Furor Over DA Firings Grows

[Nickdfresh]

Pelosi calls for new attorney general

By Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondent

March 19, 2007, 11:31 AM CDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) added her voice to the growing chorus of discontent over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, saying today, "I believe we need a new attorney general.''

In a meeting with The Chicago Tribune editorial board and in an interview with WGN-TV, Pelosi said there was a reason Republicans feared a Democratic victory last November.

"They knew that the era of no oversight was over and that they would have to be held accountable,'' she said, citing the scandal at Walter Reed over the treatment of wounded soldiers, as well as questions about whether politics played a role in the dismissal of the U.S. attorneys.

"I think what is unfolding looks pretty bad for the administration as well as Alberto Gonzales,'' Pelosi said, noting that Republicans have begun calling for his dismissal in addition to Democrats.

Pelosi said it seems clear that Gonzales never stopped acting as President Bush's lawyer when he moved from the White House counsel's office to the Justice Department. But she said she would reserve judgment until House and Senate hearings reveal exactly what happened.

"I don't think Alberto Gonzales fundamentally understood the difference between being the president's lawyer and the attorney general of the United States and the premier defender of the Constitution,'' she said. "I think what is important is for us to have the hearings, which will be thorough and reasoned and put the facts on the record."

Pelosi said she believes Gonzales was not the only person involved in the decision to fire the federal prosecutors, many of whom were involved in pursuing corruption cases against Republicans.

"I don't think it looks good for him right now," Pelosi said of Gonzales.

Despite the bipartisan calls for Gonzales' ouster, the White House said today, "We hope he stays.''

Asked if Gonzales will serve out the remainder of Bush's term, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "Well, we hope so.''

The Justice Department is expected to turn over to Congress today documents that could provide more information about the role that officials there played in dismissing the prosecutors. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has said he wants to question Karl Rove, Bush's top political strategist, as well as Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel.

The White House is also expected to say this week whether it will allow them to testify before Congress.

jzuckman@tribune.com

Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune

[studly hungwell]

THE REASON THESE GUYS WERE FIRED IS IRRELEVANT. NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED HERE.

[Nickdfresh]

Oh brother...

They fired DAs for investigating Republicans ("Duke" Cunningham).


And if it's irrelevant, then why won't it die, and why are Republicans now calling on Speedy to quit?

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh brother...

They fired DAs for investigating Republicans ("Duke" Cunningham).


And if it's irrelevant, then why won't it die, and why are Republicans now calling on Speedy to quit?

It won't die because its chic to 'hate bush with every bone in your body', these days. As far as why pubs want speedy to quit is more interesting...even the white house won't defend itself....let alone any congressional pub. Its easily understood why congressional pubs won't stand up for Bush but why won't he defend himself? It's pretty frustrating.

[Warham]

Pelosi thinks everybody in the White House should be replaced...with Democrat replacements.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Pelosi thinks everybody in the White House should be replaced...with Democrat replacements.

They will be.........

[FORD]

And put a fork in Speedy. He's done.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
They will be.........

FORD, are you dreaming again?

[Ellyllions]

Pelosi keeps this up and we won't buy her a new fancy plane to tool around in...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Pelosi keeps this up and we won't buy her a new fancy plane to tool around in...

Sorry, that's mandated by law. Thanks to what REPUBLICANS passed as part of 9-11 paranoia.

[Ellyllions]

I really don't care.
It's never been my money anyway and that's the ultimate goal of all politicians....the tax money.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I really don't care.
It's never been my money anyway and that's the ultimate goal of all politicians....the tax money.

Then I assume you're REALLY pissed off about the $500 Billion wasted so far on that illegal and immoral clusterfuck in Iraq?

[FORD]

Like I said, Speedy's DONE.........

White House Seeking Gonzales Replacements
By: Mike Allen
March 19, 2007 09:06 PM EST

Republican officials operating at the behest of the White House have begun seeking a possible successor to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose support among GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill has collapsed, according to party sources familiar with the discussions.

Among the names floated Monday by administration officials are Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and White House anti-terrorism coordinator Frances Townsend. Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is a White House prospect. So is former solicitor general Theodore B. Olson, but sources were unsure whether he would want the job.

Republican sources also disclosed that it is now a virtual certainty that Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, whose incomplete and inaccurate congressional testimony about the prosecutors helped precipitate the crisis, will also resign shortly. Officials were debating whether Gonzales and McNulty should depart at the same time or whether McNulty should go a day or two after Gonzales. Still known as "The Judge" for his service on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales is one of the few remaining original Texans who came to Washington with President Bush.

In a sign of Republican despair, GOP political strategists on Capitol Hill said that it is too late for Gonzales' departure to head off a full-scale Democratic investigation into the motives and timing behind the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

"Democrats smell blood in the water, and (Gonzales') resignation won't stop them," said a well-connected Republican Senate aide. "And on our side, no one's going to defend him. All we can do is warn Democrats against overreaching."

A main reason Gonzales is finding few friends even among Republicans is that he has long been regarded with suspicion by conservatives who have questioned his ideological purity. In the past, these conservatives warned the White House against nominating him for the Supreme Court. Now they're using the controversy over the firing of eight federal prosecutors to take out their pent-up frustrations with how he has handled his leadership at Justice and how the White House has treated Congress.

Complaints range from his handling of immigration cases to his alleged ceding of power in the department to career officials instead of movement conservatives.


Without embracing Gonzales, Republicans pointed out that presidents are free to replace U.S. attorneys at will. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) noted on MSNBC that some of those who were replaced "haven't whined or complained about it" and added, "I think that there's a lot of politics, but I don't think it's just on one side."

But officials on Capitol Hill said that after the Justice Department failed to turn over a batch of e-mails about the prosecutors on Friday as expected, Republican senators became less likely to defend Gonzales or the White House. They feared the delay signaled more damaging information was in the pipeline.

"We have a crisis where there doesn't need to be one, and now Democrats have an issue where they can open up the subpoena floodgates," said an exasperated Republican aide. "Once these investigations start, there always ends up being a lot of messy collateral damage."

Now the White House is girding for a confirmation battle at the same time it is coping with Democrats' threats to subpoena aides to Bush, including senior adviser Karl Rove.

Among the contenders to replace Gonzales, Chertoff is a former U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Philadelphia. Before that, he was confirmed by the Senate in 2003 as assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

Under this scenario, Chertoff's successor at the Department of Homeland Security might be Townsend, who now works in the White House as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism. Townsend held senior Justice Department posts under Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton administration and is also a potential nominee for attorney general.

Republican sources said other widely respected Republican lawyers have been considered for attorney general, although some of them may not be interested in taking the job. These names include:

• --Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, the "Law & Order" star who is now considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
  
  --Olson, who was Bush's first solicitor general and now is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington.
  
  --Larry Thompson, who has been general counsel of PepsiCo Inc. since leaving his first-term job as deputy to Attorney General John Ashcroft.
  
  --Retired federal judge Laurence H. Silberman, who was named by Bush to be co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
  
  --George J. Terwilliger III, a former deputy attorney general and acting attorney general who was a leader of Bush's legal team during the Florida election recount.

Asked if Gonzales will stay, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said Monday: "We hope so. He has the confidence of the president." But Snow also revealed that the president had not talked to Gonzales since a conversation the two had when Bush was in Mexico last week.

Link

[FORD]

If they put Ted Olson under oath at confirmation hearings, I got some questions for that bastard.........

[Guitar Shark]

I actually know the D.A. from Washington who was fired (McKay). Nice guy.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I actually know the D.A. from Washington who was fired (McKay). Nice guy.

You should ask him who he was investigating (that got him fired)

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by FORD
Then I assume you're REALLY pissed off about the $500 Billion wasted so far on that illegal and immoral clusterfuck in Iraq?

Boy, that's a leading question if I ever read one...

[Warham]

How was the Iraq War 'illegal', or 'immoral'?

Saddam Hussein killed anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and that's probably low-balling the number.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
chic to 'hate bush with every bone in your body', these days.

There's nothing "chic" about it. He's a worthless, lying, piece of shit scumbag. Most people just took awhile to realize it.

[Warham]

These libs won't have anything to do after Bush leaves office.

It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.

[Ellyllions]

It's already gotten a lot more quiet since the Dems took over Congress.

Honestly, I've been staying out of the Front Line because it's all shits and giggles now anyway. The filthy scum in DC is going to do whatever the fuck they wanna do no matter how hard we battle morals. They don't give a shit about any of us or anyone in another country. They all wallow in their stinking high chairs and battle each other over partisanship no matter who it hurts.

