"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina," the GOP presidential candidate said. "That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of."

Yes Tom, because blowing up the Golden Dome in Samarra was such an effective means of deterring attacks in Iraq, we should be considering blowing up the their holiest of holies. Tom Tancredo is out of his mind, and the country would be much better served if he went hunting with Dick Cheney.

Tancredo Says Bomb Mecca

A group of House Democrats will introduce a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Prediction: Fredo is done for and will resign at the beginning of next week so Bush can make an interim appointment of a new AG. That AG will be current Cheney counsel David Addington.

(no, I don't have an inside source, I just find that to be the most likely option. Fredo is toast, and a resignation while Congress is at recess means recess appointment)

First Read : Impeach Gonzales?

The letter by director of national intelligence at the time, John Negroponte, as well as public testimony by CIA Director Michael Hayden, seems to contradict sworn testimony by Gonzales this week about a crucial intelligence briefing for congressional leaders on activities in the White House Situation Room on March 10, 2004. The letter specifically lists the March 10 meeting as one of a number of “briefings” about the “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”

So which is it? Are there more programs and he was lying about that, or is there just the one and he was lying about the disagreement and now the statement that the disagreement was about a different program?

Terror Watch: New Questions About Gonzales's Credibility - Newsweek Terror Watch - MSNBC.com

By denying DeFazio's reasonable request to view these documents, the White House has done much to encourage and nothing to quell such speculation. The administration would be wise to reverse its decision and allow DeFazio, or any other member of Congress with the required clearance, full and immediate access.

If the White House doesn't do so, the American public is left with this unsettling thought from Congressman DeFazio: "Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right."

Congressman DeFazio asked to see the plans relating to how the government would respond to different disasters, either natural or man-made, and was told by the White House no. He has the requisite security clearances, is part of the homeland security committee that should know such things, but was rejected.

This has gone beyond ridiculous. But gee, he's a Democrat, and that makes him the enemy. The enemy of the White House isn't terrorists, it isn't foreign powers that have no interest in the well being of the US, no, for the White House, the enemy is the other party and anyone who agrees with them. Enough.

The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, USA

Republicans said Democrats couldn't win this fight, noting the White House has offered to make top presidential aides available for private interviews about their roles in the firings. Republicans also suggested that the Democrats' rejection of the offer leaves only one reason for the dispute: politics.

Okay, this is completely wrong on multiple fronts. First, the issue here is not whether claims of executive privilege are valid or not, it is whether they allow someone to ignore a properly issued subpoena. Short of being dead or hospitalized, and there may be other reasons, I am not aware of one. There is a very big difference between showing up and refusing to answer questions and not showing up at all. On those grounds the Republican objection is very wrong, and refusal to appear on grounds of executive privilege is not the same as showing up and refusing to answer questions.

Second, given the previous statements of administration officials under oath, Rove going to the grand jury FIVE TIMES, Libby's conviction, Gonzales' non-answers, prevarications and bald faced lies, the case for WMD's, etc., putting questions to them not under oath, without transcripts, and in private session is about as useful as shoving a car exhaust pipe up your ass. All you'll get is burned with a lot of smoke blown up it.

You will further note, Sara Taylor is not one of those for whom a contempt citation was issued indicating the issue is not the claim of executive privilege, but refusal to appear. I agree the executive privilege part of this will probably be needed to be handled in some other manner, but the refusal to appear issue is a proper reason for issuing the contempt citation.

House Democrats Pass Contempt Citations - The Huffington Post

Mr. Specter has accused Mr. Gonzales before of dodging questions, and he did so again today. At one point, the senator said, “I see it’s hopeless.” At another point, he said acidly, “Let’s see if somewhere, somehow we can find a question that you’ll answer.”

That would be Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania who has been until recently trying to find a way to capitulate to the White House. Not so much anymore. Ouch.

Gonzales Denies Any Attempt to Pressure Ashcroft - New York Times

I haven't seen this elsewhere but someone I was talking to mentioned this and it was sufficiently disturbing I want to toss it out there to be considered.

In this morning's Times, they reported Bush has restarted the CIA secret interrogations. But last week he dropped an executive order saying no torture. Those two things are at complete odds with each other.

He also issued a directive to the Justice Department that they are not to press any Contempt of Congress proceedings if executive privilege has been requested. That cannot be anything the Republicans want in existence if the other party is in the White House.

