« Listening to the Generals | Main | "Who Lost Iraq?" »

August 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54ee624ae8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gonzales to be Replaced by Chertoff?:

Comments

When Chertoff was named to DHS, there were many who lauded him as a good man that was a bright and very capable prosecutor. I have seen absolutely no evidence of any of those qualities in him. So, I assume this move would contemplate a recess appointment? I thought Hard Nosed Harry Reid made a deal with Bush to not make any recess appointments; what's the deal?

Perhaps it is time to summon Congress back to DC, just to make sure this does not happen... on the other hand, though, they probably would not attempt to stop it. Bush might announce a rumors of a terrorist attack or something and scare them into confirming Chertoff.

Is it my imagination, or has DHS been languishing under Chertoff? Is it capable of protecting anything? Is Chertoff capable of doing anything, himself?

How do we get rid of all, and I mean ALL, of these imbeciles we elect -- and start over?

They didn't say recess appointment. I think that the idea would be they think he could get confirmed again, since he was confirmed pretty easily for DHS.

Of course his tenure started with Katrina and went downhill from there. And you're right. he hasn't exhibited executive abilities (managing a large organization) and he is just another Bush sycophant. Were we in 2005, he might have been a reasonable Bush choice for DOJ, since he had actual experience there (and ad a federal judge). But now he's tainted, I would think.

Agreed. I have to say based on all those reviews, I thought that Bush had actually made a competent pick for once with Chertoff for DHS. Wrong again. Was one of the final nails in the coffin of knowing positively that the Bushies will NEVER do anything good or appropriate. Even if they were inclined to; I just think they are incapable of doing anything good and appropriate. It is genetically precluded.

Should also have added the question: Do you think he is confirmable? Christ, he better not be!

bmaz -- sure he is! We will start hearing rumors about some impending terrorist activity a few days before the hearings begin. If Bush does not get the action he wants by the time of the hearings, somehow it will suddenly become much more urgent -- and he will scare 'em into confirming Chertoff.

It's a sad state of affairs... piss poor leadership all around!

Well, crap, if we are truly worried about a serious terrist attack shouldn't that militate towards NOT confirming Chucklehead Chertoff?

Naw... Chertoff, Gonzales -- they're all the same. The terrorism concerns will disappear as soon as Bush gets what he wants. I am just in a really foul mood about this whole mess.

But, I save $75 on my car insurance today! ;-)

By the way, I like your name -- Chucklehead Chertoff (although that could also be used with Cheney, it just doesn't have quite the same ring to it. How about "Chortling Cheney"? Or, even better, "Dipshit Dick!" Then there is the Cowardly Congress, and Babbling Bush.

I am trying imagine who will lead questioning at a confirmation hearing. I imagine AG confirmation goes through judiciary. In the past that committee has not covered itself with glory as each of the senators just has to make a speech, and the questioning jumps around so much that nothing is accomplished. If, however, they just agreed to let Whitehouse handle the bulk of the questioning, we might see some real fireworks.

If this rumour is accurate, is it just as much about putting a better terror salesman in DHS than Gutcheck Chertoff and his zombie demeanour? Someone who could get out there and really scare people, while taking care of AGAG at the same time? Terror seems to be all they have left, except for the racism of course.

Anybody worried that they're making sure Chertoff is already in the lifeboat before the Titanic hits the iceberg? Some stiff gets DHS just in time to get blamed for the Next One. Hell, why not nominate a Democrat, get kudos from the High Broderists for bipartisanship, fix the blame on the ringer, and throw the corpse overboard.

It's classic bureaucratic behavior.

I remember that the spring before busing started in Boston a half-dozen well-connected principals in impacted neighborhoods got quickie promotion to assistant superintendent. The assistant principals in each building got battlefield promotions -- they were expendable.

Chertoff came out of the Justice Department (used to hold the position that his protégé, Alice Fisher, now holds, Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division (aka, the division which oversees the PIS (Public Interest Sector), where the Abramoff investigation, and others, are held.) Chertoff was the only US Attorney hold-over in the Clinton Administration from Bush I, and was "well-regarded" in that position (I think for New Jersey.) How could Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Senator's oppose him now, if he was good enough for Bill?

This is a very smart move for Bush, and a very bad move for those of us who still believe the US is a Democratic Republic. I have such a bad feeling about this, partly because I predicted it could/would happen about six months ago. Sigh.

I will go postal if they confirm that chuckleheaded douchebag.

