Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

Oh dear, Johnboy feels a story coming on. After Basic training at Fort Dix, NJ, johnboy got sent to Fort Leanord Wood, MO for Advanced Individual Training. I had a degree in accounting so the Army decided that I should be trained as a combat engineer. They taught me to blow things up.
Anyway, the training was much more laid back then Basic. The Sgt was this old guy, finishing out his career.
Once he said, as we were were marching somewhere, "(johnboy), you are out of step." I quipped back "I am in step. Everyone else is out of step." He laughed loudly, but it still cost me 50 pushups.

Which brings us back to Mr Bush and his support for Mr Gonzales. He just doesn't get it.

It isn't mandated, but it's the next step. And it will look terrible for Bush, so you know the Dems are going to do it. And once the Republicans are on board with the no confidence, it is going to be tough to change their votes afterwards without looking like the worst sort of political opportunist.

That's why this is a golden chance for the Dems. They literally can't lose at this point - AG AG has backed himself into a gigantic corner with his incompetence and the conflicting stories which have come out clearly paint him as a liar.

It's one thing to support Bush when the evidence against his position is nebulous, or up in the air (such as Iraq - we could still win, they say). But with someone who is so clearly incompetent and clearly lying? It's a personal matter now.

Just my prediction

Cycloptichorn

And I hope your prediction is right on target.

I did basic at Fort Lost-in-the-Woods, johnboy (did they call it that when you were there?).

I hope everyone has noticed that we have clicked up a notch in the past week. So far this inquiry has been about Gonzo and his incompetence, the loyalizing of the DoJ and (what will now be my former favorite) asking who DIDN'T get fired and why.

The new question is twofold: Who sent Alberto and Andy Card to the sickbed of John Ashcroft in an attempt to subvert the authority of the acting Attorney General? (Did they think that up by themselves?)

And, if a President believes an action is legal, is it?
Can he, the President, authorize a program of wiretapping that the Justice Department as a whole was unable to certify as to it's legality?

Joe(Nixon rides again)Nation

It seems the mentality in the White House is if you want it, it's legal, especially if you add the label "national security" to the package.

Only a traitor would question the president on that.

More fallout from the Comey revelations
Glenn Greenwald - Slate
Friday May 18, 2007

More fallout from the Comey revelations

Last night, I participated in what I thought was an excellent panel discussion about the implications of the Comey testimony on Open Source with Christopher Lydon. The other panelists were Laurence Tribe and former Reagan DOJ official Bruce Fein.

Beforehand, they asked me to begin the discussion by summarizing Comey's testimony, so the first ten minutes or so are devoted to that summary. The rest of the hour-long discussion is comprised of an examination of the legal and political issues arising from Comey's revelations.

I think the discussion really crystallizes what is at stake here, the reasons why the administration simply cannot be permitted to engage in this conduct with impunity. These revelations implicate the most elemental political principles of our country and self-evidently transcend partisan orientation. After all, from the beginning of the NSA scandal, the very conservative Fein has been, and continues to be, one of the most foreceful and eloquent advocates of the rule of law, having demanded as early as December 28, 2005 in The Washington Times that Congress impeach the President if he does not immediately cease his illegal, warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

I will not be able to post much more today, if at all, so I will recommend the following posts/articles from today on this matter:

* A response from Marty Lederman to what Lederman politely calls "a profoundly misguided" Op-Ed in The Washington Post by former Reagan official and always-loyal Bush apologist Douglas Kmiec.

* In two posts -- here and here -- Anonymous Liberal digs back into some old NSA articles to piece together at least some of the likely changes made to the "refashioned" (though still unquestionably illegal) NSA program which were what satisfied Ashcroft, Comey and company to certify its legality.

* This typically insightful article from Dahlia Lithwick highlights the pervasive lawlessness -- the literal rejection of the rule of law -- which this episode proves is what propels the Bush administration.

* Fred Hiatt continues his awakening process with another Editorial in The Washington Post this morning (pointedly headlined on the Post's online front page: "What did Bush know and when did he know it"?), which demands that Bush answer questions (as he refused to yesterday) regarding his knowledge of, and involvement in, the series of events described by Comey.

