both. (emphasis added)
Guess what, Jake? This message board is in interstate commerce. Your comment about blowing up the New York Times building, killing editors and reporters sure sounds like a violation of 18 USC § 844(e).
The only way to get on the “Ignore List†is to resort to personal attacks and/or refuse to answer my questions.
Comment by Jake —
Really, Jake? Without resorting to personal attacks, I asked you on the Cheney smear thread when you insisted that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (for struggling against apartheid) if you thought Lincoln was wrong to get into the Civil War. No reply from you.
On another thread a few weeks ago, after you graphically speculated on what kind of foreplay Clinton engaged in with Monica, I politely asked you what you thought gay hooker Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House all those nights he was logged in even before garnering a “press pass” with a website not recognized as a legitimate media outfit by the then GOP-controlled Congress, No answer there, either.
It seems that if you don’t like the question or–more likely–don’t know how to reply to it in a way favorable to the Busheviks, you simply ignore it. And don’t bother telling me you ignored the Mandela question because I’m on your kindergarten-level ignore list; because up to that point you were arguing with me and others about his (Mandela’s) status.
EVERY JOURNALIST NEEDS TO START ASKING: WHY DID BUSH FIRE THESE ATTORNEY’s, not WHY DID GONZO FIRE THEM!!!
The administration has said repeatedly they serve at BUSH’s pleasure so, they must have been fired at his displeasure. Right?!?!?!
Comment by jman_nyc — April 15, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Then I fully expect President Hillary Clinton to select 93 new attorneys when she takes office, all of whom are selected based on their loyalty to her and whether or not they are registered Democrats. I fully expect you to support these selections knowing that they are not made on the attorneys’ qualifications or past performance or ability to be fair and objective in all their cases, but because they belong to some organization similar to the Federalist Society but geared towards liberals instead of conservatives. I fully expect you to support President Clinton’s selections based on calls she received from Democrats in Congress who tell her to replace specific attorneys because they aren’t prosecuting enough Republicans, and not prosecuting them fast enough, prior to the 2008 elections.
Because this is exactly what you and Jake and Patrick1 and the other idiot trolls are defending under the Bush administration.
Well, Lora, you are not on the “Ignore List” (yet) but I don’t recall any question about Lincoln (he was wrong to get into the Civil War) or Gannon (I have no idea, although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral). I have a life outside the Internet, dear.
B. Fly - what are the faults in my interpretation - enlighten me.
Bush, Gonzo and Snow drove this point home over and over - that these atty’s are serving at Bsuh’s pleasure. So, who other than the president can claim responsibility for firing them? Did Karl Rove make this decision and pass it on to DOJ? Did Gonzo make this decision unilaterally and if so, doesnt that fly in the face of the “serve at the pleasure” retort?
On some level Bush would have to be aware of the USG firings. As Jman pointed out, they serve at the “pleasure of the president”. Gonzalez would not be able to fire them, nor Rove. I suspect, that for the most part Bus is not really interested in governing. I feel it is more likely he leaves all of that to others, he may come up with an idea, or may at times have to make a decision, but overall it is others who carry out the policies.
It is pretty obvious that the mid term firings of 8 USG’s no matter how much lipstick you put on it, is unusual. Much has been made about Clinton, and Carter, and Nixon, but this is the here and now, not 8 or 20 years ago.
Bush and his ever shrinking group of cronies have dug themselves a large hole, and they keep digging. Eventually it will collapse on top of them.
B. Fly - what are the faults in my interpretation - enlighten me.
EVERY JOURNALIST NEEDS TO START ASKING: WHY DID BUSH FIRE THESE ATTORNEY’s, not WHY DID GONZO FIRE THEM!!!
This presupposes that Karl Rove told Bush about the firings in detail, something we haven’t yet seen any evidence of, have we? Rove would have logically been the final cut-out, to give the president the old “plausible deniability” which has served republicans so well in the past. Rove, if absolutely necessary, would take the political bullet (or find another likely candidate) rather than risk it all coming unraveled by being tied directly to Bush. Where is the smoking gun that proves the euphemism (”he serves at the pleasure of the president”)? It hasn’t yet materialized, so making a linkage with no proof is the “fault,” if you really want to know.
#but I don’t recall any question about Lincoln (he was wrong to get into the Civil War) or Gannon (I have no idea, although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral). I have a life outside the Internet, dear.
Comment by Jake
Well, Jake, it’s nice to know that you have a life outside the Internet. Some of us would have trouble surmising that given how much time you spend here and how many posts you contribute.
Since you don’t recall my question on the Cheney/Imus humor thread (which I mistakenly listed in #119 here as the Cheney/Smear thread), here it is, posted only 40 minutes after you insisted that Mandela was indeed a terrorist:
“I get it now. Jake, you think fighting to topple apartheid was a bad thing. Do you also think that Lincoln made a big mistake in starting the Civil War?
Comment by Lora — April 13, 2007 @ 9:49 pm”
As for my question about gay hookder Gannon at the WH, I can’t see what your comment, “although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral” has anything to do with the question. My point, which you don’t seem to get, is that it’s a bit hypocritical to keep on bringing up Monica Lewinsky (which we all know about) while ignoring the many visits made to the Bush WH by a gay hooker who was still advertising his $200/hr. services at the same period in time.
Very interesting and revealing that you think Lincoln “was wrong to get into the Civil War.”
Please download this .MOV file from PennState to see the damage inside TMI (Three Mile Island) reactor that is still a threat today. Parts of the reactor can not be cleaned or moved.
Krazny - thanks for taking the time to understand my point.
Whether Bush knew or not, it doesn’t absolve him from responsibility. If Bush is going to claim ultimate decider powers over these aty’s then he cannot claim that someone else handled their firing - it totally invalidates the first claim. If he is going to now say that Gonzo handled this then, at best he should be portrayed as being asleep at the switch, at worst he is politiczing DOJ.
More likely Bush is asleep at the switch. I have never gotten the impression that he was much interested in actually making decisions or running anything. 400+ days of vacation anyone? He likes being president, and all of the attendant perks that go with it. I don’t think he likes actually having to govern. Look at how upset and snitty he gets when asked any question he either doesn’t want to answer, or feels he shouldn’t have to answer.
As for responsibility, you should no by now, it is all Clinton’s fault
/sarcasm off
I have no idea what defines one’s entry onto the ignore list.
I have never denigrated Jake in any of my posts. Only the facts have been forwarded. Only today, I complimented Jake on the fact he was finally paper trained. I have done extensive research on his background.
Jake has apparently changed his logon password as I have seen no rational posts by his golden retriever recently. The dog will figure it out soon, there are just so many 1 (one) letter words in the English language.
So B.Fly - you think it’s in Bush’s interests for him to let the world think that Rove handled this unilaterally? That seems like a bit of flawed thinking of your own. You think that little-George is going to scapegoat Rove?? You have got to be kidding. Look, if you’re right I will start making the popcorn now - it will be beautiful. But seriously, the chances of that are beyond slim. Furthermore, George comes out looking like he is passed out at the wheel if this is how it turns out. My point is that the WH has to STFU about these atty’s serving at Bush’s pleasure if they are going to simultaneously deny that he had anything to do with the firings.
“Whether Bush knew or not, it doesn’t absolve him from responsibility. If Bush is going to claim ultimate decider powers over these aty’s then he cannot claim that someone else handled their firing - it totally invalidates the first claim.”
I think your point is important to follow, but…
couldn’t Bush claim that he exercised is executive “pleasure” by giving AG and his other minions the authority to make decisions on his behalf of who to fire? This approach would derive decision authority from the “pleasure” rule, while placing blame for the actual selections on AG, Rove, or, more likely, Meiers.
Granted, it’s weak and mealy-mouthed - the kind of stuff these people used to call “slick” when it applied to Clinton. But, would it not amount to plausible deniability? Someone else would then take the hit for obstruction of justice, letting the King continue his reign of terror.
