First Kevin, thank you for your thoughtful response. I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to read my posts, watch the videos and provide an interesting reply. This issue is important to me and I'm glad we can have this discussion. You ask:

--------------

was this anything more than what clinton did when he came into office and replaced them all?

-------------

Yes, there is a large and glaring difference. When a president takes office it is normal procedure to replace all of the current US Attorneys at that point. Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and even our current Bush did it. Nothing unusual there. This also defines the "serves at the pleasure of the president" line we've heard thrown around so much. That refers specifically to the right of a newly elected president to make his own appointments. Those appointments are generally made by consulting the senators from each state and asking for recommendations. These recommendations are then run through an approval process which includes Senate confirmation.

Clearly you can see through this explanation of the process that one of the core principals of our Democracy occurs here...that being checks and balances...even though these jobs are going to presidential appointees it is passing through this process and therefore through "we the people" because this is what our Senate and Congress represent. That is democracy in action. Our president is not a king and his decision making process must be subjected to the scrutiny of the Senate and Congress...these two bodies represent "we the people."

We must always remember this and this is something that bothers me when I see headlines like "Showdown between President and Congress!"

I hate headlines like that because it appears to remove us...yes, you and me...from the process. Meaning when people see headlines like that they see it as a showdown between the president and some other politicians. It's not! What that headline is really saying is there is a showdown between the president and the people of the United States...we are the Congress and they are us...plain and simple. We have elected these people as our representatives from each of our states and they are our voice in Washington DC. The president is not our voice in Washington and is certainly not our voice when his words are at odds with our Senate and Congress. In reality our president needs to be a good listener and he needs to hear the people through our representatives. This is the foundation of our democracy and makes clear how important and sacred the role of Congressman or Senator is. It also clearly demonstrates how wrong it is to request silence or complicity from a Senator or Congressman. It shows how wrong it is to attempt to avoid their oversight because in doing so you are avoiding the oversight of the people of the United States.

I rambled through all of that because it goes to the heart of this situation with the fired US Attorneys. The Bush Administration (and at the time Gonzales was part of this process before he was even AG) drafted into the Patriot Act the removal of the Senate Confirmation process for US Attorneys. Meaning they could just stick their own guys in there and the Senate (we the people) have no say...period. I don't want to get tied up in this post with a long description of the Patriot Act but to sum it up the Patriot Act has little to do with somehow protecting Americans and a lot to do with allowing the Executive Branch of our government to manipulate the justice system for their own purposes. Ask yourself how removing Senate confirmation of US Attorneys protects the American public? Clearly all that does is remove checks and balances in the system to politically benefit the executive branch of our government. I would not be alone in seeing this as an erosion of our democracy. It really doesn't matter who is president, it gives any president an opening to abuse their position. The sad truth is if you saw Fahrenheit 911, John Coyners, head of the House Judiciary Committee, admits in the film that he and probably most of the representatives in DC never read the Patriot Act (or most other bills for that matter)...they rubber stamped it through in very difficult and sad time for this country trusting that it's purpose was to protect Americans.

So, what you need to know is it is not a common thing for US Attorneys to be fired once they have been put in place by an administration and the appointment process. The reason for this is that firing US Attorneys can be a manipulation of the justice system. It's important to realize that the DOJ is supposed to stand alone outside of political influence...meaning that even though US Attorneys are appointed by the sitting president they are not there to do his bidding or show loyalty to him. They are there to prosecute cases based on the law and serve all Americans...not political preference. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified to exactly this fact yesterday:

Now, it's a sad fact that most Americans do not understand any of what we are discussing and if we don't understand it we don't know when the system is being abused and when we need to act to do something about it and when we are actually seeing an erosion of democracy in this country. Our media, our education system, our elected officials all need to do a better job of keeping the American public aware of these things. Otherwise we live in the dark and it will be too late when we come to a group realization that we have a problem. As you can see, none of what I'm discussing is partisan rhetoric...it's all about us being better citizens of this country we love by taking the time to understand how our government works and what their actions mean. If we can do this as "we the people", all of us united together, we can make a huge difference...believe it or not our founding fathers had the foresight to build these protections into our system of government. If we are aware of what they are doing we can play a part in what they do...our voices do in fact matter...all headlines that make us feel small and unimportant aside.

----------

i didn't watch the gonzales hearings on cspan but am i to gather from your watergate synopsis and the few minutes of video from the gonzales hearings that they're on the same level...archibald cox and the rest?

-----------

Yes, in fact as David stated Nixon looks like a super guy compared to these guys. The reason I posted that second Sheldon Whitehouse video where he discusses the 417 people at the White House that have permission to have contact with 37 different people at DOJ is because it demonstrates that the DOJ is completely in bed with the White House and that the DOJ has ceased to function as it's own entity. That means our current administration has completely corrupted our justice system. It is functioning as just another political arm of the Bush Administration. Clearly this is outrageous and the fact that they were firing US Attorneys that were investigating Republican corruption and gave them no reason for their firings demonstrates this sad fact. The fact that in the e-mails that have been released during this investigation people at the DOJ and White House were throwing around possible reasons for their firings in case they were asked indicates we have a major problem. The fact that all but one of these attorneys were thought to be very good to outstanding by all accounts indicates we have a problem. The fact that yet another US Attorney that was investigating Republican Jerry Lewis and in the midst of that investigation in October resigned her post to take a job with the law firm defending Lewis after being offered a $1.5 Million bonus to sign on and take the job is quite eyebrow raising. The fact Lewis is tied in to the Randy "Duke" Cunningham case in accepting bribes to award contracts to people like Brent Wilkes and Mitch Wade is...well...very interesting.