All we do is belittle each other into a tizzy for people who are the lowest form of oxygen users in our whole population. And the Pelosi's and Clinton's hands are just as dirty as the Bush's and the Cheney's.

So battle on....they don't care. You're their puppets for acting like they'll make a difference. They've been promising shit for 8 years now and they choose sides based on power and popularity.

Life will go on, status quo...gas prices will go up and down, the soldiers will come home eventually, and there will be another political battle to fight. The only reason we're even paying attention to all of this is because of our age anyway. It's not like any of this is new...only new fronts from Administration to Administration.

In the 80's, my teenage head was too far up my own ass to know how close we were to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. I saw the music videos and the protests about how much Regan was hated. In the 90's I video taped the start of the Gulf War and cried when my cousin was sent. I saw the Bush bashing and when the war was over I went back to raising my son. I was aware of how bad Clinton was made fun of and how much people hated him then too.

Today is no different.

[Hardrock69]

Here is a neat article:


Our Highest Law Enforcement Officials are Criminals
Crime Blotter: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

While serving as President Bush's White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales advised Bush that the president's war time powers permitted Bush to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and to use the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on US citizens without obtaining warrants from the FISA court as required by law. Under an order signed by Bush in 2002, NSA illegally spied on Americans without warrants.

By spying on Americans without obtaining warrants, Bush committed felonies under FISA. Moreover, there is strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence that justice was obstructed when Bush and Gonzales blocked a 2006 Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales acted properly as Attorney General in approving and overseeing the Bush administration's program of spying on US citizens. Also at issue is whether Gonzales acted properly in advising Bush to kill an investigation of Gonzales' professional actions with regard to the NSA spy program.

We are faced with the almost certain fact that the two highest law enforcement officials of the United States are criminals.

The evidence that Bush and Gonzales have obstructed justice comes from internal Justice Department memos and exchanges of letters between the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), an investigative office, and members of Congress. The documents were leaked to the National Journal, and the story was reported in the March 15, 2007, issue by Murray Waas, who also relied on interviews with both current and former high ranking DOJ officials. Ten months previously on May 25, 2006, Waas broke the story in the National Journal about the derailing of the OPR investigation.

From Waas's report it is obvious that many current and former Justice Department officials have serious concerns about the high-handed behavior of the Bush administration. The incriminating documents were leaked to the National Journal, the only remaining national publication that has any credibility. The New York Times and Washington Post have proven to be supine tools of the Bush administration and are no longer trusted.

When the Bush administration's violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was leaked to the New York Times, the paper's editors obliged Bush by spiking the story for one year, while Bush illegally collected information that he could use to blackmail his critics into silence. As I wrote at the time, the only possible reason for violating FISA is to collect information that can be used to silence critics. The administration's claim that bypassing FISA was essential to the "war on terror" is totally false and is a justification and practice that the Bush administration, no longer able to defend, abandoned in January of this year.

The known facts: After keeping the information from Congress and the public for one year, on Dec. 16, 2005, the New York Times reported that Bush was spying on Americans without complying with the FISA statute. In response to a request from members of Congress, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation into the Bush administration's decision to ignore FISA and to conduct domestic spying on American citizens without obtaining the warrants required by law. On January 20, 2006, Marshall Jarrett, the Justice Department official in charge of OPR, informed senior Justice Department officials of his investigation and its scope.

Gonzales informed President Bush about the OPR investigation, and Bush shut down the investigation by refusing security clearances to the Justice Department officials in OPR. In a response to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter on July 18, 2006, Gonzales disclosed that President Bush had halted the OPR investigation.

This is the first and only time in history that DOJ officials have been denied security clearances necessary to conduct an investigation. The Bush administration claimed that the secret spying was too crucial to our national security to permit even Justice Department officials to learn about it. However, even as Bush was denying clearances to OPR, he granted identical clearances to: (1) the FBI agents ordered to find who leaked the administration's secret spying to the New York Times, (2) DOJ officials in the Civil Division who had to respond to legal challenges to the illegal spy program, and (3) five private sector individuals who sit on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.

Obviously, the unprecedented denial of security clearances to OPR was done in order to prevent the investigation.

On March 21, 2006, Marshall Jarrett wrote to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty that OPR was being "precluded from performing its duties."

