WASHINGTON; RICHMOND; NEWPORT NEWS; ATLANTA: GONZO GETS COVERING FIRE
Everybody on the planet knew Vick was entering his plea today and that was going to be the biggest publicity throb since Paris left her underwear at home. What better day for Gonzo to resign and catch relatively minimal coverage? Perhaps the first time in recorded history a Federal Defendant has done a favor for the AG whose Justice Dept. is prosecuting him.
Thanks for the Covering Fire, Michael. Nike may not love you any more but Shrubbie, Rovie and Gonzo will all buy "Da Shoes".
posted by UMRBlog @ 15:24
11 comments
11 Comments:
I've never been a fan of Gonzales, but I can't help feeling sorry for him. The "scandal" that led to his demise -- the firing of the U.S. attorneys -- appears to involve no wrongdoing on his part. Moreover, the underlying decisions and process appear to have been the product of the White House, not Gonzales. His defense of the decisions was hardly stellar, but if I'm correct, he was handicapped by the fact that they were not really his decisions.
Gonzales's only real offense seems to have been mediocrity. But mediocrity in an Attorney General is nothing new (think Janet Reno), and any blame for this occurrence properly attaches to the White House.
Timing is odd, but if they wanted to bury it, they would have just done it on Friday. It got plenty of coverage.
Congradulation to Little League Georgia. These kids are terrific. I have been on vacation and watched many of the games.
Per Vick - what a defense. I killed the dogs, but I did not bet on them.
TYFCB.
I think the "not really his decisions" thing is right on the mark.
You're a little too kind, though. An additional offense was lack of the kind of independence that AG's have traditionally displayed. Another may have been a lack of candor. Little hard to believe that one administration could give us two lawyer memories that bad.
Gonzales has been a disgrace. In matters of federal violations, I thought the DOJ would come riding in like the Lone Ranger. Gonzales has come up missing through his stewardship.
Libby covered for the Bush Administration and so did Gonzo. One phrase that has always been the refuge of a liar is "I don't RECALL" The word "recall" has two meanings. One describes what happens to Chinese made toys and tires. The other is a shorter and more pleasant way of saying one is about to, or is currently lying.
John Edwards:
Americans Should 'Sacrifice' SUVs for Environment!!
Like his 20,000 square foot house.
Gonzales vz Janet Reno, not even a close call. gonzales didn't burn kids alive!!
Note to self: do not enter into Waco discussions with True Believers.
In the police intelligence area, garbage in=garbage out. Does that remind anyone of any recent invasions?
I think you mean saying “I Don’t Recall” Means You’re A Lying Republican.
The implication is that the Attorney General is hiding something - even though Democrats admit there is not a single bit of evidence of any wrongdoing.
Contrast this with the feeble testimony of Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Clinton Administration officials on several occasions while under oath. The Progressive Review tallied the use of the Amnesiac Defense, listing the number of times people who testified in various Clinton scandals said “I don’t recall” or something similar:
Bill Kennedy …………… 116
Harold Ickes …………… 148
Ricki Seidman ………….. 160
Bruce Lindsey ………….. 161
Bill Burton ……………. 191
Mark Gearan ……………. 221
Mack McLarty …………… 233
Neil Egglseston ………… 250
Hillary Clinton ………… 250
John Podesta …………… 264
Jennifer O’Connor ………. 343
Dwight Holton ………….. 348
Patsy Thomasson ………… 420
Jeff Eller …………….. 697
Boy,
You guys just wear out the "No Underlying Crime" theory. That's never been the point.
On the IDR count, either your on the mailing list for Rovie talking points or you need to start building model airplanes or raising tropical fish.
TYFCB
umr 618
You've got it bassackwards, Rove is on my mailing list. The IDR count was for the Oracle's selective outrage.
My personal favorite from Mrs. Clinton’s April 7, 2006, declaration:
“I do not believe that I made any such statements because I believe I would remember such a discussion if it had occurred…”
So she can’t remember, recall, or recollect anything that happened, but believes that something didn’t happen because if it had she would have remembered it?
Post a Comment
<< Home