“As for my question about gay hookder Gannon at the WH, I can’t see what your comment, “although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral†has anything to do with the question.”
My interpretation: this is an accidental slip indicating that Jake = Jeff.
Yes, you are right - that route would give them plausible deniability. I’m irritated because the major reporting has yet to paint him into this most obvious corner.
#142 gorn by aon
I must admit that idea came to my mind; I was simply hoping to get Jake (maybe Jeff/James) to say a bit more. Quite a Freudian slip if true, isn’t it?
Lora: “I must admit that idea came to my mind; I was simply hoping to get Jake (maybe Jeff/James) to say a bit more. Quite a Freudian slip if true, isn’t it?”
Yep, I imagine it would really put TP on the map in a big way to break the story that Bush’s gay lover publicly revealed his role in a conspiracy to blow up the New York Times building…
And now, something to totally dominate the next news cycle:
The political bloc of firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday said it is quitting the Iraqi government, as a wave of bombings left another 43 people dead in Baghdad.
“We will announce our withdrawal from the government tomorrow,” Saleh Hassan Issa al-Igaili, a lawmaker from the Sadr group, told AFP.
He said the move was to press the group’s demand for a timetabled exit of US-led foreign troops. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his ally US President George W. Bush have steadfastly refused to set a time-line for the withdrawal.
The Sadr group has six cabinet ministers in Maliki’s embattled government and 32 lawmakers in the 275-member Iraqi parliament.
Maliki last week during a trip of Tokyo rejected demands by the US Congress for a timetable to pull out American troops, saying any withdrawal should be based on the situation on the ground.
His remarks angered the Sadr group, which on Wednesday gave its first indication it was preparing to walk out of government.
Igaili Sunday clarified that the withdrawal, which will be formally announced Monday, was only from the cabinet and that the political bloc will continue to participate in the assembly.
Sadr, a known anti-American cleric, has strongly opposed the US presence in his country since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The boycott will not trigger a collapse of Maliki’s government but is expected to increase pressure on the premier at a time when he is busy overseeing a security crackdown in Baghdad to quell raging sectarian bloodshed.
The Sadr group boycotted the Iraqi government for two months from November 29 until late January in protest at a meeting between the beleaguered Maliki and US President George W. Bush in Jordan.
The US military which fought two bloody rebellions launched by Sadr against its forces in 2004 accuses his milita of being involved in sectarian killings of Sunni Arabs.em>
But wait! Jeff Gannon is an alias for James Guckert.
James => Jeff => Jake - all start with J.
Jake = JA from JAmes + KE from gucKErt.
Dang, does this explain why Jake hasn’t posted anything since he made this slip-up?
Another point of evidence… obviously Jake has plenty of time on his hands to spend so much time posting on TP. We also know that Jeff is not a real journalist, so he needs to have something to do (like type at a keyboard) to keep his hands occupied between sessions serving at the pleasure of the President…
It turns out that David Iglesias, the ousted U. S. attorney that is the Democrats’ key witness in the latest psuedo-scandal (remember, U. S. attorneys, like ALL political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president and can be removed at any time for any reason) really was an ineffective federal prosecutor. The New York Times write-up of the controversy indicates that Iglacias should have been fired long ago.
Bush probably did do that, but who in the Congress has the balls to stand up to Bush on this? Nobody in DC has halted his sick war in Iraq.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:21 pmTime to take Bush out.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:25 pmDo bears shit in the woods?
April 15th, 2007 at 6:27 pmYou’re right Jay.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pmBush takes a call from his friend, Pete, and then the ball gets rolling.
But no one, no one, no one will finger W.
W hasn’t been held acountable for his actions since he was old enough to raid the cooky jar. Mama would just pat him on the head and give him the whole jar.
But I heard AG is going to blame everything on Harriet.
Of course that’s what happened! All you’ll have to do to prove it is invent several dots and go out of your way to connect them.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pmGive it up hippies. No one cares about this story because no one did anything wrong. I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Jay Randal T #1
Excellent point. The Democrats were swept into power last November because they promised to end the occupation in Iraq. Because of their vacillation, more Americans are being needlessly killed in another quagmire that the United States has, like Vietnam, been sinking deeper and deeper. As Congressman Kucinich has said, the Democrats cannot claim to oppose the war when they refuse to cut off the funds. At times, if not most times, it becomes more and more difficult to tell the Democrats from the Republicans without a scorecard.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pmNew e-mails prompt the question: Did Bush make the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys?
Submitted by crew on 22 March 2007 - 6:51pm. George Bush Harriet Miers Kyle Sampson US Attorneys
McClatchy’s article from earlier today discusses the potentially overlooked role of President Bush in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys:
Internal administration e-mails show that the Justice Department postponed the firings for nearly three weeks late last year while awaiting White House approval. The final consent came on Dec. 4, four days after Bush returned from an overseas trip, once several senior White House officials signed off on the plan. It is not known if Bush himself did.
Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, had warned in a Nov. 15 e-mail to the Justice Department that approval of the firings would be delayed if Bush had to OK the plan.
“Not sure whether this will be determined to require the boss’s attention. If it does, he just left last night, so would not be able to accomplish for some time,” Miers wrote in the e-mail, which was among a batch of e-mails and other internal documents related to the firings that were released by the Justice Department last week.
As you can see by reading that e-mail interaction here, Miers response prompted Kyle Sampson to ask: Who will determine if this requires the President’s attention?
Interestingly, as Miers forewarned, the decision was delayed, coincidentally, for the amount of time Bush was away for Thanksgiving and a foreign trip:
The e-mail exchange came the day after Bush left Washington for a weeklong trip to Russia and Asia. He returned for a long Thanksgiving weekend at Camp David, then took off to Latvia and Jordan before returning to Washington on Nov. 30, a Thursday. Four days later, on Dec. 4, the White House signed off on the firing plan.
“We’re a go for the US Atty plan,” Kelley told the Justice Department. “WH leg, political and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.”
“WH leg” apparently refers to the White House legislative affairs office, the president’s liaison to Congress. Rove heads the political office. “Communications” is under the purview of presidential counselor Dan Bartlett.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27349
April 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pmUh-oh! Finally, the smoking gun leads directly to where all of the other scandals originated - the office of the president himself. It was just a matter of time until all of his devious wrongdoings caught up with him. This one will be the one that tumbles his presidency.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:33 pm#5 in case you need to be educated: it’s called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:34 pmGonzo is blaming the Office of the President indirectly in the naming of Harriet Miers as his scapegoat. Guess he realizes that his Bud, the Shrub, is planning to throw him under the bush, too.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:35 pmGDumbya isn’t throwing Gonzo under the bus. Why, just the other day, he was heard to say “you’re doing a heckuva job, Gonzo”. And Darth Cheney is singing his praises, too.
GDumbya is always loyal to his little toadies . . . just so long as they don’t write “tell-all” books or turn state’s evidence on him.
That’s the secret to his success — he screws up, someone steps up to take the bullet for him and then he gives them a Medal of Freedom, an ambassadorship or some such other trinket.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pmErroll > I am exasperated by the Democratic leadership’s lack of spine to stand up to Bush on anything. They are becoming pathetic and worthless too.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pmGuess he realizes that his Bud, the Shrub, is planning to throw him under the bush, too.
Comment by ForTruth
The last one standing in the “throwing each other under the bus contest,” will be “Dick” Cheney.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pmMandolin,
Man I hope you are right. I really hope Gonzales and Bush get away with all of this. There will never be another democratic scandal again! Once we have a democratic president, anyone who even thinks of investigating a democrat will be instantly fired. US Attorneys should understand that they are political appointees and can be fired because the president does not like who they are investigating. And the right-wing cannot say anything about it, because this is what they wanted and fought so hard for. Enjoy it for now repubs, once we have a democratic president the tables will turn and US Attorneys will only be allowed to investigate republicans. That is what you wanted isn’t it?
