Bush White House Implicated in Early Detainee Abuse

As you may recall, we've had a discussion over the timeline of the earliest detainee abuse, prompted mostly by the recollections of FBI interrogator Ali Soufan. The recollections of Soufan, along with other scattered reports, make it clear that detainee abuse began well before the implementation of the harshest interrogation techniques (what we around here refer to as torture) following the Office of Legal Counsel's memo of August 1st, 2002 that approved of techniques like waterboarding for use against Abu Zubaydah. The question has been then, who approved of the techniques used prior to the August memo? According to Ari Shapiro at NPR (relying on an anonymous source and backed by recently-released CIA documents) says it was none other than then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales (h/t Adam):

One source with knowledge of Zubaydah's interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity.

The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA's counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration's legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

A new document is consistent with the source's account.

The CIA sent the ACLU a spreadsheet late Tuesday as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The log shows the number of top-secret cables that went from Zubaydah's black site prison to CIA headquarters each day. Through the spring and summer of 2002, the log shows, someone sent headquarters several cables a day.

"At the very least, it's clear that CIA headquarters was choreographing what was going on at the black site," says Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who sued to get the document. "But there's still this question about the relationship between CIA headquarters and the White House and the Justice Department and the question of which senior officials were driving this process."

Knowing nothing about how government functions, you may find yourself wondering why memos from the OLC were necessary if Alberto Gonzales was already approving of specific techniques. That's because Gonzales, as White House counsel, actually possessed no authority to sign-off on the CIA's techniques:

Attorneys who have worked in the White House counsel's office describe it as "highly unusual" for the White House to tell interrogators what they can and cannot do. Bradford Berenson worked in the counsel's office under President Bush, though he had no role in authorizing harsh interrogations.

"These were highly unusual and extraordinary times after 9/11," says Berenson, "but ordinarily the White House counsel's office is not in the business of providing advice to anyone outside the White House itself."

All through the summer of 2002, top officials across the government were trying to sort out the ground rules for legal interrogations.

"I can't believe the CIA would have settled for a piece of paper from the counsel to the president," says one former government official familiar with those discussions.

"If that were true," says the former official, "then the whole legal and policy review process from April through August would have been a complete charade."

Which only further establishes two things that we have long-suspected and are now beginning to learn are true: 1) that the White House knew about and was deeply involved in the earliest detainee abuse and 2) that the legal memos crafted by the OLC were never about approving the use of specific techniques, but were about providing some sort of legal cover to interrogators for techniques the White House already wanted used.

For more reading on this revelation, I recommend Spencer Ackerman, who's wondering why the CIA over-ruled their own interrogators who objected to these techniques, and Big Tent Democrat, who points out that Gonzales has certainly not been forthcoming in testimony before Congress about his involvement in the formation of the legal framework for torture.

Friday Morning National Security News

Things you should be reading:

1. Yesterday suicide bombers killed eighty Iraqis in three separate attacks. Today at least sixty more residents of Baghdad have died in two suicide bombings. It's stating the obvious to say that this raises concerns that progress on the security front is being undermined. So far, nobody really seems to understand what's prompted the new attacks.

2. Pakistan's Taliban insurgency is worsening. Fighters from neighboring Swat moved into the Buner district earlier this week, only seventy miles from the capital of Pakistan Islamabad. The Pakistani government responded by sending police forces to the district, who were promptly repelled by the militants, and other reports indicate that Taliban forces have moved into districts even closer to the capitol. Al Jazeera reports that the Taliban are now pulling their fighters out of Buner, but none of this encourages American officials to believe that Pakistan is capable of dealing with their home grown Taliban insurgency...or securing their nuclear weapons against those fighters.

3. The Washington Post reports that the debate within the Obama administration over whether to release four OLC memos was intense. One of the arguments against releasing them was surely the political furor that the move has provoked. The Obama administration says they intend to oppose any investigation in torture by Congress, a move that some Democratic members are pushing for.

4. The Jane Harman story grows even more troubling with the revelation that then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales intervened to prevent then director of the CIA Porter Goss from informing members of Congress that one of their own had been captured on an NSA wiretap speaking with an agent of Israeli government, and that Gonzales also intervened to quash any investigation of the matter by the FBI. All of this was done allegeldy so the administration could continue to count on Harman's help in protecting the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program (and on that score, Harman didn't disappoint.) My only question is...how long do we have to wait to get rid of her?

