Reg...thanks for the long reply to do the homework for me which i should've done for myself. if what you say is true and i have no reason to doubt you, then yes, this is a textbook definition of corruption and it has to be investigated for possible prosecution.

i'm not one to blindly follow a leader although many here may think otherwise. providing it's not simply about politics and there is actually some wrongdoing i'm all in favor of exposing corruption wherever it's found.

you'll have to understand that i'm a bit leary of the main stream media's ability to report these ethical lapses in a balanced way. the resignation of Dianne Feinstein from the military construction appropriations committee back in march is a glaring example. this to me appeared to be a big story but it got no attention from the msm. this is about the only link other than blog reports referencing it...

http://www.metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/dianne-feinstein-resigns-0712.html

wouldn't you agree that had she been a republican this story would've received major coverage?

so, when i hear story after story about corrupt republicans i can't help but be a bit cynical about the motives behind the story. the Valerie Plame incident is another which disturbs me along this line. listening to the coverage when the story broke there was implication after implication that Bush and Rove were behind it. it was as if people could taste the blood and it didn't matter that the facts said otherwise. no doubt many here still want to believe that Rove was the mastermind.

i bring up Feinstein and Plame as examples of why i'm paying less and less attention to the stories pointing to the corruption of the Bush administration. it's unfortunate because it appears that there may be someting to the Gonzales story but i've not paid any attention to it when maybe i should have.

but, all that aside. if Bush is guilty of corruption i would not try and defend him and would welcome an investigation.

Kevin g