It certainly strikes me as quite odd that Mitch Wade's company, MZM, was the company that provided the report (they typed it up in a day) that said those aluminum tubes Saddam had (mentioned right after the Niger claim in Dubya's SOTU) could be used for enriching uranium when our own scientists and the International Atomic Energy Agency and scientists worldwide all said no way! It was also outside protocol that we would use an outside contractor to provide such a report but then when nobody will give you the report you want to see...well...sometimes you got to bend the rules and go to a company that had the contract because it was bribing powerful Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee (Lewis and Cunningham).

Now tell me you don't find it odd that US Attorney Carol Lam who put Cunningham in jail for taking bribes from Mitch Wade president of MZM, indicted the number three at the CIA (Dusty Foggo, who had been working with Wilkes), is fired for no reason and Debra Yang the US Attorney in LA that was in the midst of an investigation of Republican Jerry Lewis, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee (and tied to Cunningham), suddenly resigns her post in October to accept a $1.5 Million bonus to go to work for the law firm that is defending Lewis?

I don't know about you but I look at those simple facts and think "Houston, we have a problem!"

The problems I see are the aforementioned manipulation and corruption of our justice department and that it appears this also plays into covering up two major lies in the SOTU about why we should attack Iraq that relate to corrupt Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee.

Basically, this is a very complex web of deception and corruption and it would take quite a long time to explain all of it but just starting with what I have already said...the issues here are rather large.

---------

or is it that, gonzales, in an attempt to distance himself from the firings actually gave this story some life it didn't deserve?

---------

Gonzales is completely responsible for allowing the DOJ to become a political arm of the executive branch of our government. He participated in setting this up when he worked as White House Counsel, right through to his time as AG. This is what he's trying to hide and why I posted the portion of his testimony where Whitehouse nails him on this. Gonzales is keeping the story alive because he is stonewalling and you can't just keep saying "I don't recall" because that will only lead to more and more questions and further investigation, as it should. Even if Gonzales resigned they still have a huge problem and that's why Gonzales is staying...he can at least try to keep the cover-up going and run out the clock which is how this administration is operating at this point. He can attempt to hinder the investigation from his position. The DOJ recently announced they were going to investigate Monica Goodling as well and this would tie up the offer of immunity for her testimony because they can now say immunity can't be granted to someone who is the subject of a DOJ investigation...so they have a clear strategy to keep the clock ticking. Gonzales can remain as AG to hinder the process and help Bushco run out the clock...that's why Bush is standing by him.

---------

do i think the bush administration is as guilty of abusing their power as nixon's administration was? that's a stretch for me at this point.

---------

I understand but it probably won't be a stretch for you much longer. Real trouble is brewing this time and all Bushco can do is try to run out the clock.

--------

do you believe the war on terror is a real war or is it all politics so bush can ram a bunch of patriot act legislation through and take away our rights?

--------

I think there is a real threat from terrorists, yes. I don't think it's about politics, no. I think it's about money and what we are seeing is our first 100% corporate war. I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set. I don't think attacking Iraq was part of solving our issues with terrorists in any way shape or form. It would have made as much sense to start bombing Texas. Somehow this disagreement between people who think we should be in Iraq and those who think we should not has been turned into an emotional battle. We need to stop seeing it in those terms and start just looking at it for what it is. We need to remove all the stuff about "Oh, you just hate Bush" or "Oh, you just think liberals are pacifist commies" and talk about the facts.

--------

do you think had clinton done more during his 8 years to capture osama things may have been different today?

-------

From all I've seen there may have been something else that could have been done during the Clinton administration to "get Osama" but it's not as clear cut as all that and it appears George Tenet may have advised against getting Osama on the couple of occasions we may have been able to take a shot. It was under Clinton that the first steps against terrorism were taken by our government and so I can't say things would have been better if Clinton had done things differently. I do think that Republicans did all they could during that time to prevent him from fighting terrorism though...that much is at least clear...by dragging him through an outrageous muck racking process with Ken Starr running that circus. I don't want to turn this in to a he said, she said though and as I've stated I never voted for or liked Clinton while he held office.

-------

was clinton leading by doing nothing in the years preceding 9/11 when he had opportunities to stop osama but chose not to because he was more concerned about osama's innocence?

-------

I don't understand this question. Do you mean the time they supposedly had intel on Osama's location but passed on getting him because the area was full of families...women and children? I don't think Clinton or anybody else ever claimed Osama was innocent.

Thanks again Kevin for taking the time to discuss this here. I hope our conversation is interesting to others here and shows it can be worthwhile to take the time to talk openly and honestly without insulting each other.

Sorry for my long reply but I wanted to try to show why I think this is important and why it has nothing to do with partisan politics.