Time to impeach

In the past, I have been a tepid opponent of impeachment for a number of different reasons. However, after listening to Ron Suskind's interview on Fresh Air- I think there is compelling evidence that the president committed some egregious acts in getting us into war with Iraq and keeping us there. I am not sure if Suskind's case is iron clad, but there is certainly enough there to at least start impeachment hearings.

Over and over and over and over again

On the very same day that we find out that the Bush Administration behaved criminally in their politicization of the Justice Department, we find that the Department of Homeland Security will be heightening our terror alert status over the next couple of months. As Josh Marshall writes, the reason for the change in alert status is pretty simple:

US to be place on "heightened terror alert" in response to Republican efforts to maintain hold on presidency.

Perhaps others will see this as a bit cynical, but as noted by others- this wouldn't be the first time that the terror alert has been raised when it seemed politically expedient for the Bush Administration:

I know that these are both left-leaning commentators, but I think in light of today's findings regarding the conduct of the DOJ under Bush- the traditional press has good reason to ask- not accuse, but simply ASK- whether this is politically motivated at all. Unfortunately, it looks like the press is going to buy this hook, line and sinker (from the ABC article above):

The reasons: There are no specifics indicating an attack on the U.S. is imminent, and U.S. officials do not want to be accused of trying to inject themselves into the presidential campaign.

Cheney's Incredible Hypocrisy

Think Bush Cheney Inc. couldn't have anticipated the outcome of our Iraq occupation? Think again.

Dick & Larry

Something everyone can agree on

I watched some of the lowlights from the Gonzales hearing today, and I all I can say is that impeachment proceedings should start on him immediately. If the President won't get rid of him, we will get rid of him ourselves. I think this comment from the Washington Post blog sums it up perfectly (from Atrios):

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill-- especially his miserable exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning-- can any longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and credibility. And no one who hears him say that he is what's best for the Department right now should forget that on the eve of his testimony (and a few days after he urged his subordinates to work diligently to regain their morale) the nation's top law enforcement official reportedly left work early to go for a bike ride Monday afternoon-- at about 3:50 p.m.

They're all crazy

As the Guardian reports, Dick "Last Throes" Cheney is currently winning the internal White House debate on Iran. I don't think I need to tell you what he is advocating for. But in case you have been sleeping for 6.5 years, here you go:

The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
...
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

But wait, it gets even nuttier. One of the candidates seeking the Republican nomination, Sen. Sam Brownback, has come out and said that he would preemptively strike Iran if elected president. He was interviewed by Sean Hannity on Fox News, when they had the following exchange:

Hannity: There’s probably going to come a point for the next president that they’re going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you’re ready and would be ready to do that?

Brownback: Yes, I am, and I think we have to be.

I think a lot of people look at what has happened over the past six years, and blame it purely on the Bush White House. While I am sure that he is responsible for a lot of it, we cannot forget that the entire Republican party is diseased. They are a group of people whose world view is absolutely detached from reality. We will get rid of Bush, sooner or later, but this warped way of thinking will go on.

Looky Here- It's Journalism!!! -- well, kind of

As you may have noticed in President Bush's press conference yesterday, he mentioned that the big problem in Iraq is Al-Qaeda:

In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

As anyone with an IQ above that of the common house plant can see, Bush is plainly using this as a ploy to connect Iraq with Al-Qaeda- again. The New York Times, to its credit, tries to debunk this claim:

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad.

For the most part, this is great. I bolded, however, something which really bothers me and it has been going on for far too long. These disputes are always presented as two sides of an unresolved argument (in fact, the title of the article is: Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert). As in, Bush has his reality, his critics have theirs. Yet, Bush's reality is extremely easy to debunk. In the very next paragraph, the authors lay out quite clearly, that Al-Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq before 9-11!

