As Libby investigator, he successfully kept Rove, Cheney and Bush out of court, out of the witness chair.
He's got an independent reputation even though he saves a lot of Whitehouse asses.
I ask this question assuming that Gonzales is toast.
Having taken the blame, having assumed responsibility, Gonzales will, like those who have "taken responsibility" before him, like the generals at Walter Reed, be gone within a week.
Personally, I am not happy with the way Fitzgerald ran the case. He let the real perpetrators off.
But he has the chimera of a clean, straight shooting prosecutor. He will pass muster with the Democrats. And who knows, he might actually really be a strong AG, independent enough to actually investigate some of the real crap that has been perpetrated.
Maybe it won't be Fitzgerald. But with the Dems controlling congress, there's a chance that a real prosecutor, a real career person who is committed to the law and justice will be appointed to the AG job. That's bad news for the Bush administration.
Will it happen, or will the Dems allow Bush to appoint another Roberts or Alito type?
Gonzales will be gone in the next week or two. Whoever Bush appoints better be a real lawyer, not a parisan hack, like most of the people Bush has appointed. The partisan Bush Hack era should be over by now.
Rob Kall is executive editor and publisher of OpEdNews.com, President of Futurehealth, Inc, inventor . He is also published regularly on the Huffingtonpost.com. He is a frequent Speaker on Politics, Impeachment, The art, science and power of story, heroes and the hero's journey, Positive Psychology, Stress, Biofeedback and a wide range of subjects. He is a campaign consultant specializing in tapping the power of stories for issue positioning, stump speeches and debates. He recently retired as organizer of several conferences, including StoryCon, the Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story and The Winter Brain Meeting on neurofeedback, biofeedback, Optimal Functioning and Positive Psychology. See more of his articles here and, older ones, here.
To learn more about me and OpEdNews.com, check out this article.
and there are Rob's quotes, here.
To Watch me on youtube, having a lively conversation with John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary committee, click here Now, wouldn't you like to see me on the political news shows, representing progressives. If so, tell your favorite shows to bring me on and refer them to this youtube video
My radio show, The Rob Kall Show, runs 9-10 PM EST Wednesday evenings, on AM 1360, WNJC and is archived on www.whiterosesociety.org Or listen to it streaming, live at either www.wnjc1360.com or here.
A few declarations.
-While I'm registered as a Democrat, I consider myself to be a dynamic critic of the Democratic party, just as, well, not quite as much, but almost as much as I am a critic of republicans.
-My articles express my personal opinion, not the opinion of this website.
in Gonzales imminent dismissal as are you, Rob. This administration is nothing if not arrogant and dismissive of its responsibilities to the Constitution.
I am also, perhaps only hopefully, awaiting the other shoe to drop in that Plamegate case. I cannot see Bush rewarding anyone who crosses him, even in the slightest way, and would receive a Fitzgerald nomination as almost proof of a cover up to which he is complicit.
We live in interesting times.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 6:38:24 AM
Who is left? I cannot think of anyone who would want the job and, yet, pass muster with the Dems. Squeaky clean and Bush is an oxymoron by definition. If they do find one, his first job is return all USAs to their jobs so that they can continue their investigations. Then, they must send reports to Congress of any interference in the way they are doing their jobs. The next thing Congress must do is to go after all who interferred in the USA's investigations. This will, hopefully, stop this practice of interferring.
by
LEO BOYLE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 7:39:00 AM
Maybe Bush should appoint Janet Reno, who demanded the prompt resignation of EVERY SINGLE U.S. ATTORNEY in 1993. No one said a thing about that. Now you want Gonzales to resign for helping to fire EIGHT of them? Who do you think you're fooling, people?
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:32:45 AM
are the ignorant, stupid, mostly white male Fox News watching right wing assholes who are among the one third of the population who still support what will be deemed by history the worst, most corrupt presidential administration in American history. The rest of Americans, the ones loyal to honesty and the constitution, will have paid attention to the reporting on this and will know the difference between the lame spin you are helping the right wing echo chamber spew and the actual facts of the case-- that no administration has removed same party prosecutors with good work reviews who were deeply involved in corruption investigations.
Don't insult the readers of this site with your pathetic right wing talk show parroting. Save it for your relatives and fellow religious extremists, be they evangelical or orthodox.
by
Rob Kall (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:45:59 AM
First you claim they considered it, then, they did it. Every president replaces the attorneys at the beginning of their term. What Bush caused to happen is unprecedented. But you know that.
by
Rob Kall (807 articles, 3921 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1702 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 1:51:36 PM
When did I say who considered what? That doesn't even make sense to me. Clinton replaced all 93 U.S. Attorneys, Bush replaced 8 in December--that's what I said. What is it that Bush did that is so unprecedented? Actually NOT playing politics by just replacing every U.S. Attorney when he came in to office in 2001? Bush has bent over backwards to give the Libs everything they want. What more do you want from this guy?
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 3:28:56 PM
As an incoming President William Jefferson Clinton had the right to appoint Federal Attorneys who shared his vision. This is a deal different from demanding that those working cases hurry them up to coincide with elections, or investigate without cause, or because someone is a Democrat and not a Republican. And then firing those who failed to comply.
