Thursday, May 17, 2007

UPPERDOG vs. UNDERDOG

We are pleased to have CATHERINE CRIER from COURT TV on our show Saturday, May 19

SATURDAY MORNINGS TUNE IN LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS and LOS ANGELES to our show BASHAM AND CORNELL PROGRESSIVE TALK
from 9 - 10 a.m. We broadcast live -- or go to our website and click on the link to hear the entire show in the archives.

"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." That's what good preachers, and good journalists, do. It makes sense that comics, who sometimes preach and sometimes report the news, would follow this motto as well.

Imus "broke the power equation," Rogers says. He afflicted the afflicted, which made him a bully instead of a comic. That's not funny.

This happens a lot, not just with comics, but with journalists and preachers too. They get the motto backwards, they break the power equation. The journalists cozy up to the powerful, the preachers become bullying scolds. Both start to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. It's nothing new, Jesus described the same thing thousands of years ago, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

The tricky thing -- whether you're a journalist, preacher or comic -- is that "the comfortable" and "the afflicted" are not immutable categories. Anyone, at some point, might be in either category. White House spokesman Tony Snow, for example, has had a lucrative career as a dishonest and thoroughly unprincipled apologist for power. That made him fair game for exposure, for jokes and jeremiads. But Snow now has cancer in his liver and the prognosis is not good. And jokes at the expense of a cancer victim just aren't funny. Kicking a man when he is down is the work of a bully.

This is, again, what I think Orwell was getting at in that essay on Charles Dickens I've taken to quoting a bit too often: Orwell on Dickens
Where [Dickens] is Christian is in his quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed against the oppressors. As a matter of course he is on the side of the underdog, always and everywhere. To carry this to its logical conclusion one has got to change sides when the underdog becomes an upperdog, and in fact Dickens does tend to do so.

Which underscores Rogers' point, that context matters. The transgressive humor of the underdog is funny. The transgressive "humor" of the upperdog is merely bullying. And that's not funny. (It's not even really transgressive, since the upperdogs make and enforce the rules.)

The dynamic at work here is, of course, justice. Comedy doesn't so much "steal" power as reclaim it. Undermining injustice is funny. Enforcing it is not. This is as true for preachers and journalists as it is for comics.

Posted by Fred Clark SLACKTIVIST

Fred Clark is a religious scholar and minister. Slacktivist is a wonderful website devoted to debunking the sinister and hilarious "Left Behind" novels by LaHaye-Jenkins.

Cartoon by Stephen Pitt: Rove-Gonzales-Abu Grahib

100 comments:

  1. I'm less inclined to cut Snow slack for his illness than you are, Lydia.

    He has said some very sickening things in his position as lapdog at Fox News, and my thinking is "If he were to go into remission, would he be fair game again?"

    Most decidedly, yes, because he's still spewing sludge from his piehole in an attempt to con the nation.

    To me, that makes him fair game, even if he is withering.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Worf,

    I think our complaint about Russert isn't whether he's fair or not.

    I tend to think he is pretty fair in crafting his own commentary.

    But...

    He needs to ask the tough questions (like Imus used to), questions that make his guests squirm, and even when he occasionally does, he lets them off the hook way too easily.

    Here's Media Matters page on him. Go see for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carl said...
    Worf,

    I think our complaint about Russert isn't whether he's fair or not.

    I tend to think he is pretty fair in crafting his own commentary.

    But...

    He needs to ask the tough questions (like Imus used to), questions that make his guests squirm, and even when he occasionally does, he lets them off the hook way too easily.

    Here's Media Matters page on him. Go see for"


    Worf, I mostly agree with Carl about Russert...........that he tried to be fair in what HE said but I think Carl is right that he pitched the Neo Cons softballs and let them off the hook FAR too easy when they were lying and throwing out discredited or unsubstantiated facts.

    As for my statement that the ratio of repugs to liberals was 2 to 1 on his show........Lydia's and Doug's guest (I think from Media Matters) stated that and I also read that in a book fairly recently.......and after watching fairly regularly I dont really doubt that statistic, and when I say that, i'm not saying that ratio is every single week, but if you look at the ratio for the entire year or last several years I think its probably pretty close.

    Now having said that I also think your point that some of that is because the repugs dominated the White House and Congress for the last 6 years...........BUT thats part of the problem see the Democrats were marginalized and silenced by both the repugs and the MSM and the MSM NEVER asked the Neo Cons ANY hard questions or called them on their lies forcefully, THEY acted out of fear because they thought they wouldnt have access to these people but I say BS......what would the Neo Cons do if they didnt like the tough questions being asked, retreat into an underground bunker at an undisclosed location and pout and throw a tantrum?