Instead of reporting it as a he said/she said, kind of dispute, call it like it is. The President is making another attempt to play fast and loose with the facts about Iraq. If the White House challenges the claim, the New York Times has a mountain of evidence to back it up. It isn't that hard to understand. After all that we have seen from Bush and his cult, it shouldn't surprise anyone that they will actively try to manipulate the American people in order to further their goals.

The Politicalization of Everything

Our former Surgeon General just testified in front of Congress yesterday and in his testimony we find that the Bush administration made deliberate efforts to both stifle reports and prohibited the Surgeon General from talking about certain subjects:

Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Sadly, this should not come as any surprise. The Bush administration is fervently anti-science and routinely puts politics before policy. Yet, we also get a glimpse at the cult-like devotion this administration demands from the folks who work for it:

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

You read that right, public officials, working for the White House, MUST say the President's name three times. I am not sure if the official is then supposed to genuflect or look skyward, but the idea that there is a rule about how often his name is mentioned scares the hell out of me. That bit of news, however, is not the most shocking/sad/anger inducing nugget included in his testimony:

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

The Special Olympics is one of the nation’s premier charitable organizations to benefit disabled people, and the Kennedys have long been deeply involved in it.

Forget the fact that almost nobody associates the Kennedy family with the Special Olympics or that the Kennedy family is no longer a dominant political force in this country. In perhaps the sickest display of this administration's pettiness, these heartless SOBs running the White House thought it okay to play politics with an event that is designed solely to help disabled children and adults. This level of outright villainy is typically reserved for Ernst Blofeld or Lex Luther not the President of the United States. I half expect to read in the news tomorrow that President Bush has ordered all kittens be put to death because Garfield's owner is a registered Democrat.

Inside the Mind of a Bushie

From TPM Muckraker, in Sara Taylor's testimony before the Senate today, she said the following:

"I took an oath to the president, and I take that oath very seriously"

Under normal circumstances I might be surprised by this, but after 6.5 years of this administration, it is very easy to understand how they think. They are only loyal to the President, not to the Constitution or to the American people. Fortunately, Patrick Leahy provided a correction:

But Clinton did it?!

The reports from the mainstream pundits are in, and the gold medal for foolishness goes to Tom Curry. The main point of this commentary is that the public reaction to the Libby pardon will be the same as the reaction to Clinton's pardons:

President Bush’s commutation of the 30-month prison sentence of former vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby fit the pattern set by his predecessors.

And the reaction to these acts of clemency had a familiar ring.

Compare “the arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking” to the statement that the president “will never live down the arrogance of his final departure.”

The first “arrogance” quote came Monday from Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson. The second quote came from Jim Webb, now the Democratic senator from Virginia, criticizing Clinton’s pardon of Rich in an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2001.

So...to Curry (and with the vast majority of the press) there is a simple algebra, Bush = Clinton. Yet, this couldn't be further from the truth. There are two major differences here:

1. Clinton was a hell of a lot more popular than Bush is. Bush is seen as a stubborn dolt, while Clinton was seen as a vibrant, popular (though personally flawed) leader.
   
2. The circumstances surrounding the two are vastly different. With Clinton, the criticisms levied against him were part of a conservative witch hunt. The country had just endured 6 years of endless partisan investigations, which yielded nothing substantive. With Bush, the leak investigation yielded real findings and revealed that the White House was willing to subvert national security in order to retaliate against a critic.
   

In the end, I think the American public will respond much more harshly to the pardon than the Washington press corps is willing to believe. The Bush administration might not see a huge drop in overall approval ratings, rather I believe you will see more people go from 'somewhat disapprove' to 'strongly disapprove'.

Not surprised

Libby's sentence was commuted, and I am firmly in agreement with Atrios about the coming press coverage. The White House essentially got away with a very serious crime, and no one will call them on it.

Compassionate Conservative

Just when you think this administration cannot get any more ridiculous, there is this:

While the U.S. military searches for a soldier missing in Iraq, kidnapped by insurgents possibly allied with al Qaeda, his wife back home in Massachusetts may be deported by the U.S. government.

