Gonzales, Rove and… Bush

Is Bush protecting Gonzales in order to protect Rove and… himself? Sidney Blumenthal says ‘yes’: Rove and Bush gave the orders, Gonzales carried them out.

This controversy isn’t going away. This is not going to die. I’m quite sure that a large part of what’s being said, isn’t accurate, but the way Bush et al. are handling this feeds the (conspiracy) theories tremendously. It’s better to do what people want, right now, than to create the atmosphere / feeling of a cover-up.

That is… if a large part of what’s being said is nonsense.

9 Responses to “Gonzales, Rove and… Bush”

1. Chris says:

   March 22, 2007 at 8:07 am

   Bush & Co. have changed their stories 2 or 3 times now already. There is a gap in the e-mail trail that is right before the firings. Bush refuses to let his aides testify to Congress under oath.

   Why be suspicious?
2. Marlowecan says:

   March 22, 2007 at 8:23 am

   Chris, the question is still what laws have been broken.

   Partisanship is not illegal, even in regard to US attorneys.

   I recently learned how, in 1978 Jimmy Carter fired Philadelphia U.S. Attorney David Marston, who was investigating PA congressman Joshua Eilberg. This was in the middle of Carter’s term. The reason he fired the US Attorney? It was done at the request of Congressman Joshua Eilberg!

   Recall how everyone here has been saying that what was unprecedented about Bush’s firings was their occurring in the middle of his term, and there being partisanship involved? How this was thus TOTALLY different from Clinton etc.?

   But not so different from Carter…indeed, Carter was worse, I would argue.

   I suspect, if I were to start digging further back, I would find similar stories from previous adminstrations.

   BTW: This was politically embarrassing to Carter, as his own Democrats – on the Ethics Committee – later recommended charges against Eilberg.

   But…and this is the kicker…no one ever said what Carter did was illegal.

   I am pleased that Sidney Blumenthal – the Clinton’s favorite attack dog – has stepped into the fray. Given his political reputation the partisan nature of this “scandal” will become clearer….
3. kritter says:

   March 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

   Marlowe- You should read the front page of WaPo. Ex USA Sharon Eubanks is claiming that the DOJ interfered with their investigation of Big Tobacco. Eubanks claims she was ordered to reverse a demand that tobacco execs lose their jobs, and to reduce the settlement by over 100 billion$. The Bush administration forced her to tell witnesses to change their testimony.

   Still think Clinton and Carter were worse?
4. Chris says:

   March 22, 2007 at 8:38 am

   Marlowecan,
   If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?
5. Michael van der Galiën says:

   March 22, 2007 at 10:13 am

   Chris: I am suspicious. I’m only careful because we’ve had so many controversies in the blogosphere, people condemning whomever, people saying that the results of ‘this’ news will be horrible, etc. before it all goes away again and everyone survives. So, I’ve become a bit careful.
6. Citizen Kang says:

   March 22, 2007 at 1:18 pm

   Even assuming that nothing Bush did was “illegal” and that Bush’s firings were his prerogative, political reasons or no, why then is even a partisan political attack on a politcal decision beyond bounds?

   And, unless Bush is covering up actions that are so devastating that the truth would irrevocably (further) harm his presidency, I have to quetion his wisdom in stonewalling the congressional investigation.

   (Shameless blog flogging Alert): As I note in a post on my own blog, CaliBlogger, I agree with Senator Charles Schumer, who last night’s Countdown noted:

   There are enough disgruntled people in the Justice Department in particular – because they really resented what happened here – that the information is going to come out. It can either come out ‘drip, drip, drip’ or it’ll come out all at once, we’ll get to the bottom of it in a complete way and move one (sic). It would be much better for the White House, as well as the Justice Department and the country, if they let it all come out at once.

   Bush should just take his political medecine and move on.

   His refusal to do so means that this story will just drag on and on as the inevitable new revelations about the politicization of the DoJ come to light.
7. Citizen Kang says:

   March 22, 2007 at 1:22 pm

   Man I wish this comment format had a preview option.

   quetion=question

   Charles Schumer, who on last night’s Countdown noted:
8. DLS says:

   March 22, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Citizen Kang wrote:

   > Bush should just take his political med[i]cine
   >and move on.
   >
   > His refusal to do so means that this story will
   > just drag on and on as the inevitable new
   > revelations about the politicization of the DoJ
   > come to light.

   “Not under oath” (the demand) is even more stupid than “behind closed doors.”

   I wonder what this will do for — brace yourselves — the prospects that Bush will be asked to travel throughout the USA in 2008 and contribute to various campaigns, or even *gasp* be asked to endorse people! (And you thought Clinton was being avoided in 2000)
9. domajot says:

   March 22, 2007 at 2:42 pm

   This is the oddest scandal yet. If all that’s at the bottom of this is some partisanship, then the cover-up has got to be just plain dumb.
   I can’t even imagine what they were thinking.

   If there’s something more, then it’s another story.

   This is like waiting for the latest Harry Potter book.