    No I dont think the Neo Cons would be willing to give up their platform to preach lies to the masses..........and if they did then not only would part of the problem be solved but it would be made more evident because if they could NOT defend their position and respond to legitimate questions that are not softballs with facts then it would be clear their rhetoric is based on nothing but a weak foundation of lies.

    Now as for your other point that we need people like Russert who are objective and unbiased to challenge and expose these people NOW I couldnt agree more, I also agree that we need to encourage the repugs like Tenet and those in DOJ to come forward and expose all the crimes and lies............However Russert et al NEED to REALLY be objective and that means asking the tough questions and exposing and attacking lies and BS........see i'm not saying lyinching the enablers but Reich Wing Koolaid drinkers and Troll idiots like TT, FF and Goo Goo will ALWAYS think anyone or anything that doesnt spew 100% BS and Reich Wing lies and dishonest talking points like Fox "News" does is biased, that doesnt mean us or the MSM needs to cater to the brain damaged loons version of what unbiased and credible is, since listening to and catering to this pack of fools is EXACTLY what got us into trouble in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dems seek no-confidence vote on Gonzales
    New calls for resignation follow word of Ashcroft hospital confrontation

    AP Updated: 12 minutes ago
    WASHINGTON - Two Senate Democrats said Thursday they will seek a no-confidence vote on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over accusations that he carried out President Bush's political agenda at the expense of the Justice Department's independence.

    Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, who have led the investigation into the conduct of White House officials and Gonzales, said the attorney general has become too weakened to run the department.

    "It seems the only person who has confidence in the attorney general is President Bush," Schumer told reporters. "The president long ago should have asked the attorney general to step down."

    "I think the time has come for the Senate to express its will," Feinstein said. "We lack confidence in the attorney general."

    Schumer said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports the resolution and would try to bring it to a floor vote next week. Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, too, was expected to sign on.

    "I have absolutely no confidence in the attorney general or his leadership," Leahy, D-Vt, said earlier in the day.

    Schumer predicted the resolution, which has yet to be finalized, would win support from at least the 60 senators required to beat a filibuster.
    Five Republican senators have called outright for Gonzales' resignation, including Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who added his voice Thursday. Several other Republicans have suggested that Gonzales consider stepping down.

    One of the latter group, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has left no doubt that he thinks Gonzales should leave. But he told The Associated Press that he wanted to see Schumer's resolution before saying he would vote for it.

    The announcement is the latest in a series of blows suffered by Gonzales this week, including new criticism from Republicans and the prediction of one GOP veteran that the investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors would end with the attorney general's resignation.

    Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said earlier Thursday that the Justice Department can't properly protect the nation from terrorism or oversee Bush's no-warrant eavesdropping program with Gonzales at the helm.

    "I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general," Specter said during a committee hearing. "I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare."

    His comment echoed new criticism of Gonzales this week. Former deputy attorney general James Comey testified that Gonzales tried to get his predecessor as attorney general, John Ashcroft, to approve Bush's eavesdropping program as Ashcroft lay in intensive care.

    Asked twice during a news conference Thursday if he personally ordered Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card to Ashcroft's hospital room, Bush refused to answer.

    "There's a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn't happen. I'm not going to talk about it," Bush said.

    The tale inspired Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to become the fourth Republican senator to call for Gonzales' resignation. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., joined in the criticism.

    "When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about it," Roberts told The Associated Press.

    Support for Gonzales fading
    Bush has stood by his longtime friend and adviser, the key to Gonzales' hold on his job.

    But just when some predicted that Gonzales had survived the furors over the firings, Comey's testimony helped broaden the Democrat-led probe into whether the attorney general politicized the Justice department at the White House's behest.

    Gonzales has said only eight U.S. attorneys were targeted for dismissal. But the Justice Department, over nearly two years, listed as many as 26 prosecutors after concerns were raised about their performances, a senior government official familiar with the process said Thursday.

    The Justice Department said it fully supports all of its current U.S. attorneys. The list of 26 names was first reported Thursday by The Washington Post.

    More hearings set for next week
    Many of the names on various and changing lists of prosecutors under scrutiny "clearly did not represent the final actions or views of the department's leadership or the attorney general," said Justice spokesman Dean Boyd. He said the lists "reflect Kyle Sampson's thoughts for discussion during the consultation process."

    Sampson, Gonzales' former chief of staff, oversaw the review that drove the firings. He resigned in March as a result of the department's botched handling of the dismissals.

    The developments came as Democrats sought more testimony from current and former Justice Department officials. House Democrats announced that Gonzales' former White House liaison, Monica Goodling, would testify next week under a grant of immunity.

    At issue is whether the department, at the White House's urging, tried to cause problems for Democrats by facilitating voter fraud cases and others involving corruption.

