Sampson now says Gonzalez and Miers were involved in the firing decisions.
Which of course assumes you know about them to ask for them. I can’t imagine getting any traction with these people if the request were worded as “any and all email systems you or anyone on your staff may have used in an attempt to circumvent the law you fuckers.” Roughly, I mean. The response is still going to be, “Oh, ya sure, we sent you everything, you betcha.”
That’s already settled. E-mails from the gwb43.com system were mixed in with the whitehouse.gov ones in the stuff already submitted. Waxman has already issued the demand for stuff both inside and outside the WH system.
Enjoy!
Well, duh. He’ll get the Presidential Medal of Freedom next year.
Well, try as I might to mount an attack on your position, I find it literally unassailable. Well played!
Backing today. Backing away tomorrow. So it goes.
Means nothing. They stood behind Rumsfeld for ages, and we know what happened to him. Bush is close with Gonzales, from what I’ve read, but if he becomes enough of a liability I’m sure he will be told to pack his bags. The disapproval of Gonzales seems very bipartisan at this point. As usual, Bush is waiting too long to get rid of someone who has become a problem for him. But that’s one of his character flaws.
Isn’t this as much as a media spin as it’s a political gamble for the White House?
Look at the following major stories floating around right now: Gonzo, Iraq funding, Iraq war, Iran, and Iran British hostages. Isn’t it in the best political interests of the White House to have as many stories all running at once so as to dilute the individual media impacts of each story?
Once Gonzo walks (or is pushed), it becomes more difficult to run the two-step sidestep with fewer stories. OTOH, I am assuming there is an intelligent plan such as this in the White House because the more negative stories running, the worse it gets for the White House.
Then again, it is Friday so any major news story is going to come out today after the east coast media goes home. Better still, next Friday because as Good Friday, the Easter weekend hype will dilute any followup stories even more.
Of course, would Gonzo leave before his scheduled appearance on Capitol Hill?
Eh, maybe. It’s not exactly a good thing for the White House if the public sees it as beset by bad news.
What else can we expect of an administration that never admits mistakes?
I suggest this thread be merged with this thread.
Threads merged. Other thread begins with iluvurmom’s uncommented link.
I heard a news report this afternoon that the White House is “distancing itself from” Gonzales after the Kyle Sampson’s testimony yesterday. And I agree that Gonzales will be thrown under the bus to save Rove. I think Bush considers Rove his “brain,” such as it is. But yeah, after Sampson’s testimony, in which he said under oath that the Attorney General is a liar, I imagine Rove is already shopping around for a new AG.
I just had a thought: Since Sampson testified, under oath, that Gonzales lied, does that necessarily compel Gonzales to testify under oath if he wants to refute that testimony?
To jusify testifying without taking the oath, GOP-ers are saying, the oath doesn’t matter because the penalty for lying to the Senate is the same as it is for perjury - 5 years.
If this is true, why is BushCo so insistent on Rove, et al not testifying under oath? No one seems to be asking this question.
I’m betting he gets the ax on Good Friday. During Easter weekend, fewer people have time to watch the news and a lot of the television talking heads will be on vacation themselves. By the time Monday rolls around, it will be old news.
Now the news reports are that the White House is pantingly eager to have Gonzales testify earlier than April 17th, sooner, sooner, hurry it up, willya? So the AG can put all this petty partisan nonsense aside and get on with the important work before him.
Senate Dems are now planning a vote of no confidence in Gonzalez.
FWIW.
Meanwhile, still more Pubs are turning against him.
That’s what they say. How will they vote?