CNN Breaking News

Embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales intends to resign, senior administration officials tell CNN.

Visit CNN for the latest.

36 Responses to “CNN Breaking News”

  1. Angrier and Angrier says:

    About fucking time.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Funny how when I read a headline having anything to do with the military or Bush administration and I see “Comments (1)”, I don’t even have to click it to know it’s either Angrier and Angrier or Mad Max, Esquire. Way to be predictable.

  3. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Funny how people who respond to my posts about Bush or the Military have to attack me instead of putting forth a credible defense of the Bush Administration because it is now obvious to virtually everyone that the Bush Administration is not credible. Way to be predictable.

  4. domerlaw06 says:

    According to sources, they’re planning to move Chertoff into the AG spot.

  5. Joe Loy says:

    Chertoff! Remarkable. / Well according to the CNN piece he seems rather well-qualified. / OK then: so who takes over Homeland Security?

  6. Anonymous says:

    so who takes over Homeland Security?

    Brownie. Doesn’t everyone deserve a second chance?

  7. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Sounds like Bush is doing recess appointments, so he won’t have to go through Congress. If Chertoff becomes AG, I imagine Frances Townsend would be at Homeland Security.

  8. domerlaw06 says:

    It probably should have been Townsend in the first place, really. Chertoff jumped too early; he’s probably beating himself about the head about now — he coulda been on SCOTUS if he had held out.

    This will, however, be a nice reward for the poor timing of his DHS appointment and the subsequent death of Rehnquist and retirement of O’Connor.

  9. Aaron says:

    Angriers’s predictability notwithstanding, it is indeed long past fucking time. I was beginning to be persuaded by the really cynical explanation for why Bush continued to keep Gonzalez on as AG. Namely, that having a completely loyal apparatchik at that particular post was the only thing preventing really damaging investigations that would lead inevitably to impeachment. That’s probably a little too paranoid; I expect it was just his usual stubborness, his indifference to skill and competence, and his fetishization of (one-way) loyalty.

  10. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Bush has one-way loyalty to donors, Christians, neo-cons, the Military establishment, etc. However, when it comes to Bush’s inner circle, expect there to be a nice little pay-off for Seedy Gonzales down the road.

  11. Sandy Underpants says:

    I don’t know why he’s resigning, he hasn’t done anything yet that even comes close to what many in the administration have done, and kept their jobs.

  12. Aaron says:

    Although, I suppose we should at least consider the possibility that this was an actual resignation, not an “I’ll need your letter of resignation first thing in the morning” kind of resignation. That would put a different light on things.

  13. Angrier and Angrier says:

    He resigned now so Bush could do the recess appointment while Congress is out.

    The difference between Gonzales and an asshole like Rove is that Rove was smart enough to not get caught lying under oath to Congress. Gonzales did it repeatedly.

  14. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Michael Vick has found Jesus…

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R9G7RG0&show_article=1

    …That must be a new record for a dog killer.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Where does it say anything about Jesus?

  16. Angrier and Angrier says:

    I pulled it from Drudge. Drudge mentioned the Jesus part in his headline. Not sure why this version didn’t have it in the body.

  17. Joe Loy says:

    I heard Vick himself, on TV, state that he has found Jesus. / I think it’s very nice. ;>

  18. Joe Mama says:

    If Chertoff is the nominee, expect the Democrats to bring in Katrina victims to testify so that the hearings are especially obnoxious.

  19. Joe Mama says:

    . . . obnoxious because Chertoff himself will likely be blamed for the hurricane, not because Katrina victims are obnoxious :-)

  20. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Chertoff won’t testify because it will be a recess appointment.

  21. Miss Teen South Carolina says:

    I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some … people out there in our nation don’t have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as South African, and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and … I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., er, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our children.

  22. Patrick Cooper says:

    When exactly was Gonzales “caught” lying to Congress? I didn’t know he had been convicted of purgery before Congress. You may believe he purgered himself but to say he was caught is an overstatement.

  23. Angrier and Angrier says:

    When Senator Arlen Specter instructed Gonzales to correct his testimony to Congress within a certain timeframe to avoid a perjury charge. Do you even follow the news? Or just get your damn talking points directly from the Young Republicans Club?

  24. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Here you go Patrick…

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/gonzales.congress/

    …He was caught. When the head of the FBI says he is lying, he was caught.

  25. Alasdair says:

    A&A – so when is his trial for perjury scheduled to start ? After all, since he was so obviously caught (in *your* mind), the trial should be any day now, right ?

  26. Joe Mama says:

    When the head of the FBI says he is lying, he was caught.

    Where did the head of the FBI say that AG was lying?

  27. Angrier and Angrier says:

    Alasdair-

    So what you are saying is Gonzales didn’t lie because he isn’t sitting in a prison cell? Apparently ideas like “ethics” and “morality” don’t register with Republicans anymore. You have to be convicted and then a Presidential pardon will take care of everything.