Finally, I want to make the following two unrelated observations:

(1) Compared to the likes of, say, David Addington and John Yoo, it is certainly true that James Comey, John Ashcroft and Jack Goldsmith had slightly greater limits on what they would tolerate. But the praise for the latter has become excessive. The "heroic" trio still ultimately endorsed the unquestionably illegal warrantless eavesdropping program, along with the whole host of other radical and lawless Bush policies, from the indefinite and process-less detention of even U.S. citizens on U.S. soil to secret Eastern European prisons and a whole range of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Also, if Comey was so appalled by the behavior of Card and Gonzales -- if, as he said, he found it so "improper" -- why did he wait almost three full years before disclosing it, and then do so only when compelled by the threat of a subpoena? Comey's testimony amounts to a recognition on his part that the Bush administration was spying on Americans for more than two years illegally, even in his view. Why did he not invoke the whistleblower channels to report this lawbreaking, opting instead to keep that conduct concealed as he remained at the Bush DOJ through the 2004 election? And why has he remained so silent for so long about conduct that he was so appalled by that he was prepared to resign?

One can accept that Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith are not quite as tolerant of blatant lawbreaking as Cheney, Addington and Yoo. But that is an extremely low bar. It is not entirely unlike heaping praise on someone who embezzles and commits fraud all because they drew the line and refused to cooperate with their comrades when it came time to, say, commit arson or murder. Comparatively speaking, they may be preferable to Dick Cheney, but they are hardly paragons of political virtue or stalwart defenders of the rule of law. Quite the opposite.

(2) It has seemed highly unlikely all along, and still does, that Bush is going to ever force Gonzales to leave, or that Gonzales will leave on his own. Independent of all the cultural and psychological dynamics that govern Bush's "loyalty" fetishses, the single most important asset Bush has right now is that the prosecutorial machinery is in the clutches of his most craven, obedient and loyal follower.

If Gonzales leaves, then his replacement will have to be confirmed by the Senate, which is highly unlikely to confirm anyone who is too politically loyal to the Bush circle. That means that the only alternative to Gonzales' staying is an independent Justice Department that acts in the interests of justice, rather than Bush's political and personal interests. That is what Bush fears most, and that is why Gonzales will almost certainly stay, unless he is forced out.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Bush continues to call Gozales "my friend." He ain't leaving any time soon, even with a no-confidence vote by congress.

(Yes, Snood, it was called fort lost in the woods in Jan-Feb, 1969. A dreary place, but better than Fort Dix NJ in Nov-Dec, 1968. It was cruel, downright cruel, to send a southern boy to Ft Dix in Nov-Dec.
We were allowed to leave Leonard Wood on most weekends, which I did once. Ended up sitting around a dingy motel room with three of my friends, watching television.)

As poor as we were back in the late-fifties, some of us low ranking enlisted stayed in some high tone hotels in Marrakesh and Madrid by 3 or 4 saying in the same room. We even rented a room at the Minara(sp) hotel in Marrakesh where they filmed "The Man Who Knew Too Much" with James Stewart and Doris Day.

Here's a question: Has George Bush ever fired anyone?

Wow, you know we are in big trouble when John Ashcroft has to step in to protect our civil liberties.

No, he's always praised everybody before they were shown the door. However, he did VETO two bills during his seven years.

If you saw the Sunday talk shows, particularly Sen Arlen Specter, the knives are being sharpened. The non-binding resolution expressing no confidence in Mr Gonzales seems to be gaining momentum, notably amongst republicans. If push comes to shove, it could come to the floor this week.
Gonzales is in Europe this week, returning on Friday, the start of the Memorial Day weekend and a break for Congress. I can see a scenario where he would agree to resign next weekend without Congress going through the resolution thing.

Nope. You see, Bush needs Gonzales there to keep the hounds at bay. He's deep into everything Bush has been doing for years.

Not to mention, a new AG would have to be nominated and confirmed, and the Dems are going to ask one question of him:

"Will you enforce Subpoenas against the Executive branch, who we suspect have been breaking the law, and have some good evidence for?"

If the new nominee says no, he doesn't get confirmed. Simple as that. Bush can't have that, so he won't go.

These people aren't afraid of 'black marks' on their reputation. Their reputation is already one of criminality and lies. They won't do anything unless forced to.

Cycloptichorn

Like they'd answer no to that question? I don't believe for a moment they'd answer honestly.

They're all going to claim the 5th, and then if something does happen, Bush will give them all a pardon.

