Comments (55)

Sholom wrote on April 19, 2007 1:26 PM:

Hello?!?!

It was the AG that "criticiz[ed] the good employees of the Justice Department:" by claiming he had lost confidence in the USA's (in the USA Today editorial), and who know says he doesn't know why they were fired!

The nerve of him!

Sholom wrote on April 19, 2007 1:26 PM:

Hello?!?!

It was the AG that "criticiz[ed] the good employees of the Justice Department:" by claiming he had lost confidence in the USA's (in the USA Today editorial), and who now says he "regrets his words"

The nerve of him!

Dusty wrote on April 19, 2007 1:33 PM:

Berto looks like the fool that he is today. Its must see TV for anyone that wants to know what idiot is running our Justice Dept.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 1:35 PM:

The more you know ...

Code: Profit ... from it.

Supdog wrote on April 19, 2007 1:36 PM:

What a douchebag.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 1:37 PM:

He's channeling Karl Rove.

Later, he'll blame the American people for bringing 9/11 on itself.

big bert wrote on April 19, 2007 1:39 PM:

Such an obvious talking point from his preparation team. Even the whole "I am outraged!" cresendo as Gonzo said it was scripted. What an idiot.

security code is with, as for without shame.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 1:39 PM:

Of course he can say it and others can't. After all didn't one of the guys get fired for being an "absentee landlord"?

Also, I have asked all officials to provide information ...except those that plead 5th ...we'll try to keep them on paid leave till we can.

Code: School ...faith based ...have some.

webdems wrote on April 19, 2007 1:42 PM:

He said: If you want to attack someone, attack me......... Then he said: But watch out! When you attack me, you are attacking the career employees!

rmadilo wrote on April 19, 2007 1:44 PM:

Did anyone ever ask the initial question: Why was the process initiated? Even if the AG delegated the process, without some guidelines setup at the start, how does one proceed?

Hey, Sampson, get me a list of who to fire!

Legalize wrote on April 19, 2007 1:49 PM:

My jaw about hit the steering wheel when Abu Gonzales unleashed this whopper. I'm a bit disappointed that the entire committee didn't nail his cowardly ass right on the spot.

code: "collar." That one speaks for itself.

Jane wrote on April 19, 2007 1:50 PM:

Code Word: Snake

Even if you assume Gonsosleaze isn't lying, it goes like this: I delegated to my mediocre senior staff, I got mediocre results. I don't understand how this happened and I promise to do better. I have dug myself into a hole but I can still do better than anyonelse as I dig myself out. Why do you want me to leave -- after all I meant well.

Also on the non-political nature of the firings especially of Carol Lam:

A number of the complaints from legislator's complaints were because of political reasons and some are known to have been participated in by associated of Duke Cunningham. Gonzosleaze is claiming we simply relied on the legistlator's complaints without checking the facts with the A. G.'s (I delegated that --see above) so how can you possibly believe that we did anything for improper reasons when we didn't put anything in writing.

Such a loyal Bushie.

RobW wrote on April 19, 2007 1:51 PM:

Has he forgotten that it's unwarranted attacks on career professionals that got him in this mess?

Jeez, 2 weeks of intensive preparation for this?

The more I read about this matter, the more relieved I feel actually. I mean, sure these people are evil and authoritarian and anti-freedom. But they are also completely incompetent. They're not ever going to enact the fascist police state they dream of because they don't know what they're doing. And they're all so selfish, petty and spiteful that they'll always end up eating each other alive.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

I see where Bush is holding a "town hall meeting" broadcast live on CNN as I type. Strange coincidence. A cynic might say he hoped to preempt the inevitable footage of the Gonzo hearings on the networks later tonight.

Not me though.

freepatriot wrote on April 19, 2007 1:53 PM:

so the fucktard who said that the 8 US Attorneys were fired for incompetence now says that an attack on him is an attack on those same US Attorneys

hey fucktard, by your difinition, Patrick Fitzgerald is an "Average" prosecutor

by your fucked up political morality, the difinition of a "Superior" US Attorney is probably somebody as brain dead and fucktarded as yourself

couldn't slink away in silence, could you ???

just had to embarras yourself and the whole fucking country didn't you

do the world a favor abu, just end the farce and resign already

sorry, had to vent

secrurity code; salt

Samuel Johnson wrote on April 19, 2007 1:55 PM:

Great job of picking an AG, Bush. What an idiot.

