What is Bush Hiding?

[Ugnmoose]

www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/22/attorneys/print.html

I think Sidney Blumenthal nails it right on the head in this article.

snip


Mar. 22, 2007 | Leave aside the unintentional irony of President Bush asserting executive privilege to shield his aides from testifying before the Congress in the summary firings of eight U.S. attorneys because the precedent would prevent him from receiving "good advice." Leave aside also his denunciation of the Congress for the impertinence of requesting such testimony as "partisan" and "demanding show trials," despite calls from Republicans for the dismissal of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Ignore as well Bush's adamant defense of Gonzales.

The man Bush has nicknamed "Fredo," the weak and betraying brother of the Corleone family, is, unlike Fredo, a blind loyalist, and will not be dispatched with a shot to the back of the head in a rowboat on the lake while reciting his Ave Maria. (Is Bush aware that Colin Powell refers to him as "Sonny," after the hothead oldest son?) But saving "Fredo" doesn't explain why Bush is willing to risk a constitutional crisis. Why is Bush going to the mattresses against the Congress? What doesn't he want known?

In the U.S. attorneys scandal, Gonzales was an active though second-level perpetrator. While he gave orders, he also took orders. Just as his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, has resigned as a fall guy, so Gonzales would be yet another fall guy if he were to resign. He was assigned responsibility for the purge of U.S. attorneys but did not conceive it. The plot to transform the U.S. attorneys and ipso facto the federal criminal justice system into the Republican Holy Office of the Inquisition had its origin in Karl Rove's fertile mind.

Just after Bush's reelection and before his second inauguration, as his administration's hubris was running at high tide, Rove dropped by the White House legal counsel's office to check on the plan for the purge. An internal e-mail, dated Jan. 6, 2005, and circulated within that office, quoted Rove as asking "how we planned to proceed regarding the U.S. attorneys, whether we are going to allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accept only some of them, or selectively replace them, etc." Three days later, Sampson, in an e-mail, "Re: Question from Karl Rove," wrote: "As an operational matter we would like to replace 15-20 percent of the current U.S. attorneys -- the underperforming ones ...The vast majority of U.S. attorneys, 80-85 percent I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc."

The disclosure of the e-mails establishing Rove's centrality suggests not only the political chain of command but also the hierarchy of coverup. Bush protects Gonzales in order to protect those who gave Gonzales his marching orders -- Rove and Bush himself.

[SpiralHawk]

1. the Duke Cunningham republicon PROSTITUTE scandal

He knows the republicons are toast when the public finds out that they and their cronies have been WHOLESALE PARTYING -- as only republicons can do -- with male and female prostitutes.

Such revelations of republicon heavy use of prostitutes would again raise questions of why George AWOL Bush welcome notorious male prostitute Jeff Gannon to the republicon White House over 200 times, according to the official Secret Service record.

Why did Bush welcome a male prostitute to his White House? And why over 200 times?

And why do republicons claim to be morally superior, when they have such
a THING for prostitutes?

[bryant69]

3. Honestly I don't buy this one

Not because it's not a real scandal; probably is. I just don't see Bush giving a damn about the party or Republicanoids in general. I think that if there is something he is hoping to hide/protect it's something a lot closer to home.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[izzie]

2. I do not think he is trying to hide a thing. This is just how these

people think. We may think it is govt. of the people but they seem to think it is govt. by a few well placed people or their class. If he, Bush, picked a man of another class to be his AG it must be OK. This tends to be a thought from far right thinking. Having come from a GOP family I must say they did not think like that. But I have heard many who are really far right say things that to me mean they think like that. It seems to be a basic thought that has had its time.