    Comey's testimony this week further weakened Gonzales among Republicans as well as Democrats.

    Democrats said his testimony appeared to contradict Gonzales' account of the no-warrant eavesdropping program in February 2006, when he told two congressional panels that there had "not been any serious disagreement about the program."

    Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman said Gonzales' testimony "was and remains accurate."

    Joining Hagel in demanding Gonzales' resignation are GOP Sens. John Sununu of New Hampshire, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona, who is a presidential candidate. House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putman of Florida also has called for a new attorney general.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bye Bye Gonzalez!!!!!!!!!!!!!


    Time To take out the trash!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lydia, as usual your article was thought provoking indeed. I'm going to use an extreme example of kicking someone when they're down. Do you remember when Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox? Rush's mimic of Michael J. Fox's illness was vile and hateful. Now had Limbaugh merely argued why he thought Fox's position was wrong, that would have been fine. Imitating his illness was not. Bringing that idea forward, Tony Snow has been and remains an ideologue in support of the totalitarian agenda of the Bush Regime. For that, his ideas and positions are and should be fair game, but not his cancer.

    Sometimes, however, it's hard for a comic to resist. And on that note, wouldn't it be wonderful if Dubya could sit down and chat with Jerry Falwell? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. George Bush and Dick Cheney must think the troops are over paid, other wise why would they be against raising the poor pay of the troops especially ther ones they sent into combat?

    White House opposes military pay raise

    The White House has come out in opposition to a proposal by Congress to raise military pay by 3.5 percent, according to a report by Army Times.

    The administration had originally asked for only a 3 percent increase in pay, equal to private sector pay increases, effective January 1, 2008. The House Armed Services Committee raised the increase to 3.5 percent for 2008, and also recommended increases in 2009 through 2012 that would be 0.5 percent higher than private sector raises.

    "The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today," according to the report. "Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase."

    The report continues, "Bush budget officials said the administration 'strongly opposes' both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases 'unnecessary.'"

    The White House's policy statement opposed several other Congressional provisions as well, including a death gratuity for civilians who die in support of military operations and benefits for disabled retireees and their survivors.

    Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) sharply criticized the administration for its opposition.

    "We ask our troops to risk their lives for our nation," said Emanuel. "We ask their spouses to raise families and make ends meet without them as they serve. The President is a lot of talk when it comes to supporting the troops and their families."

    Emanuel continued, "It’s easy to say you support our troops, but actions matter and when it comes to the treatment of our troops and their families, our resources must match our rhetoric."


    LINK TO FULL ARMY TIMES ARTICLE

    I guess they think all the troops are as exendable as the 3403 who have been killed, 25242 who have been wounded, and 5 who are held as POW's or hostages by the Insurgents.

    I guess they think anybody as Bill Murry said in Stripes "who are stupid enough to join the Army" deserve what ever scraps the reichwing wants to throw their way.

    (Especially since the reichwing are such gutless chicken hawks....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paying the troops a little extra after sending them into combat time after time is .... unnecessary ?

    Well that seems to be the PNAC neo-con clown posse chicken hawk greedy GOP position .......

    Me thinks the troops need a pay raise along the lines which Richard Nixon gave them in 1972,

    HE doubled their pay all at once,

    yes a 100% pay raise.......


    the gutless chicken hawks need a pay cut top pay for it.

    also along the lines of what Nixon did, 100% pay cut.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bush pads the pockets of the rich, but won't give the troops a nickel more.

    Yea, he's got their backs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. yes, Bush Cheney and the resty of their criminal cabal need a 100% pay cut.(and prison terms as a termination bonus)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mike Gravel is calling for Bush to be jailed.

    ReplyDelete
  12. They don't want to giove the troops a FAIR pay raise, and wanna LIE about why they keep sending them back into the meat grinder time after time.


    NYTimes: Iraq Attacks Stayed Steady Despite Troop Increase


    Newly declassified data show that as additional American troops began streaming into Iraq in March and April, the number of attacks on civilians and security forces there stayed relatively steady or at most declined slightly...

    ReplyDelete
  13. There have been more attacks in the green zone since the surge began than ever before.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oil hits $70 per barrel.

    More of the Bush economy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gonzo is making John Ashcroft look reasonable.........

    Bush is making Nixon seem not such a bad guy.......

    and the idiot reichwing thinks they stand a chance in a year and a half?

    Bhawhhwahwahawhwahwahwahwahwahahahaa,

    they're funny when they act that dumb......

