Depends on what words is

A fascinating interview with Alberto Gonzales on MSNBC today. It reminds you of Alice in Wonderland when someone says, "a word only means what I say it means," or something to that effect. First he says he was not involved in the firing of the attorneys. Then when we learn there was a meeting to discuss the issue a few days before they were fired he says well, that's not what he meant. What he meant was he wasn't involved in the reviewing of those to be fired and simply signed off on what his underlings told him. Previously he had said that with 110,000 employees under him he couldn't possibly be up on everything that was happening.

Then he insists that no one was fired for political reasons but only for faulty performance. Turns out that most of the eight had very high ratings for their professional performance. So I guess the criteria for performance had to do with how well they performed the duties that Karl Rove wanted them to perform. Gonzales wants us to believe that he just took the word of his underlings on the firings. So if there were political reasons he knew nothing about them. And he insists that if there were political motives involved in the firings he will certainly take action against those involved. He says he only kept the President informed of what was happening (although he apparently didn't know anything about it). You have to give him credit for being the most believable liar of all time. It all comes down to playing fast and loose with words like "involved," "performance," and so on.

If you examine the individual cases it is perfectly clear that these attorneys were fired for political reasons. In one case to install a Rove protege in Arkansas, in another to punish one for not pursuing the election of a Democratic Governor in the state of Washington, another for not prosecuting a case against Democrats before the election, and still another for pursuing cases against Republicans in California. While it is true that Presidents can appoint attorneys when they take office, once appointed such attorneys are supposed to put politics aside. This is clearly a case of the Justice Department trying to politicize individual cases to influence attorneys to do the White House's business. Just another part of Rove's mad scheme to establish a permanent Republican administration. Sorry Karl, not this time. One of those involved has said she will take the fifth amendment if forced to testify. This is not looking good for Gonzales or the Justice Department.

I am pretty much convinced that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. It seems obvious to me that the powers that be have already decided this. They believe a Republican cannot be elected President in 2008 so they will settle for a (Republican lite) Democrat. Hillary is committed to maintaining a permanent presence in Iraq although she says she will end the "war." And now that the corporations have decided universal health care is actually in their best interest, and virtually everyone is demanding it anyway, what do they stand to lose by supporting Hillary. Remember, the DLC is just another wing of the Republican party. I think this is a done deal. The corporations that run things don't give a damn if the next President is a woman or not, they only want someone who will protect their interests. Hillary isn't raising ten million dollars in one week from us commoners. What's good for Wal Mart is good for America!