Wednesday, March 14, 2007
More On Alberto
Okay, I really don't have anything to add about Alberto himself, but I was skimming the following article: NY York Times Article.
Somethings that jumped out at me while reading:
Mr. Bartlett said it was “highly unlikely” that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress but added, “That doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information.” Does this seem to indicate that even if he is subpoenaed to testify, he won't. (Maybe I am reading something into it that isn't there) That could get interesting.
With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president’s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January. Of course, she just took unilateral action. She would be much easier to blame being that she is no longer in the Adminstration. (Does anyone in this Administration take responsibility for anything. Mr. Gonzales did, but it was kind of weak.)
The other thing that I think is interesting, which wasn't in the above linked article, is that Mr. Gonzales said he was unaware of the discussions that were going on. The Attorney General's Chief of Staff took unilateral action without him being aware of the situation. Doesn't that make Mr. Gonzales incompetent.
The only other possible that I can see is that Mr. Gonzales knew about it and is lying. If this is true, then he should be go for the situation.
I think that either way, Gonzales has backed himself into a corner. And if what the article discuss about the President having lost, at least some, confidence in him. It may be time for him to go.
Somethings that jumped out at me while reading:
Mr. Bartlett said it was “highly unlikely” that Mr. Rove would testify publicly to Congress but added, “That doesn’t mean we won’t find other ways to try to share that information.” Does this seem to indicate that even if he is subpoenaed to testify, he won't. (Maybe I am reading something into it that isn't there) That could get interesting.
With Mr. Bush traveling in Mexico, the White House insisted that the president’s role had been minimal and laid the blame primarily on Harriet E. Miers, who was White House counsel when the prosecutors lost their jobs and who stepped down in January. Of course, she just took unilateral action. She would be much easier to blame being that she is no longer in the Adminstration. (Does anyone in this Administration take responsibility for anything. Mr. Gonzales did, but it was kind of weak.)
The other thing that I think is interesting, which wasn't in the above linked article, is that Mr. Gonzales said he was unaware of the discussions that were going on. The Attorney General's Chief of Staff took unilateral action without him being aware of the situation. Doesn't that make Mr. Gonzales incompetent.
The only other possible that I can see is that Mr. Gonzales knew about it and is lying. If this is true, then he should be go for the situation.
I think that either way, Gonzales has backed himself into a corner. And if what the article discuss about the President having lost, at least some, confidence in him. It may be time for him to go.
Labels: Bush Admin Scandels
// posted by Little Wolf @ Wednesday, March 14, 2007 