    ReplyDelete
  16. Immunity Sought for Cheney, Top Officials
    Judge Urged to Dismiss Lawsuit Filed by Former Ambassador Wilson

    By Carol D. Leonnig
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Thursday, May 17, 2007; 4:58 PM



    Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge today they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

    The officials, who include senior White House adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, argued that the judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed by Wilson that stemmed from the disclosure of Plame's identity to the media.

    The suit claims that Cheney, Libby, Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage violated the couple's privacy and constitutional rights by publicly revealing Plame's identity in an effort to retaliate against Wilson. Plame's identity was disclosed in a syndicated column in July 2003, days after Wilson publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear threat and justify an attack on Baghdad.

    Libby was convicted in March of lying to a grand jury investigating the leak.

    Attorneys for Cheney and the other officials said any conversations they had about Plame with each other and reporters were part of their normal job duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went farther, arguing that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique government role, and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

    "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing - these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment [whether it was] true or false?," U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked.

    "That's true, your honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."

    Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who represents Wilson and Plame, said the leak was no typical policy debate. President Bush himself said that revealing Plame's identity could be illegal conduct and a firing offense, he told Bates.

    Chemerinsky said that after Plame's CIA cover was blown the couple feared for their safety and their children's safety, and Plame lost any opportunity for advancement at the CIA.

    "This isn't a case where the government said mean things about Mr. Wilson. This is about revealing the secret status of his wife to punish Mr. Wilson, " Chemerinsky said. "In the end, this is egregious conduct that ruined a woman's career and put a family in danger."

    Bates, who expressed doubts about arguments on both sides, said he will rule on whether to dismiss the case in coming weeks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is an amazing thing to be so pathetic you make Ashcroft look good.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Larry, how pathetic do you have to be to make Nixon look reasonable by comparison?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No doubt Clif you have to be one of the most miserable people to walk this green earth.

    Nixon looked like Mr. Rogers compared to Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Larry said...
    It is an amazing thing to be so pathetic you make Ashcroft look good.


    You can say that again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. U.S. families paid $1,000 more on average for gasoline last year than in 2001, as higher prices at the pump ate up a hefty portion of the increase in their paychecks, two consumer groups said Wednesday.
    With retail gasoline prices at records, the increase in the tab for gasoline may be significant again this year.

    The average U.S. household paid $2,277 for gasoline in 2006, up 78% from 2001, according to estimates from the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports. The numbers are similar to other estimates, including those from Moody's Economy.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. Iraq is on the verge of collapse - report


    Iraq's government has lost control of vast areas to powerful local factions and the country is on the verge of collapse and fragmentation, a leading British think-tank said on Thursday.

    Chatham House also said there was not one civil war in Iraq, but "several civil wars" between rival communities, and accused Iraq's main neighbours -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue".

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bush is such a great warrior that he destroys the government that he supposedly created.

    Talk about a misfit.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ode to a surge;

    It's a new plan, but the same old war.

    It's a new plan, but the same tired troops.

    It's a new plan, but the same incompetent people.

    It's a new plan, but the same old spin.

    It's a new plan, but it's been tried before.

    It's a new plan, just like the old plan.

    It's a new plan, but the same old lie.

    The new plan, is the same old plan,

    sold with the same old lies,

    to send the same tired troops,

    back to the same old war time after time.


    So what is new about it?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wolfowitz will resign June 30th according to Lou Dobbs....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Much applause on the Ode to a Surge Clif, there is nothing new except this "surge" has produced more violence and death.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well, another NeoCon gone!

    That filthy evildoer didn't want to leave! I thought they were going to have to tie him up and drag him out! But, they must have given him enough money to make him go away! LOL

    Apparently, June 30 is the end of the fiscal year for the World Bank.

    So, who will Bush appoint now? I'm sure it will be another "winner"! LMAO

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wolfowitz, architect of the blood bath in Iraq, being forced to resign for corruption, is ok, but theres a lot more to come.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The poor trolls in this blog and in liberal and progressive blogs everywhere are disappearing.

    They just can't sell it any more.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Suzie-Q said...

    So, who will Bush appoint now? I'm sure it will be another "winner"! LMAO


    Well if his nature thus far, it will be someone who doesn't particularly like poor people.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Suzie-Q said...
    Well, another NeoCon gone!"


    Another one bites the dust..............and another one gone...........another one bites the dust"
    QUEEN

    How long do you think it will take till Gonzalez bites the dust????

    ReplyDelete
  32. ANTIPIOUS WORFEUS said...
    Wolfowitz, architect of the blood bath in Iraq, being forced to resign for corruption, is ok, but theres a lot more to come."

    Yeah didnt he just boldly thump his chest a mere 2 days ago and proclaim He isnt going anywhere and NO ONE can force him to resign......................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
    Those silly Neo Cons!