April 15th, 2007 at 6:42 pmLISTEN DUDE :)
I’M GETTING SO SICK & TIRED OF THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE
HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD IN THE NATION
IT’S
A
CROC
ODILE
DUNDEE
JUST LOOK AT CREWS REPORT OF A FULL FLEDGE SCANDAL AT THIS SO
CALL SACRED HOUSE THAT HAS BECOME TOTALLY CORRUPTED AND WHO
IS THE RESIDENT
GEORGE
BUSH
NOW JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS
SPEAKS TRUTH
THAT IS WHY I AM SO HEAVENLY AWESOME
DUDES/DUDETTES
BUT INSTEAD TONIGHT, I’M TAKING SOME CHILL PILLS
GETTING TO SLEEP BY SUNSET AND WILL BE UP BEFORE
SUNRISE DUDE………….
GEORGE BUSH IS A HYPROCRITE, HE TAKES ON HIS ALLIES
AND DISCARDS WHOEVER IS NOT FILLING HIS AGENDA
HE MAKES PROMISES AND YET DOES THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE
GEORGE BUSH DOES ANYTHING HE SO DESIRES WITH HIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER ….. HE AFTER ALL IS PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WHETHER SACRED OR CORRUPT AT HELL
ALL I CAN RELATE IS JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS TRUTH :)
AND TO ME THERE IS A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN THE
REALITY, CREW, SWINDLERS, PARASITES, AND WHATEVER
ELSE DUDE
NOW I’M CHILLIN DUDE/DUDDETTES, CHILLIN MAN :)
April 15th, 2007 at 6:42 pmGive it up hippies. No one cares about this story because no one did anything wrong.
What’s that you say? Your head’s buried so deep in the sand I can’t quite make it out.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pmCan 29% of the people in the US really keep bush in power for another two years
If so were doomed …….. get him out so we can start fresh NOW
April 15th, 2007 at 6:45 pmAND ONE LAST VERY IMPORTANT COMMENT IS THOSE WHO DONOT FOLLOW
THE ETHICS RELATED TO CREW SHOULD JUST BE TOLD
GO
HOME!!!!
UNFIT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE. CONGRESS SHOULD CLEARLY INCLUDE THAT
IN THEIR ETHICS REFORM. NO MAIL, EMAIL, PHONE, NOTHING, IF THEY ONLY
WANT TO WORK 2.5 DAYS OF THE 5 DAY WORK WEEK OR ENGAGE IN ETHICS
VIOLATION AGAINST THE PEOPLE (LIKE YOU & ME) WHO THEY SERVE THEN…
JUST GO HOME!!! NO PAY, NOTHIN
THAT WAY THEY REALLY WOULD BE SERVING THE COUNTRY TO THE BEST
OF THEIR ABILITY AND WOULD DO BOTH YOU AND ME A HUGE FAVOR…
WE CAN START OFF WITH BUSH/CHENEY/GONZALES/ROVE/DELAY/ABRAMHOFF/FRIST/HASTERT/SANTROUM… WHOELSE IS THERE? AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED PROBABLY MOST OF WASHINGTON DC FOR THAT MATTER, PARTICUARLY K STREET
JUST
April 15th, 2007 at 6:47 pmGO
HOME!!!!! AND DON’T COME BACK TO WORK :)
#5 Answer this, unless you’re another LIAR and COWARD like Bush:
WHY did Bush and Cheney REFUSE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH and
SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH about their involvement with 9/11, the Bin Ladens, and the SAUDI TERRORIST FINANCIERS.
See you in hell Mandolin (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 15th, 2007 at 6:48 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
TRAITOR to the USA
Only another thug would consider that what’s obviously occurred is doing “nothing wrong”. We’ve now outed another turdblossom troll - #5 Mandolin. All criminals think alike and it’s obvious that we have Mandible Mandolin flapping his jaws off and being totally ignorant.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pmMandolin. What a loser.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:51 pmViolins, tears, and flowers for our resident troll Mandolin. He can’t help it - he was born with a long bow up his ass.
April 15th, 2007 at 6:51 pm#16 LISTEN DUDE LOOK AT THIS LINK AND TELL ME IF ANYTHINGS
WRONG…. A FULL BLOWN SCANDAL EVOLVING
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27607
AND THIS LINK DUDE/DUDETTE
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/27637
SOMETHING IS VERY MUCH WRONG DUDE. COMPLETE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY,
April 15th, 2007 at 6:53 pmA COMPLETE SCANDAL AT THE HIGHEST CLASS AND SUPPOSELY MOST SACRED HOUSEHOLD IN THE NATION… A COMPLETE VIOLATION OF LAWS,
A COVERUP AND A FULL BLOWN SCANDAL… VERY SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY — OH YEAH DUDE…. NOTHINGS WRONG DUDE.. NOTHINGS WRONG :) NOW…. I’M CHILLING OUT DUDE TILL SUNSET AND GETTING UP
BEFORE SUNRISE DUDE… JIMBO DUDE ALWAYS SPEAKS THE TRUTH :)
Chris L.,
I agree. The FIRST thing the new Democratic President of the USA should do is repeal Executive Order 13233, and OPEN ALL THE RECORDS of TRAITORS Reagan and Bush Sr.
The SECOND thing our new President should do is have Bush, Cheney and all their CRIMINALS
ARRESTED, and sent to Iraq without weapons.
To be SLAUGHTERED by the “liberated”, THEIR HEADS ON A POST.
See you in hell (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
TRAITOR to the USA
Well, they have been saying that the US Attorney’s serve “at the pleasure of the President”. They haven’t been saying they sever at “the pleasure of Alberto Gonzales’ unqualified flunkies”.
So yes, I would say that Bush was the one who fire them.
-GSD
April 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm5. Of course that’s what happened! All you’ll have to do to prove it is invent several dots and go out of your way to connect them.
Give it up hippies. No one cares about this story because no one did anything wrong. I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Comment by mandolin
Hippies? I haven’t heard that term used in a long time? So Mandolin, it’s ignorant people such as yourself that causes people like me to question are you really that stupid? Lets say your a diehard conservative and you like bootlicking anyone that comes along and says they are conservative? Yet, the dictator that you love so much, has done nothing but destroy our constitutional rights, vacation with the terrorists family that supposedly attacked us on 9/11, take us from a superpower to a pooperpower in 4 years, all because he wants to make money for his buddies at Unocal, Halliburton, Carlyle Group… People like you that stand up for this treasonous dictator will someday be held responsible for the sins of your third Reich father. You are either very stupid or a paid troll?
If you truly want to understand the NeoConservative agenda and how it parallels with fundamentalist Islam, then
watch these documentaries? It explains why these people believe what they believe and why we are in the mess we are
in now. This three part documentary from the BBC is the best!
The Power of Nightmares Part 1: Baby it’s Cold Outside:
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=881321004838285177
The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory:
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876
The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave:
http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=4729189253956590972
All three can be downloaded in MPEG format free of charge from:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
As well another good documentary is: “The Trap” What Happened to Our Dreams of Freedom
Free on Google video
April 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pmDid Bush personally decide to fire Iglesias?
Well he did say that he is the decider…so yeah.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pmJust a thought, but I would recommend that everyone maintain a level of civility in expressing their opinions. Naiive concept though it may be, it makes it more likely that you will be listened to and respected. Win the argument through better proof and better reasoning, not through louder shouts and stronger insults.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:17 pmComment by schubertiad
Yeah, good luck with that. Let us know how it works for you.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:24 pmComment by mandolin — April 15, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
So, when there’s a Democratic President, it will be fine with you if all the U.S. Attorneys targeted Republicans. In fact, it would be ok if everyone who ever registered Republican were subjected to the highest level of Federal scrutiny.
Imagine this:
And anything incriminating or embarassing becomes front page news.
Are you ready to live in a glass house? You better be, because that’s what you’re arguing for.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:29 pmDid Carter personally decide to fire Marston?