Confirmation time is when you can cut deals -- such as answers to all the subpoeneas that are outstanding, a demand for special prosecutor for let's say the fired USAG's, and of course promises to not cut the white house in on deals on trial evidence in advance, investigative materials and all. Perhaps a special prosecutor to look at Hatch Act violations, perhaps hard things such as who will head the Civil Rights Division and all. Question is can Leahy extract all that, let's say sworn ten ways to Sunday with a promise to publicly F**K Cheney on a Sunday Morning Gasbag show, should he peep about the promises.

I am not sure about this -- just before Break Leahy was asking for a private appointment with Bush at the WH. Did he ever get it? I can't imagine what else he would want to discuss. Anyhow I suspect connections between Rove's departure, and the rumors now about Gonzo. Somehow, Leahy needs to get his price.

Why cut a deal with these guys? Investigate them and, if appropriate, impeach and/or prosecute them; if not appropriate, say so and move on. Justice for criminal activity and decision to pursue investigation of criminal activity is simply not something that should be blithely bargained with as some kind of political chit. As far as I am concerned, doing so is not only improper and unethical, it is, in and of itself, a crime under several different theories. I can understand your position on this in relation to determination of how to proceed on the Iraq war; but not here. If there is probable cause to believe crimes have been committed, and there is, you demand investigations and one or more special prosecutors. If the Administration refuses, you impeach and then prosecute. Since when in this country do you make a deal with a criminal just to get his permission to partially investigate him? It would be immoral, unethical, and a dereliction of the Constitutional duty and oath of office to engage in a barter in this manner and any congressperson who does so should themselves be criminally prosecuted. Enough is enough.

Well said bmaz. I understand that Leahy wants to "work with" the WH to get the information they are after, but evidence to date suggests there is plenty of criminal conduct at the root of all the various scandals. As a result, the WH has no incentive, none whatsoever, to act in good faith. If Congress fails to pursue impeachment where the WH loses all claim to executive privilege, then they will have basically confirmed the assertion that the Executive Branch is above and outside of the rule of law. So much for checks and balances, so much for our Constitution, so much for our representative democracy, c'est fini. If you are right Sara, that Rove and Gonzo are all part of some deal between Leahy and the WH, then Leahy will have utterly failed his oath of office.

By the way, over at Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/24/ap4052736.html) they tell us that American citizen whistleblowers in Iraq have been imprisoned and subjected to the same abusive treatment that I thought was supposed to be reserved for enemy combatants. If true, it makes Leahy's deal cutting activities even more reprehensible. Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution. Hail Caesar.

After the Saturday Night Massacure we learned that Richardson had made promises to the Senate, though not in writing, regarding the conditions under which Cox could be removed, and those conditions were a long way from being met.

The next AG up to bat had to sign letters to the effect about Jaworski and other investigations. I am simply suggesting that Leahy begin not with the first watergate AG, but with the replacement, and deal accordingly. Unless you get special prosecutors properly appointed you are not going to get inside of half the stuff in Bush's administration. To get it you need a dedicated prosecutor and grand jury. (Fitz+)

I don't want to let anyone off -- I just don't think the existing DoJ can do the job. That is why I think Leahy needs to cut deals to get what is necessary, and not put the potential nomination to a vote till he has signed and sealed agreements. My model is what Sam Ervin got out of Nixon's various AG designates as they came before the committee after the Saturday Night Massacure.

Fair enough Sara, I respect your opinion enormously. But I am still very concerned that if Leahy agrees to keep impeachment off-the-table, then in the long run we will be in a world of hurt.

Yea, Phred, but it is the House that does the Impeachment Process, and the Senate that holds the trial and votes on conviction.

Not the same as putting the screws to Chernoff and in exchange for Senate approval of a nomination, he offers up all of what Leahy has thus far demanded. It would be Leahy who would preside over any confirmation hearings. It has nothing to do with impeachment.

Leahy just this week called the White House in contempt. Is this part of the package that is being negotiated? He wants documents, Harriet and Rove. What is he negotiating for?

No more confirmations. Not without a couple of impeachments first. We must dig out the rot that has infested the heart of our democracy before we allow anyone to graft new limbs upon it- and that means Cheney, Gonzo, and Bushie must go.

Never mind that Chertoff is about the only guy they could nominate to fill Gonzo's post and hope to maintain any semblance of control. Pat Leahy needs to make a point- the rest of the Bush administration will be leaving office on our terms, not theirs.