    ReplyDelete
  33. ANTIPIOUS WORFEUS said...
    The poor trolls in this blog and in liberal and progressive blogs everywhere are disappearing.

    They just can't sell it any more."

    I've thought the same all week..............I think the trolls are licking their wounds and biding their time awaiting their masters talking points!

    Their lost without those talking points because they cant think for themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Wolfowitz is getting a large severance package when he leaves.

    How's that for disgrace?

    ReplyDelete
  35. ANTIPIOUS WORFEUS said...
    Suzie-Q said...

    So, who will Bush appoint now? I'm sure it will be another "winner"! LMAO


    Well if his nature thus far, it will be someone who doesn't particularly like poor people."

    Well lets see He appointed a partisan who despises Justice and the Constitution to head the DOJ

    A guy who despises diplomacy and peace to the State Department.

    And guys who have been wrong about everything to be VP and Sec of Defense!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Maybe he will give it to John Bolton. They have to work that old hate-monger in somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Well of course they bought him off otherwise he would have thrown a tantrum and had to be forced out............those greedy repugs put money ahead or a good name, reputation or self respect!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bush will squeeze Wolfowitz in somewhere, too many skeletons he knows about.

    ReplyDelete
  39. They will hang onto Electrode Al till the last possible minute. He's the only cover left for Chimpy vis-a-vis the prosecutor firings, the happy warrantless wiretapping program, and torture programs opened up in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and various assorted European countries.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The Senate aren't going to do anything about Gonzo, so he may as well stay and continue his illegal activities.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It looks as if the brass has started refusing Chimpy's orders.

    This is a hair worrisome, as it is only a small step from refusing certain orders to refusing ALL orders. Y'all know where that one ends.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well if the reichwing trolls are having a widdle trouble knowing what they think it might be because the reichwing is sort of fighting itself here like those they tried to foist into power in Iraq keep fighting amongst each other for control.

    Seems some re-pubies wanna throw Gonzo under the bus and right quick, too bad the bushie loves himself some Gonzo so much and won't let them (yet)

    GOP Gonzales Resignation Roll Call Returns

    Since our last roll call, Gonzales received some Republican support during his House Judiciary Committee testimony. But the loss of his #2 Paul McNulty and the recent testimony of former Deputy Attorney General Comey have gained Gonzales a few more detractors in the Senate. Here -- as Democrats push for a no-confidence vote in the Senate -- is a complete list of Republicans who are saying (or hinting) that the Attorney General should go.

    Update: We've added Sen. Coleman to the list, who joined the club today.

    The Senate

    Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN): ""I don't believe that Gonzales has the type of leadership that the department needs."

    Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): “The American people deserve an Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question. Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead.”

    Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “I think that out of loyalty to the president that that [resignation] would probably be the best thing that he could do.”

    Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)- “"When you have to spend more time up here on Capitol Hill instead of running the Justice Department, maybe you ought to think about it."

    Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)- "The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership."

    Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)- "For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful."

    Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): "I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. I believe the best way for us to put this behind us is your resignation."

    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)- "There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there.'"

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)- "Sometimes, it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

    Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)- "For you to have said this was an ‘overblown personnel matter,’ I think that can't be erased. And the clouds over a lot of the professionals can't be erased and the worry by those who haven’t been subjected to those clouds can't be erased. Now, I’m not going call for you resignation; I'm not going to make a recommendation on that. I think there are two people that have to decide that question. You have to decide it in the first instance. If you decide to stay on, it’s up to the President to decide."

    And here, Specter is even more clear: “I have a sense that when we finish our investigation, we may have the conclusion of the tenure of the attorney general…. I think when our investigation is concluded, it'll be clear even to the attorney general and the president that we're looking at a dysfunctional department which is vital to the national welfare."

    The House

    Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL): "The country deserves an attorney general with the credibility to perform this extremely difficult job, and it is now time for fresh leadership."

    Rep. Vern Elhers (R-MI)- "Since he's such a close, personal friend, he's hurt the President by what he's doing, he should have the politeness to offer his resignation."

    Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH)- 'Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it would be better for the President and the Department if the Attorney General were to step down."

    Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA)- "Even for Republicans this is a warning sign … saying there needs to be a change."

    Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO): “Gonzales' legacy at the [Justice Department] has been one of misplaced priorities, political miscalculation, and a failure to enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold…. I think that it is time for him to move on.”

    Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)- "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

    Prominent Conservatives

    The National Review Editorial Board- "Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start."

    Mark Corallo, Justice Department spokesman (2002-2005)- "Alberto Gonzales' loyalty to George Bush has got to trump George Bush's loyalty to Alberto Gonzales."

    Additionally, prior to Gonzales’ testimony, a group of conservatives with ties to the White House wrote President Bush to express their displeasure with the Attorney General. They finished the letter saying:

    "Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation."