Nuncamas21 wrote on April 19, 2007 2:00 PM:

pretty much any time some one says, to be frank, or candidly, sir, or to be honest, you can bet they're lying. it's a reliable rule.

donna wrote on April 19, 2007 2:04 PM:

As a citizen of San Diego, I am outraged that we lost a fine prosecutor like Carol Lam and have to put up with this scum in charge of the "Justice Dept", that has been reduced to a bunch of political shills for the RNC and the Christian right.

I want my country back. I weant my justice department back. You work for ME and the AMerican people, Gonzales -- not Bush and the RNC.

Anonymous wrote on April 19, 2007 2:04 PM:

The "town hall meeting" is at a High School in Ohio.

Of course they couldn't stand to have an "open" crowd, so the local chamber of commerce handpicked the invitees. About 40 high school students were also invited.

m reeves nyc wrote on April 19, 2007 2:09 PM:

this sad litle man is in way over his head - he has been used and now must pay the price of lying

Nina Katarina wrote on April 19, 2007 2:15 PM:

I'm just waiting for his voice to pitch high enough that only dogs can hear it.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on April 19, 2007 2:16 PM:

The beau just asked me if Gonzales is gay. He only sounds gay, right?

powkat wrote on April 19, 2007 2:16 PM:

I'm listening, not watching, but I can hear the wheels turn when he's asked a question.

"Question about Sampson. Whirr - click - oh, yeah, there's the phrase they gave me."

"Senator, to the best of my recollection - blah, blah, blah."

If he's not out after this, then it's time to go for broke and start impeachment proceedings.

Punchy wrote on April 19, 2007 2:19 PM:

And yet Gonzo will still have a job come next week. I promise you, Specter will back off, and Bush will refuse any resignation.

Bet the hizzy on this. Nobody EVER gets blamed/fired/demoted in this Admin....

Lisa wrote on April 19, 2007 2:21 PM:

Simple Question: If it is Ok to fire US Attorneys for incompetence, then why should the AG keep his job, since he has admitted incompetence?

RandyR wrote on April 19, 2007 2:22 PM:

I don't think that Gonzoles has said anything that is not on the record already. It's an interesting stonewalling technique.

Where are the questions about the problems at the Civil Rights Division. No minority voter cases, ever needs to be addressed. The hiring of interns needs to be addressed. The use of the adminstrative complaint process to harass career attorneys needs to be addressed.

This pimp is sliding away.

YouFascinateMe wrote on April 19, 2007 2:27 PM:

At the end of, I think Durbin's questioning, AG was asked whether he discussed Carol Lam with Karl Rove. AG responded approx. "not as part of this process". The obvious follow-up to this hedged response, "did you EVER speak to Karl Rove about Carol Lam?", was not aked. Someone needs to ask it.

Punchy wrote on April 19, 2007 2:30 PM:

"The obvious follow-up to this hedged response, "did you EVER speak to Karl Rove about Carol Lam?", was not aked. Someone needs to ask it."

Why? Let me already give you his answer:

"I don't recall any conversation"

Fishbones wrote on April 19, 2007 2:41 PM:

I winced when he referred to himself in the third person. Did this have a similar effect on anyone else?

ken melvin wrote on April 19, 2007 2:55 PM:

Incompetence. Incompetence permitted Gonzales to give the advice he gave in re GITMO, Abu Grhaib, torture, the constitution, ... Incompetence permitted G W B to do the things the things he's done. Neither were any way qualified for the jobs they're holding. Neither are qualified for much of anything. GWB never really ran anything in his life. Neither are very knowledgeable about the matters before them. Strangely, this very incompetence, allowed them to make decision about matters they were incompetent to decide.

Strangely Enough wrote on April 19, 2007 2:56 PM:

'AG responded approx. "not as part of this process."'

Then, as part of what process?

code: keep, as in, keep digging...

Les Ismore wrote on April 19, 2007 2:58 PM:

Stop! When you criticize the AG, it emboldens the terrorists!

r€nato wrote on April 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

When you criticize Abu Gonzales, you make baby Jesus cry!

security code: pain

r€nato wrote on April 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

When you criticize Abu Gonzales, God kills a cute little kitten.