Sorry Sara, I was unclear. I am well aware that articles of impeachment must be voted on in the House. Nonetheless, not even Feingold over in the Senate is supportive of impeachment proceedings, so the leadersheep (thanks ACLU!) and the House members aren't getting any support (much less pressure) from Senators.

Meanwhile, if replacing Gonzo with Chertoff is part of any deal that Leahy is brokering, we will lose any real motivation for impeaching Gonzo (yeah, it could be used to withhold his pension and such, but the urgency will be gone). Without impeachment (of someone, I'll take anyone at this point) Bush can keep crowing about executive privilege. With impeachment, he has to fork over the goods.

This is why Leahey making any sort of a deal with people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy at every opportunity strikes me as an exceedingly poor game plan.

MBwilliams' comments raise issues i am curious about,

to whit, what is chertoff's life history with the republican party and with the bushes?

sara's comments make good political sense to me.

neither leahy, nor the senate in toto, nor the congress has a lot of power right now vis-a-vis this president.

i would guess leahy, after years in the game, sees his responsibility as getting as much info as possible from the white house and the doj about what has happened and to get the doj functioning again.

any deal leahy reaches with the white house might include a "chertoff for documents" swap worked out with leahy and reid.

that's not a bad deal if the docs and subpoenas the congress gets are really useful.

personally, though, i would insist on having the docs and the subpoenas first and then i'd ok chertoff. this just to prevent being suckered by the white house as the democratic leaders were with the fisa legislation.

it would be a good deal for the nation if gonzales left.

for six years gonzales has been neck-deep in the worst of white house misconduct and illegalities

from obstructing a criminal investigation into revealing plame's identity

to wiretapping,

torture,

arrests and trials of "terrorists" for the political benefit of the white house,

the destruction ab sturpe of the doj's civil rights division,

the firing of u.s. attorneys in order to influence investigations into interconnected congressional, white house, dod, and cia fraud,

the use of govt employees and capabilities to help the republican party win elections,

filing federal lawsuits to influence election outcomes,

the expansion of the powers of the presidency at the expense of the congress and the judiciary,

etc.

furthermore, the doj, as an administrative unit of the federal government, is a shambles right now.


i suspect any leahy deal with fielding/gillespie/bolton would probably protect gonzales from impeachment,

but i'm can respect decisions not to swing for home runs (impeachment) in the remaining 15 months when a series of well-placed singles might give the nation some important wins in halting advancing presidential tyranny.

Well, other than aiding and abetting a conspiracy to obstruct justice, commit crimes against the people, and a laundry list of other crimes, agreeing not to impeach Gonzales (which is the only avenue we have to properly investigate most of the crimes further) in order to install Chertoff as the Attorney General, a man who will obstruct and do everything Gonzales has done except more of it and FAR more competently, seems like a great plan. And of course, the Bushies always negotiate in good faith right? What could go wrong? This is absolute insanity.

bmaz

it's a matter of power

and

it's a matter of what you can get for what you have to give.

I fully respect yours (I'm struggling, but really I do), but my opinion is that at some point you have to stand up and do what is right. There are times that call for profiles in courage; and if ever there was one, this is it. Cutting deals with grifters, con men and criminals is neither good governance nor a good plan. If you want the votes, majorities, the White House in 2008; quit making deals with these traitors and criminals, expose what they have done, and put a fucking stake in their ethos once and for all. i would be far more sympathetic to what you, and quite frankly a shocking number of others, are suggesting if not for the consistent history of horrid results from that type of approach. The temporary relief, and political expediency, looks awfully shallow later on when the undead rise up to do the same thing yet again. And it is always easier for them to do so the next time, because they have inexorably moved the median line of acceptability for their malevolent, criminal and corrupt policies and actions far in their favor. It has to stop. But, hey, what do I know, I have been feeding my dog "All American Dog Treats" that are fucking made in China. Aaarrrrgh!

bmaz - everything you siad. Right now, even our governmental and social institutions - like DOJ, FBI, Congress, etc. might as well also be stamped "made in China"

How do we get rid of all, and I mean ALL, of these imbeciles we elect -- and start over?

Part of the problem after 7 years is that the politization of hiring practices have been such that getting rid of only the imbeciles elected will be like slicing off the tip of an iceberg.

How could Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Senator's oppose him now, if he was good enough for Bill?

Let's start with his advice to Chiquita to keep doing business with terrorists, to heck with that "law" thing. Continue over to his complete inability to function as the head of a complex organization as highlighted by his past, present and ongoing to the future failures vis a vis Katrina. Rehash a LOT Of Katrina. Bc he never got his due on that and Americans are still suffering and dying bc of him.