It's Legal

Or so the Justice Dept said, of certain "enhanced interrogation techniques" more commonly referred to as torture. From this NY Times article emerges the clearest portrait yet of the infighting that took place in the DOJ in regards to the legality of torture techniques, and the lengths to which Alberto Gonzales went to put an end to the dissension:

When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.

But soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

In other words, according to the NY Times timeline, Yoo and and Bybee authored the torture memo in 2002, which was repudiated by Jack Goldsmith in 2004 (conveniently in time for Gonzales' confirmation hearings) this repudiation which was then secretly repudiated by another memo which listed several of the same techniques utilized by the CIA that are not considered torture even under the language then being considered then by Congress for the Detainee Treatment Act, a memo that members of Congress did not know about even as they were passing the bill.

If you want to know why it's very difficult for persons such as ourselves to take the Bush administration seriously in any respect or believe any claim that they publicly make, this is why. Because they are more than willing to issue opinions, documents or whatnot that will conveniently allow them some political maneuvering room, while at the same time in secret or behind closed doors continuing to do exactly what they've done all along...acting as if no one will actually find out about these games. To think that no Presidential administration does this to some extent is incredibly naive, but the Bush administration has taken it to new levels of egregiousness and insult, and they have done it over matters crucial to our national security and standing in the world. Here's Jack Balkin on this news:

Despite the fact that Congress repeatedly passed legislation stating that it was illegal for U.S. personnel to engage in torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the Justice Department repeatedly redefined the terms of these prohibitions so that the CIA could keep doing exactly what the Justice Department had authorized to do before. Gonzales treated all of these laws as if they made no difference at all, as if they were just pieces of paper.

What is particularly amazing-- and disturbing-- is that the revelation of the first torture memo had no effect on the Gonzales Justice Department. Instead, they resorted to misleading the public and twisting the law in secret opinions.

It is well worth asking how many other secret opinions the Justice Department has produced during the Bush Administration that justified violations of the Constitution, federal statutes, the laws of war, and international human rights.

And we need to be clear about the purpose of these memos. A memo crafted in secret is never one that is intended to explain or justify to the legality of particular measure the administration is taking in an effort to broadly justify such an approach. Such a memo serves a post hoc purpose; it's an excuse, handy for those who act under the "authority" of the memo who seek to avoid legal liability for what they do, in the way of either staying out of a court or as authority to cite to when they must defend themselves in court. It's a stay-out-of-jail-free card, or a note from mom to your school explaining why you skipped the day before. The memo itself doesn't really have to be legally supportable or believable to any truly rational person; you just have to show that it was good enough for you, an agent of the government, to rely on. That my friends is a pretty low bar given the unwillingness of courts to find government agents legally liable for the actions they take on behalf of the government. It's also a handy way to subvert the rule of law, and the system of checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution that lies at the heart of our democracy. But, small price to pay to be able to slap a few terrorists around, right?

AG Gonzeles Out

Well, that's that:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

Mr. Bush has not yet chosen a replacement but will not leave the position open long, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the resignation had not yet been made public.

So the Democrats won't have Gonzales to kick around anymore, but they will have say in who the next AG is. I'd say that's more than a fair trade, to get that rogue out of office.

Legislative Update VI

The Senate passed its version of the State Children's Health Insurance Program re-authorization, 68-31. The bill now needs to be reconciled with the House version, which is more expansive and makes changes to certain Medicare Programs too. Both face a veto threat from the White House, but if the conference report reflects the Senate's take it could possibly pass with a veto-proof margin, as it did in the Senate version tonight.

The House voted, 367-57, to approve the conference report for the America Competes Act that appropriates $33.6 billion over the next three years for science, technology, engineering and mathematics research and education programs across four federal agencies. The Senate is expected to endorse it as well before Congress leaves for its August recess. Last week, the House passed, 281 to 142, to increase money for NASA and Aeronautics.

The House also passed legislation to permit the importation of lower-cost prescription drugs from places such as Canada, Australia and Europe and require the FDA improve food safety procedures as part of a $91 billion spending measure funding farm subsidies and nutrition programs. That bill, passed by a 237-18 vote, is the final domestic spending bill to pass the House and faces a veto from President Bush. The Senate has yet to vote on it.