These turkeys who come here with the factoid suppositories they allow Limbaugh and O'Reilly to shove up their rectums reaffirm , or shoudl for us all, that we are on the correct side here.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:51:39 AM
Bush held most of the Clinton appointees over! Doesn't Bush have the same right to appoint attorneys who share HIS vision? He replaced just EIGHT...how many years into his SECOND term? Hating Bush just to hate Bush is really getting old. Just relax and wait for the election in 2008. We're very blessed in this country to be able to vote every four years for a new administration. Take a deep breath, and go on living your life.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 10:07:07 AM
How did this coincide with elections? We hold national elections in November here in the U.S. These eight U.S. attorneys were asked to resign in December.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 10:08:49 AM
The common scuttle in one of the eight-- Iglasias-- is that the Dominant Senator Domenici leaned on him to produce a "courthosue scandal ' which the democrats were involved in building in Albuqerque with all the usual attributes of preferences and corruption. Those phone calls, in light of the close Congressional seats, were intended to measure the Dems as corrupt...and the "timing was political rather than factual....Such measures cannot be part of the President's vision, and the political use of the US Attorneys office for prosecution is unlawful... But after the good republican Senator call the US Attorney, there must have been phone calls to out the guy--as he wasn't playing ball... That is an undue influence and probably the foundation of why Domenici got himself a lawyer.... But the problem extends as our good Attorney General Gonzales made light that the firings were not political but based on performance. Look it everybody knows US Attorneys are political creatures as far as appointments and serve at the pleasure of the President; but to state that that they were outed because of performance is an out right lie...Next thing you know, we'll hear AG Gonzales state that there is nothing explicit in the Constitution about habeas....Oh wait, he already testified to that... The problem is not the Presidents power to hire and fire at will but that they make up the facts and the law as they go along..And that cannot be...
by
Eliot Gould (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 102 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 3:41:45 PM
Either Mr. Frank knows he is lying, which would make him an agendized right wing minion or Mr. Frank does not know that he has been fed a bunch of bullshit and that would make him an ignorant agendized right wing minion. Which is it Mr. Frank?
Those prosecutors fired by Bush were either investigating GOP figures involved in possible corruption or refused, and honorably so, to hurry investigations into Democratic figures possibly involved in corruption. This has been almost overreported and thinking you can come here and spread your crap around is the depths of silliness.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 8:45:48 PM
It customary for all attorneys to tend resignation at the beginning of each Administration. Janey Reno was attempting rid the government of Republican Radicals as Reagan did the same thing after the Jimmy Carter Administration and Nixon did after the Johnson Administration.
Rob's statement was not refuted by you.
Allow me to put it in a question form.
How many attorneys did George W. Bush replace when he came to office in 2001?
You are trying to deliberately get by this issue by comparing apples to oranges. We are talking about how many attorneys were replaced six years into an eight year year adminstration: Clinton-1999. Bush 2007.
Cllinton 1999-- ? Bush 2007-- ? or
Clinton 1993-- ? Bush 2001-- ?
The attorneys George W. Bush fired were his own appointments which he appointed or confirmed in 2001.
Had Clinton tried that you and your Republican Radicals would have screamed rape so loud you could have heard it in Texas.
Clinton was never found guilty of anything dealing with Whitewater. Get over it. Try talking about Cheney and Haliburton if you want real crime.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 12:20:53 PM
Pratliff94: You ask AdamFrank if "You are trying to deliberately get by this issue by comparing apples to oranges."
Actually, that is one of his three favorite strategies. The other two are ignoring pointed questions he doesn't have the answers to, and accusing others of what he does himself, generally lying or ignoring facts.
What he does NOT do is ever acknowledge that he has been duped by his Rethuglican "thought leaders" who put all his ideas in his (previously quite empty) head.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Thursday, March 15, 2007 at 2:18:07 PM
Fitzgerald is exactly right for the job from a neo-con/Fascist perspective.
He would pacify the moderate Democrats as well as the more stupid on the left who think he's been "investigating" the Plame Affair.
He would suit the neo-cons and Rethuglicans just fine, as he did exactly what he was assigned to do in the Plame Investigation -- contain the damage and mollify the CIA that SOMEBODY had been punished for the breaking of the Prime Directive of the intelligence community, while making sure that the trail of treason wasn't tracked back to the West and East wings of the White House where it began.
As the AG, Fitz investigate NOTHING beyond the superficial level; fight subpoenas just as enthusiastically as Myers or Gonzalez; protect the criminal cabal that inhabits our Government; and never appoint anybody to Special Counsel who wasn't totally bought and paid for by the Rethuglican regime.
In short, he would be a black-hole in which so many of the problems and concerns of the Rethuglicans could be jettisoned, never to appear again.
Good call, Rob. I expect this scenario to play out within the month.