In May, 2006, Jarrett informed Congress: "On May 9, 2006, we were informed that our requests had been denied. Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation." The National Journal reports: "[Rep. Maurice] Hinchey and other Democratic House members asked Jarrett why he was unable to obtain the necessary clearances; Jarrett's superiors, according to government records and to interviews, instructed him not to inform Congress that President Bush had made the decision."

When the illegal domestic spying program was launched in 2002, Gonzales was still White House Counsel. Documents and interviews show that most high ranking Justice Department officials opposed the illegal program. Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, and James A. Baker, counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review all raised objections to the illegality and propriety of Bush's National Security Agency eavesdropping program. Baker went so far as to warn the presiding judge of the FISA court that authorities were improperly obtaining information and bypassing the court. On learning that the administration was violating FISA, one of the federal judges on the FISA court resigned in protest.

Goldsmith was troubled by Bush's claim that the "war on terror" gave the president virtually unlimited powers. Goldsmith's objections to the Bush-Cheney-Gonzales view that the president is above the law during time of war brought him under fierce attack from Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's two principal henchmen, Scooter Libby, now a convicted felon, and David Addington.

Goldsmith found an ally in Deputy Attorney General Comey. Comey defied the White House in March 2004 when he refused to reauthorize Bush's spying on American citizens unless the program was brought within the law. Comey incurred additional Bush-Cheney enmity when he appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, an investigation that resulted in the arrest and conviction of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.

In his lengthy and detailed report in the National Journal, Waas quotes a former White House Official: "Comey showed us that he was a guy who wouldn't be kept on a leash in an administration that likes to keep everybody on a short leash."

A criminal political administration has no choice but to keep everyone on a short leash in order to keep its illegal acts under wraps. Americans have never experienced an administration so replete with crimes as the Bush Regime.

This criminal regime must now be brought to an end. Impeachments of Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales, followed by felony indictments and trials are imperative if the rule of law in the United States is to be preserved.

Paul Craig Roberts held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University and was Senior Research Fellow in the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com



http://counterpunch.org/roberts03192007.html

[Ellyllions]

So what's the hold-up?
Do you mean to tell me that there isn't one person in DC who can put a stop to this?

[Hardrock69]

Here is another:

Sen. Schumer: “We do have evidence” Gonzales lied under oath
By: SilentPatriot on Sunday, March 18th, 2007 at 6:34 PM - PDT

During his January 18, 2006 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Alberto Gonzales said this:

GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

video_wmv Download (4510) | Play (3798) video_mov Download (1705) | Play (2195)

(HR Note: for the actual links to video files, click on the link below to go to the page that originates this article.)

When asked on Meet the Press this morning if he "had any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation," Senator Schumer said he does and that the evidence is "becoming more and more overwhelming."

This is why the prosecutor purge is a genuine scandal. Not only is there clear evidence that the firings were unprecedented and purely politically-motivated, but Alberto Gonzales lied about it under oath and the White House keeps changing it's story. What conclusion can we draw from these lies and revisionisms other than they have something to hide? Namely, that these eight prosecutors were selectively fired because they did not sufficiently politicize their offices and succumb to pressure to do so, only later to be fired for "performance-related" reasons despite receiving exemplary evaluations.

Transcript below the fold…

MSNBC:

SEN. SCHUMER: [B]ut, in these instances, the evidence is becoming more and more overwhelming that certain U.S. attorneys, and only certain ones, not all of them, but certain U.S. attorneys were fired because either they wouldn't prosecute a case that was politically advantageous to the White House or they were prosecuting a case that was disadvantageous to the White House. Every legal commentator, left, right, center, says you can't do that, that's the one thing you can't do.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's be specific about this because I want to show you what the attorney general said in January testifying before your committee. Let's watch Alberto Gonzales.

(Videotape, January 18, 2007)

MR. ALBERTO GONZALES: I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Do you have any evidence that a U.S. attorney was removed and that removal jeopardized an ongoing investigation?

SEN. SCHUMER: We do have evidence. In fact, four of the U.S. attorneys who were fired believe that played a role in their removal. Remember, these folks were called up all of a sudden on December 7th. They thought they were doing, doing a good job. They said, "You're not doing–you're fired." "Why?" "We can't tell you." Then they say–there's a little pressure. They say they weren't doing their job right. We get hold of the evaluations done by their peers, the judges, everyone in their district, they all get outstanding ratings. And then it comes out that in four of these instances, they were asked to pursue cases, individual cases, not a general policy, they were asked to pursue individual cases that they thought they shouldn't or they were perhaps pressured to stop. So, yes, there is evidence there in the–in the U.S. attorney's mind.

But, Tim, we don't have proof yet, conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt proof. That's why we have to go forward with the investigation.

MR. RUSSERT: But this is a very serious charge, Senator. Let me show you a map of the United States and where these U.S. attorneys come from. There you'll see up in Michigan and then we have them in New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas, Washington state and two in California. Where specifically did a U.S. attorney stop investigating or was a criminal justice case interrupted because of one of their removals?

SEN. SCHUMER: The most notorious is the Southern District of California, San Diego. Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation and it might lead to others, legislative and others. And in the middle of this investigation, she was fired. So I asked the deputy attorney general, "Why was she fired?" He said, "Well, she wasn't doing enough immigration re-entry cases." I said, "Really?" She–he said, did you tell–I asked him, "Did you tell her?" She said yes. I said, "Well, did she improve?" This was back in the summer. "Did she improve?" He said, "I have no idea." Well, gee whiz, if you're firing someone in the middle of the most heated political investigation in America, don't you think you ought to have a reason and know the reason?


LINK

[Steve Savicki]

Originally posted by Warham
It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.

That's certainly better than drama, isn't it?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
So what's the hold-up?
Do you mean to tell me that there isn't one person in DC who can put a stop to this?

How about taking your top off?

That might get their attention.

[Ellyllions]

Done.

Now what?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
How was the Iraq War 'illegal', or 'immoral'?

Saddam Hussein killed anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 of his own people, and that's probably low-balling the number.

And Chimpy has killed at least 650,000.

Which means YOU support a guy who's a bigger bastard than Saddam Hussein.

Not to mention that it took Saddam 30 years to rack up those totals.

[blueturk]

And now Bush says that the White House will be glad to let the key players in this thing answer some questions...BUT NOT UNDER OATH. Why is that? Because they don't want to lie under oath?


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/...ap3534575.html

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
These libs won't have anything to do after Bush leaves office.

It'll be alot quieter around here in two years.

You're right. Nobody else out there could be as mind-numbingly incompetent and corrupt as your boy Bush, and inspire such outrage (except MAYBE Nixon). And you stupid fuckers were worried about blow jobs....

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
Done.

Now what?

A new avatar?

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
And Chimpy has killed at least 650,000.

Which means YOU support a guy who's a bigger bastard than Saddam Hussein.

Not to mention that it took Saddam 30 years to rack up those totals.

Bush hasn't killed anybody.

Even the UN says that 100,000 people have been killed since the US invaded Iraq in 2003, most of those by insurgents.

[Warham]

Originally posted by blueturk
You're right. Nobody else out there could be as mind-numbingly incompetent and corrupt as your boy Bush, and inspire such outrage (except MAYBE Nixon). And you stupid fuckers were worried about blow jobs....

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

[Warham]

www.iraqbodycount.org

[ODShowtime]

All that shit was weak warham. Look and listen to what's happening.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

Having a presidency handed to you even though you got less votes than your opponent does inspire strong emotions, especially when your brother just happens to be governor of the state that cemented the "win".

As for the Clinton investigation, you've got a point. It's much better to do it the way Dubya and friends do....lie like hell, just don't do it under oath.

"He gave support to terrorists, had an established relationship with al Qaeda, and his regime is no more." –Dick Cheney, Nov. 7 2003 on Saddam Hussein

[Warham]

Originally posted by blueturk
Having a presidency handed to you even though you got less votes than your opponent does inspire strong emotions, especially when your brother just happens to be governor of the state that cemented the "win".

Bush won every recount in the state, and the state Supreme Court tried their best to change state election laws midway through the recounts, giving Al Gore the chance to steal more votes.

I can see why there'd be anger that it didn't go the Democrat's way.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
All that shit was weak warham. Look and listen to what's happening.

I have.

The partisanship is ridiculous.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Originally posted by Warham
It was about him lying under oath. .

Helllooooooooo Scooter Libby!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The outrage started Jan 20, 2001, long before the war. It's been partisan ever since the Supreme Court ruling. The left has hated George W. Bush ever since.

Stop portraying the Clinton investigation as being about 'sex' or 'blowjobs'. It was about him lying under oath. He wouldn't have been disbarred because of sloppy sex with a fat intern.

He didn't "lie under oath."