    Included as signatories were: Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, David Keene, Chariman of the American Conservative Union, John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman, and Richard Viguerie, a well-known GOP fundraiser.


    and since KKKarl doesn't have the tight hold on the GOP's nut sack anymore, they ain't playing to his tune, (that and the fact Susan Ralston who was an assistant to both Jack Abramoff and KKKarl Rove wants her some immunity to tell the truth to congress, like Monica Goodling seems to need also.)

    Sort of makes one think something illegal has been going on, unless you drink the kool-aid and wait for a new set of GOPer talking points too bad nobody at GOP central is getting their act together, but actually they are trying to figger out who to throw under the bus to save their sorry ass if necessary.....

    Looks like the next 18 months is going to make the Sopranos look like a tired old dysfunctional Italian Family after all. (and boring by comparison)

    ReplyDelete
  43. If Bush was worth anything he wouldn't sit by and listen to calls for resignation.

    He should fire him.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Jolly roger, the brass knows the reichwing's time is LIMITED, and can see them falling apart, so they ain't gonna follow illegal orders, especially since Robert Gates is willing to follow the United States Constitution instead of the illegal orders of a couple of chicken hawk madmen.....

    ReplyDelete
  45. That and the fact the senate is in safe hands for the country instead of the rubber stampers of the reichwing anymore.....

    ReplyDelete
  46. Whose loyalty does Gates really follow?

    The way of right or the leanings of the neocons.

    ReplyDelete
  47. JR, I particularly liked this portion of the article

    "Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, “You know what choices I have. I’m a professional.” Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box.”

    ReplyDelete
  48. Larry' if Gates hadn't provided Fallon cover, he could have never refused the extra carrier, and Gates did allow ther facts about Feith to come out instead of making the investigation into Feith's illegal intel ops classified like Rove does in the white house.

    Gates is providing cover for the generals to push back on Cheney and Bush which will make the reichwing even more irrelevant from a foreign policy status, for the next 18 months as Henry Waxman, Patrick Leahy and the congress investigate the scumbags and the reichwing idiot neo-cons throw each other under the bus to try to save their sorry asses.....

    ReplyDelete
  49. If Gates is covering the generals then he will fall out of favor with all the Bush clan and the neocons.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Gates probably sold the Idea of Fallon to the idiot chicken hawk wingnuts in the administration as the man who knows Carrier based air attack ops, too bad Gates probably already knew Fallon thought Bush and Cheney are the crazies in the gobernment they lead.

    Looks like Gates has out maneuvered the neo-con cabal on this one...and the reichwing is sliding down a long path to historical irrelevancy and hopefully a nice jail cell in the Hague....

    ReplyDelete
  51. If Gates did set up the right wing downfall, he is the only appointment Bush has ever made that turns out to be a good one.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Larry you don't realize, Bush can't afford to FIRE Gates because it discredits his whole spin and lie cycle about the surge, and would cause quite a few reichwinger senators to wake up and give up on the chimp. At some point the re-pubies have to throw Bush under the Bus and they all know it, Bush is worse for the GOP then Nixon was in 1976 at this point.

    Gates is an old Hand at Washington insider in fighting, and Cheney has been out maneuvered, so His opinion is being countered by Gates, and Bush can't afford to fire him at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I bet Bush regrets giving him the job if he is smart enough to realize what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Remember Larry, Gates came from Jim Bakers Iraq Study Group, to be Sec of Def, and want to wonder which theory he supports the ISG or Robert Kagan's surge by another chicken hawk wing nut from AEI

    ReplyDelete
  55. I forgot he was in the study group. Bush probably picked him thinking he would be able to ignore the groups findings.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Larry Bush chose Gates to try to save his sorry ass after he LOST so much of his precious political capital when the GOP got their collective asses kicked good last November, and the re-pubies blamed Bush and Dumsfeld for the fiasco in Iraq....

    ReplyDelete
  57. Gates will come out of it unscathed since the mess was created and enhanced by Bush and company.

    ReplyDelete
  58. After this Gates will probably go back to SMU and be applauded for stopping the neo-con criminal cabal in it's tracks before they incited WW3....

    And prevented the US from making a truly stupid move like attacking Iran before they finished with afghanistan and Iraq, sort of like the last idiot genius who thought he knew more then the generals he was lording over instead of listening to.....

    ReplyDelete
  59. I still think Bush will attack Iran just to show he can. Like everything else it will be a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Larry unless he is willing to don the chimperor flight suit and fly a plane himself, eh might get a whole desk full of resignations which would cause a constitutional crisis because as the sec of def and senior commanders resign instead of inciting WW3 he would be out maneuvered and open to being stopped by all of congress.