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
April 15th, 2007 at 7:37 pmThis is a non-story. The real story is teh sucess of the surge, which the libs will bury in the back page of the New York Commie Times.
STFU
April 15th, 2007 at 7:37 pm#22 ForTruth
Well done, well done!
Recipe for the 2007 American Pie = Combine information from one dozen investigations, season to taste with impeachment and prosecutions, serve cold. Goes well with a semi-dry white wine (or, if you’re a neocon, you will probably take yours with a dry red whine).
April 15th, 2007 at 7:41 pmFor the record, Jake has already violated his own “ignore list,” so when he starts with the “for the record” stuff, it’s because he wants to answer someone on the list.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:42 pmComment by firehead
Where’s Osama? How long until his next attack on America? Just because you seem to have forgotten him, don’t think for a second that he has forgotten you.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:44 pmSmoking gun ?
Perhaps you might like to track down that Daily Show clip where 48 different people pointed out 242 times that these prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. The joke there was supposed to be that they over emphasised this.
Apparently it was lost on some if you think him approving the firing of people he has the authority and responsibility of firing is a key piece of evidenece implying guilt.
Tomorrow’s headlines:
April 15th, 2007 at 7:45 pm“Discovery of Poker Machines Expected to bring down Casino”
“Coast Guard caught red handed with boats”
“Paramedics caught on camera in ambulances hailed as smoking gun”
It sounds like David Iglesias’ firing was about as political as it can get. Since Pete Domenici is the power broker behind this one, it would be great if there was a formal inquiry into his behavior. A US senator can’t be allowed to use his power to destroy people’s careers and reputations.
It also sounds like Iglesias had the exact same priority as the Bushies. . . illegal immigration. So, using Bushlogic, they fired Carol Lam for not prioritizing illegal immigration and fired David Iglesias for prioritizing illegal immigration. It’s hard to win in Bushville, where very little makes sense.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:45 pmre # 32
why don’t you detail for us what “teh sucess” of the surge is? Is it the bombing inside the green zone? is it the worst death rate of american servicemen since the invasion? Maybe you’re referring to the record high profits for oil companies here in the US? oh yeah, that’s it.
April 15th, 2007 at 7:48 pmToday’s Albuquerque Journal suggests President Bush lied about his role in the sacking of Iglesias:
Back on March 13, President Bush brushed aside questions about the exploding scandal and the possibility of his own heavy hand in it:
“I’ve heard those allegations about, you know, political decision-making. It’s just not true. What the Justice Department did was appropriate … What was mishandled was the explanation.
“I never brought up a specific case nor gave him [Alberto Gonzales] specific instructions. When members of the Senate come up and say to me, `I’ve got a complaint,’ I think it’s entirely appropriate and necessary for me to pass those complaints on.”
President Bush reiterated his description of his own passive role a week later on March 20th:
“It is common for me, members of my staff, and the Justice Department to receive complaints from members of Congress in both parties, and from other citizens. And we did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases, while others had concerns about immigration cases not being prosecuted. These concerns are often shared between the White House and the Justice Department, and that is completely appropriate.”
But the revelations in today’s Albquerque Journal piece paint a far different picture:
In the spring of 2006, Domenici told Gonzales he wanted Iglesias out.
Gonzales refused. He told Domenici he would fire Iglesias only on orders from the president.
At some point after the election last Nov. 6, Domenici called Bush’s senior political adviser, Karl Rove, and told him he wanted Iglesias out and asked Rove to take his request directly to the president.
Domenici and Bush subsequently had a telephone conversation about the issue.
The conversation between Bush and Domenici occurred sometime after the election but before the firings of Iglesias and six other U.S. attorneys were announced on Dec. 7.
For more background, see:
April 15th, 2007 at 7:53 pm“Bush’s Key Role Revealed in Iglesias Firing.”
“The real story is teh sucess of the surge”
if it’s going so well, how come the troops can’t be redeployed 11 months from now in march ‘08?
April 15th, 2007 at 7:58 pmOr fava beans, with a nice Chianti…
April 15th, 2007 at 8:00 pmif this situation gets any worse, Domenici might just retire.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:02 pmManipulationNation:
Did you know that Carter personally decided to fire Marston? He was actually urged to do so by a TARGET of Marston’s investigation. At least Iglesias was not investigating Domenici, right? Read more here:
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,945941,00.html
April 15th, 2007 at 8:02 pmOr fava beans, with a nice Chianti…
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
“fafafafafafafafafafaaaa…..”
April 15th, 2007 at 8:03 pmif this situation gets any worse, Domenici might just retire.
Does that call for a special election in NM? Or do the repubs get to make the selection of a replacement?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:08 pmyep…. Harriet is being set up as the fall guy, just as John Wesley Dean III was set up as the fall guy for Nixon. What is it about White House Council that Preznits think is expendable? Will the little nun turn states and burn W?
Or…
Will she have a convenient accident in the shower… or on the freeway… or …?
Sorry, I don’t wish her ill at ALL, but I fear for her.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:09 pmHere’s an insider’s look:
Justice Department’s Independence ‘Shattered,’ Says Former DOJ Attorney
There’s more…and it doesn’t get better…
April 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pmYes, a documentary that reveals that terrorism is nothing more than PR hype and that al Qaeda isn’t an international terrorist organisation.
It’s hard to describe just how great such a documentary is when it’s worldwide release was a year after the Madrid train bombings and after al Qaeda had attacked targets in more than 10 countries.
Personally I don’t know if I would call it “the best”. There’s a little known Russian documentary from the 90’s about why capitalism is a doomed enterprise that may be more deserving of the title.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:10 pmMandolin: I hope the president fired Iglesias personally because it is his constitutional right to appoint and replace federal prosecuters.
Yep, so why work so hard to pretend there was some justification if no justification is legally needed?
If Bush is behind this, best case for Bush is he is shown to be the Great Political Hack that we know he is. Worst case: obstruction of justice.
BTW: hippies? Get a grip. Who’s the drunken cokehead with the frat boy party history? I’ll happily contrast my rap sheet against that of the Cowboy in Chief anytime, anyplace.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:12 pmgotaclue:
Hopefully she doesn’t end up with several bullet holes in a park or plane crash ; )
April 15th, 2007 at 8:16 pmComment by JTitor — April 15, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Thanks. I’ve got two of them downloaded so far.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:20 pmJake just quoted an article from Monday, Feb. 06, 1978 about Carter. Now that is true desperation. Fine Jake, you just talked me out of voting for Carter. BTW, who is the enemy in Iraq Jake?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:21 pmAnyone NOT on the “Ignore List” want to discuss whether EVERY President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:22 pmWhat is it with this administration and lawyers? If their not firing them, Cheney just shoots them in the face.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:22 pm#49 dude/dudette……..
are you referring to the house of the highest level of integrity, where
everything has to be just so perfect… infact the residence is just that
so pefect… faithfully carressed chosen by god to be entrusted to serve
us, would actually choose to participate in criminal activity? the white
house staff is suppose to be sacred, most honesty and utmost integrity
not a bunch of thugs/hoodlums.
anyhow, jimbo dude is chillin just before sunset hits because sunrise
April 15th, 2007 at 8:25 pmis just around the corner when i get up dude/dudettes, so i’m chillin
dude chillin
Anyone NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€
How precious.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:25 pm#52 see #30
BnF, you really should try to get on to ThinkProgress as a writer. Just my opinon.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:26 pm#
Anyone NOT on the “Ignore Listâ€
How precious.
Comment by B.Fly — April 15, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
#
I’ve been chasing Jake all over TP today asking him the same question. The “Ignore List” is what he pulls out when he has nothing.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:28 pmAt the same time, China, still ruled by a Communist Party, has accumulated an eye-popping $1 trillion in foreign currencies, a figure never before attained by any nation. This sum is so formidable, so huge, that there is a palpable fear in Washington that Beijing may develop a version of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank,
Heckuva Job Bush and Wolfowitz!!
+ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = +
April 15th, 2007 at 8:29 pmDoes anyone not on my ‘Jake list’ wish to discuss obstruction of justice instead of political replacements?
“ignore list” = dwight schrute is shunning you
April 15th, 2007 at 8:32 pmJake: “Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to discuss whether EVERY President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?”
As if, even at this late date, you have not been able to see any distinctions between historical precedent and the recent activity of the Bush administration?
I know this has already been discussed extensively both here and in the MSM, so why would anyone still be floating this red herring?
Tell you what, why don’t you start the discussion by first enumerating the differences between historical precedent and the recent firings. Give a comprehensive and honest overview. Then, describe why you think these distinctions are not relevant. Having done that an honest dialog can ensue.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:32 pmThen, describe why you think these distinctions are not relevant. Having done that an honest dialog can ensue.
Comment by gorn by any other name — April 15, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Good luck with all of that. I can’t get him to answer one simple question.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:35 pmI assume Daniel Metcalfe is not on Jake’s “Ignore List” therefore I will let the retired U.S. Attorney speak for me:
(emphasis added)
April 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pmOf course Bush fired him. They have been saying all along that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. That means he is the only one who can fire them. So, he fired all of them. Why isnt the media picking up on this? IT WAS BUSH’s DECISION TO FIRE THEM B/C THEY SERVE AT HIS PLEASURE. HE HAD TO BE IN ON IT. DOESN’T ANYONE ELSE GET THIS???
April 15th, 2007 at 8:36 pmWhy is this even being asked? Of course Bush was involved in the firings. Legislation states U.S. attorneys serve at the president’s pleasure and the buck stops there. I know Bush has underwhelmed us for 7 years but we don’t need to dumb it down on his behalf, especially because he wants us to, yeesh.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:38 pmLesly, YES!!!!
April 15th, 2007 at 8:42 pmBnF, you really should try to get on to ThinkProgress as a writer. Just my opinon.
Comment by chris L — April 15, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Thanks for the compliment. I did try. Seems I am a bit over-qualified. And I cannot devote 20 hours/week for 6 months for their fellowship program.
Soon I will either leave teaching and take a job with a law firm, or keep teaching and open my own practice part time. Either way will drastically cut into my time here. So, when my posts drastically fall off, you’ll know the reason why.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:44 pmDomenici: “I want you to have Iglesias fired.”
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pmGeorge: “Heh, heh, sure boss, whatever you say, does this mean I’ll get some more gas money?”
Lesly:
Carter fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. So did Clinton. What’s the big deal this time?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pm“Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†want to discuss whether EVERY President replaces U.S. Attorneys for political reasons?
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:22 pm”
OK. Hasn’t the Duke case demonstrated to you that it’s a bad thing for prosecutors’ offices to be politicized?
Of course the President can appoint whomever he wants as United States Attorney, and pick his nominees based on their compatibility with his values and priorities - but after that, he’s supposed to leave them alone. They need to have the independence to follow the facts and be professionals, not some party hacks. That’s why U.S. Attorneys have traditionally been chosen by a bipartisan commission and confirmed by the Senate.2
April 15th, 2007 at 8:45 pmDomenici: “I want you to have Iglesias fired.â€
Bush, “Julio, or Enrique?”
April 15th, 2007 at 8:47 pmCarter fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. So did Clinton. What’s the big deal this time?
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Translation: if you tell me the truth, you’re on my “Ignore List.”
It really should be called, “Jake’s Ignornace List.”
April 15th, 2007 at 8:50 pmFor the record, I was referring to the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:52 pmFOR THE RECORD, “jake” IS a DOMESTIC TERRORIST.
http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 04/ 13/ we-are-trying-to-muddy-the-coverage/ #comment-3702200
Threatened to blow up the NYT Building.
See you in hell “jake” (cause I’LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
April 15th, 2007 at 8:52 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
TRAITOR to the USA
The only way to get on the “Ignore List” is to resort to personal attacks and/or refuse to answer my questions.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:53 pmThe Clinton Administration was plagued by actual deaths and untimely demises. Admiral Mike Boorda, Chief of US Naval Operations, was found shot dead at his desk in 1996 and his death was called a suicide. This was the third death of a high-ranking Administration figure during Clinton’s first term, after Vince Foster, and Ron Brown, who both suffered violent ends. Both Boorda and Foster’s deaths were very quickly declared to be suicides, and left at that. Foster shot himself with a gun, supposedly leaving no fingerprints. Brown died with a .45 caliber hole in his skull, after a plane crash in Bosnia. There is also the case of former CIA Director William Colby, who disappeared in March 1996, then was discovered floating in the Wicomico River in Maryland ten days later. At least Goodling and Miers are still alive : )
April 15th, 2007 at 8:56 pm#
For the record, I was referring to the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
#
BOO!
Let me guess? Clinton killed them right? No, this is the only administration where the VP gets to shoot lawyers in the face when he gets bored.
So Jake, who is the enemy in Iraq?
BTW, For the record, I hope Bush gets away with this. The next time we have a democratic president, no one can even think of investigating a democrat.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:56 pm#
The only way to get on the “Ignore List†is to resort to personal attacks and/or refuse to answer my questions.
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
#
Or prove Jake is lying. Or ask him a question he can’t answer, like, who is the enemy in Iraq?
What was your MOS in Korea Jake?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:57 pmIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” has a question about my alleged “threat” (I did not so threaten — innocent until prove guilty) to blow up the NYT Building, let me know.
April 15th, 2007 at 8:57 pmComment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
And his republican controlled congress did nothing about all of this, but complaned when he got blown?
BTW, who is the enemy in Iraq?
April 15th, 2007 at 8:59 pmUh huh, a real hard-core prober into the dark underbelly of the corrupt government, our jake.
Except for prosecutors being leaned on to push partisan prosecutions and influence elections. That’s totally cool and/or only a kook would believe that happened.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pm“For the record,” is poor Jake’s pathetic attempt to argue without talking to you directly, like some prima donna, who thinks the rough-and-tumble of on-line debate is beneath him - so he does a little semantic dodge.
He recently tried it with me, as well:
The FIRST job of the government is to PROTECT the people. Jake
Um, I thought it was to uphold the Constitution? Or has that changed since 9/11?Comment by barfly — April 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
For the record, if all the People are killed by terrorists with suitcase nukes, it matters no longer to uphold the Constitution. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Quite a juvenile tactic, don’t you agree?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:01 pmComment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Problem is, Jake, you ignore the truth. Repeatedly. Do you ever bother to read my posts? Your comments indicate you do not. You are being willfully ignorant.
You show absolutely no interest in any form of debate and no willingness to address the real issues.
And your “ignorance list” is just that: you’re advertising that you are going to maintain your ignorance.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:02 pmThe only way to get on the “Ignore List†is to resort to personal attacks and/or refuse to answer my questions.
Comment by Jake —
Except that he will answer you, just in a chickensh*t way, as I’ve just demonstrated.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:03 pmQuite a juvenile tactic, don’t you agree?
Comment by B.Fly — April 15, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Personally, I think Jake is a collective.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:04 pmFor the record, I have answered that question several times on other threads — for instance, see below — if anyone NOT on the “Ignore List” wants to answer MY question, let me know:
Craig Jackson:
The “enemy†are the TERRORISTS who are trying to kill Americans — using that definition, please name one country where there are more of said enemy than Iraq?
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 9:05 pmComment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Here is yet another thread that has been clobbered by good ol Jake.
TP please do us a favor and use forum software like phpBB rather than this comment system! Users could actually add Jake to their own “real” ignore list and Jake could have one too. Users masquerading as other members would be ended one fell swoop. Topics would tend to stay on track since there would be moderation.