    Joe Mama-

    Gonzales went before Congress and said his visit to Ashcroft in the hospital had nothing to do with the NSA wiretapping program. Mueller went before Congress and point-blank said it did and that Gonzales was not being truthful. No, Mueller didn’t scream “liar,” but anyone who is paying attention knows that was the implication of his remarks.

  28. Alasdair says:

    A&A – a reasonable society doesn’t convict someone of perjury by implication …

    What I and other reasonable people are saying is that a witch-hunt under oath remains a witch-hunt …

    If Mueller is able to substantiate a lie under oath on Gonzales’ part, then Gonzales’ deserves to be prosecuted for perjury.

    No ifs, no ands, no buts …

    Until there is such substantiation, then Gonzales is entitled to the same “Innocent until proven guilty” protections as the rest of us – and the “immoral” and “unethical” part is the part which insists Gonzales is guilty by implication …

    I note that, as yet, no-one responsible seems to be asking that Gonzales be tried for perjury …

  29. Joe Mama says:

    Gonzales went before Congress and said his visit to Ashcroft in the hospital had nothing to do with the NSA wiretapping program. Mueller went before Congress and point-blank said it did and that Gonzales was not being truthful.

    As usual, it’s not that simple. A more sober analysis:

    The centerpiece of the Democrats’ claims is Gonzales’s testimony earlier this week that the subject of disagreement inside the Justice Department that gave rise to his visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in the hospital was “not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people,” but rather was about “other intelligence activities.” Earlier today, FBI Director Robert Mueller seemed to contradict Gonzales when he testified before a House committee that his impression was that the hospital visit did relate to the terrorist surveillance program. This was hearsay on Mueller’s part, since he was not present at the interview, but arrived shortly after. He apparently got the impression that the TSP program was involved from Ashcroft.

    Mueller’s testimony was actually rather equivocal:

    “Did you have an understanding that the conversation was on TSP?” asked Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas in a round of questioning that may have sounded to listeners like bureaucratic alphabet soup.

    “I had an understanding the discussion was on a NSA program, yes,” Mueller answered.

    Jackson sought to clarify: “We use ‘TSP,’ we use ‘warrantless wiretapping,’ so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?”

    “The discussion was on a national NSA program that has been much discussed, yes,” Mueller responded.

    I have no idea whether Mueller knows the difference between one NSA program and another; Gonzales may well be drawing a distinction between the “program that the President announced to the American people” and a second, perhaps related but still-secret program. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that Gonzales is lying about this, although he may be drawing a distinction that Chuck Schumer would consider subtle. There are two reasons for this: first, other individuals and documents would definitively answer the question, so it would be foolish to lie, and, second, I can’t see any reason why it would make a difference. Who cares whether the hospital visit was about the NSA terrorist surveillance program that President Bush made public, or another NSA terrorist surveillance program that the President didn’t make public? The idea that Gonzales would commit perjury on this point seems ludicrous.

  30. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    “a reasonable society doesn’t convict someone of perjury by implication … ”

    Wow. Where was your “reasonable” voice in 1998?

    Oh, I forgot. You Republicans like to practice “situational reason.”

    Speaking of which, here is another God-squading GOP’er getting caught with his pants down…

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20467347/

    …Soliciting young boys for sex over the Internet, paying prostitutes in DC and now pulling a George Michael in a Minneapolis men’s room. All in a day’s work for the party of the Religious Right.

  31. Kettle says:

    You Republicans like to practice “situational reason.”

    Thanks, Pot.

  32. Sandy Underpants says:

    Joe Mama and Alasdair won’t admit their heroes committed perjury even when they are convicted of it by a jury, so I don’t know what the point of arguing with either one of them is. The Gay Old Perverts in the Republican party have made such a joke of themselves they make Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi look like geniuses.

    And that’s really funny.

  33. Alasdair says:

    Mad Max – who was convicted of perjury by implication in 1998 ?

  34. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    Unlike the Neo-Con Dead-Enders on this site, I have no problem condemning Dems when they screw up. I have no problem saying that Bill Clinton shouldn’t have lied or that I am not a fan of Hillary or that Kerry fucked up by not taking on the Swift Boaters sooner or that Al Gore has his issues on global warming. I, unlike people like Joe Mama, Alasdair, Andrew, et al, DO use reason.

    I believe that lying is a bad thing, whether or not a liar goes to jail. I believe that if a Senator tries to solicit a cop for sex in a bathroom or hires a prostitute, that Senator should be out on his ass, whether he is a Republican or a Democrat.

    The difference between me and you is that I do see the truth while you jokers are blindly following any bullshit that comes out of Fox News or Worldnet Daily because you are too arrogant to admit when you are wrong. You aren’t stupid. You are egotistical to the point of being incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

  35. Joe Mama says:

    Projection: n. (Psychology) The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

  36. Alasdair says:

    Mad Max – since you have not yet answered my question – who was convicted of perjury by implication in 1998 ?