Security code: crush

jc chasezbian wrote on April 19, 2007 3:15 PM:

Sheldon Whitehouse is amazing, credible, articulate, punchy-yet-measured, itellectually curious, and good looking to boot.

he reveals ALberto Gonzales to be what he is. exit, stage left.

nuQler ostrich wrote on April 19, 2007 3:28 PM:

Can you say, "Obsequious Instrument" ?

Code Alex, as in Hamilton - Federalist 76

Robert Dsquared wrote on April 19, 2007 3:36 PM:

It's very obvious
George Bush IS the state=> attack W. and you attack the state => you are treasonous.

W. is the C-in-C of the Armed Forces=> W. IS the Armed Forces => don't support W. and you don't support the Armed Forces => you don't support the troops.

Similarly;
Abu G is the AG => the AG IS the DoJ => attack Abu G and you attack the DoJ.

Jebus people, it's just that simple. As a friend used to say "This, this is just logic..."

Mark F. wrote on April 19, 2007 4:56 PM:

The guy is a COMPULSIVE liar. And he sucks at it too.

MyTooSense wrote on April 19, 2007 5:50 PM:

Hey. Where'd the video go?

Zil wrote on April 19, 2007 5:51 PM:

Not seeing the video any more - can you furnish a transcript or new link?

sholom wrote on April 19, 2007 6:38 PM:

Does the video exist anywhere else?

The Oracle wrote on April 19, 2007 7:05 PM:

Gonzales has sullied the entire Justice Department through his presence there. And the only way to rip his sorry ass out of the Justice Department is by impeaching both Bush and Cheney, and maybe getting a president with honor and integrity (and intelligence) in the White House who will nominate someone who might take their oath to the U.S. Constitution (and our democratic principles) seriously. Otherwise, Gonzales will continue to ply his partisan, anti-American hackery until the day Bush and Cheney slither out of the White House on their bloated, neo-con bellies. Why? Because Gonzales and Karl Rove still have high hopes that they'll be able to game the November 2008 elections (like they've done previous ones) by having their handpicked as well as other "loyal Bushie" U.S. Attorneys bring bogus charges against Democrats jsut before the election next year.

The only way the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney offices around our democratic nation can regain the trust of U.S. citizens is if Gonzales resigns as well as all the other "loyal Bushies" who are part and parcel of the same Republican "culture of corruption."

bcg wrote on April 19, 2007 7:05 PM:

It's not about Gonzales, it's about the people who put him up to it. I don't care if he resigns as long as the investiagtion dredges all the dirt out of DoJ and links the crime it has become to AG's handlers at the White House.

The Eye of Ra wrote on April 19, 2007 7:39 PM:

Video link is broken?

Mark wrote on April 19, 2007 8:52 PM:

The "career professionals" (the implication being that they are non-political civil service attorneys) are increasingly becoming ideological appointees because DOJ, for the first time under Bush 43, shifted hiring decisions from the career attorneys (who have a long history of hiring the best, not the most loyal) to the political appointees (who have hired young, right wing theocratic ideologues to take civil service protected positions). So when we complain about DOJ, we are really only complaining about all the eff-ed up ideologues who were hired because they are Loyal-Bushies.

SLOUCH wrote on April 19, 2007 9:21 PM:

video link still broken.

anonymous DOJ atty wrote on April 19, 2007 9:42 PM:

I'm a career DOJ attorney -- have been for years -- and I am repulsed and sickened by the spineless claim that criticizing the AG is a slur on my own work and professionalism.

Yes, this controversy hurts. It hurts the Department's reputation for fairness and for zeal in enforcing the nation's laws in the service of justice. But it hurts because of what the AG and his over-politicized advisors -- and yes, the White House -- have done. Theirs was no casual offense, nor a careless one. They deliberately flung down the rule of law and danced a partisan jig on it. It nauseates me that the AG cannot even own up to his own actions, and to see him attempt to hide behind the career attorneys whose standards are so far above his own.

Whistler wrote on April 19, 2007 11:18 PM:

Ever heard of "Command Responsibility"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

... and by the way, the Nuremberg Defense is supposed to be about one's SUPERIORS telling you to do something ... not when one's UNDERLINGS tell their boss to do something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

Planet Gonzo is a very, very strange place!

