It's been said I've been 'blinded' by my hatred for W...

[mburbank]

And this administration.

I'd like to see if anybody thinks that at this point it isn't claer that the degree of my loathing has been warranted.

One example. Just one.

Read the text of the exchange during the Gonzales testimony yesterday. Once you've read it, argue if you can that keeping Gonzo on as attorney General does not show a level of contempt for the American people and the constitution that ALL BY ITSELF, without any other reason for to hate this bunch of creeps, is sufficient.

I believe this act is a clear statement that W et al believe we are their subjects, not citizens, a clear as a bell 'fuck you' to the country. They are saying "We could care less that you know we are liars and we'll do whatever we want. We think you are a bunch of idiots and this country is our property."

Here's the testimony.

Tell me, tell me they don't deserve the outright hatred of anyone who has some shred of affection for America.


Schumer: I'd like to just pick up where Senator Specter left off, about the TSP program. Just a few preliminaries.
First, I take it that there was just one program that the president confirmed in 2005. There was not more than one. Gonzales: He confirmed one, yes, intelligence activity. Yes, one program.
Schumer: Thank you. OK. Now, you - and you've repeatedly referred to the, quote "program," that the president confirmed in December 2005. Let me just - I'm going to put up a chart here. Here's what you said before this committee on February 6th of 2006. You said, quote, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program the president has confirmed. With respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you were identifying had concerns about this program." This was in reference to a question I asked you, "Was there any dissent here?"
This was before Comey came to testify. It was in February. But we had some thoughts that maybe that happened. And now, of course, we know from Jim Comey that virtually the entire leadership of the Justice Department was prepared to resign over concerns about a classified program. Disagreement doesn't get more serious than that. And what program was the ruckus all about? And this is the important point here. At your press conference on June the 5th, it was precisely the program that you testified had caused no serious dissent. You said, "Mr. Comey's testimony" - and he only testified once - "related to a highly classified program which the president confirmed to the American people some time ago."
Schumer: These are your words, right? You don't deny that these are your words. This was a public press conference.
Gonzales: I'm told that in fact here in the press conference I did misspeak, but I also went back and clarified it with the reporter.
Schumer: You did misspeak?
Gonzales: Yes. But I went back and clarified it with the reporter...
Schumer: When was that? And which - what was the reporter's name?
Gonzales: At The Washington Post two days later.
(CROSSTALK)
Gonzales: Dan Eggen was the reporter.
Schumer: OK. Well, we'll want to go follow up with him. But the bottom line is this: You just admitted there was just
one program that the president confirmed in December...
Gonzales: The president...
Schumer: ... just one. Is that correct, sir?
Gonzales: The president talked about a set of activities...
Schumer: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I'd like to get an answer to that question. You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?
Gonzales: The president...
Schumer: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?
Gonzales: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.
Schumer: Fine. Now let's go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you're not being straightforward with this committee; that you're deceiving us. You then - then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, "There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed." Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters. And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed. You, sir...
Gonzales: And I've already said...
Schumer: Sir.
Gonzales: ... I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.
Schumer: How can we - this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you're deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, "Well, I corrected the record two days later." How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths? It's clear here. It's clear. One program. That's what you just said to me. That's what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding - in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, "Well, there was one program," - you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.
Gonzales: That's correct.
Schumer: You wanted us to go away and say, "Well, maybe it was other" - wait a second, sir. Wait a second.
Gonzales: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.
Schumer: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here.
You just said there was just one program - just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.
Gonzales: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.
Schumer: What did you say to the reporter?
Gonzales: I did not speak directly to the reporter.
Schumer: Oh, wait a second - you did not.
(LAUGHTER)
OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?
Gonzales: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...
Schumer: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect - and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman - in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?
Gonzales: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Gonzales is a piece of subhuman trash, but he's working for a piece of subhuman trash. If Congress does manage to get him out of the Justice dept, which of his cronies would monkey boy prop up next?

[sspadowsky]

I generally try to avoid wishing any kind of ill or misfortune upon others, but I hope this vile, contemptible piece of human garbage suffers the most horrifying case of ass cancer that the world has ever seen. If you told me five years ago that there was someone coming down the pike who would make me long for the days of John Ashcroft, I would have called you an idiot, but, by God, this douche makes Ashcroft look like Patrick Fucking Henry.

[mburbank]

See, to me, Ashcroft is simply emblematic of the administration. He's just doing what he was hired to do, which is tend exclusively to political goals and lie.