    Even most re-pubies know that attacking Iran at this late date is going to damage them even more in 2008 then Iraq did in 2006, and the president might be able to issue orders, BUT if nobody is willing to carry them out but resign instead Bush has lost all power and credibility.

    I see quite a few generals willing to follow Gates to save the country from a madman in his last throes.....

    ReplyDelete
  61. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that if the things aren't settled down by late August, several active generals will come out jointly critical of the war.

    ReplyDelete
  62. In order to attack he would have to place certain assets in position and if the 4 star general officers are not even willing to allow that they ain't gonna allow the idiot to cause the collapse of America in the worst war ever by the worst President ever.

    Just as Hitler couldn't withstand the entire free world neither could we with stand the rest of this planet if they get fed up and decide to stop Bush's illegal aggression.

    Every officer who makes it to a general rank know this and would work very hard to stop a crazy like Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I still think Bush will attack Iran just to show he can. Like everything else it will be a failure.

    That assumes the military would obey such an order. I have argued for awhile now that they won't.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Bush's rhetoric about Iran is just making him look more stupid than before.

    ReplyDelete
  65. It would be a mess if the generals refuse the commands to attack Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Larry NO general is willing to allow Bush to destroy this country the way Hitler did Germany.

    They ain't "party members" first and officers second like Hitler forced his senior military leadership to be.

    They are willing to resign and fight for this country out side the military like Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, Gen. William E. Odom, Gen. John Baptiste, Gen Barry R. McCaffrey, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Gen. John Riggs, Gen. Paul Eaton, Gen. Gregory Newbold, Gen. Charles Swannack, Gen Paul Van Ripper, have done, but with Robert Gates in charge of the Pentagon and Ronald McDumsfeld thrown under the bus, the active duty generals know they have civilian back up with in the pentagon for now, instead of a deluded old foole who thinks he knows more than the generals who have committed their lives to the arts of the military and warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Bush is an idiot........he's a fool even his own party no longer respects.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Cheney may push the idiot Bush into forcing a mutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Instead of the allied forces coming in from the west, and Russian Forces coming in from the east,

    this time it is the truth and facts coming in from Iraq and reality from middle america storming congress corridors, which is gonna save this great nation from the chimp and the pnac neo-con clown posse this time.

    the generals know which side wins in such a fight, and they serve the truth and the US constitution not a cabal of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Even the re-pubie losers know they have no high ground to hold them any more but need some cover from Bush ET AL. like Charlie Cook explains here.

    ReplyDelete
  71. The more the Congress keep the administration feet to the fire about the illegalities in both the white House, and DOJ, along with the growing number of re-pubies under investigation, things look quite bad fro the GOP next time.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Good article. If the majority of Repugs do turn on the war this fall, Bush may as well go home.

    ReplyDelete
  73. If they turn they are going to have a herd time 'splainin" what too them so F&$%KING so long.

    americans are starting to realize they have been LIED to for about

    oh say

    six years now....

    ReplyDelete
  74. Even the IDIOT trolls have about given up trying to defend the chimp in chief and the stupid re-pubie tricks of the reichwing.

    ReplyDelete
  75. You're witnessing history.

    The clandestine meeting at Ashcrofts bedside, clearly ordered by the President, to try to circumvent the constitution and the acting Attorney General represents high crimes.

    Also there is the irony that just discussing classified intelligence in front of a non cleared person (Ashcrofts wife) and outside of a SCIF, constitutes criminal offenses.

    The fat lady might not be singing yet, but I can hear her warming up.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Theres no stopping it now.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Bush at 24%.

    A CBS News public opinion survey puts public support for President Bush at 24 percent, which is the level (within the margin of error) of support achieved by Richard M. Nixon as he was forced to resign at the peak of the Watergate scandal.

    ahhh the volkstrum of the backwash........

    ReplyDelete
  78. Whats amazing is that Bush sends the troops un multiple tours, extends their tours THEN has the audacity to CLAIM that the troops dont deserve a raise and its UNNECCESSARY...........yet he CLAIMS repugs support the troops....................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

    Anyone that votes repug, particularly anyone making less than $500,000, or who is a senior citizen or younger than 40 is a fool.............in fact make that ANYONE who supports or votes repug PERIOD is a FOOL!

    ReplyDelete
  79. How long till the IDIOT breaks into the teens Clif...........even the cowardly Volksturm are abandoning ship like a bunch of rats.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Mike the real IRONY is a private in the Army would make SIX DOLLARS a month more from the congressional raise then the one Bush backs,

    Bush is denying SIX DOLLARS a month to the troops.....