On Wednesday, the House voted, 381-40, for the water projects conference report filled with Army Corps of Engineers projects such as restoring wetlands in coastal Louisiana, improving hurricane protection in New Orleans and adding new drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. The Senate will likely also approve the negotiated version with a veto-proof majority that can override the threat from President Bush.

Senator John Kerry is proposing a bill that would ban the import and sale in the United States of illegally harvested timber and carry fines of up to 10,000 dollars in order to get at illegal logging rampant in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Similar legislation is expected to be brought up in the US House of Representatives. Email your Senators and reps in support.

The House Judiciary Committee also approved legislation that would create a federal shield law for journalists. Specifically, it would "prevent reporters from being compelled to provide testimony or produce documents, unless a court finds that one of several exceptions apply," according to CQPolitics.

Over in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Leahy is considering asking the Justice Department's inspector general to examine "whether Gonzales' answers to questions from lawmakers amount to misconduct," according to the AP. That committee also unanimously advanced a bill like one that already passed the House that would tighten requirements for states to pass mental health information to the federal government for background checks for prospective gun buyers.

The Senate Budget Committee approved the nomination of former GOP Rep. Jim Nussle to run the White House budget office by a 22-1 vote. But Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said he would hold up the nomination. Sanders' threat of a filibuster is enough to delay final action in the Senate until September at the earliest, also according to the AP.

Lastly, Craig Crawford reports that Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska unveiled legislation that would rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure "just hours before the Minneapolis bridge collapsed yesterday." Their bill proposes a national bank charged with prioritizing projects and developing creative ways to finance them.

Gonzo Going?

Scott Horton sticks his finger in the political winds and feels impeachment coming:

This morning, the momentum for impeachment of Alberto Gonzales is building decisively. My friends in the Washington scene, who told me with assurance a month ago that it wouldn’t happen because of the opposition of Nancy Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders, now say the tide has turned. They expect the process to move forward quickly.

A group of more than a dozen former prosecutors and judges in the House has introduced a resolution calling on the Judiciary Committee to commence hearings for a Bill of Impeachment against Gonzales. Speaker Pelosi is now said to have come around on the issue, largely on the strength (or rather, extraordinary weakness) of Gonzales’s last appearance before the Senate, at which he perjured himself repeatedly. Both Gonzales and the White House were given an opportunity to correct Gonzales’s false statements, or to explain them, but the letters they offered were so ludicrous and insulting that they seem to have shifted more Republicans into hostile ground.

Whereas you and I would simply clap our hands with glee at the thought of Gonzales being tossed out of his office on his ear, Horton fairly assesses the pros and cons of impeachment. He acknowledges it would be a costly diversion from "real" issues, but in the end Horton thinks that Gonzales' betrayal of justice (and Justice) is simply too great to let pass unpunished. I agree, and I hope his instincts are right.

House Democrat to introduce impeachment query bill for Gonzales

Reported on MSNBC (via Think Progress):

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) is introducing legislation that would require the House Judiciary Committee and the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, in the wake of his damaging testimony last week. The legislation reads:

Resolved: That the Committee on the Judiciary shall investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach Alberto Gonzales for high crimes and misdemeanors

No telling if it'll go anywhere, but a New York Times editorial called for impeachment over the weekend if the Solicitor General does not appoint the special prosecutor asked for by several Senators.

On a related note, TPM caught this striking passage in the editorial: "Unwilling to accept [DOJ's refusal to reauthorize the program], Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping."

The Times editorial rather blandly states that it was Vice President Cheney who ordered the nighttime visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room... But I was not aware that it had ever been established that Vice President Cheney ordered the visit. Speculated, rumored, sure. But I wasn't aware this had been established at all.

And yet the Times states it rather offhandedly as a fact. So what do they know?

Editorials like these are sometimes a venue where facts are stuck in which are 'known' to be true but which cannot be sourced cleanly or clearly enough to make it onto the news pages. Is that what's up here?

Very interesting...

UPDATE: Cheney says he doesn't recall if he gave order in Larry King interview.

Gonzales is a Liar

It's that simple. This article in today's Washington Post gives you the impression from the outset that there's actually an argument to made that Gonzales merely has horrible memory, or is a incapable of speaking clearly. But once you read past a few paragraphs, his record as a liar becomes clear and the only defenders he has are in the administration. This paragraph however was particularly amusing:

Democrats and some experts on the use of language say that Gonzales's gaffes are too numerous and consistent to be chalked up to misunderstandings. In most instances, his answers, or his refusals to answer, have served to obscure events that would be damaging to the administration, Gonzales or Bush.

