That's certainly another way to look at it, but I don't know.  It feels like everyone's campaigning all the time.  Pelosi et. al. are talking the talk, but so far I haven't seen much in the way of results (which I realize is only but so much in their control).

I see your point re: Gonzales in general, but with this bunch I wonder.  The administration doesn't care about getting re-elected, no (Bush figures he's right no matter how unpopular his positions are, and I admit that's something I'd respect if his positions were ones I could agree with), but those in Congress do.  So I think there's probably a disparity among the Republicans in that regard (and would likely be a similar one with the Democrats were there a second-term Democratic president in office).

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

    Yes, that's pretty fast. Consider, though, that there was a free-floating grand jury already in place to jump all over the story once it finally broke. The legislators didn't have to show a reason to form a grand jury, nor did Starr have to gather a team to start the investigation-- in fact, Starr already had tons of documents from investigating the Travel Office mess. I'd hardly call those normal circumstances.
    More to the point, the very rapidity of the whole process led the public to believe that it was "all just politics"-- even many who thought Clinton should go weren't sure this was the way to go about it. Except in the inner depths of the conservative echo chamber, the impeachment has come to be seen as a mistake. Now, W and his cronies have probably done a lot worse than perjury, but that just reinforces in my mind that speedy action would let the bastards off the hook-- "partisanship" is the only political card the Bushies know how to play well, and a six week (even six month) investigation and indictment would play right into that strength.
    As to the legislation passed by Republicans in the last 6-10 years . . I'm not sure Pelosi has majority support in her own party to go after something like the Patriot Act. I have a rather pessimistic view when it comes to politicians supporting and upholding civil freedoms; in fact, I'm with Nader when he suggests that the two parties are close together on the matter. The real bastion against the erosion of civil liberties, IMO, was the Republicans, and when they decided to surrender without a shot in the name of party unity, I knew the game was over. But this is not a widely held belief, I guess :)
    We'll see. I may be much harsher in my judgments six months from now.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

I would submit that if Congress could impeach Clinton that quick once they set their mind to it, the shenanigans of the past 6 years could get investigated with the same frenzy

I wonder: what "shenanigans " do you have in mind that need investigating? I mean really need investigating for reasons other than cheap political theater.

cheap political theater.

It's crazy how much you and I are in agreement these days, Z.  I too am disgusted with cheap political theater...like firing judges for political reasons.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It's crazy how much you and I are in agreement these days, Z

It's not crazy, it just means the scales have fallen from thine eyes.

...like firing judges for political reasons

That's not theater; that's an effective measure. (I assume you meant US attorneys, not judges.)

In any case, there is no reason for Congress to investigate those firings beyond what they've already done.

In any case, there is no reason for Congress to investigate those firings beyond what they've already done.

How silly of me...that's right, Bush said everything was just hunky dory over at Justice...I mean, coming from a man of such trustworthiness, it's a wonder Congress even bothered to do anything.

Nothing to see here folks...move along...move along.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...coming from a man of such trustworthiness, it's a wonder Congress even bothered to do anything.

Can you tell me anything that Congress turned up that was outside the authority of the executive to do?

Z, I will freely admit that you know tons more law than I do...but here's how it looks from here:

First, let's dispense with the crap about how Clinton fired what...93 attorneys.  He did...as did many (every?) president once he's in office.  However, weren't all of the people fired by Al originally appointed by Bush?

But, that's not what's important to me.  Was not Al suspected of firing those attorneys because a. some would not stop investigating suspected Bush allies and b. others would not investigate Bush's enemies because the charges were trumped up?  You tell me...is that legal?

Now, I'm sure you have a very precise and reasoned explanation of why what Al did was perfectly legal...or at least that the claims were untrue, but that leads to a second question:  When Al appeared before congress he lied.  The United States Attorney General lied...to Congress...the head of the US Department of Justice lied.  And on top of that, listening to him and his people testify about who fired who and why was like listening to a painful, unfunny, and tragic recreation of "Who's On First?"

So Z...please, in the interest of erudition, correct me?

And, because we need a break from this sordid affair, here is the original "Who's On first".

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Was not Al suspected of firing those attorneys because a. some would not stop investigating suspected Bush allies and b. others would not investigate Bush's enemies because the charges were trumped up?

"Suspected"? By whom? As to the rest of that, I don't recall any news stories saying anything about "Bush's enemies" unless you mean Democratic operatives violating the law. And I don't recall anyone claiming "trumped up" charges, only charges that were not able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, I'm sure you have a very precise and reasoned explanation of why what Al did was perfectly legal..

Yes: in the United States, if something is not illegal, then it is legal.

When Al appeared before congress he lied.  The United States Attorney General lied...to Congress...the head of the US Department of Justice lied

So it would seem. Now that has been established (more or less), what does Congress need to investigate?

Well Z...you got me there.  I always maintain that you are way smarter than me.  I will forever be in your shadow.  I should have known better that your boys would be beyond reproof.  

Just curious though...it seems like you agree with me that Al lied.  I wonder what he needed to lie about?

Anyway...moot point.  The liberal echo chamber has gotten rid of a "good man".

Forgive me?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I should have known better that your boys would be beyond reproof

Who are my "boys"?

it seems like you agree with me that Al lied.  I wonder what he needed to lie about?

I have no idea. Maybe he's just confused. Maybe he thought he was protecting the president.

What do you think he was hiding?

One question:  If Gonzales did nothing wrong, why did he resign?

One question:  If Gonzales did nothing wrong, why did he resign?

Because even though he was guilty of nothing, he saw the liberal character and political assassination teams doing nothing but dragging his good name through the mud.  As such, he felt that he was now a lightning rod  and thus prevented from doing his job.

...and he wanted to spend more time with his family.

Or maybe he's guilty as all fuck.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

If Gonzales did nothing wrong, why did he resign?

Well, I never said Gonzales did nothing wrong. I don't think firing the US attorneys was illegal, but that doesn't mean it was right or wise.

Maybe it finally dawned on Gonzales that what so many people had been saying for a long time was correct: he was a shitty attorney general and the Justice Department would be better off without him.

I have no idea. Maybe he's just confused. Maybe he thought he was protecting the president.

You're probably right...especially the protection part.  Pity he didn't think more about protecting the law.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine