I mentioned the SciFi bumper on unraveling the whole man...

And how in Bush (League) land, that hair is Alberto Gonzales.

Here's more by Phoenix Woman at Firedoglake

I'm beginning to wonder if the US Attorney firing/force-out scandal may well be the Grand Unifying Scandal that connects most if not all of the other Bush scandals.

Like a loose bit of yarn on a sweater, pulling on it tugs at a whole bunch of other things involving the Bush Junta's extreme politicization of the Justice Department — not to mention the rest of the Federal government – and the extreme efforts made by the top players to avoid facing any kind of penalties for wrongdoing.

The rest (of the story)

Bush wants it both ways in the AG vs USAs mess

Dubya wants to claim executive privilege over something he claims not to know about.
Anonymous Liberal at Crooks and Liars

President Bush is in a real bind. The circumstances surrounding the firing of eight United States Attorneys reek so badly of crass partisan politics that the President's advisers are trying very hard to distance him as much as possible from the decision-making process. Hence, this from Tony Snow:

MR. SNOW: The President has no recollection of this ever being raised with him. . . .

Q Just to follow, did you say, again for the record, that the President has no recollection of ever being asked about any of this?

MR. SNOW: Yes, the removal — yes, that is correct.

Indeed, Snow went as far as to assert that this was "a decision that was made at the U.S. Department of Justice."

Here's the problem, though. As Marty Lederman points out, the relevant statute–28 U.S.C. 541(c)–vests the power to remove U.S. Attorneys with the president ("Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.") As we've repeatedly been told, U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President–not the pleasure of the Attorney General (and certainly not the pleasure of the Attorney General's chief of staff). The decision to fire a U.S. Attorney–much less eight of them–is unquestionably one for the president to make, so if President Bush was truly out of the loop on this, that's a problem in and of itself.

More

All together now, "It's all right if you are a republi-con."

Had Bill Clinton offered to speak or have his aids to speak to congressional committees, but in private, unsworn and with no transcript the uproar would have been stupendous. But Dubya is different. He is a Republi-con.
E. J. Dionne at The Washington Post:

The senator vigorously rejected the president's claim of executive privilege. "I find this extraordinary and troublesome," he said, "and I think it will ultimately be damaging to the president. . . . This is an attempt to stonewall our committee, and the public will be outraged."

Doesn't that sound like one of those tough statements by Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Democratic point man on the U.S. attorney scandal? The speaker was actually the Republican whom Schumer defeated nine years ago, Alfonse D'Amato, discussing Bill Clinton's invocation of executive privilege in the Whitewater investigation. Nice to see Chuck and Al agree on something.

So many principles that Republicans held dear when they were trying to take Clinton down are no longer operative. This certainly applies to a 1998 column now whizzing around the Internet that ran under the headline "Executive Privilege Is a Dodge." It was written by Tony Snow, who is now President Bush's press secretary.

More

Special delivery gift from Dubya. A big can of Whoop-Ass

From thereisnospoon at My Left Wing:

What an extraordinary gift Bush has given the Democratic Party and the American People. For months if not years, Democrats and Progressives have wrung our hands and beaten our heads against the wall: should we move to impeach? Whom, exactly, should we impeach? How can we do it? On what grounds? Will the American people stand with us, or against us? Above all, how can we do it without making Republicans look like the victims of a partisan witch hunt? [...]

Thankfully for Democrats, the American People and the United States Constitution, George Bush's recalcitrance, petulance, and extraordinary loyalty to his corrupt cronies have already answered all those vexing questions for us. Rather than our bringing the confrontation to him, George Bush is bringing the confrontation of Constitutional crisis to us. [...]

In sum, Bush has given us every possible political cover and excuse for impeaching him, on an issue for which he has little to no congressional support among Republicans. It's wrapped up in a neat little package with a bowtie. It is, frankly, a generous gift to our Party, our Nation, and our Constitution.

All we need is the courage to open it.

More

The 'Rule Of Karl' must end!

Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake

When the Founding Fathers of our nation established a government of the people, by the people and for the people, with built-in provisions for the protection of the rule of law against the tyranny of the majority through a separation of powers into three governmental branches: executive, legislative and judiciary, they failed to count on one thing: the Rule of Karl. In reading through the massive document dump of e-mails from the USAs firings and the DoJ tap dance between Gonzales and the Bush White House, the fingerprints of Karl Rove are everywhere, carefully concealed behind having other people do the actual, written e-mailing so that his hands (and signature line) stay off the direct line of communication — but everywhere nonetheless.

[...]

Politics is not supposed to be the foremost consideration in judicial action. In fact, it is supposed to be quite far down the list, if there at all, in terms of the factors in play for charging decisions. The fact that the Bush Administration has attempted to so pervert the legal system as to skew it for its own political gain is appalling enough. But that they would fire US Attorneys for doing their jobs — and doing them well, in uncovering corrupt acts of politicians regardless of party, or for making charging decisions outside the realm of political vendetta — is unconscionable.

More

Three things to think about.

Get some aluminum foil, make yourself a hat and think about these points from the New Zeland Scoop.

UQ Wire: Illegalities Suggests Bush Role In 9/11

By Sherwood Ross

The trouble with thinking 9/11 was an inside job staged by George W. Bush & Co. is that it defies belief any U.S. president might be capable of such an iniquitous crime against his own people.

Yet, subsequent Bush actions, such as lying the nation into war against Iraq, makes one wonder if the man didn’t create the 9/11 massacres to justify his attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

After all, his record reveals him to be a serial liar, warmonger, tyrant, torturer, and usurper of his peoples’ civil liberties.

More on Bush and 9/11

Did Cheney Allow 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon?
Sherwood Ross

Although the official 9/11 Commission Report(CR) said Vice President Richard Cheney did not arrive at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center(PEOC) under the White House until "shortly before 10 a.m." that tragic day, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified when he arrived in the room at 9:20 a.m. Cheney was already there. (CR published no testimony from Mineta.)

The timeline is important because if Cheney arrived at 10 a.m. it would have been about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was allegedly struck by a hijacked airplane at 9:38 a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. Some 125 Pentagon employees perished in the attack.

More on Cheney

Karen Kwiatkowski On Feith, Cheney & Planning Iran
David Swanson

SWANSON: Who's running this show, Bush or Cheney or a group?

KWIATKOWSKI: I suspect it is Cheney, and Cheney's network of like-minded, old Cold Warriors struggling for money, power and relevance in a post-Cold War age. Hence the war on terror, hence the demonization of Russia, Iran and China by members of the Cheney clique. Cheney and those who share his worldview in Washington are dinosaurs, but they have big teeth, big appetites, and they aren't dead yet. Apparently, Cheney is also personally feared by many Republicans and Democrats alike. I don't know why. Are they afraid he'll curse at them and call them names? Bush doesn't seem to be much of an organization man. He seems more like the Paris Hilton of politics. He goes to the parties, he shows up, he has a good time, but doesn't take anything too seriously. Cheney seems to take world domination seriously, and he has a lot of friendly, and fearful, folks on board.

More on Kwiatkowski

Remember when Scott Ritter was correct about what a clusterf*ck Iraq would be?

Here is his take on the coming war on Iran.
Steven D at Booman Tribune

If I were to address [the Democrats in Congress], I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.

I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric.

More

No, it's not the set-up for a really sad joke... Robert Reich asks What Can Possibly Be in Bush's Head?

The points Reich makes are good commentary, but some of the best comments are, remarkably, in the comments. Read them too.

Question: Why is Bush willing to risk his party’s future, as well as his own legacy, by putting more troops into Iraq when it’s clear to almost everyone – including top military brass, foreign policy experts, and most analysts and journalists on the ground there – that Iraq is descending so quickly into civil war that more troops won’t make a bit of difference except causing more American deaths and instigating more violence?

Read more

FBI 'Hoovering' the internet. What kind thoughts have you expressed about Chairman Dubya lately?

After reading this, you might want to re-read this post.

Declan McCullagh at CNet News

The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.

More

Do you really think that this DOJ under this AG, in this (mis)Administration cares if it's not legally permissible?

As he takes you away, in the night, with no witnesses, the cop said " got yer Habeas Corpus right here!"

This is as plain as it gets. You really need to reflect on this one. You could easily end up in Syria with wires connected to your genitals and needles under your fingernails. And. No. One. Need. Know. Anything. At. All.

Larry Beinhart in Huffington

"Don't really care who you claim to be, and the charge is none of your business," says the more talkative of the two officers, or soldiers, or whoever is grabbing you.

"Wait, let me tell my family and call my lawyer," you say.

"Not a chance," says the friendly police person, cuffing you and throwing a bag over your head.

"Blouff, blouff, blouff," you cry through the hood.

"That'll teach you to sneer at the president," says the talkative officer, kicking you to make you move. "And undermine his War on Terror!"

"It's not against the law to sneer," you try to say, but they can't hear you. And neither will anyone else, because you have no right of Habeas Corpus.

More

It's good to know that there will always be Commissars. Dubya has created a new crop!

Steven D at Booman Tribune

You remember the Commissar from old Cold War era movies, don't you? He or she was a political officer attached to a department of the Soviet government (including the Soviet military) to ensure compliance with the official dictates of the Communist party by all government employees and soldiers. Well, guess what Mr. Unitary Executive has just gone and adopted by executive order, straight out of the Stalinist-Leninist handbook (via The New York Times):

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

More

Surgin' an' Purgin' with Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman explains why the administration has suddenly begun firing federal prosecutors:

Surging and Purging, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: There’s something happening here, and what it is seems completely clear: the Bush administration is trying to protect itself by purging independent-minded prosecutors.

[...]

Since the middle of last month, the Bush administration has pushed out at least four U.S. attorneys, and possibly as many as seven, without explanation. The list includes Carol Lam ... who successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham, a Republican congressman, on major corruption charges. The top F.B.I. official in San Diego ...[said] that Ms. Lam’s dismissal would undermine multiple continuing investigations. ...

[S]uch a wholesale firing of prosecutors ... isn’t normal... Why, then, are prosecutors that the Bush administration itself appointed suddenly being pushed out? The likely answer is that for the first time the administration is really worried about where corruption investigations might lead.

More...

Has The United States jumped the shark?

The president is YOUR employee. He is subject to law. While he has a great many perogatives he is subject BY LAW to oversight by the congress, who, by the way is you, by proxy.

So then, where does this president find the gall to say that he will ignore those constitutional strictures if the congress "votes wrong". Congress makes laws, which , by definition, are correct.

A law may be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, (by the way, another restraint on the president) but a president is not above established law. This president is creating a massive constitutional crisis. Whether the people, his boss, object to dishonesty, malfeasance, incredible ineptness and absolute disregard for the law of the land, remains to be seen. If we the people do not demand an end to this travesty, we have jumped the shark, and are well on our way to being a banana republic.

Cenk Uygur at Daily KOS

I can't imagine any other president saying he has the right to do what he pleases even if Congress makes it illegal. What does "if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way" mean? Wrong, according to whom? The fact that it is a law makes it right by definition, by our democracy, by our constitution.

The president can veto laws he thinks Congress voted the wrong way on. But if they override his veto, it is not within his authority to ignore that law. This is so fundamental that it's unbelievable that it has to be spelled out.

If you asked whether a president could do this in an eighth grade civics class and anyone answered -- "Yes, a president can exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress voted the wrong way." -- you would unquestionably fail them. That is not the correct answer. At least not in our system of government.

More