Okay, what happened to section III?

The resignations of Alberto Gonzalez, Harriet Miors and Karl Rove (Kyle Sampson's already given) should and must be immediately forthcoming. The impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush must begin without hesitation. I am so aghast I cannot continue.....

"...things have been crazy..."? Was this during the time that Dubya lost touch with what Seventy Per Cent of America calls 'Reality'? Does she mean Dubya, Cheney, and Rove, when she says 'things'? America needs to get to the bottom of this wormhole, if We have to follow it clear into the Dimension that Dubya is in. (Do any of you speak 'Klingon'?)

The key here is in the phrase "push out" and in the discussion surrounding use of "new statutory provisions" (e.g. Patriot Act) that allows the AG to go around the confirmation process. US Attorneys do serve at the will of the President, but they should not be subject to this kind of political manuvering - let along the lies regarding their being fired for "performance reasons".

And my question is, what was the follow-up item that was covered on the phone and not in writing?

I like the ending line "What say you"? Is this some kind of new high level executive government secretive language learned from GW that is supposed to mean "What do you think"?, or "Please confirm it is ok with you that we discuss over the phone"? There are also some lines missing. I will highlight with caps. " I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push THESE NONCONFOMING USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed WHO WILL DO THE BIDDING OF THIS ADMINISTRATION".....blah, blah. Oh, and don't foget before we are reminded. Some of Clinton's people wrote emails/memos like this too.

"Performance" is an objective criterion: If this were a memo asking what political fallout would occur due to performance dismissals, it would say exactly so, and the people who were so affected would have already had objectively poor performance rastings. Instead, this is clearly a memo floated to vet the political implications of purely political moves, you don't "push out" a nonperformer, you "fire him based on performance".

How much more of these "bully" tatics from Dubya and his boys do we need to put up with. I am with Pam, let the impeachment procedings begin. The sooner the better! It's just one lie with them after another.

Smoking Gun indeed. I wonder too what happened to section III, as the email suggests a missing section. Gonzo has to go, at least. I hope Congress looks into this hard and compels Gonzo and others to testify. The Bush administration has got away with too much for too long.

Shouldn't there be some chat-text that Bushies use? TPWTT - tell President what to think T4VPTS - time for Vice-President's tooth-sharpening ISOOOOWARCST - I sooo wish Ayn Rand could see this!

Bush, Cheney, and Rove all need to be tried for treason. That is all.

Yeah right anything will happen to Bush, Cheney or Rove as a result. Kyle Sampson & Scooter Libby are the fall guys. I wonder what the phone-only follow up item was???

Impeach

Before these nogoodnick's were unelected, I was going around like Paul Revere telling anyone that was going to vote for them, that they know not what they are doing, and that they are going to rape the country of it's wealth. "O judgment thou art fled to brutish beast's and men have lost their reason" Shakespeare.

"Push out." There's your phrase right there: proof positive of what was going on. No attempt to dress it up as anything other than what it is, no executive jargon to hide what it is--just the straight dope, as they say on those commercials for "The Nation." This is a clear-cut case of "Let's get rid of these people while we can and put 'our people' in." It just doesn't get any clearer than that. NOW how much more has to happen before heads roll? How much more has to happen before someone not only takes "responsibility" for this, but pays the price for that responsibility? How much more blatant does it have to get?

Very nice jjandi. I did the same for I, you and others saw it. We saw it with a crystal clear understanding of this person's lack of intelligence, propensity to be aggressive due to an inner low-self esteem, a wreckless nature with little regard for how his actions effect others, and a history that was given to him by way of name and money that he did not earn. God, I could see it in that first smirk he laid on the American people. It was so, so obvious. He was saying you idiots, boy do I have you fooled. And I truly believe that is when his father began having fainting spells. For he was thinking "I can't believe this", my knucklehead son got elected President!

When Congress issues a subpoena and nobody shows up, it's called "Contempt of Congress." But guess who has to prosecute the case? If you said, "a US Attorney," you're correct. And guess who prosecutes perjury before Congress? Oh, and by the way, you DO know that conviction before the Senate of charges listed in Articles of Impeachment results only in removal from office, right? Guess who prosecutes the case before a court that can impose fines and prison time? You got it in one, I'm sure. They have a nice little scandal involving a defense contractor, a recently and suddenly resigning CIA official, and the recently imprisoned Duke Cunningham boiling down there in San Diego. Then there'd be the little income tax problem Duncan Hunter is having, not to mention his possible involvement in Duke Cunningham's problem. Seattle's a little less involved with big corruption cases, and a little more clearcut in terms of the fact that our USA wouldn't start a witch-hunt over the close governor's election in which a Democrat won (perish the thought). Any questions?

Yes BB - Pardon me, but I do have a question. In the case you mention where a Democrat won a close gubernatorial election - was there a "witch-hunt" by the DOJ or an investigation into possible voter fraud and/or tampering? And if there was, was the US Attorney assigned to investigate this "close election" one of those FIRED? If not, what is your point? If there is ANY hint of voter fraud and/or intimidation as we have seen in the last two presidential elections - DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN - it should be investigated. Neither party should be above such scrutiny. In addition, I find the fact that Jefferson, a DEMOCRAT, was re-elected appaling, I don’t know about you, but I certainly do not use foil and plastic containers in my freezer in lieu of a bank to secure my money. But alas, George W. Bush was elected in 2004. I hesitate saying “re-elected” as I do not believe he was elected in 2000. It is also my belief that anyone who voted for him in 2004, was either a.) guilty of paying ABSOLUTELY ZERO attention to what transpired during the course of his first term, or b.) Competency was of ZERO concern and these individuals voted "their party". Either multiple choice option is disgraceful. Thanks for bringing this so-called “gubernatorial” scandal, which I have not heard of, to light; in addition I would appreciate an answer to my question.

BB- Thanks for the update and details. Sure sheds some light on this controversy. You should be writing for the New York Times or the Seattle whatever-it-is.

Seven to one. That's all I got to say.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):