"Experts on the use of language"? That would be anybody who can follow Gonzales' shifting rationales long enough to realize they make no sense (and this takes some effort, as sowing confusing appears to be part of his tactic of dissembling.) Look, what's happened is very simple. Gonzales has lied about some very big things, assuming probably that details about those programs wouldn't see the light of day anytime during this administration, and as details have come out he has learned that there is no amount of shiftiness that can cover up flat-out lies. The only thing Gonzales misunderstood (or miscalculated more likely) is whether his lies would be found out before or after his master was out of office.

Senate Democrats request perjury probe for Gonzales, subpoena Rove

From the Washington Post:

Four Senate Democrats today formally asked the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales lied to Congress in his testimony about a domestic surveillance program for terrorists.

At the same time, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, issued subpoenas to White House adviser Karl Rove and one of his deputies, demanding their testimony by Aug. 2 in the panel's long-running investigation into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys and the alleged politicization of the Justice Department.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a senior committee member, accused Gonzales of taking an oath, both when he assumed his current office and before each of his congressional appearances, that he has now broken through deliberately misleading testimony...

Schumer pointed to Gonzales's testimony to the panel Tuesday, when he said that a critical March 10, 2004 meeting with congressional leaders at the White House concerned intelligence activities other than the NSA's controversial warrantless surveillance program.

Several Democrats who were at that meeting have said it was about the surveillance program, and a May 2006 letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte to Congress showed the same thing.

Gonzales testified Tuesday that the intelligence program he referred to was supported by congressional leaders in the 2004 briefing, despite resistance from senior Justice Department officials who were refusing to re-authorize the program because of concerns about its legality.

But several Democrats present have said they opposed the program and were unaware at the time that Gonzales, who was then White House counsel, and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card, would next attempt to persuade then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to overrule his deputies. The two went to Ashcroft's hospital room, where he was recovering from emergency gallbladder surgery.

"This attorney general simply has not been straight with the Judiciary Committee," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who signed the letter to Clement along with Schumer, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)...

In expanding the U.S. attorney investigation, Leahy today issued subpoenas today to Rove and J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director. Both Rove and Jennings appear in Justice Department e-mails discussing various steps in the plan to fire the prosecutors.

That assertion by congressional leaders is backed up by documents and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller confirmed today "the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony." Now things are getting interesting...

The "TSP"

Because I spend most of the time I have to write substantive posts writing about foreign policy and the war in Iraq, I don't have as much time to write anything decent about "little" things like the NSA domestic surveillance scandal, or the U.S. Attorney's scandal (except for snarky little posts here and there like the one below.) But of course I read about them all the time, as my interest in those issues (and many, many more) has never wavered, nor has my desire to get to the bottom of those issues. So in that spirit, I'm linking to Mary Lederman's post on AG Gonzales' somewhat-less-than-masterful dissembling on what the administration prefers to refer to as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Gonzales is not a clever lier; rather, he's lied in so many different ways that he appears to seek to confuse Democrats on Capital Hill with the overwhelming task of figuring out what he's lied about and what he hasn't. Lederman's conclusion is, in short, that yes Gonzales is lying about which program he was referring to in earlier testimony, and any other interpretation is possible only by applying a narrow definitional approach that would hardly save a teenager from grounding. Lederman also says that we still need to figure out what the administration was doing from 2001-2004 before the threatened DOJ revolt that forced changes to make the program legal (in the DOJ's opinion anyway.) He also links to a post where Glenn Greenwald says much the same thing in more detail. I recommend both, if you want to get a handle on the "real" issue at stake here.

Bolten, Miers face contempt charges; Gonzales not off hook over wiretapping

We're getting closer to a showdown:

The White House chief of staff faced possible contempt charges after a congressional panel on Thursday ruled as invalid President George W. Bush's bid to limit the probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a party-line vote of 7-3, a Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee rejected Bush's contention that his claim of executive privilege shields the top aide, Joshua Bolten, from having to turn over subpoenaed documents.

"Those claims are not legally valid," said panel Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat...