That to me IS the Chenney/Rove/bush administration. One goal: Amass power. Every decision feeds that goal. Nothing, not justice, not safety, not the law, nothing is seen through any other lense. Then you lie about it, to protect the power you've amassed. And as the administration has aged, the plausability of the lies has seemed to matter less and less. At this point they no longer care if you believe them.

The outrageousness of the lies becomes a way of saying what Chenney said to Leahy a few years back, "Go fuck yourself", except the number of people they are saying that to, and the bluntness of how the choose to say it has grown dramatically.

I'm not a fan of politicians and never have been. But I maintain that I have been right for six years now to hate these bastards as much as I do, that they are META-politicians, absolutely shameless, absolutely amoral, absolutely superior. They are not in any sense at all public servants, they believe this is their country, property they can do with as they please. These are people who would make Nixon blush.

And even more than the executive branch itself, I am AMAZED at the Republican party. Because unless the administration is planning a military takeover (and I don't think they are) there is a very real possability that they will take this theory of the unitary, royal, anticonstitutional presidency and hand it on a silver platter to Hillary Clinton.

[Preechr]

While I disagree that showing disrespect for show and tell hearings like this is the same thing as showing disrespect for America or the Constitution, I agree that political theater has grown increasingly appalling over the years. I think it started farther back than Nixon, though... I'd once have taken it back to Kennedy, but Television probably just over-turned the rock and exposed the Washington filth to the public visually. Wasn't Buchanan a complete scumbag criminal or something?

Point is, even though you are conveniently not mentioning Clinton, Max, I know you've indicated plainly that he'll never be invited over to your house for dinner. Carter proved and is still proving the blackness of his heart. Corruption and power-grabbing is not just a fundamental aspect of the GOP. It is the goal of ALL government to "amass power." Government itself is unalterably and fundamentally wasteful and always hungry for more, no matter who is running it. We will always need some government, just a little, to accomplish the things we cannot do individually, but only just as much as is absolutely necessary to bear.

The civil purpose of government is to suspend what our Founders called God-Given Rights selectively for the greater good of all. Politicians deserve no more inherent respect than public executioners when they revel in their power, because every official action they take removes someone or some group of rights our Constitution says were supposed to be inalienable. That's power that should only ever be wielded with the utmost prudence and moral judgment.

We are witnessing the Jerry Springer Show acted out on Capitol Hill, and it takes two to strip off their wife-beaters and pull as much hair as possible before Steve can get in there to break it up. At the end of the day, we rely on Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore to tell us how we are supposed to think about it all. That's what Joe Six Pack wants, so that's what he gets.

[Emu]

I don't think "Joe Six-Pack" is as mindlessly stupid as people make "him" out to be. I think "Joe Six-Pack" just wants a politician who will at least attempt to make his life easier. It's these other people, the ones who fanatically attach themselves to fat fucks like Limbaugh and Moore, who are the ones perpetuating those men and their loud, froglike voices over the airwaves. I don't think it's a problem so much with the so-called Average American rather than the smaller, louder minority of idol-worshippers.

edit: i realize what I said didn't really have a point, so

[Preechr]

Oh I think it did, though. Despite all my railing against such notions, you still long for an honest politician that you can vote in and then trust to act honorably in your behalf... so you can stop worrying about this stuff. You ARE Joe Six-Pack, Emu.

Problem is, there IS no honest, trustworthy politician, just as there IS no inherently beneficial government you'll never have to keep a constant guard against. The protections FROM government built into our Constitution make it very clear the framers understood this to be the case. They knew that, left unchecked and unhindered any government will quickly devolve into an authoritarian nightmare. The only reason, in fact, that every government in history did not eventually regress into something along the lines of Castro's Cuba or Pol Pot's Cambodia is because each was stopped by SOMETHING, be it threat of revolution or civil war or even the vigilance of it's citizens when it comes to protecting rights and freedoms already established.

Joe Six-Pack doesn't want to be vigilant any more then he's willing to do something for himself when other people are beating down his door to do it for him. He doesn't want to be bothered with wondering whether accepting stuff for free today might have any adverse affect on tomorrow, and he's content to trust what's told him as long as it sounds nice and the person talking isn't wearing a hat that says "I'm Lying."

[Courage the Cowardly Dog]

I am the FIRST person to disagree with Max but I have to admit, he's right. This is the worst presidential administration since William Henry Harrison.

Most likely one of the MANY reason Colin Powel quit in disgust.

[mburbank]

See Courage? W really did turn out to be a uniter, not a divider.