All these Bush traitors sicken me. They should be thrown out of the country along with Bush himself. Politics isn't a game. People live and die by these policies. At this point, with all the information available, they're either with America, or their with Bush.

It is obvious that no one in the Bush administartion believes in the Constitution or the American system of justice. They have refused to testify before congress or even to appear. They send "suspected terrorists" to other countries to be tortured in order to avoid United States Law. They should all have their citizenship revoked. They obviously believe in some kind of dictatorship where democracy and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does not exist. Ship 'em out. As they used to say to me "America. Love it or Leave It". I am the patriot. They are traitors.

It's not just bad because Bush did it. Bush didn't do it. Rove did it, and he did it to fix elections. That's why it's a big issue, and that's why they are willing to lie to Congress about it. Rove wanted election year prosecutions of Democrats, whether the cases legally held water or not. I believe the term for that is 'Abuse of Office'.

Some folks ask why the Democrats keep hammering away on this, but I ask, why doesn't Gonzalez just tell the darn truth? If memory failure is such a problem for him, how is he qualified to do his job? If I had an employee who was that forgetful when questioned, he wouldn't last long.

i believe that Gonzalez is guilty of contempt of Congress, and that he has disgraced the Dept. of Justice, by showing the world that a bozo is in charge of it.

We turn purple with rage and sputter helplessly at each example of the Bush regime's defiance of the Constitution, the Congress, the will of the people -- whatever. Fact is, the creeps running the show do as they please, with impunity, because the Democrats are about as effective against Bush & Co, as a spitball against a bulldozer. The reason for the mess we are in isis not only the result of the machinations of this horrendous regime but also of our alleged Democratic leaders, the most ineffectual bunch of politicos I have ever experienced (and it's been a long life). These guys need a massive infusion of plain, old-fashioned guts and courage and a swift kick in the pants. But don't hold your breath: they ain't gonna do nothin', folks, while the rest of us, let's face it, lack the will to deliver that kick. (Seen any mass popular demonstrations in DC lately?) Looks like all we will be doing from now until January, 2009, is whining.
Captain Midnight

Said it once - I'll say it again.

Any American who would prefer to live / speak / vote freely, must read Mein Komph.

Rove was no Genius - he had read the book and followed the instructions, verbatim, as outlined by a sociopath who led his Nation to destruction. Control of the Judiciary is covered as a key component to leverage. This is nothing new, please educate yourselves.

Back up to ME on top of this page:

Mister ME: ALL incoming Presidents 'fire' the US Atty's. It is a normal, political succession (Check WIKI and beyond! Try the footnotes...)

BUT RARELY have US Presidents fired US Atty's AFTER a mid-term election, and RARELY because of 'political reasons': they're of their same party, for louding outcry!

Alors, so think a bit, study a bit, and then traipse in here with your RepubliCAN apologistas...

ZENmud

I am amazed that folks posting here are trying to reason with a Republican.

The Bush supporters here don't care what is true, what's good for the country or the Constitution, what's traditional, what's reasonable, what's legal, what's moral, or what's ethical.

They care about Republican - nothing else!

Dear, as you call yourself, me:

Thank you for the digest of the bestest talking points of Rush and FOX all in one. All presidents, at least modern ones, have accepted the resignations of US Attorneys at the beginning of their terms. Apart from that, the only ones fired have been those caught doing something improper, like biting a reporter -- Clinton fired him, with no protests from anyone.

This is different. Are you not aware that there was an insertion of a special little clause into the Patriot Act renewal that allowed US Attorneys to be fired and their successors not confirmed by the Senate? That was the first tipoff that something very unusual was going on. Then, the attorneys that were being let go were among the most competent, like Carol Lam, whose investigation of Duke Cunningham's bribers led to a search of Dusty Foggo, once the third man in charge of the CIA.

The consistent pattern that emerges is that these attorneys were being fired because they were doing their jobs in a non-partisan way, and especially in time for the 2008 elections, it seems like Rove, at least, wanted to do a number of "investigations" that would play out just before the 2008 elections. Just in time to influence voters and keep others away from the polls.

Dear ZENmud. I'm afraid you're right. They get the points, memorize them, get them repeated to each other , and then spout them off in public, over and over. But no, you say, trying to reason with them, the Constitution says this, the evidence says this is different. And without a pause, you get the "Clinton fired the 93, blah, blah." It's like trying to reason with a wombat. Really pointless. They're hooked on a drug.

Any others? Sure there were.

The US Attorney from Guam investigating a man named Jack Abramoff was not just fired, but replaced by a cousin of one of the targets of his investigation.

If I am sitting here knowing this, why doesn't ABC seem to have a clue ?

Why didn't ABC care when it happened?