Charlie L Portland, OR
P.S. Mid-March to mid-April is like a whole month of "take out the trash Friday's" where all sorts of great activities can take place in our government and nobody will notice, because they are so busy with basketball. I don't want to come off as critical of sports enthousiasts, but you gotta just LOVE America that way. (OK. maybe I __DO__ want to come off as a bit critical of anybody who would care more about ANY sport than they do about the survival of their Democratic Republic. For heaven's sake, I still read OpEdNews and RawStory and BuzzFlash and BradBlog even during the WSOP and WPT Championships.)
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:36:52 AM
For the last time, Valerie Plame wasn't even covert. She had a desk job at Langley for six years prior to this crap. Cheney has a right to defend himself against the lie that he told Joe Wilson to go to Niger. Use your head.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:42:25 AM
Brewster Jennings, the cover company that Plame headed as president, was actively engaged in ferreting out those groups seeking to purchase weaponry. They were the ultimate authority, within the CIA, for possessing the knowledge that Iraq had no such weapons.
I wonder, you agendised clown, if you have considered how many of these Brewster Jennings representatives were murdered once Rove and Cheney outed Plame?
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 9:55:24 AM
If someone told a lie about you, wouldn't you want to defend yourself? If you had a reputation of not smoking, and someone told the world that you sent him to the store to buy you cigarettes, but actually someone else had sent him to the store to buy you cigarettes, wouldn't you have a right to say, "Hey, I didn't tell him to buy cigarettes, so-and-so told him to go buy cigarettes"?
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 10:12:22 AM
You either ARE one, your you do a good job of pretending.
The disclosure of the covert status of Valerie Plame and by doing so the destruction of a multi-year, multi-national anti-WMD-proliferation operation of Brewster-Jennings & Assocaites and the putting at risk of death of hundreds of operatives and their cooperatives was an act of TREASON. To have done it for purely political reasons, as the Libby case showed was the case in the East and West Wings of the Rethuglican White House was an act of ARROGANT AND STUPID TREASON.
If you don't get that, or aren't willing to SEE that, then I agree with Rob that you should just go peddle your crap somewhere else. Perhaps at freepers where they can DITTO it with relish.
I, for one, think Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Rethuglicans are lucky the CIA didn't have them "accidented" for their arrogant and disgusting behaviour.
And it doesn't have anything to do with loving or hating Bush, but it has everything to do with LOVING America and LOVING the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this country and hating the Rethuglicans who treat our country, our troops, our world-wide reputation, and our Constitution as crap and our treasury as their personal bank account.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 1:06:58 PM
Do you not understand that the fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA could be known by anyone who wanted to know? She was NOT COVERT. There was no crime. Fitzgerald found NO CRIME, precisely because Valerie Plame was not covert (that means Not Undercover, for you out there in Rio Linda--yes that is a Rush-ism). Joe Wilson lied and said that Cheney sent him, so Cheney merely set the record straight by telling the truth--that Wilson's wife at the CIA sent him. That's all there is to it--NO CRIME.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 1:11:45 PM
"...Valerie Plame worked for the CIA could be known by anyone who wanted to know?"
This is a lie.
If you believe this lie that was obviosly told to you by one of the Rethuglican mouthpieces, then you need to go back and LEARN THE TRUTH about this lie.
Unless, it is easier for you to simply BELIEVE it.
But it is a LIE. It is NOT TRUE. Ms. Plame's operation was in one of the most protected and secret areas of CIA operations. That she drove back and forth to Langly each day doesn't not make her non-covert. None of her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA. None of her family (except her husband) knew she worked for the CIA. Nobody in the media (until informed by the White House) knew she worked in the CIA.
If you believe that the destruction of Brewster-Jennings & Assocaites was in the best interest of the United States and the "War on Terror" then you really are an idiot.
If you just continue to parrot this B.S. line, then you are just a Rethuglican apologist who refuses to live in the "reality based world."
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 3:57:06 PM
Joe Wilson was telling a lie about Dick Cheney's office. Do you expect him to take it? Dick Cheney ought to be given a medal for outing Joe Wilson as a liar. Cheney didn't send Wilson to Niger, Wilson's wife did because she had it out for Bush.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 4:10:03 PM
Directly from Mr. Wilson's NYT OpEd piece: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this "lies" about Cheney sending him to Nigeria. He doesn't claim Cheney sent him, so I'm not sure why Cheney would need to "defend" himself by destroying a multi-year, multi-national program like Brewster-Jennings. (BTW, Adam, you never did say why this was such a good thing for National Security -- maybe Cheney didn't consider this when he did his outing?)
But, then again, I don't have those brilliant analytical skills of a Rethuglican hack.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 674 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 4:35:59 PM
WILSON: Well, I went in, actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there—at the request, I was told, of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq.
This is from American Morning on CNN on 7/7/03. So Wilson DID make it sound like the VP sent him. Cheney was defending himself, because he DIDN'T send Wilson.
by
Adam Frank (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments)
on Wednesday, March 14, 2007 at 4:44:58 PM
On the one hand, there's the possible mis-interpretation that Wilson WAS TOLD that Cheney's OFFICE had sent him to Niger, when in fact, Cheney had merely ASKED the CIA to send SOMEONE to confirm the fake, assum
