I kept up with the developing story, and read quite a bit about the background leading up to the current flap. I remember reading about communication which gave strong indication that the firings were politically motivated. Rather than try to run down the original source material, I took the easy option of checking Wikipedia first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate Quote:
In January 2005, deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove asked deputy counsel David Leitch "how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. Attorneys, whether we were going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc."[24] In reply, White House counsel Kyle Sampson wrote that it would be "weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term", that they "would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys" and that the rest "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."[24]
The inference there being that the 15-20% they wanted to fire were not "loyal Bushies". Not that they weren't doing their jobs well, not that they weren't "loyal Americans", not that they weren't impartial in prosecuting cases - they weren't "loyal" to the man, not the office. IMO, that's even worse than doing it because they weren't "loyal Republicans". It strikes the same chord of slavish devotion popular in a well-known fascist regime from the past.
Quote:
Shortly afterwards, "Sampson, chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, came up with a checklist. He rated each of the U.S. attorneys with criteria that appeared to value political allegiance as much as job performance. He recommended retaining 'strong U.S. Attorneys who have ... exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.' He suggested 'removing weak U.S. Attorneys who have ... chafed against Administration initiatives'".[25]
(bold added)
Chafed against "administration initiatives". Could this possibly refer to administration actions which might be regarded as illegal, unconstitutional or both? Perhaps even fascist?
(24=Jan Crawford Greenberg. "E-Mails Show Rove's Role in U.S. Attorney Firings", ABC News, March 15, 2007.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2954988&page=1 )
(25=Serrano, Richard A.. "E-mails detail White House plans to oust U.S. attorneys", Los Angeles Times, March 14, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-03-15.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs ... S/70314017 )
Quote:
The documents offer an extraordinary look at political tactics within the Bush administration, and show the White House working closely with the Justice Department to justify the firings. The administration even adopted contingency plans for how to “quiet� anyone who complained. And it was the administration that gave the final go-ahead to fire eight prosecutors, all of them Bush appointees.
The documents show that in one case, officials were eager to free up the prosecutor’s slot in Little Rock, Ark., so it could be filled by Timothy Griffin, a GOP operative close to White House political guru Karl Rove — at all costs.
“We should gum this to death,� Sampson e-mailed Monica Goodling, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House. He said officials should talk up Griffin’s appointment and try to “forestall� any criticism from Capitol Hill. Just “run out the clock� on any objections, he said.
Unless someone has references which disprove this information, I believe that communication qualifies as "evidence".
The entire situation is definitely another example of this administrations inability to tell the truth. Why lie if you're not doing anything wrong? Why conceal evidence of actions which are not improper?
I think the answer is simple. They want people focused on petty bullshit so that attention is diverted from the really heinous shit that is going on.
The social engineering liberal who knows what is best for you, who after he took over the Oversight Committee, gleefully said something along the lines now we will subpoena, subponea and subpoena the Administration until they give in.