Whistler wrote on April 19, 2007 11:45 PM:

RobW said:

> The more I read about this matter, the more
> relieved I feel actually. I mean, sure these
> people are evil and authoritarian and anti-
> freedom. But they are also completely
> incompetent. They're not ever going to enact
> the fascist police state they dream of because
> they don't know what they're doing. And they're
> all so selfish, petty and spiteful that they'll
> always end up eating each other alive.

Hallelujah! And well said.

My experience in the military (years: Reagan and then Bush's father) told me much the same. And it was definitely a comfort to me, at the time.

These rejects with inferiority complexes chase away anyone with half (a quarter?) of a brain, or any kind of a work ethic - just by the constant support of amazingly incompetent folks. All of the capable people eventually realize that their leaders weren't worth following on a field trip to the bathroom; let alone anywhere of any real significance. And so, they quit. Go elsewhere. Or "retire on active duty". Feign incompetence, just to "go along and get along". (Making, in a sense, a hidden sleeper cell of competence?)

Over time, by attrition and default, it becomes the somewhat compliant dumbsh*ts leading the even more compliant, even dumber dumbsh*ts. Amazing.

And all congratulating one another on brilliance.

The movie "Idiocracy" is definitely relevant.

One weird thing I've never quite figured out: they almost always mis-read employee silence as agreement. A lot of times, it's just a way of indictating "you're much too stupid to talk to". And yet they don't see that; and think just the opposite -- that they're so smart, it's stunning.

Delusions of grandeur? Who knows.

Things sort of work - right up until they chase out the last competent person. (Who has, by that time, been doing the work of a 100 people.) Then they can't figure out what happened, all of a sudden ... and why nothing ever works out. Why, they have all the best leaders, etc., etc. Sure!

Inbreeding ... without royal families. (Shudder!)

cal1942 wrote on April 20, 2007 12:39 AM:

The real problem is that these incompetents have hounded out good career civil servants and their partisan hiring practices have seeded the Justice Dept and other federal agencies with fourth rate ideological hacks. The fact that these people are now career civil servants insures lasting damage to several federal agencies especially the EPA and the Justice Department.

It's not that they're incompetent, although they certainly are incompetent, it's their anti-government ideology that's been deeply implanted into the heart and soul of critical agencies.

Rufus wrote on April 20, 2007 12:45 AM:

It was Hitler who said that an attack on him was an attack on the State. Gonzo must have been told that during his "testimony preparation."

kipling wrote on April 20, 2007 10:17 AM:

Incompetence? So what do you call it when someone deliberately places an incompetente in a position of authority?

Gonzo keeps repeating "why would these people, who are more competent than me, give me a list of incompetent attorneys to sign off on, unless those attorneys were incompetent? I mean, come on! Are you asking me to question my masters?!?!?" He might as well be saying "Fuck! I just rubber stamp! That's what we're all supposed to do, right?..... Right??"

So, Gonzo's job is to cover Rove's arse and fall on his sword for his Master. I wonder if that was in the job description? If not, he should sue for "false advertising".

cb wrote on April 20, 2007 1:13 PM:

Has any one read the book "The Peter Principle", other then Gonzo???? It was written for this administration.

fooby wrote on April 21, 2007 9:49 AM:

The true definition of evil is "stupidity in power". That definition explains Brownie, Libby, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and Gonzo. They're all simply stupid - but when the moron in chief looks for staff, he doesn't look for any bulb with wattage higher than his own.

So Gonzo will be replaced by another dim bulb - there's a hundred of them lined up behind him. But the point of these hearings is not to fix the AG's department. You can't do that while Bush is in power. The point of these hearings is to keep Bush, Cheney and Rove on the back foot, in a reactive mode, so that they can't steal the next election like they did the last two.

You can expect these scandals to deepen and multiply over the next 18 months until the name "George Bush" becomes a curse word like "Benedict Arnold". You can't impeach the guy or he'll just appoint a VP to pardon him like Nixon did. You have to wait until after he's left office before you can try him for treason ... stupid treason ...

scullygrrrl wrote on April 21, 2007 12:02 PM:

Does anyone remember the little Nazi sadist- Toht I think his name was-who said to Marion Ravenwood, "Now---what shall we talk about?" Who does he remind you of...?

Tick, tick, tick, tick, RING!!!!!

All right Alberto! You ARE the Nazi sadist for the new millenium!!!!