Push to oust Gonzales loses momentum

Republican members of Congress on Thursday leapt to the defence of Alberto Gonzales, the embattled US attorney-general, as Democratic efforts to oust him appeared to lose momentum.
Mr Gonzales faced a fresh barrage of question from Democrats over the controversial firing of several US attorneys when he appeared before the House judiciary committee.

But Republican committee members largely supported Mr Gonzales and called for an end to the investigation, easing pressure on one of President George W. Bush’s closest political allies.
Democrats have sought to prove that the firings of at least eight US attorneys last year were politically motivated, citing an e-mail by a Gonzales aide that judged federal prosecutors according to whether they were “loyal Bushies”.

“The list of accusations has mushroomed, but the evidence has not,” said Lamar Smith, the senior Republican committee member. “If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.”

Mr Gonzales looked more confident and relaxed than during his testimony to the Senate judiciary committee last month, when only one Republican senator rallied to his defence.

Repeating the arguments he made to the Senate committee, Mr Gonzales acknowledged that the firings had been mishandled but insisted they were made on performance, not political, grounds.

“I have publicly apologised to [the fired attorneys] and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle,” he said. “I never sought to mislead or deceive.”

Democrats probed Mr Gonzales on revelations this week that a ninth attorney was forced from his job last year, in addition to the eight already known about.

And they pressed him on who originated the list of attorneys to be fired, seeking evidence of White House involvement in the decisions.

Mr Gonzales conceded that Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s political adviser, had raised concerns at the failure of some attorneys to pursue prosecutions against voter fraud.

But he said the list of under-performing attorneys was based on “the consensus of the senior leadership of the [Justice] Department”. He added: “I don't want the American people to believe that politicisation is running rampant in the department, because that's just not true.”

John Conyers, Democratic committee chairman, said the investigation would go on. “The department’s most precious asset, its reputation for integrity and independence, has been called into question,” he said. “Until we get to the bottom of how this list was created and why, those doubts will persist.”

The White House has repeatedly voiced support for Mr Gonzales, who served as general-counsel to Mr Bush when he was governor of Texas. Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond, said the Democrats would continue seeking evidence of wrongdoing.

Iraq Liberation Act

Possibly the most frightening aspect of the irresponsible moonbats who have taken over George Soros' Democrat Party is their willingness to rewrite history on the fly to suit their short-term convenience, with the eager assistance of their toadies in the media. Currently, their strategy of deliberately causing the USA to lose "Bush's war" in Iraq so they can hang it around Republicans' necks calls for erasing the fact that the war was undertaken with support from both parties.

The problem with their approach is, they haven't been able to shove all evidence of the past down the Memory Hole. For example, the Clinton era Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 makes it clear that regime change in Iraq was US policy even before Bush came to Washington.

The Act states plainly a historical fact that the media has done its best to obliterate — that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction, and that he used them against Iran and against his own civilian population. It confirms that Saddam committed genocide, killing Kurds by the tens of thousands. It also brings up the all-but-forgotten fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush, an intolerable act of aggression.

Here's a highlight from the Act:

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105–235, which
declared that "the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations'' and urged the President "to take appropriate
action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United
States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international
obligations.''

The Act calls for "indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law." It was cited as a basis of support in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, which Congress passed in 2002 with support from both parties.

Regardless of how the Dems and their MSM accomplices may distort or ignore the recent past, the war belongs to the whole government, not just those who are trying to win it.

Goodling Immunity Moves Forward

Huh. Just out from House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI):

Today the Department of Justice gave notice that it would not object to the
House Judiciary Committee's grant of use immunity for Monica Goodling. I believe
obtaining her testimony will be a critical step in our efforts to get to the
truth about the circumstances surrounding the US Attorney firings and possible
politicization in the Department's prosecutorial function. The Committee will be
moving expeditiously to apply for the court order so that we can schedule a
hearing promptly.

So despite the Justice Department's Inspector General's investigation into whether Goodling may have broken the law by considering the political affiliation of entry-level U.S. attorneys, the immunity will move forward. All that excitement for nothing.

Update: Here is the letter from the Justice Department's inspector general and Office of Professional Responsibility informing Congress that they will not object. A quote:

"...after balancing the significant congressional and public interest against
the impact of the Committee's actions on our ongoing investigation, we will not
raise an objection or seek a deferral..."