Firing of US Attorneys

Say what you will about bloggers but some of them are dogging this story to our advantage. Josh Micah Marshall is leading the way. Today he says,

"This isn't about the AG's lies. It's not about the attempted cover-up. It's not about executive privilege and investigative process mumbojumbo.

This is about using US Attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, using the Department of Justice as a partisan cudgel in the war for national political dominance. All the secrecy and lies, the blundering and covering-up stems from this one central fact."

Read his full post (link above) on Talking Points Memo. You might want to Bookmark his sight.

Josh seems to have more spine than the NY Times. Today's edition went way out of its way to avoid using the L word. An article by Eric Lipton and David Johnston reads, in part:

"An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales...

The conflicts between the documentary record and Mr. Gonzales’s version of events have contributed to an erosion of support for him in Congress...

The disparities are giving Democrats in Congress a rationale...

As attorney general, Mr. Gonzales has become a central figure, and increasingly, critics say, the emblem of ineptitude, in the swirl of contradictions, memory lapses and conflicting testimony that has defined the unfolding story behind the removal of the prosecutors.

Mr. Gonzales also said, more explicitly: “I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.” This directly conflicts with documents released late Friday..."

What does Gonzales have to do to get the main stream media to call a spade a spade?

This is one of the reasons I turn to blogs for the real story these days. Main Stream Media (MSM) is way too skittish about legalities; much more so than our CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, Alberto Gonzales.

What is the real reason 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired?

Things we know to date:

a) Alberto Gonzales was talking with the White House in January 2005 about firing all of the U.S. Attorneys at a time when he was still the President's Council,

b) Alberto Gonzales was subsequently nominated to be Attorney General,

c) Gonzales has claimed he was opposed to firing all of the U.S. Attorneys and he swore to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in 2005, he would set aside politics and act a-politically as A.G.,

d) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys was apparently contacted by a Republican Senator and a Republican Congressmember about investigating Democrats in order to shore up that Congressmember's re-election campaign,

e) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys had successfully prosecuted a Republican Congressmember, sending him to prison, and was pursuing further action in the case,

f) One of the fired U.S. Attorneys was in Arkansas - where Sen. Hillary Clinton lived for many years. He was replaced by Karl Rove's assistant.

g) Karl Rove is the President's "political brain,"

h) The Patriot Act contained a little known provision permitting the White House to replace U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation, and

i) We know that the firings, although originally proposed in 2005, were pared to a more manageable number and actually completed in 2006-07.

Does this appear to constitute a LOT of coincidences? or

a) Was Alberto Gonzales appointed A.G. to ensure that the firings would happen at a strategically advantageous time and sufficiently prior to the '08 Presidential race to avoid speculation?

b) Was Karl Rove's assistant appointed to the Arkansas post in order to disrupt Sen. Clinton's '08
Presidential campaign efforts?

c) Were the other U.S. Attorneys replaced by people the White House knew would be helpful during the next Presidential race?

d) Did Alberto Gonzales ever stop representing the President? Does he understand that the Attorney General represents the people?

Just wondering...