Please!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:05 pmFor the record,â€
A petulant child, refusing to talk to someone, instead talking to the person next to them: “Tell them I’m not speaking to them, but I think they suck!“
April 15th, 2007 at 9:08 pmA collective would seem to imply actual consciousness, I believe ‘jake’ has evolved no further than existence as a colony organism…
April 15th, 2007 at 9:08 pmThe big deal this time is a) the number of attorneys fired for political expediency, and b) Jake’s failed attempt to diffuse Bush’s transgressions in this case by calling attention to the transgressions of a former Democratic president.
Lame, yo.
Clinton, on the other hand, didn’t fire attorneys for political reasons (i.e. investigating Democrats or failing to investigate cases Clinton wanted investigated), Jake. There is nothing unprecedented about U.S. presidents hiring U.S. attorneys of their choosing at the beginning of their terms. Presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. Clinton, and Bush Jr. did this.
If you need more formal proof that Bush Jr. fired and hired new attorneys upon being sworn in Jake, here’s a Justice Department statement.
To reiterate. Clinton firing/hiring new attorneys is not the issue. The issue is Carter firing one U.S. attorney for investigating a Democratic candidate who was running for reelection, and Bush Sr. firing several U.S. attorneys as payback for investigating Republican politicians and failing to investigate Democrats. Capiche, partisan?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pmever wonder what everyone’s favorite [supposedly] 75-year-old troll was doing on friday night? for the lurkers:
“Anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†wants to discuss the specifics of how an OB/GYN can examine the hymen on females, or any other possible options, let me know.
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 11:05 pmâ€
and that was in reference to teens. awesome!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pmBut, but, I thought “Ignore Lists” were chickensh*t, juvenile tactics, simply advertising that one is going to maintain their ignorance?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pm#
The “enemy†are the TERRORISTS who are trying to kill Americans — using that definition, please name one country where there are more of said enemy than Iraq?
Comment by Jake — March 30, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
#
Great, so if we leave there will no longer be people there trying to shoot Americans, hence no enemy. And to answer the second part, Saudi Arabia, or have you forgotten 9/11?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:10 pmI like the neocon trolls. It shows how desperate and really, I mean really dumb the neocons are. Can’t wait for 08′. The more neocons post and talk, the more votes they lose everyday.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:11 pmFor the record, George Bush does not subscribe to the Sheryl Crow School of Political Science: “The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.” Lucky for the rest of us, too, living in the REAL world.
BTW: 3,000 Americans have not been killed in Saudi Arabia ; )
April 15th, 2007 at 9:14 pmBut, but, I thought “Ignore Lists†were chickensh*t, juvenile tactics, simply advertising that one is going to maintain their ignorance?
Comment by Jake
And strawmen as well.
Petulant child, in the guise of an old man.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:17 pmHey Jake. 3000 Americans were killed by 15 Saudi nationalists on 9/11. I know how you neocons like to forget about 9/11, unless it’s a Bush townhall meeting or the Republican National Convention. You neocons hate New Yorkers, unless you can use them for some votes. Right Jakey.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pmBTW: 3,000 Americans have not been killed in Saudi Arabia ; )
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
No, 15 Saudi nationals came here to kill them. Now, thanks to Bush, there are more terrorists than ever. Terrorists are patient. They will wait a few years and plan as always, then launch another attack on our soil. Because of Bush breaking our military and funding the Sunnis, we are now more vulnerable than ever before.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pmJake, Jake, he’s our man.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:18 pmIf he can’t answer it,
He puts you on the ignore list
But, but, I thought “Ignore Lists†were chickensh*t, juvenile tactics, simply advertising that one is going to maintain their ignorance?
Comment by Jake
But Jake has himself shown that he doesn’t really ignore anyone. Just answers in a petulant manner, as would a small child.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:19 pmJake: “innocent until prove guilty”
I agree. So are you saying this concept should apply to you alone, and not to Bill Clinton. You imply he or his operatives killed off three appointees to get rid of them. Proof?
But never mind. Your assignment was to show how the precedent of dismissals in previous administrations differs from that of the current administration, and then describe why you find these distinctions irrelevant. You have done neither of these steps yet.
If Clinton is a murderer, prosecute him. I’m all for that. But, that would have nothing to do with whether or not the Bush dismissals have been unprecedented, improper, and possibly illegal.
Can you answer to this clearly and specifically, or are you just a mindless troll as has been suggested by others? I’m not calling you names - I’m giving you the opportunity to clearly present your compelling case for why the Bush dismissals follow direct precedent, are proper, and have been shown not constitute obstruction of justice.
It’s your chance to put up or shut up, Jake.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:20 pmBTW, Jake, terrorists by definition attack civilians, not military.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:22 pmFor the record, someone else above brought up the spectre of Miers meeting an untimely demise, not me.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:24 pmGonzo sent his opening statement to Congress and said he doesn’t remember. Next he moved on and told Congress he did great things while Attorney General and looks forward to working with Congress in the future. Now that’s letting the Congress know that they can just get over it and move on because he said so. Gonzo doesn’t have to answer anything and can lie at will. Let’s see how Congress feels as they are dismissed by Gonzo. Yes Bush did have attorneys fired by request GOP friends. But if it comes to Bush getting caught he will fire Gonzo and blame it on him. Ask Libby as he gets ready to go to jail for lying and covering up the crimes by Rove and Cheney. Gonzo will talk down to Congress and in so many words let them know he can commit crimes and get away with it and no one can do anything about it. Americans like the idea of having a White House that lies and is corrupt as they send our troops to die in the Iraq Civil War. If Americans stood up Bush would be gone but Americans don’t mind young soldiers coming home in body bags and dying in Walter Reed as maggots eat their open wounds. Just as long as Bush doesn’t bring back the draft then this so called war would end. Americans would never have their children die in Iraq for oil. Bush now is planning on hiring men from overseas to fight in the Iraq Civil War, that way the Americans wont have to dead for the oil. First a Czar now a hired military of men from other countries. Now the GOP wants the immigrates to go home maybe they can hire them to fight in Iraq/Afghan/Iran/Syria and who ever Bush wants to invade. Americans can sit back an watch others die for President Bush’s policy.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:24 pmIt’s good entertainment to have a troll as stupid as Jake on this site since he doesn’t seem to realize how much of a fool he makes of himself. Ah, ignorance is bliss. Or is it, an “ignorance list” is bliss. I love this site.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:24 pmAll par for the course with this administration. Outing Plame cause Cheney didn’t like what Wilson had to say about Iraq. Outing attorneys cause they couldn’t find any voter fraud against Democrats. Etc. Etc. Etc…. Anybody see a pattern here? Just saying.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:26 pmDid Bush personally decide to fire Iglesias?
Yes. Any questions?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:34 pmEVERY JOURNALIST NEEDS TO START ASKING: WHY DID BUSH FIRE THESE ATTORNEY’s, not WHY DID GONZO FIRE THEM!!!
The administration has said repeatedly they serve at BUSH’s pleasure so, they must have been fired at his displeasure. Right?!?!?!
April 15th, 2007 at 9:35 pmFor the record, I can’t wait until the repubs lose even more seats and the presidency in ‘08. We’ll remove the bullsh*t restrictions on the information which Bush enacted to cover his incompetent ass, and then we won’t be talking impeachment, but treason.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:37 pmGrr, I hate when my posts disappear. :| I’m out, gang.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:38 pmComment by jman_
Give it up. We all know the facts, and your interpretation is faulty.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pmComment by Willy — April 15, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
I’m starting to think that Jake is planted here by TP to add some ‘heat’ to the threads. He trumpets “party line” no matter what. I object to the fact that far too many threads here wind up becoming these “Jake is (not) the center of reason” threads. I do object to the fact that he seldom points to any credible facts nor does he stay on topic.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:42 pmjake is a lying phony plagiarizing scumbag. don’t waste your time engaging him in honest discourse because he will ignore logic and lie. he is a coward.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:43 pmJake is serving to pleasure the president. Just like Jeffy Lube Gannon, Matt Sanchez and Condi Rice.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:50 pmJake is a bit dense. He even failed a DNA test.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:52 pmJake is a bit dense. He even failed a DNA test.
