ChiTrib: Gonzales' plan for attorney reviews would further politicize process

POINTING THE WAY FOR PROSECUTORS
Under fire, not in retreat

By Andrew Zajac, a national correspondent based in the Tribune's Washington Bureau
Published June 17, 2007


Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales so far has survived a political crisis over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, a rare potential vote of no-confidence in the Senate and numerous calls for his resignation.

His response? Gonzales recently proposed tightening the leash on the men and women who prosecute federal crimes across the nation.

Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.

If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-gonzales_thinkjun17,1,4462628.story

the American Voters until they are FORCED to stop.
Can anyone really say impeachment is not a reasonable action? If one is going to argue that it will "tie up" Congress they should stop and think about just how much it has actually accomplished so far anyway..and just how much will they be able to accomplish with Bush vetoing everything he feels like without any compunction.

Every compromise by the Democrats just feeds into the growing arrogance and narcissism of Prez Shit-for-Brains and his administration. Something must be done before it becomes impossible and we are living under a Fascist dictatorship and everyone is whining and crying about what we should have done, could have done and would have done....at least those citizens that are not in some Gitmo type of camp.

The folks on the Hill are being idiots on Gonzales. Their half-measures and euphemism do more harm than good. It gives the pretense of action, when in fact, they are just engaged in impotent gesture. It would be better if they actually were doing nothing. Then even more Americans would see the failure and demand REAL action -- and the only real action is impeachment (60% already a want the Bush presidency over now)).

The assertion that Bush's minion is "corrupting/politicizing the justice department" labels the actions as "bad," but don't begin to capture the horrible reality. Without a goal or motive, there is no narrative. Narrative engages. The assertion "corrupting the justice department to steal elections" makes for powerful narrative, but people will soon lose interest in that "story" too if the Dems in Congress keep refusing to take real action against the wrong-doers. (Stories where the good guys see that the bad guy get what they deserve are the most compelling of all).

When, instead of sending articles of impeachment to the floor, they pushed their finger-wagging "no confidence" resolution on Gonzales they handed the Republicans a gift. They proved themselves impotent. Even if they had passed the "no confidence" resolution with a veto proof majority, Bush's dismissive reaction, and Gonzales' continued "service", would still make the impotence of the Democrats crystal clear to the public.

It's so frustrating. Their "no confidence" resolution gave the Republicans a fantastic way to beat up on the Democrats and escape having to respond to the accusations against the administration. The question "Why vote?" resonates when the action can't force the Pariah in Chief to do anything. I imagine that I'm not the only one who thought "Oh good. Something else for Bush to steamroll them on." The reality is that it isn't an attempt to actually DO SOMETHING, so labeling it "gamesmanship" works. Perhaps if a toothless resolution was the only weapon they had, they'd get a little credit. But it isn't. We gave them the power to swiftly remove officials who betray us or pose an intolerable threat to the nation. They prove their weakness by refusing to use the power they have.

The only "potent" action is impeachment, but impeaching Gonzales and refusing to go after the ones who pull his strings is impossible to logically reconcile. Using the justice dept to steal elections isn't about Gonzales. It's about Bush. It's about Cheney. It's about violating the principle of consent, the SOLE moral principle on which our nation is founded. That crime against our constitutional democracy makes all the other crimes possible (i.e., turning the USA into a war criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens).

Of course, if the House wakes up and impeaches Bush and Cheney, Republicans can try to escape having to answer the charges with claims that it's a "waste of time" or "has no chance of passing" but that won't cut it for long. They have to vote on the charges. T They have to choose: toss the pariah in chief overboard or take an stand to defend the Bushkid, torture, and criminal spying.

With "the decider" at the helm, the only gesture that is NOT impotent gesture is impeachment. As long as they fail to impeach, each impotent gesture they make is just another chance for Republicans to point out how impotent their impotent gestures are.

Perhaps, as they try to figure out why their approval has been in free fall, they'll wake up and see that "It's the impeachment, Stupid!"

I sure hope so.