but devotion to law trumped political considerations

* scott shane & d johnston in nyt:

"Mr. Comey, a former federal terrorism prosecutor in New York and Virginia, is described by colleagues as a solid Republican but one whose devotion to the law trumped political considerations."

"but" - that just about sez it all.

* nyt ed:

"But the really big question, an urgent avenue for investigation, is what exactly the National Security Agency was doing before that night, under Mr. Bush’s personal orders. Did Mr. Bush start by authorizing the agency to intercept domestic e-mails and telephone calls without first getting a warrant?"

* athenae:

"Let's think big. Let's think about what we really want. Let's pretend for a moment that the only thing standing in our way is our criminally low expectations of ourselves. What do we really want? I know what I want. An end to this war and burial of the doctrine of pre-emptive war in general. Real efforts to make peace in the Middle East backed up by more than just our guns and bravado. Support for human rights around the world. Justice for every single prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, the innocent but especially the guilty, with emphasis on the fact that if the worst of us are not safe from injustice the best of us are not safe either. An accounting, a final and open accounting, of every single underhanded dirty un-American bastardization of national purpose under this administration and the firing and fair trials of everyone involved."

* from Scott's place:

"I am wondering something a little hypothetical… Would you all settle for a socialist welfare state if the warfare state was made kaput ala Sweden? I have been to Sweden. As much as I like to flash my libertarian colors, I must say that Sweden ain’t that bad (in summer that is). It’s very peaceful and pleasant. The people are very tall and well-nourished, and seem contented enough. Politesse is pretty much legislated into every single motion a human body moves in a given day, but it seems to keep the peace.

What I’m trying to ask is this: could there ever be a functional unholy alliance between small government libertarians and big government greens and lefties? The common buffer in which the two would swim would be seeking the end of the military industrial complex. Wouldn’t we be faced with a far more appealing set of things to argue about than nowadays?"

* john dean:

"Lately, a week seldom passes when we are not reminded of the conspicuous contempt that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales holds for Congress, and the damage he is doing to the Department of Justice.

This week, Gonzales was again shown to have lied to Congress; his ineptitude as Attorney General has resurfaced in litigation that is going to damage the government; and after ignoring a subpoena from the Senate, he made a belated but insufficient response following an angry letter from the Senate.

It's been clear for a while - and is becoming ever clearer - that the Attorney General ought to resign, or to be fired. Now, it seems that Congress is determined to force Gonzales from office or send him to jail, whichever they can do first.

This is plainly the right move - and anyone who does not understand why Congress is insisting on getting rid of Gonzales, does not appreciate the important and sensitive role the Department of Justice has in our government.
[]
The culmination of Gonzales's incompetence, dissimulation, and hubris is shocking. The fact that Bush keeps him is testimony to Bush's own incompetence, dissimulation and hubris which are no longer shocking, but rather standard procedure."