"Cowboy Up," Alberto Gonzales
"Cowboy Up," Alberto Gonzales
By David C. Iglesias
The Los Angeles Times
Wednesday 23 May 2007

A fired US attorney calls on the attorney general to serve the people, not politics.
What happens in a presidential administration when loyalty, to borrow a phrase from "Star Trek," becomes the "prime directive"? What happens when its all-encompassing fog obscures all other values - such as fealty to the Constitution, the rule of law or simple humanity?

What happens is that terrible decisions are made, repeated and then justified by this shibboleth. That's just one of the lessons that has emerged from the U.S. attorney scandal.

This week, the Senate is threatening to vote on a resolution of no-confidence in U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales. Today, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from Monica Goodling, the attorney general's former aide, who will be asked why at least eight U.S. attorneys, including me, were put on a list to be forced from office.

What has become clear already is that the "loyalty uber alles" mentality has infected a wide swath of the Bush administration. Simple notions like right and wrong are, in their eyes, matters of allegiance, not conscience.

The chilling congressional testimony given by former Deputy Atty. Gen. James B. Comey last week provided a graphic example of loyalty run amok. Comey recounted how, in 2004, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and then-White House counsel Gonzales visited a hospitalized Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, who had undergone surgery for pancreatitis. Undoubtedly under the influence of powerful painkillers, Ashcroft had just enough presence of mind to refuse, as Comey already had, to approve the extension of the illegal warrantless wiretap program. Comey was right there in the darkened hospital room but was ignored by Card and Gonzales, even though both knew he was the acting attorney general while Ashcroft was critically ill. Where was the compassion, conservative or otherwise, in that dark, silent room? Where was the humanity? Subsumed by loyalty.

Loyalty is a virtue with limits. That was one of the many hard lessons from Watergate. In that scandal, some of President Nixon's staffers carried their loyalty to the president all the way to federal prison.

All federal prosecutors take a public oath when they assume office. I personally swore in about 30 new federal prosecutors during my tenure as U.S. attorney for New Mexico. The oath is to the U.S. Constitution, not to the president or his Cabinet.

Somehow Goodling did not understand this keystone concept. She appears to have placed her loyalty to the Bush administration and the Republican Party above any allegiance to the Constitution - which may have led her to believe that Bush acolytes would make the best federal prosecutors. Paradoxically, she knew enough of the Constitution to claim the protections afforded by the 5th Amendment - the right against self-incrimination.

I trust she now understands what is at stake in the U.S. attorney scandal: the rule of law, the independence of the prosecutor and the apolitical calculus of who should be prosecuted. Now, her immunity deal secured, she needs to seek redemption by clearly testifying about how my colleagues and I came to be placed on the to-fire list. It will demand moral courage, but she must name the political operatives regardless of where they sit in the West Wing of the White House. She needs, in the words of Isaiah the prophet, to "maintain justice and do what is right."

And what of the embattled attorney general? Will Gonzales stay on to be the only Cabinet officer to receive a no-confidence vote? I once said that I found Gonzales to be a personal inspiration. No one can deny him his life's story, which is the American dream writ large. It began in Humble, Texas, born of impoverished Mexican American parents. He, like me, is a veteran of the U.S. military. He went to some of the best schools in America, including Harvard Law. Yet, somewhere along the line, he drank the loyalty Kool-Aid. Watching him testify before the Senate and House was painful for me. He had been a trailblazer for the Latino community, and then, in the space of a few hours of tortured testimony, he became just another morally rudderless political operative.

Will he "cowboy up," as we say in New Mexico - that is, find the courage to do the right thing? Or will he make the Senate go right up to the precipice of a no-confidence vote?

To be sure, the Justice Department is "dysfunctional," in the words of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), but it is also in desperate need of leaders who place loyalty to the Constitution on a higher level than politics. We don't need latter-day Haldemans, Ehrlichmans or Colsons going to jail. The nation needs leaders who take ultimate responsibility for the wrongful actions of their subordinates; leaders who do the right thing, regardless of the consequences. Mr. Attorney General, it's time for you to cowboy up and do what's best for the American people you serve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David C. Iglesias was the US attorney for New Mexico from October 2001 to February 2007.

David C. Iglesias is addressing his "letter" to the wrong person; Gonzales is not there to "serve the people." Nor is his boss, Bush. All they have been doing is establishing a kingship in our country, forgetting about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

They all need to be booted out by the people of our country forcing congress to impeach them all! Unfortunately, congress is not up to the task as dogcatcher.