Last week the panel moved toward contempt proceedings against former White House counsel Harriet Miers after she declined to appear at a hearing. It rejected Bush's claim that Miers did not have to show up.

If the White House doesn't yield and produce the documents, the full House Judiciary Committee could vote to hold Bolton and Miers in contempt of Congress. If the entire House then concurs, the case would be referred to a U.S. attorney to seek grand jury indictment.

Oh, and Alberto Gonzales still has some troubles of his own.

Gonzales Knew of Patriot Act Violations

When he went before Congress and told them there were no "verified" cases of abuse by the FBI. In other words, Gonzales is a liar. I challenge you to read the article and explain to me some way that his remarks can be interpreted as "spin" and not flat-out lies. You'll fail, because he's a liar. And a stupid one at that, though that trait seems to run rampant in this administration.

No-Confidence Vote on Gonzales Held in Senate

To no one's surprise, the no-confidence resolution failed to reach the 60 votes required to invoke cloture, or cut off debate. However, it did get a majority, 53-38. Sen. Lieberman voted against the measure, and 6 Republicans voted for it, including the 4 most endangered incumbents (Coleman, Collins, Smith, and Snunu) running for re-election next year. Sen. Ted Stevens voted present and 7 didn't vote at all, including Sen. Coburn who has said he believes Gonzales should resign but wouldn't vote for the no-confidence resolution.

A similar resolution has been introduced in the House, but it's unknown if and when it will see a vote.

Cheney Unveiled

We have again another column from guest blogger Fan Boy, this time talking about Dick Cheney's recently revealed back-room deals to maintain control of this government. I don't think it's going too far to say that Cheney has seized power out of all proportion to his duties as VP.

Vice President “Dick” Cheney has been exposed a little today. In a dramatic written testimony turned over at midnight last night by the former deputy Attorney General James Comey he details the Vice President’s pressure to keep a promotion from taking place.

The American people were generally shocked when the news came out about the DOJ issuing bed side pressure on the then Attorney General John Ashcroft to extend the wire tapping approval given to the Bush administration. Now, we find out that the pressure was not as third party to Ashcroft as we were initially led. We find that the Vice President of the US was bedside issuing pressure as well. This can be summed up to nothing other than a despicable act of desperation by the administration. He was in the hospital!

The pressure on Gonzales came in not promoting Patrick Philbin to principal Deputy Solicitor General. Patrick not given credit in this writing was black listed because he was a party that wrote the review to Ashcroft and Comey that identified why the then current warrantless wire tapping policy would not meet legal scrutiny and the changes needed to make it meet the legal requirements. He helped formed the bullet that shot the warrantless wiretapping story into mainstream American media.

I think this solidifies what most feel is too much power of the current administration in the hallowed halls of justice. We all know Gonzales replaced Ashcroft due to his helping the administration to push through the new warrantless wire tapping procedures. That said, and knowing why Gonzales got the job – why was Gonzales even considering the author of a briefing that felled his predecessor? Maybe it is because the Attorney General knew it was good work regardless of the political ramifications. I think this shows the cunning shrewdness of Gonzales to promote himself ahead of sound legal doctrine.

A lingering poignant set of questions are; if the new program is just making the grade on being legal what did the predecessor look like? Why has it remained classified when the media has printed in detail the current policy? Is the government sure beyond doubt that the old policy is still not in use? I believe the previous program needs to be declassified to gain transparency, accountability, and trust that we have moved forward. Americans deserve the right to know when our government is monitoring us and how. This is not a vague law or liberty it is a constitutional legal right that has been well defined in the Supreme Court.

This along with the reports coming out of the Vice Presidents plan to throw a policy coup to force a military solution with Iran, and the his hand in dealing with the Iraqi PM paint a picture. It is a picture of betrayal against the citizens of the United States in promoting a one sided dictatorship bent on might makes right.

Fan Boy

For the reference story: Link

Credit also to NPR morning report 06/07/07 – Specifically that the VP was in the hospital with Ashcroft.

News Round-Up

Wild stuff went on in the Texas House last night, as iron-fisted House Speaker Tom Craddick beat back a motion to vacate, refusing to give up his leadership post as four other Republicans filed for speaker. By the end, lawmakers who tried to overtake the speaker's podium were physically restrained and the House parliamentarian resigned. Excellent coverage over at BOR.

Months before the invasion of Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies predicted that it would be likely to spark violent sectarian divides and provide al-Qaeda with new opportunities in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a report released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Analysts warned that war in Iraq also could provoke Iran to assert its regional influence and "probably would result in a surge of political Islam and increased funding for terrorist groups" in the Muslim world. Initial post-invasion plans also called for U.S. troop withdrawals to begin in summer 2003. Of course, the White House is downplaying the report.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel has found that General Services Administration chief Lurita Alexis Doan violated the federal Hatch Act when she allegedly asked GSA political appointees during a January briefing how they could "help our candidates" win the next election, according to a report by the office. Meanwhile, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday asked the lawyer of top White House aide Karl Rove to hand over more of Rove’s e-mails as they continue to investigate the controversial firings of several U.S. attorneys.

And Senate Democrats will vote next month on a resolution expressing lack of confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. A similar resolution has also been introduced in the House.

As we learn the the Smithsonian museum institute in Washington toned-down and delayed an exhibit on global warming in 2006, fearing it would displease Congress and the White House, The United States is preparing to reject new targets on climate change at a G-8 summit next month.

Gonzales is a Punk

He's also a sorry, classless son of a bitch.

Oh, and he's a liar, and a repeat and unrepetant one at that.

Senate Democrats Look to Hold ‘No Confidence’ Vote on Gonzales

From Roll Call:

With Attorney General Alberto Gonzales vowing to remain in his job and President Bush standing by him, Senate Democratic leaders are seriously considering bringing a resolution to the floor expressing no confidence in Gonzales, according to a senior leadership source.

This would be a smart move. It would force Republicans (many of them potentially vulnerable in 2008) to have to go on record in support of Gonzales, and if that ends up being as big a number as it could be, that'll put even more pressure on him to resign.

One more down

The senior counselor to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales submitted her resignation yesterday, becoming the third high-ranking Justice Department aide to quit in the aftermath of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

The departure of Monica M. Goodling, 33, comes two weeks after she first refused to answer questions from Congress about the firings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

My only question is how long before we get Gonzales too?

Gonzales losing Republican support

Not sure how much he ever had, but the Repubs these days especially don't seem likely to go to the mat over some Bush crony.

Senators Specter, Graham, and Hagel seem to be distancing themselves from this mess:

Stopping short of demanding Gonzales' resignation, Sen. Arlen Specter cited a November 27 calendar entry placing the attorney general at a Justice Department meeting to discuss the dismissals. Those documents "appear to contradict" Gonzales' earlier statements that he never participated in such conversations, said Specter, top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee that oversees the Justice Department.

"We have to have an attorney general who is candid, truthful. And if we find out he has not been candid and truthful, that's a very compelling reason for him not to stay on," said Specter, R-Pennsylvania.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Gonzales has been "wounded" by the firings. "He has said some things that just don't add up," said Graham, who also is on the Senate Judiciary panel. And Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, said the Justice Department has continually changed its story about the dismissals.

Well, I don't know if Gonzales is out for sure, but if he's losing support of that caliber even before there's been any kind of testimony, things really don't look good for him.

Was Gonzales involved in the TYC cover-up?

From Raw Story:

The Texas juvenile justice sexual abuse scandal – in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton are accused of failing to take action – is a broader scandal that was covered up for two years, involving hundreds of serious complaints and investigations against dozens of staff members, according to officials.

The Texas Youth Commission scandal went unnoticed, says Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski, despite his numerous attempts, beginning in early 2005, to get local, state and federal prosecutors to investigate allegations teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates.

Burzynski exposed the situation March 8 in testimony to the Texas legislature's Joint Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC. He stated he began his investigation Feb. 23, 2005, after a phone call from a teacher at the West Texas state school in Pyote, Texas, alleging another teacher at the school was involved in sexual misconduct with boy inmates. In his testimony, Burzynski detailed being rebuffed by federal, state and local prosecutors for two years.

Burzynski presented a timeline asserting his investigation was, in turn, stonewalled by Ward County District Attorney Randall Reynolds, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

All refused to prosecute, he claimed, despite being presented evidence of sexual abuse at the Pyote school.

More information should be forthcoming, but it is beginning to look like there was an attempt to bury an follow-up on this case in order to save Texas Republicans - including Rick Perry and Greg Abbott - who were up for reelection last year from any political ramifications. And if Alberto is connected in any significant way, then it's certainly curtains for him.