A number of comments above feature the
"Clinton did it too" trope. I have a standard answer to this:

"I'll be more than happy to hang Clinton along with Bush and Cheney."

If Bush fired US attys because they were investigating republicans he is guilty of obstruction of justice. This is supposed to be a felony, last I heard. If he fired them for refusing to start politically motivated prosecutions of democrats then it is perfectly reasonable for me and others to consider this to be unacceptable and sufficient reason of impeachment.

For their own good, the "Clinton did it too" crowd needs to answer these questions:

What would you have said if Clinton had fired US attys for prosecuting democrats or for refusing to start prosecutions of repubs? What would you have said if members of his administration pleaded the 5th or claimed executive privilege or refused to answer subpoenas generated by this issue?

An honest answer to these questions leaves you in ruins.

How many comments on this article are devoted to trying to convince some Bush loyalist that revisionism and propaganda are not the same as reality and truth? This is a perfect summary of what our national dialog has degenerated into.

'Me' says, "Lets forget the fact the Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys as soon as he took office for what remains as "undisclosed reasons". I don't remember Congress making an issue then like they are now."

Now come on, Me! You know that this is common practice when a new president takes office. These firings did NOT occur when Bush was a new president, but during his SECOND term. There IS a difference, NO? Aren't you being just a bit disingenuous?

And since when is it okay to use the justice department for political purposes? Will we ever know what really happened, though we may have suspicions? And are you an American or a Republican? Do you support the constitution or your party? There IS a difference! NO? (If people raising questions about war can be labeled 'traitors' and 'terrorists,' perhpas it's time to start using similar labels for the apologists out there?!!

It's too bad Bush doesn't jump off a cliff, because of he did 25% of this country who still support his nefarious ways would jump with him, and we'd be far the better for it.
Reasoning with a Republican is like trying to reason with a broken record, they just go round and round with the same old song.
That_SOB

Bush and Cheney should be in prison awaiting sentencing for treason, war crimes, torture, murder, violations of the U.S. Constitution, and lying the country into an illegal war.

Bottom line: if any other President was proven to have forced USA's to base their charging decisions on what is best for the party rather than the Country, he/she would have been impeached that afternoon. We are governed by liars, cowards, and ill-tempered people who care nothing about the Nation they supposedly serve. That is as un-American as it gets.

Someone told me yesterday that the only reason impeachment isn't back on the table is because Nancy Pelosi doesn't want the job of Pres... doesn't want to jump into such a hellhole right now. Ya think?

Larry - let's put this is terms you might understand. Let's say President Hilary Clinton appoints a federal prosecutor. During her term, Chelsea, her daughter, is arrested on terrorism charges. Hilary fires the prosecutor and appoints one who immediately drops the charges against her daughter. Is this legal? Would you still be arguing that the President has total authority to hire and fire prosecutors?
The point being that while the President has the right to appoint prosecutors this right is not absolute. The privilege can not be used to commit a crime like obstructing justice. The same principle applies to executive privilege. The courts have upheld the President's right to executive privilege but the forced Nixon to turn over the tapes because there was evidence that a crime had been committed. No one, not even a President is above the law and they can not obstruct justice.

I wish people would open your eyes and stop listening to propoganda broadcast like Rush Bimbo And False News.

So, the White House is signaling to Congress, "Don’t bother with contempt citations. You’re not going anywhere. We control the judges; we control the prosecutors; and we control the Department of Justice."

Those who argue that calling the Busheviks totalitarian is extremist haven’t yet awakened to the radical anti-Constitutional actions of the White House.

The only remedy for the obstruction of justice on such a grand scale is impeachment.

Otherwise, Congress will continue to be rendered impotent at every turn because the Busheviks control the federal justice system.

Sean anomie touched on it, here's a bit more clarity:

If, as ME and the other Bush-suckers have said, Bush has the right to fire these guys (and gals), then WHY HAVE HE AND HIS THUGS SO STEADFASTLY ASSERTED THAT HE DIDN'T FIRE THEM?

If the USA's serve at the pleasure of the Preznit, and he can fire them any time he wishes, then why did someone else fire them?

Bush has said repeatedly that he had nothing to do with the firings. So someone has taken the power of the preznit unto themselves, is the only other explanation. Someone, who refuses to ID themselves, has violated the US Constitution and numerous laws and statutes, and taken on a power that is given only to the Preznit.

Either that, or...Bush LIED.

Now which is it, ?

Never mind, I don't want your poor little Rush-listening heads to explode, so we who know the answer will just go on knowing it.

And Stephen: it's Mein Kampf, and you're right, Rove has been using it as his playbook for at least 20 YEARS.

But nooooo, we must never acknowledge what every educated person in the country already knows:

Oops...one fewer. Karl Rove has resigned.