Finally, explore how it is that a man who was too busy to ever do anything constructive during the post-Katrina aftermath can manage to: a) find time to sit in with Rush Limbaugh on a Heritage Foundation "seminar" on - - - the fictional series "24" and b) opine, with a straight face and as a part of his role on the panel, that '24' is "just like" real life and you just have to torture actors to keep America safe.

Maybe they can haul in Fred Thompson for Chertoff to use as a prop to demonstrate his theory of STAT - Safety Through Actor Torture.


I fully agree with BMAZ... the people in power are so dysfunctional and criminal that they don't care what they are doing to our country. There is definitely criminal activity at the heart of all these issues. Stated another, more extreme way, we have had an attempted overthrow of our REAL government -- one that is based on a Constitution, but is being shredded by every act that these retards can think of.

I keep hoping that some true patriot who knows the real truth will come forward and announce it all in a very public forum. Ultimately, I think that that person would be vindicated for violating any perceived or real allegiances to secrecy because this president and his administration have made a mockery of "state secrets."

Democracy cannot exist with the amount of secrecy that is going on here. We either nail these idiots now, or we will never again have principles in place on which to move forward and rebuild into something much better than we are now.

Put another way, these subversives are trying to make us negotiate for the truth and be just as perverse as they are. Maybe we are... but I would like to think that we are not. There is no honor in what they are doing except to protect their own shallow beliefs and needs.

Congress has to stand up and do what is right -- it is that simple.

bmaz

i appreciate your passion.

do you recall the slogan that is stuck on millions of cars in the united states

"support the troops"

(with a little yellow ribbon; i think folks have forgotten the import of the ribbon and the song)?

well,

"support the troops" always struck me as a perfect reflection of george w. bush the man and the president.

why?

because it is stated in the imperative voice; it's an exhortation to someone else to support the troops.

it's

"(you) support the troops"

not

"i support the troops."


i am extremely frustrated with congress and particularly with some of the old-hand demo congressmen,

but my feeling about our lambasting some congressmen with respect to failure to impeach bush, cheney,

is that it is akin to the "support the troops" exhortation.

"you, congressman, impeach chaney".

we have also, quite properly i think, given reid and pelosi hell for caving in on fisa.

we told them what we wanted them to do; but we did not take any action of our own beyond writing or calling to support those actions we demanded.


all of this is a kind of round-about way of saying

if you or i or anyone else reading this comment want to change the current circumstance in washington, then we need to do something en masse, in addition to exhorting congressmen to take action.

writing, as at the next hurrah, certainly counts as some action.

but words will change the entire political equation in the united states

(both for the bush admin and the sorry pack of demo presidential candidates)

only very slowly.

what would change it rapidly would be an extended set of demonstrations stretching through time and across the u.s.

i'm not talking about a one-day-on-the-mall politely marching from lincoln to washington

type of thing.

i'm talking about demonstrations across the nation, against not only the bush administration

but

the media that support it - fox, washington post, cnn, nbc, new york times, cbs, wall street journal

demonstrations against bush officials who have been shown the door but have acted irresponsibly, e.g., rumsfeld, feith, tenet, et al.

demonstrations against that intellectual whorehouse, the american enterprise institute, stanford's hoover institute, sais' middle east institute, the cato institute, et al.

demonstrations about the harshness, foolishness, and ineffectiveness of the transportation safety administration and the immig and naturalization service (now ICE?) and our dept of homeland security

demonstrations against the national intelligence service and the pentagon

to be honest, i'm not an activist and have no great love for this kind of activity,

but i do recognize that an extended period of social unrest organized as a protest against bush incompetence, bush allies and beneficiaries, and congressional tolerance of bush incompetence would change things in a hurry.

at the very least,

"i support political demonstrations"

puts my responsibility where i can see it, while i exhort the congress.