He issued the new executive order on asset seizure, in complete violation of both the 4th and 5th amendments.

He has worked to turn the Justice Department into an arm of the Republican party.

He has worked to pack the Judiciary, with a fine example of his work in Judge Bates who dismissed the Plame case.

I can go on and on, but that should be sufficient for the conclusion.

These are not the actions of a person who expects to release power in 18 months. Especially not if the person who will assume the reins is a member of the opposition party, and all polling says it will be, in a landslide.

While I think Bush may be stupid enough to not see that far into the future, I don't see Cheney doing that, not unless there was already a plan to ensure that control would remain either in their hands or in the hands of someone they have hand picked to take over. The national lottery we call elections is no where near a secure enough mechanism to deal with that problem.

Something with what they're doing doesn't add up.

"A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case," said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. "And a U.S. attorney wouldn't be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen."

Ummmm, yeah... This has gone from bad to worse. I'm not seeing any resolution to this other than impeachment and removal from office. Nixon at least tried to hide his attempts at the cover-up, these guys are doing it in broad daylight.

Broader Privilege Claimed In Firings - washingtonpost.com

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote in the 41-page decision.
"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism ... by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties," he added.

I'm going to respond to this with two very different comments.

First, if the dismissal is on jurisdictional grounds, then the above quote has no business as part of the opinion. Either the court has jurisdiction or it does not, but that statement is not part of any jurisdictional question I can think of.

Second, that statement does have application if the dismissal were on the grounds the case were brought, but ignores the issues of the case. The response of the administration (in the form of leaking the identity of Ms. Plame by Armitage, Rove, Libby and Fleisher) was not a rebuttal of any of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson, it was instead a smear of the Ambassador and the destruction of Ms. Plame's career. While the first certainly qualifies as "unsavory," the leak was most likely illegal, and at no point was there any rebuttal of the criticism. The leak group didn't say what Ambassador Wilson said was false or that they had information that said otherwise, they turned his report and the trip that report was based on into a junket sponsored by his wife at CIA, and that if people want to take information from that sort of source well go ahead.

They already had the original report Wilson had filed with the government blowing the yellowcake story out of the water, they just ignored it because it hurt their case for a war they wanted. They knew it was right. Because they couldn't counter the message, they went after the messenger. The point of the suit was to determine if that was done falsely.

Now, given the standards applied by the Judge in this case, were I to say, "Judge Bates is a Bush tool who ruled this way in this case because W put him on the bench as a payoff for the work he did with Ken Starr trying to bury Clinton for a blowjob," then that would be perfectly acceptable. It would be perfectly acceptable if I were in the administration, because speaking with members of the press is just dandy. I don't have to rebut the opinion, Bates doesn't find that a requirement. I could freely say Bates is a corrupt judge who got the assignment in this case because he's known to be a loyal Bushie who got his job from Bushie and was chosen for that job because he went after blowjob Bill.

At least that's what the standard looks like...

I have not read the opinion because I haven't found a link to it yet, but I'll update after I have.

UPDATE: Well I have now read the opinion and I wonder if I can get it perforated, on Charmin quality paper stock. Part of the opinion is a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds, sort of, vaguely, but the primary issue for dismissal is that remedy is being sought under the wrong grounds. What also appears to be stated is that it is not relevant whether or not what Libby, Rove, Cheney and Armatige did was illegal or not, the fact that it may or may not have been illegal precludes pressing a civil case! It might be illegal, therefore it can't be sued for!

Wow.

UPDATE 2: This is the same judge who ruled that the GAO couldn't find out who was on Cheney's energy group, and was placed on the FISA court by Roberts last year. Yeesh.

Judge dismisses civil suit in CIA leak scandal | Politics | Reuters

Waxman cited a memo written by former White House political director Sara M. Taylor showing that John P. Walters, director of the drug control office, and his deputies traveled at taxpayer expense to about 20 events with vulnerable GOP members of Congress in the three months leading up to the elections.

In a letter to Taylor, Waxman also pointed to an e-mail by an official in the drug policy office describing President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, as being pleased that the office, along with the Commerce, Transportation and Agriculture departments, went "above and beyond" the call of duty in arranging appearances by Cabinet members at campaign events.

And now, another round of the White House breaking the law. At this point what haven't they done? Counterfeiting? Maybe?

White House Had Drug Officials Appear With GOP Candidates - washingtonpost.com