Comment by WaltTheMan
“Gentleman C’s” don’t count?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:58 pmAnd his republican controlled congress did nothing about all of this, but complaned when he got blown?
BTW, who is the enemy in Iraq?
Comment by chris L — April 15, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Remember that Clinton replaced the attorneys at the beginning of his first term, as the idiot trolls here will defend him for doing so, and the Republicans in Congress went nuts. It’s here on TP. Dole, among others, suggested it was a criminal act and called for investigations.
Here:
Glenn Greenwald: “Republicans sought in 1993 to depict the routine and standard replacement of U.S. attorneys by the Clinton administration as some sort of grave scandal which threatened prosecutorial independence and was deeply corrupt.”
and…
Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys.
In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a “severe blow to the administration of justice in this country.”
He said, “The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently.”
It’s here on TP. Use the Search function if you want the exact sources.
Oh, and Jake! For weeks now you still haven’t told us what that little provision in the Patriot Act, which says the Pres can bypass Senate confirmation for his US Attorney nominees, has to do with national security. Do you support this provision or not?
April 15th, 2007 at 9:59 pm“Jake is a bit dense. He even failed a DNA test.”
You mean a DNA test is considered a failure if it comes up matching the genetic fingerprint of tropical vegetation? You learn something new every day.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pmIf anyone NOT on the “Ignore List†has a question about my alleged “threat†(I did not so threaten — innocent until prove guilty) to blow up the NYT Building, let me know.
Comment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I submit the following:
(emphasis added)
The use of the word “we” indicates a conspiracy. Taken together with the pronoun “I” in the same sentence, the writer is an integral part of the conspiracy.
The targets of the conspiracy are named, both the New York Times building and the “traitorous editors and reporters.” Apparently “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to the targets of Jake’s conspiracy.
And the method of carrying out the conspiracy has been identified, “when we bomb…”
The only things not mentioned are the names of Jake’s co-conspirators and the date and time of the bombing. But there’s certainly enough here to put Jake on an FBI and NSA watch list.
Here’s an interesting statute:
And the Feds don’t mess around:
Guess what, Jake? This message board is in interstate commerce. Your comment about blowing up the New York Times building, killing editors and reporters sure sounds like a violation of 18 USC § 844(e).
Lucky for you, I’m not a Federal Prosecutor.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:04 pmFor the record, I did not want any “innocents†killed when we bombed Iraq either. Anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List”?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:08 pmThe only way to get on the “Ignore List†is to resort to personal attacks and/or refuse to answer my questions.
Comment by Jake —
Really, Jake? Without resorting to personal attacks, I asked you on the Cheney smear thread when you insisted that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (for struggling against apartheid) if you thought Lincoln was wrong to get into the Civil War. No reply from you.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:11 pmOn another thread a few weeks ago, after you graphically speculated on what kind of foreplay Clinton engaged in with Monica, I politely asked you what you thought gay hooker Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House all those nights he was logged in even before garnering a “press pass” with a website not recognized as a legitimate media outfit by the then GOP-controlled Congress, No answer there, either.
It seems that if you don’t like the question or–more likely–don’t know how to reply to it in a way favorable to the Busheviks, you simply ignore it. And don’t bother telling me you ignored the Mandela question because I’m on your kindergarten-level ignore list; because up to that point you were arguing with me and others about his (Mandela’s) status.
What, did I get on the jake ignore list without knowing it?
I answered you in post #69.
Heh.
69
April 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pmComment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
April 15th, 2007 at 10:16 pmSo, why do you persist here?
EVERY JOURNALIST NEEDS TO START ASKING: WHY DID BUSH FIRE THESE ATTORNEY’s, not WHY DID GONZO FIRE THEM!!!
The administration has said repeatedly they serve at BUSH’s pleasure so, they must have been fired at his displeasure. Right?!?!?!
Comment by jman_nyc — April 15, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Then I fully expect President Hillary Clinton to select 93 new attorneys when she takes office, all of whom are selected based on their loyalty to her and whether or not they are registered Democrats. I fully expect you to support these selections knowing that they are not made on the attorneys’ qualifications or past performance or ability to be fair and objective in all their cases, but because they belong to some organization similar to the Federalist Society but geared towards liberals instead of conservatives. I fully expect you to support President Clinton’s selections based on calls she received from Democrats in Congress who tell her to replace specific attorneys because they aren’t prosecuting enough Republicans, and not prosecuting them fast enough, prior to the 2008 elections.
Because this is exactly what you and Jake and Patrick1 and the other idiot trolls are defending under the Bush administration.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:16 pmWell, Lora, you are not on the “Ignore List” (yet) but I don’t recall any question about Lincoln (he was wrong to get into the Civil War) or Gannon (I have no idea, although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral). I have a life outside the Internet, dear.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:18 pmB. Fly - what are the faults in my interpretation - enlighten me.
Bush, Gonzo and Snow drove this point home over and over - that these atty’s are serving at Bsuh’s pleasure. So, who other than the president can claim responsibility for firing them? Did Karl Rove make this decision and pass it on to DOJ? Did Gonzo make this decision unilaterally and if so, doesnt that fly in the face of the “serve at the pleasure” retort?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:19 pmI am NOT defending BUSH. You totally misunderstood my point. I am trying to punch holes in this whole premise that Bush was not involved. Understand?
April 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pmComment by Jake — April 15, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
So, why do you persist here?
Comment by Saywho
So why do we persist in making Rape Joker Jake the center of attention on these threads?
Just sayin’
April 15th, 2007 at 10:22 pmwas = wasn’t
April 15th, 2007 at 10:24 pmSo why do we persist in making Rape Joker Jake the center of attention on these threads?
Ok. But can’t we get rid of him by turning over his threat to the FBI? I don’t know where the post was made, or I’d do it myself. BNF?
BTW, if we DON’T do this and then NYT is really bombed, we’re all guilty of neglect for not following up on a terrorist threat.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:25 pmwas = wasn’t
Comment by Jake
Only in JakeWorld.
**eyes rolling**
April 15th, 2007 at 10:26 pmI just went against my own complaint….sorry.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:28 pmOn some level Bush would have to be aware of the USG firings. As Jman pointed out, they serve at the “pleasure of the president”. Gonzalez would not be able to fire them, nor Rove. I suspect, that for the most part Bus is not really interested in governing. I feel it is more likely he leaves all of that to others, he may come up with an idea, or may at times have to make a decision, but overall it is others who carry out the policies.
It is pretty obvious that the mid term firings of 8 USG’s no matter how much lipstick you put on it, is unusual. Much has been made about Clinton, and Carter, and Nixon, but this is the here and now, not 8 or 20 years ago.
Bush and his ever shrinking group of cronies have dug themselves a large hole, and they keep digging. Eventually it will collapse on top of them.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:29 pmB. Fly - what are the faults in my interpretation - enlighten me.
EVERY JOURNALIST NEEDS TO START ASKING: WHY DID BUSH FIRE THESE ATTORNEY’s, not WHY DID GONZO FIRE THEM!!!
This presupposes that Karl Rove told Bush about the firings in detail, something we haven’t yet seen any evidence of, have we? Rove would have logically been the final cut-out, to give the president the old “plausible deniability” which has served republicans so well in the past. Rove, if absolutely necessary, would take the political bullet (or find another likely candidate) rather than risk it all coming unraveled by being tied directly to Bush. Where is the smoking gun that proves the euphemism (”he serves at the pleasure of the president”)? It hasn’t yet materialized, so making a linkage with no proof is the “fault,” if you really want to know.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:36 pm#but I don’t recall any question about Lincoln (he was wrong to get into the Civil War) or Gannon (I have no idea, although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral). I have a life outside the Internet, dear.
Comment by Jake
Well, Jake, it’s nice to know that you have a life outside the Internet. Some of us would have trouble surmising that given how much time you spend here and how many posts you contribute.