Instead of "Give me liberty or give me death"; OUR Patrick Henrys in Congress appear to be saying "Let's make a deal so I can simply remain alive". The principles this country was founded on, and ought to stand for even now, are worth fighting for tooth and nail. The Bush Administration has forced us across the rubicon of politics. We are truly fighting for the soul and existence of what America was, and is, supposed to be. I am not inclined to bargain that away in any more "deals", that even if they were ethical and efficacious in the first place (and they are not), are breeched and turned against us by the malefactors 100% of the time.

orionATL - I think that is a very good point. I personally have been merciless on every office of every congresscritter here in my city over this "vacation". Everybody should do the same; it takes about 10-15 minutes a day. I do it 5 days a week. My other thought is that "Constitution Week" is, fortuitously, coming up in mid-September. A big push, on all fronts, should be made by every man, woman and child that can be drafted for duty during the entire week of Constitution week. It should be loud and relentless. Anybody who read this should help by getting the word out. It depends on each and every one of us.

orionATL -- just a minor bone to pick... up above you said that Congress does not have "a lot of power right now vis a vis this president". They have all the power they need, but they adamantly refuse to use it. This is what makes me so insane, they have the power but they won't use it. This is why I believe the Congressional Dems are complicit in the illegal behavior of this administration.

sojourner -- like you, I would love to have someone stand up and point out everything that is amiss for all the world to see. However, I can think of several people who have done so. They have then been ignored, sidelined, and ruthlessly attacked. And now there is news that American citizen whistleblowers on fraud and corruption have been arrested and tortured in Iraq by our government. So much for only torturing the truly bad actors. Wasn't it supposed to be used only for the ticking time bomb scenario? Wasn't that why I was supposed to be reassured? And now they are using such techniques on those who would simply make the administration look bad... This is a dangerously slippery slope we are on.

Agreed...it is terribly dangerous. But, if missing emails suddenly were presented, or other physical evidence of what went on, then these idiots would no longer have their power to "gum" everything to death. Someone, somewhere, has evidence -- irrefutable evidence -- of the many misdeeds and malicious planning that has gone on.

I am firmly convinced that Rove was responsible for getting a system in place to circumvent all normal channels of communication to create a shadow government that Cheney has been running. Bush has just been a figurehead who gets to stomp around on aircraft carriers and scratch his balls and stutter. That does not make him any less harmless, though. He is just as guilty as anyone else. They (meaning Cheney's people) have just allowed him to think he is in charge ;-)

I just hope we get to know the whole story one day...

marching, marching, marching.

that's what will break the logjam, the stalemate, the willful congressional impotence vis-a-vis the president.

but i'm busy and secure and don't want to risk my good fortune.


how about you? feel the same way?


i have mentioned this matter of organizing extended citizen protest of the bush administration before, in other venues.

it's always the turd in the punch bowl.

orionATL -- do you have any specific proposals for action?

I am open to suggestions, too.

I was visiting with my neighbor the other day... In the past, James has been one of the Bush Wingnuts, and he got rather nasty one day when I expressed some doubt about what is going on. On our visit this past week, though, he was rather silent about recent events.

My point is that there are a lot of people who will begin to follow once we get the ball rolling...

"With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plea; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost."

William Lloyd Garrison


Why negotiate with proven liars? Why trust in the promises or goodwill of arrogant bastards who claim to be above and beyond the laws of the land? Why believe those delusional fools who claim to remake reality as though it were a soufflee that had fallen into itself?

In fiction, there are perhaps good reasons for parley: in the 40 minutes the villain spends bragging about his unique invincibility and cleverness, the hero will find the essential weakness and bring down the entire operation.

In reality, you stuff the villain's mouth with an old sock so that you don't have to listen to his blathering while hauling his butt off to jail and charging him with enough criminal activity so that bail is out of the question.

Bush is a tyrant. He is a liar. He is a deluded druggie fed the notion that he is god's anointed smiter-of-evildoers by religious rabble-rousers.

There is no negotiation with insane despots (and a leader who must resort to force and threats of greater force in lieu of diplomacy while simultaneously claiming that his compassion is winning over the people has certainly failed the sanity test).

Congress has enough power. If all budgets were frozen and not a dime alloted or spent until the investigations were complete, I bet some more documents would drop out of the woodwork and people might even have to show up when subpoenaed. If all "defense" spending was stopped until our troops were completely out of the Middle East, the Pentagon and its contractors would surely find a way to declare an end to the occupation. Defunding Cheney's magical fourth branch ought to work quite well since he refuses to tell the budgeters how many people he has on staff and what their titles are. If he is outside of government, he can pay his staffers out of his own pocket. Does Rummy still have an office and half-dozen people at the Pentagon? How long is the deadwood still on the payroll?

If Congress isn't working on the appropriations, or holding non-essential hearings, they'll have plenty of time to write up the necessary Articles of Impeachment.