Army Spec. Alex Jimenez, who has been missing since his unit was attacked by insurgents in Iraq on May 12, had petitioned for a green card for his wife, Yaderlin Hiraldo, whom he married in 2004.
...
Her attorney is seeking a hardship waiver, which so far the government won't grant.

What does it take to get a job with the Bush government? Not only do you need to have an IQ under 40, but apparently you must also include kitten killing as a hobby.

This Just Might be Something to Report

After a House investigation, we now find that the White House has been breaking the law with its usage of RNC email addresses. The Presidential Records Act stipulates that all executive correspondence be carried out on government property (email servers, stationary, etc.) and is archived. However, this White House has been blatantly disregarding that law. Here are some of the key findings in the investigation:

• The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed.
• White House officials made extensive use of their RNC e-mail accounts.
• There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC.
• There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

These findings are pretty damning and I think will lead to some even more surprises. The White House was hiding all of these e-mails for a reason and it would be nice to find out why. Unfortunately, as I cruise the major news websites, this story has yet to break the front page.

Never Taking Responsibility

Recently on Good Morning America, Michael Moore was being interviewed by anchor-stud Chris Cuomo. During the interview, Moore took ABC and the rest of the mainstream media to task for not asking the tough questions during the run-up to the Iraq War. Cuomo nearly lost it. Here is the video:

As I have said before, the press will never take responsibility for the mess in Iraq and the role they played by laying down. Yet, this is still going on. Just yesterday during the daily press briefing, Tony Snow made the argument that increased violence in Iraq means that we are making progress.

Q Let me follow on that, because I think some American officials have called this an act of desperation. And I'm wondering how this is seen as an act of desperation. Does that mean that the terrorists are so concerned that they're sort of being shut down, and that the surge is so effective that they're now desperate to make a statement?

MR. SNOW: Well, I think, again -- a couple of things. It does fit a pattern that we see throughout the region, which is that when you see things moving towards success, or when you see signs of success, that there are acts of violence. We saw that, certainly -- we've seen that in Lebanon, once again, today, tragically. We also saw it earlier in Lebanon. We have seen it on a number of occasions where, when Israel and the Palestinians seem to be getting close to a deal, there are kidnapings and acts of violence.

What you have seen in the last couple of months -- it's well documented -- is, increasingly, Iraqis are turning against al Qaeda. And that has been one of the sort of heartening developments. You've not only seen it in Anbar Province, but you've seen it elsewhere.

So one of the responses one might expect for al Qaeda at a time like this -- when the Iraqi people are turning against them as foreign fighters, essentially invading the country and trying to commit acts of bloodshed against innocents in order to blow the country apart -- that it would be one of those acts of desperation once again to try to get the Iraqis to fight one another, rather than training their sights on al Qaeda.

By utilizing Snow's logic, we would assume that decreased violence would indicate that things are actually going poorly. In the mind of any sane individual however, this line of reasoning would be forcefully rejected. If the press were really doing their job and asking the tough questions, Snow would have been laughed out of the room. Perhaps, one of the reporters would have said "That is the most ridiculous load of bullshit I have ever heard. Ever." Instead, the follow-up to his response was the following:

Q This could actually be read, then, as a sign of success for the American --

This is exactly what Moore was talking about, rather than exposing the twisted logic and half-truths of the Bush Administration, the media continues to lap up whatever half-assed explanations are being doled out.

They Just Don't Care

A couple of months ago, I made the prediction that Alberto Gonzales would not resign. Tomorrow, we will see how this prediction holds up, as the Senate's vote of no confidence (while legally meaningless) carries a lot of symbolic weight. The latest indications from Tony Snow, however, suggests that I am right:

WALLACE: By the way, real quickly, on the vote of no confidence on Gonzales, if you get a number of Republicans joining in a vote of no confidence, will that shake the President’s determination to keep Gonzales on the job?