Since you don’t recall my question on the Cheney/Imus humor thread (which I mistakenly listed in #119 here as the Cheney/Smear thread), here it is, posted only 40 minutes after you insisted that Mandela was indeed a terrorist:
“I get it now. Jake, you think fighting to topple apartheid was a bad thing. Do you also think that Lincoln made a big mistake in starting the Civil War?
Comment by Lora — April 13, 2007 @ 9:49 pm”
As for my question about gay hookder Gannon at the WH, I can’t see what your comment, “although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral” has anything to do with the question. My point, which you don’t seem to get, is that it’s a bit hypocritical to keep on bringing up Monica Lewinsky (which we all know about) while ignoring the many visits made to the Bush WH by a gay hooker who was still advertising his $200/hr. services at the same period in time.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:38 pmVery interesting and revealing that you think Lincoln “was wrong to get into the Civil War.”
Please download this .MOV file from PennState to see the damage inside TMI (Three Mile Island) reactor that is still a threat today. Parts of the reactor can not be cleaned or moved.
Right Click This Link and Select SAVE AS to Download the Video
April 15th, 2007 at 10:39 pmKrazny - thanks for taking the time to understand my point.
Whether Bush knew or not, it doesn’t absolve him from responsibility. If Bush is going to claim ultimate decider powers over these aty’s then he cannot claim that someone else handled their firing - it totally invalidates the first claim. If he is going to now say that Gonzo handled this then, at best he should be portrayed as being asleep at the switch, at worst he is politiczing DOJ.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:40 pmMore likely Bush is asleep at the switch. I have never gotten the impression that he was much interested in actually making decisions or running anything. 400+ days of vacation anyone? He likes being president, and all of the attendant perks that go with it. I don’t think he likes actually having to govern. Look at how upset and snitty he gets when asked any question he either doesn’t want to answer, or feels he shouldn’t have to answer.
As for responsibility, you should no by now, it is all Clinton’s fault
April 15th, 2007 at 10:44 pm/sarcasm off
Comment by joe — April 15, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
I have no idea what defines one’s entry onto the ignore list.
I have never denigrated Jake in any of my posts. Only the facts have been forwarded. Only today, I complimented Jake on the fact he was finally paper trained. I have done extensive research on his background.
Jake has apparently changed his logon password as I have seen no rational posts by his golden retriever recently. The dog will figure it out soon, there are just so many 1 (one) letter words in the English language.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:46 pmKrazny,
GWB totally wanted the job, but he hates doing the job.
Dangerous combination.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:46 pmSo B.Fly - you think it’s in Bush’s interests for him to let the world think that Rove handled this unilaterally? That seems like a bit of flawed thinking of your own. You think that little-George is going to scapegoat Rove?? You have got to be kidding. Look, if you’re right I will start making the popcorn now - it will be beautiful. But seriously, the chances of that are beyond slim. Furthermore, George comes out looking like he is passed out at the wheel if this is how it turns out. My point is that the WH has to STFU about these atty’s serving at Bush’s pleasure if they are going to simultaneously deny that he had anything to do with the firings.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:49 pmWalt,
You have been absolutely courteous in all your comments directed to Rape Joker Jake.
He must recognize your greater intellect.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:49 pm“Whether Bush knew or not, it doesn’t absolve him from responsibility. If Bush is going to claim ultimate decider powers over these aty’s then he cannot claim that someone else handled their firing - it totally invalidates the first claim.”
I think your point is important to follow, but…
couldn’t Bush claim that he exercised is executive “pleasure” by giving AG and his other minions the authority to make decisions on his behalf of who to fire? This approach would derive decision authority from the “pleasure” rule, while placing blame for the actual selections on AG, Rove, or, more likely, Meiers.
Granted, it’s weak and mealy-mouthed - the kind of stuff these people used to call “slick” when it applied to Clinton. But, would it not amount to plausible deniability? Someone else would then take the hit for obstruction of justice, letting the King continue his reign of terror.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:50 pm“As for my question about gay hookder Gannon at the WH, I can’t see what your comment, “although the times I’ve been to the White House, I didn’t do anything immoral†has anything to do with the question.”
My interpretation: this is an accidental slip indicating that Jake = Jeff.
It could explain a lot! 8-}
April 15th, 2007 at 10:52 pmgorn by any other name -
Yes, you are right - that route would give them plausible deniability. I’m irritated because the major reporting has yet to paint him into this most obvious corner.
April 15th, 2007 at 10:57 pm#142 gorn by aon
April 15th, 2007 at 11:00 pmI must admit that idea came to my mind; I was simply hoping to get Jake (maybe Jeff/James) to say a bit more. Quite a Freudian slip if true, isn’t it?
It would not surprise me.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:03 pmLora: “I must admit that idea came to my mind; I was simply hoping to get Jake (maybe Jeff/James) to say a bit more. Quite a Freudian slip if true, isn’t it?”
Yep, I imagine it would really put TP on the map in a big way to break the story that Bush’s gay lover publicly revealed his role in a conspiracy to blow up the New York Times building…
April 15th, 2007 at 11:05 pmAnd now, something to totally dominate the next news cycle:
The political bloc of firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Sunday said it is quitting the Iraqi government, as a wave of bombings left another 43 people dead in Baghdad.
“We will announce our withdrawal from the government tomorrow,” Saleh Hassan Issa al-Igaili, a lawmaker from the Sadr group, told AFP.
He said the move was to press the group’s demand for a timetabled exit of US-led foreign troops. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his ally US President George W. Bush have steadfastly refused to set a time-line for the withdrawal.
The Sadr group has six cabinet ministers in Maliki’s embattled government and 32 lawmakers in the 275-member Iraqi parliament.
Maliki last week during a trip of Tokyo rejected demands by the US Congress for a timetable to pull out American troops, saying any withdrawal should be based on the situation on the ground.
His remarks angered the Sadr group, which on Wednesday gave its first indication it was preparing to walk out of government.
Igaili Sunday clarified that the withdrawal, which will be formally announced Monday, was only from the cabinet and that the political bloc will continue to participate in the assembly.
Sadr, a known anti-American cleric, has strongly opposed the US presence in his country since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.
The boycott will not trigger a collapse of Maliki’s government but is expected to increase pressure on the premier at a time when he is busy overseeing a security crackdown in Baghdad to quell raging sectarian bloodshed.
The Sadr group boycotted the Iraqi government for two months from November 29 until late January in protest at a meeting between the beleaguered Maliki and US President George W. Bush in Jordan.
The US military which fought two bloody rebellions launched by Sadr against its forces in 2004 accuses his milita of being involved in sectarian killings of Sunni Arabs.em>
April 15th, 2007 at 11:07 pmHe even failed a DNA test.
Comment by WaltTheMan
Heh. And he studied all night.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:14 pmBut wait! Jeff Gannon is an alias for James Guckert.
James => Jeff => Jake - all start with J.
Jake = JA from JAmes + KE from gucKErt.
Dang, does this explain why Jake hasn’t posted anything since he made this slip-up?
Another point of evidence… obviously Jake has plenty of time on his hands to spend so much time posting on TP. We also know that Jeff is not a real journalist, so he needs to have something to do (like type at a keyboard) to keep his hands occupied between sessions serving at the pleasure of the President…
The plot thickens…
April 15th, 2007 at 11:22 pmHeh. And he studied all night.
Comment by Juan C
I thought that was his urine test. Now I’m confused…..
:-D
April 15th, 2007 at 11:23 pmPosted on Jeff Gannon’s web site on March 18:
Does sound a bit like Jake, doesn’t it?
April 15th, 2007 at 11:34 pmI thought that was his urine test. Now I’m confused…..
:-D
Comment by Zooey
Seriously, anytime, Walt talks about Jake, I get a little scared. He seems dead serious about everything he tells about Jake.
April 15th, 2007 at 11:36 pm