Should I Believe Gonzales, or the FBI?

It really looks like Gonzales’ world is collapsing around him, like that of so many, “Heck-Of-A-Job,” members of the “W.” Fan Club before him.  The man has no credibility left, and could not possibly inspire any sense of confidence in the office of the Attorney General.  From today’s Washington Post:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

Mueller’s testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was under sedation and recovering from surgery.

Imagine trying to use a doped-up John Ashcroft to get approval for a program.  Does anyone at all in the White House have any sense of ethics?

Where are all of the Republican’s who care so much about right and wrong?  Why be so silent?

I know, everyone and their grandmother wants to win the White House again, because, really, that’s all that matters.  So, line up behind St. Alberto and be silent.  We know your game.

All the while, we’re one step closer to Bush and Cheney.  The movement to impeach them is growing.

Contempt of Congress for Bush Aides

Just in from The Pittsburgh Channel:

The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations Wednesday against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President George W. Bush’s former legal counselor, Harriet Miers.

The 22-17 vote, which would sanction for pair for failure to comply with subpoenas on the firings of several federal prosecutors, advanced the citation to the full House.A senior Democratic official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the House itself likely would take up the citations after Congress’ August recess. The official declined to speak on the record because no date had been set for the House vote

The rest of the story is here.

It’s about time.

Looking Twice at John Edwards

I admit I didn’t really consider John Edwards much when he ran for President the first time.  I thought he was making his move too soon.  As John Kerry’s running mate, however, he impressed me far more than did Kerry.  Edwards may be well off, but he didn’t flaunt it during the campaign.  He actually appeared, and appears now, to be down to earth.

Enter Elizabeth Edwards.

Again, first time around, I didn’t notice her that much at all.  I was too preoccupied defending Kerry from the absurdly weird Swift Boat people.  But Elizabeth is someone I want to get to know more.

From our friends at

At the end of June she won the nation’s attention — and the gratitude of many — for confronting right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter live on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” after Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” at a conservative conference in March, and joked in June about wishing he’d be assassinated. Since then she has been in San Francisco twice campaigning for gay rights, keynoting before the annual gay pride march in June and addressing the Human Rights Campaign’s awards dinner on July 14. And where her husband, like the other leading Democrats in the presidential race, supports civil unions but balks at gay marriage, Elizabeth Edwards has come out behind full marriage rights.

Wow.  And she understands her husband for only making it up to civil unions:

Well, I think it’s a struggle for him, having grown up in a Southern Baptist church where it was pounded into him. I was raised a Methodist in military churches. Poverty was talked about; I don’t remember homosexuality ever being mentioned. And I don’t think that Christians who aren’t engaged in a political campaign ever talk about it. They talk about poverty and other issues talked about in the Bible. But in churches, in political season, there’s plenty of ginning up this issue.

The rest of the interview is equally spectacular.  Asked if she expected criticism for working on John’s campaign in spite of her health, her answer is brilliant:

I had no idea I’d get that kind of criticism. But you know, people who’ve been in this situation haven’t criticized me. And the people who haven’t — I just hope they never go through it. And it got worse after [the] Coulter [incident]. Well, we were talking about home-schooling the kids anyway, before I got sick. John’s gone all the time, I’m gone a lot, and it was going to be the only way for us to be together as a family.

But you know, after all I’ve been through, I realize: You don’t know exactly what life lessons you taught your kids until much later. You don’t. And maybe the most important life lesson for them is for me to say, When bad things happen, you don’t let them take you down. If I hadn’t continued to campaign, I’d be sending the opposite message: When bad things happen, go hide. Do I know with absolute certainty we’re doing the right thing? I don’t. Having been through what I’ve been through, I hope people trust I wouldn’t risk my relationship with my children. I think this is the right choice.

Mrs. Edwards, if you come across this, my hat is off to you.  I’ll be paying more attention to John now.  Much more.

White House Cites Executive Privilege To Withhold Tillman Documents

U.S. Army Corporal Patrick Tillman

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a statement Friday indicating the White House was asserting executive privilege once again to withhold documents pertaining to communications between the White House and the Defense Department regarding the death of U.S. Army Corporal Patrick Tillman by “friendly fire” in 2004:

Today Chairman Waxman and Ranking Minority Member Davis sent a letter to the White House objecting to the withholding of documents related to the death of U.S. Army Corporal Patrick Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in 2004. As a result of deficient responses from both the White House and Defense Department, the Committee also announced an August 1 hearing to examine what senior Defense Department officials knew about Corporal Tillman’s death.

Following the Committee’s April 24, 2007, hearing on the Tillman fratricide, the Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking “all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President” relating to Corporal Tillman’s death. The White House Counsel’s office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings. The response of the Defense Department to the Committee’s inquiry was also deficient.

In response to the deficiencies in the White House and Defense Department productions, Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Davis today sent letters to White House Counsel Fred Fielding and Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting complete document production by July 25, 2007. Chairman Waxman also wrote the Republican National Committee to request communications about Corporal Tillman’s death by White House officials using e-mail accounts controlled by the RNC.

In addition, the Oversight Committee announced that a hearing will be held on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, to investigate what senior officials at the Defense Department knew about Corporal Tillman’s death.

Questions surfaced after Tillman’s death when the public learned the Army withheld the truth:

The first Army investigator who looked into the death of former NFL player Pat Tillman in Afghanistan last year found within days that he was killed by his fellow Rangers in an act of “gross negligence,” but Army officials decided not to inform Tillman’s family or the public until weeks after a nationally televised memorial service.