Clustr Maps
Take the Monster into your very home
Gonzo's Testimony: A Form of Torture in Itself?
I found this pic from the Gonzales hearing over at wonkette.com
It really kinda sez it all, huh?
Gonzo worked for weeks and weeks to hone his performance and explanation for being out of the loop, unknowledgeable, and generally the political toady that he is, whilst undermining our very system of justice.
And all we got was his pathetic performance in front of the Senate. What a disgrace. I can't believe that this man was ever confirmed for the Texas Supreme Court, much less Attorney General. What the hell kind of "counsel" could this dim bulb provide the president? Sadly, probably somewhat more coherent advice than spinster-in-waiting Harriet Miers.
(If you doubt her utter lack of mental firepower, go ahead and read any article she wrote for the Texas State Bar to experience the most corporatespeak-suck-up-say-nothing-phrase-dropping-excuse-for-communication-you've-ever-seen tripe you may encounter. It's amazing how she can fill a page with words and say absolutely nothing at all, with incredibly obtuse "style" to boot! It's without a doubt that she's been praised by other toadies for her pointless, turgid prose, but it's all too clear she cannot formulate a coherent thought, much less express herself in plain English. A pathetic example for a person with that much authority--and Bush wanted her as a Supreme Court Justice!!!)
For a candidate that promised a "CEO" presidency, and who assured voters in response to concerns with his mental ability that he would "pick good people", I can only conclude that Bush's representations in this regard took place on "opposite day" -- just like they have at my daughter's elementary school.
Gonzales, as Attorney General, could not even say how the AUSAs that he approved for termination were chosen--much less why. That's just pathetic. For Bush to now claim that Gonzo "answered the questions as completely and honestly as he could" (whatever that means) goes nowhere in terms of supporting the AG's actions or lack thereof. Rather, it merely underlines how out of touch, mentally challenged and cynical Bush really is. Reading between the lines of his responses and those of his press secretary, it is clear that Bush didn't even bother to actually watch the testimony, much less poll the Senators--even those of his own party. Otherwise, there are only two (2) major problems with his statement: First, Bush seems to think that Gonzo actually answered the most pertinent of questions (see pick above: he didn't); Next, for Bush to imply that Gonzo did not have the capability of answering the questions completely or honestly or both, shows how stupid he believes the American public to be.
Among my favorite moments: Gonzales, in testifying about Lam, told the Senators that Lam had heard about her "poor performance" because he mentioned his opinion to his staff and "assumed" that they would communicate it to her. Damn, Gonzo! Would it kill you to drop a dime!?! Of course not: He's the rubber stamper in chief at Justice! Certainly that was his function with respect to the firings, if his testimony is to be believed: he wasn't part of the decision process, he didn't know really why any of the attorneys had been fired, but he knew that nothing improper was done; his staff prepared the list and apparently without any significant inquiry, he signed off on it.
Doesn't that remind you of Bush himself?
I don't know about you, but I'm frankly sick of this incompentent, lying bunch running the country. They're like "internet tough guys", all too quick to insult, act brash and arrogant, careless in their disregard for the effects of their actions, but in the end, there is nothing to back it up--there is no there there.