SNOW: Not a bit. Purely symbolic vote.

WALLACE: And no effect on the President.

SNOW: No. what you’ve got here is a senate that’s had a great deal of difficulty delivering on any of its promises. Furthermore, it is perfectly obvious that the President has the right to hire and fire people who serve at his pleasure. Nobody found anything untoward in terms of what happened. Therefore, as a consequence, there’s an attempt to pull this thing like a piece of taffy, seeing if there’s any political advantage in it. There’s not. So what we’ll end up having is people burning off a day expressing their opinions and then we’ll have an opportunity to move on.

No matter, how badly this guy has screwed up, the President is not going to let him leave. The clear message from the White House is that they just don't give a rat's ass what Congress or the American people think.

Bush Fatigue

I haven't gone through all of the coverage of the latest Republican debate, but in the few quick glances I have had, not one news source has suggested that the GOP nominee would have to fight against President Bush's negative image.

Let's compare that to 2000. When Al Gore was running there was the widespread belief that he would need to distance himself from President Clinton in order to win. The conventional wisdom was that the country was suffering from 'Clinton fatigue' and the American people were sick of his administration. What was the rationale for this belief? With impressive approval ratings, our strong economy and equally strong international reputation, there was nothing to base this belief on.

In tonight's debate, there was little talk about how the candidates could rehab the GOP image. No one, to my mind, brought up the fact that the current Republican president is wildly unpopular. Instead, the real question was, how fast can you run towards G.W.B. Contrary to all available evidence, the GOP candidates are trying their damnedest to be the next President Bush.

I have only one thing to say in response. Thank you.

I know this is long...

I was under the impression that we had moved beyond a certain ugly chapter in American history; like slavery and the show Full House, we as a society had seen the error of our ways and did away with the chain e-mail. Unfortunately, I have an old friend who still doles these out from time to time, and what's even worse. He is a conservative. I usually ignore these emails, but today I got one that really annoyed me. Here it is, and while I know it is ungodly long, I thought you should read all of it:

JAY LENO...."HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD"

Pretty asstitute for a comedian, I'd say! Go Jay!!!

"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?

The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the president. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change.

So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What we are so unhappy about?''

Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?

Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?

Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?

Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.

Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.

Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings.

Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90
percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.

How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.

Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.

I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe
from terrorist attacks?

The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?

Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.

Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.

They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.

So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!

Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."

"With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Jay Leno

Not content to let this one go, I figured I would offer a retort and spammed him right back. Here is what I had to say:

Alright…my thinking on this is that since Tom is well aware of my political leanings he sent this to provoke some sort of response. I am happy to say that I will not disappoint him and I count myself fortunate that Tommy sent me this essay; as it isn’t often you encounter this kind of stupidity in your everyday life. It’s like watching someone cook on a charcoal grill indoors or cut their toenails with a chainsaw…

First off, Jay Leno may be an absolute hack as a comic, but he is off the hook when it comes to writing this article. The guy who wrote this is an even bigger hack named Craig Smith who is an adjunct Professor of Law at Santa Barbara/Ventura College of Law. You can see the original article here and it was published on a far-right website that would make Ann Coulter blush. I found this all out by using the ‘Google’.

Anywho…

What is Mr. Smith’s larger point? From what I can gather, he wants Americans to stop reading, watching and listening to the news. He seriously believes that everything would be wonderful if the U.S. populace would all just collectively put their heads in the sand. Instead of a citizenry that is actively engaged and interested in pressing national matters, he wants the sort of blind allegiance you find in religious cults and herds of sheep.

This kind of thinking might work if you live in a third world dictatorship or are a Fox News viewer; but in a democracy, the system doesn’t work if those being governed aren’t well informed. Fortunately, our country’s founders were smarter than Mr. Smith and knew that this country would fail miserably if there wasn’t an independent press.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have plenty of problems with the way the press operates in this country. There are far too many stories about missing/dead white women (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith, Natalie Holloway, the runaway bride) and things that go bump in the night. Yet I, and other sane people, don’t jump to the ridiculous conclusion that the way to solve this problem is to only focus on the good news. While Mr. Smith would like to hear about all the wonderful lemonade stands, magical ponies and schools being painted in Iraq, I would like to know what is really going on in the world and with our government. Why? Well…because that’s what it means to be patriotic.

For all of the wonderful things that our country offers, there are also some disturbing trends that we as citizens cannot afford to conveniently overlook. The 67% of us who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction have good reason to feel this way. Over the last 6 years in this country, we have seen infant mortality increase, bankruptcy filings increase, poverty increase, income inequality grow and homicide rates increase. Worldwide, we see increases in political unrest, terrorism and spread of infectious disease. It is for these reasons, and a slew of others, that the majority of the American public worries about where our country is headed.

In addition, the majority of us can plainly see that the man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is an abject failure. George W. Bush, during his tenure has presided over not one, not two but three of the greatest catastrophes in American history. First, when faced with the exhortations of this country’s intelligence experts in early 2001, he decided to ignore their warnings about the threat of terrorism and instead wanted to focus on creating a missile defense shield and vacationing in Texas. Second, when faced with the evidence that Saddam Hussein did not represent a threat to national security and that Iraq would likely decay into chaos if we were not careful during the reconstruction; he decided to ignore their advice and instead rode on a fighter jet to declare himself victorious. Lastly, when faced with the sobering television coverage of New Orleans being systematically destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, he decided to quietly sit that disaster out.

In some way, I wish I could be as blissfully ignorant as Mr. Smith and the remaining 33% who think things are just peachy. Life would be easier if I could love the president as a dog loves its master. Yet, if we all felt this way, we would be abdicating our responsibility to both our nation and our fellow countrymen. This country rose in prominence and offered hope to the rest of the world precisely because so many of those who came before us refused to stick their heads in the sand, they demanded more out of their leaders, their neighbors and themselves. I only wish Mr. Smith felt the same.

I don't think he is going to be very happy with me.

More on Gonzales

A couple of days ago I wrote that I didn't think Alberto G would resign. I know it seems strange since his performance was so abysmal; however, this was just a very public showing of how the Bush administration thinks. Dahlia Lithwick offers a nice analysis of this very point:

This record reflects either a Harvard-trained lawyer—and former state Supreme Court judge—with absolutely no command of the facts or the law, or it reveals a proponent of the unitary executive theory with absolutely nothing to prove. Gonzales' failure to even mount a defense; his posture of barely tolerating congressional inquiries; his refusal to concede that he owed the Senate any explanation or any evidence; his refusal to even accept that he bore some burden of proof—all of it tots up to a masterful display of the perfect contempt felt by the Bush executive branch for this Congress and its pretensions of oversight. In the plainest sense, Gonzales elevated the Bush legal doctrine of "Because I said so" into a public spectacle.

Viewed in that light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. He took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre.

Was that so hard?

The mainstream press has done a lot to mythologize the president for his 'performance' on 9/11. However, I think this passage from a recent book by Lee Iococca gets it right and I hope this becomes the new way to think about his performance:

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.

That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq—a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.

He's Staying

I know there is a possibility that I will be proved wrong on this, but I stand by my assertion that, as it stands now, Gonzales will not resign. I think you can already see the way this is going to play out, as the Bush administration will continue to stall on this until it blows over.

In the meantime, the administration will play the spin that Congress is playing politics while the major media will swallow this line. Already the media has ignored the fact that the gross politicization of the Justice Department is an incredibly dangerous thing and I can't recall any major news reports which have highlighted this issue. Nevermind the fact that there has been no coverage of the specious voting fraud claims or the unequal prosecution of Democrats; instead, we are supposed to believe that this is just a vendetta on the part of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the gang.