Or perhaps they'd rather admit that they can't deal with War Criminals, and wait for The Hague and I.C.C. to take action? That would be admitting that America is a failed state. It would be embarrassing to confess to the world that we can't abide by our own rules... but if we don't impeach those who have admitted wrongdoing, but continue to empower them, then under what rules are we governed? Some of our congress-critters (such as Feinstein) have abdicated responsibility. She quotes the Pottery Barn Rule, but not the Constitution. Maybe she ought to go into retail and leave governing to those who adhere to the oaths they have taken?

If Congress-critters grew a spine and acted with authority, they'd have more respect. As long as they negotiate in such a way as to yield everything, they are expendable, too.

phred -

no.

i like the comfort of my well-settled life,

my little house, and my little wife.

but i probably could come up with some ideas.

the main question is how does one start an effort like this?

a second is how to make the effort as politically inclusive as possible so it's not just an anti-war or an anti-spying effort, etc,

but one that includes both the lies that took us into iraq,

and the many depredations on our rights and liberties as american citizens that the bush administration has engaged in,

as well as the bungling incompetence the administration has demonstrated in matters such as katrina, the post-invasion occupation of iraq, domestic air security, prescription medicare, securities regulation, drug regulation (in particular women's rights to contraceptive drugs), food safety, child health care (schip),

feel free to add to the list (the 95 theses).


and includes the corporate media

which so richly deserve our contempt and vocal opposition for enabling bush's 2000 election and subsequent incompetent presidency.

The sole vote against Chertoff's confirmation: Senator Clinton.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/26/02053/2605

Good Morning Mimikatz -- just wanted to say thanks for the heads up yesterday. This way I can honestly say I wasn't the teeniest bit surprised this morning by the announcement of Gonzo's resignation. I was however, a bit incredulous at the oft repeated refrain that "Bush reluctantly accepted the resignation".

Leahy had better have gotten a damn good deal.

And Marcy, I really hope you've been catching some record breaking fish on your toobz-free fishing trip ;)

Gosh, maybe we should allow Marcy to take another trip in a couple of weeks... Then, perhaps Cheney will submit his resignation ;-)

I hope you have had an excellent trip!

Talking Points is saying Clements will take over, at least temporarily.

I don't know if this is good or bad.

Clements? He earned the remark by the judge that it was like an Alice in Wonderland scenario when he argued for the government's state secret privilege in the AT&T case. Just what we need.

I'm amazed that after all that has gone before in Bushland, anyone would think he would change his stripe (as in skunk) and do something honorable like nominating a law-and-order person to head the DOJ.

I'm wrong about Clements and apologize. It was Bondy arguing for the government.

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/08/16/nsa+judge+i+feel+im+alice+and+wonderland

"How could Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Senator's oppose him now, if he was good enough for Bill?"

Google "Chertoff" and "Whitewater" and it may be clear why Hillary refused to support Chertoff's appointment to head DHS.

Someone else may have mentioned it, but Chertoff was the predecessor to Ken Starr. As the lack of evidence in Whitewater piled up, Chertoff stretched all the limits to try to upend the Clintons, but in the end, even that wouldn't work.

Old history lesson here, going back to BEFORE the Clinton Impeachment days.

Hello all,
Well with this nation of sheep..yes sheep...they voted for the idiot in the first place and voted him back in one more time. Did anyone not see that this guy was a joke from the start. Well now we got him and much more for the past 7 years of hell. Someone up above mentioned the tunneling out of America. Well the rich have managed to do that with the help of this nasty regime that had different thoughts all along instead of making this country strong for all. Nope it was hope can we secure the rich and make even more money for them. Yes send out labor jobs to China where they pay someone 25 cents a day and make tons of profit. Well heck, that idea worked so well, hey lets see what other third world area we can go into..hey..the Middle East...yeah we can take all the oil. Well, he he he, that kinda backfired on them, cause they did not know what they were dealing with when it comes to religious fanatics. Un-educated peoples will always draw to someone who leads them to some imaginary Mecca. So now we have it...our poor kids are like lambs sent to the slaughter, and what do we do? We mildly bleat and complain while they laugh at us cause they have the power. I always wonder why no one raises up like the folks in the 60's and 70's did. I remember as a kid watching all those protests. I guess people think these days that all that did no good. Well, I tell you once they have drained the middle class and all there is rich and poor, there will be another Hell rising for them, when the poor encroach upon them! Anyone remember Soylent Green, well, I know why they never show that movie hardly on tv....it's because it's too close to reality coming. All I can hope is that some of the rich up there in Washington have conviction in their hearts to do what is right....because I tell you it will come back against them in the end. Can you imagine the US in a civil war way in the future?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad