"Each time, we’re told Mr. Bush repays loyalty with loyalty. We’re told it’s a sign of character.* looseheadprop:
We don’t buy the explanation. The more persuasive answer is that Mr. Bush protects his embattled advisers because they are doing precisely what he told them to do.
The more of these White House psychodramas we get to witness, the more obvious it is that Mr. Bush’s warm embrace is really a payoff to yes-men who didn’t challenge his orders or question ideology-driven policies. It is a cynical way to run the United States government. And, as Mr. Tenet’s recent book shows, it doesn’t even buy silence."
" i think the significance of (Gonzales no-confidence motion) is to start getting Senators into shape for much more important votes that may be coming in future. If the "no confidence" vote comes in at the magic 67, we will have taken one more step closer to IMPEACHMENT TO CONVICTION.
Here's the point I have been trying to make over and over to those frustrated folks who weep and wail in the comment threads about "why won't the House vote Articles of Impeachment?"
Answer, if you are going to shoot at the king, you damn well better kill the king. Congress (House and Senate combined) has only one shot at the target and they know it, bless them. Otherwise, if you shoot before you can convict, history will record both the Clinton blow job impeachment and the Bush shredding the Constitution impeachment as equivalent, tit for tat, partisan acts. They only way to get vindication for the Constitution and the rule of law is to convict. Think how different life would be if Fitzgerald had LOST the Libby case? Ahhh, now you see my point!"
* BostonGlobe Ed:
"FROM ABU GHRAIB to Walter Reed, the Department of Defense has been mired recently in a succession of scandals. In both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the military's civilian and uniformed leaders have also been asked by Congress to explain their decisions about troop deployments, economic reconstruction, friendly-fire casualties, and training of Iraqi and Afghan forces. In fulfilling their responsibility to oversee the military, members of Congress need access to the views of anyone in uniform, not just high-level officers.
But new Bush administration guidelines would limit Congress's freedom to get testimony from a wide range of service members and civilian Pentagon employees. The Department of Defense is reserving the right to bar enlisted personnel, career bureaucrats, and any officers below the rank of colonel from testifying to oversight committees or having their statements transcribed.
It is no coincidence that the rules come just months after more assertive Democrats took over leadership of a Congress that had largely treated Bush's Pentagon and its conduct of the Iraqi war with kid gloves."
* Scott interviewed Scheuer on Osama. Chalmers Johnson. Gareth Porter.