    ReplyDelete
  81. So Bush is willing to take a stand as not supporting the troops for a mere $6 a month...............he;s even DUMBER than I thought and thats saying something............what happened to the genius Karl Rove...............BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Yes and the original story broke in the Army times which ain't gonna endear bush to the troops any more than the 15 month tours in Iraq has done, me thinks the re-pubies are gonna hate the military vote for a while, which explains why people like Ken Blackwell tried so hard to make sure the military members deployed to Iraq from OHIO didn't get to vote in 2004 or 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Two journalists from ABC news was killed in Iraq.

    "Surge on Bush"

    ReplyDelete
  84. The soldiers aren't worth an extra gallon and a half of that gas we're killing them for.

    Ain't that something.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Bush is the only always saying the Democrats aren't supporting the troops, when in fact, he refuses to support them financially.

    ReplyDelete
  86. You know Georgie will defend the tax cuts at the expense of the troops.

    Hell he put the troops in this mess trying to run a war on tax cuts.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Bush would rather extend his tax cuts of the wealthy over the financial well being of the soldiers and their families.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Bush would rather extend his tax cuts of the wealthy over the financial well being of the soldiers and their families.

    That's been clear since he ran them into Iraq understaffed, underequipped, and with no plan for the aftermath.

    Chimpy has always been about 2 things-wealth transfers to the rich and playing out his Oedipal drama. When these two things are at cross purposes, Chimpy always makes transferring wealth to his peers his #1 priority.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The only accomplishment Bush has enjoyed is bringing greater wealth to the rich.

    He certainly hasn't brought anything to the soldiers except fear and pain.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jolly Roger said...
    Bush would rather extend his tax cuts of the wealthy over the financial well being of the soldiers and their families.

    That's been clear since he ran them into Iraq understaffed, underequipped, and with no plan for the aftermath.

    Chimpy has always been about 2 things-wealth transfers to the rich and playing out his Oedipal drama. When these two things are at cross purposes, Chimpy always makes transferring wealth to his peers his #1 priority."


    Yeah main stream repugs and the trolls screech and whine how much they despise wealth transfers.........Yet they support the chimp transfering GREAT amounts of wealth to the Ultra wealthy..........even though THEY are NOT Ultra wealthy.................it boggles the mind that these authoritarian idiot followers are so brainwashed by dishonest GOP talking points, rhetoric and groupthink that they just blindly support policy that goes against THEIR OWN best interests and the best interests of 95%-99% of the nation............it truly boggles the mind!

    ReplyDelete
  91. BTW looks like Wolfowitz bit the dust anyone wanna voice their predictions on my "Dead Pool" guess on when Gonzalez will be forced out...........I stand by my prediction of between Memorial Day and Labor Day!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Damn, I knew I should have kept Wolfowitz in the Dead Pool, altho they were running neck and neck this week....

    Sorry for being quiet guys, it's been hellacious at work, making money hand over fist.

    ReplyDelete
  93. By the way, anyone catch the Time magazine article about how the liberal uberwealthy, like Soros and Gates and Buffett, already give more in actual dollar foreign aid than the United States government?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is the only presidential candidate in Congress to have missed a major vote on the Iraq war this year, and his absences are not sitting well with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

    Liz Oxhorn, a spokeswoman for Reid, told The Hill, "Sen. McCain has spent considerable time defending the president on Iraq and catering to the Republican base on immigration, but has only managed to show up for four of the last 14 Iraq votes and parachute into [yesterday's] immigration press conference at the last minute. Who is the real John McCain?"

    ReplyDelete
  95. The world's next generation of Donald Rumsfelds will soon have a place to study and grow.
    Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld "is working on setting up a new foundation" to "remain engaged in public policy issues" and offer "teaching and research fellowships for graduate and post-graduate students."

    ReplyDelete

  96. "The poor trolls in this blog and in liberal and progressive blogs everywhere are disappearing.

    They just can't sell it any more."



    Or, the season finalle of all our favorite shows are on and you just are not that interesting.

    Sorry for trolling. Couldn't sleep. Somehow Worfs drolleries tend to cure me of that.

    Big K

    ReplyDelete
  97. Kevin said...
    Or, the season finalle of all our favorite shows are on and you just are not that interesting.


    Yes. So much more important to watch some fat chick get voted off American Idol while you jerk your pathetic tiny gherkin at what you thought was her nipple popping out her dress..

    Makes a lot of sense to me!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Big K - Great to hear from you!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yes. So much more important to watch some fat chick get voted off American Idol while you jerk your pathetic tiny gherkin at what you thought was her nipple popping out her dress..

    Hey, we all know Chimpletons are cowards-and they are ESPECIALLY afraid to talk to women. A guy has to get his action where he can!

    ReplyDelete