Carry On Comment!

Borrowed from an AM1090 caller to one of the afternoon talk shows, the interesting dilemma of Karl Rove is his confessing apparently...

that he has no diary or record of his work with the administration.

This with his apparent plan to write a book, means...

either he has a very good memory or it will be in the fiction section.

Actually I just rearranged the caller's comment to my own taste in my usual way.

His point was that it takes "I don't recall" and all it's variations "off the table" when it comes to congressional investigations.
I would add
the only alternative
is straight to "the pen".

More lines of investigation on Rove history
For later read, not that I have read the above.
"...who know what"
Democrats vow...
political fighter
Picking Bush's Brain ?
...avoid Capitol Hill
WaPo editorial

[pause]
Clinton, Rove's candidate in '08
U.S. Attorneys
First Read
Divider

[Having just read the last one first, it is a reminder that his nickname "turd blossom" is something that survives in a field of fertilizer.]

[Second thoughts on First Thoughts from First Read: There should NEVER be another Karl Rove. It is a cheap shot and a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to promulgate such a character [italics and link added 8-15-07]by looking for the next one.

At least they admitted that "they" (the media) create them (the turd blossoms), but of course there will be, on the Right, as several of his (Rove's) proteges are distributed amongst the Republican candidates. But on The Left there is too much distribution of brains to get away with anything like what the administration has so far distributed. Genius should be about what works, and nothing much has, with this administration, except accumulation of ruin and power. * [it.a.l.a. 8-15-07]
Shame on MSNBC for such work. There is some good news on the new Hillary ad, but to follow with a piece on Rove? And while running the bottom line, "the next Karl Rove" under "her inner Bill".]

* [8-15-07 Re: David Frum link "and power", reminiscent of Lakoff where he points out that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former run to govern, and the latter govern to run. That may say as much about governing as running, and as much about the left as the right, but rather than looking for a third way in the middle of any political spectrum, maybe the perspective [way to see it] is from above the plane, while a plane requires a third perspective that is not in line.]

[ bold italics added 3-12-08]

Top To Bottom

Top of the News, Bottom of the Barrel.
What ABC could air but won't?
Greg Palast
Where you can find it.
In particular
...
Bottom Line?
U.S. Attorneys
The Point?
The Unraveling?
A Thread?
The Recount II.

On the political front. [4-3-07: #2 of 4]
Media Whores * [4-11-07: #1 of 2]

What Is The Point?

Prosecutions!
It should be remembered that impeachment as a political tool is too political. If wrongs have been done they must be pursued. The process is political, of course. But if the political process is not utilized, what is the alternative? To let wrong stand, or for wrong to walk? Or the choice between anarchy and tyranny?

Impeachment is a tool that must be used. Politics is a tool that must be used. But either may be used for good as well as wrong.

Well... I was going to head for a different point. That being the starting point, or at least the start of the latest falling apart. Well... maybe not the latest, but the point that congress is focusing. U.S. Attorneys... who are in charge of prosecutions. The underlying crimes? Caging. Election Fraud. And the lack of prosecutions.

Happy Supoenas Day!

Embedded in the previous post is the Huffington Post piece, announcing the incremental steps being taken to hold the administration accountable.

"Our only hope."

My posts connected to this important day
Election Fixes 3-11-07[LOCAL]
SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal 3-14-07 [LOCAL]
What's going on? 3-15-07
What will happen. 3-15-07
What has happened. 3-16-07

About one week later:
Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors 3-21-07
Smoking Gun II the Smoke and Mirrors 3-26-07

Now: Listen to Rep. Linda Sanchez on The Ed Schultz Show about the subpoenas necessary to follow the bouncing U.S. Attorneys and the trail of accountability.

Smoking Gun to the Smoke and Mirrors

Addressing the "fishing expedition" in his March 20th, 2007"Press Conference":
BUSH QUOTE:

But that's Washington, D.C. for you. You know, there's a lot of politics in this town.

And I repeat, we would like people to hear the truth. And, Kelly, your question is one I'm confident will be asked of people up there. And the Justice Department will answer that question in open forum for everybody to see.

If the Democrats truly do want to move forward and find the right information, they ought to accept what I proposed. And the idea of dragging White House members up there to score political points, or to put the klieg lights out there -- which will harm the President's ability to get good information, Michael -- is -- I really do believe will show the true nature of this debate.

DOES THIS NOT INDICATE HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN "REASONABLE PROPOSAL" ?
If there are not a lot of Dean screams going around the press corps, something is wrong. The big fish is at his pleasure with an empty pond apparently.

[Additional Comment: 9:30 PM]
White House Counsel's Proposal:

Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a Member or limited number of Members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas.

BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT:

Q In San Diego, Nevada, Arizona, Republicans were the targets of investigations, and those U.S. attorneys were removed. Does that not give the appearance --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't -- it may give the appearance of something, but I think what you need to do is listen to the facts, and let them explain to -- it's precisely why they're going up to testify, so that the American people can hear the truth about why the decision was made.

The bold and italics combo are mine, but it appears I have misunderestimated Bush in his brilliant navigation of his proposal.

What's going on?

Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.

But enough of the usual stuff.

Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:

Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal

Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]

Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!

Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.

One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001

Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.

And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]

In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.

I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.

[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?

Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]

These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.

So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?

Two more sources - in their defense?