WTF?

Why on earth would Alberto Gonzalez literally use the phrase "mistakes were made" with reference to sacking US Attorneys unwilling to play partisan politics with the law -- is he trying to look guilty? Bitter, maybe, that he didn't get that SCOTUS seat he thought he was in for?

In other unwise statements news, I haven't gotten to this part of my review copy of Bob Shrum's memoir yet, but even the chapter near the beginning about when Shrum was on the college debate team kind of makes him seem loathesome. And this is to say nothing of the man's weird hatred of Jimmy Carter.

Comments

I suspect that Mr. Shrum doesn't like James Earl Carter, the worst president in American History because the latter is a god damn lier. See attached link. By the way, ad hominum attacks on Alan Dershowitz will only prove the attackers inability to address the issues.

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=59&blog_post_id=935

Posted by SLC | March 13, 2007 9:16 PM

Gonzales, fool that he is, also said that he stood by the decision to fire the US Attorneys even though he acknowledged that "his assistant" may have been playing fast and loose with the rules. What is he smoking? That's only going to get the attorneys who were fired even more angry - this whole thing became an issue in the first place because Gonzales told Congress that they were let go for performance reasons.

Actually, if they'd gone with Meirs's plan of firing all of the US Attorneys instead of cherry picking a few they'd probably be better off. At the very least, Gonzales could have said that he felt it was time for "new blood" to Congress and not made it a personal attack on the competency of the people he was asking to take a fall.

And the way he weasels around taking the blame but blaming it all on his assistant in the press conference? He sounds like the worst jackass of a CEO I've ever encountered. Taking responsibility means taking responsibility and fixing the damn problem - not just blaming your damn assistant. I wonder how long before McNulty decides that his loyalty isn't going to be repaid and sticks a shiv into Gonzales himself.

And why in the world does anyone hire Bob Schrum? Ever? An 0-8 record in winning presidential elections? Political instincts of a monkey? Is he like the blue-light special of campaign consultants or something? Does he work on commission? I just don't get why this guy keeps getting work.

Posted by NonyNony | March 13, 2007 9:28 PM

I meant Sampson, not McNulty. There are just too many players in these games. McNulty doesn't yet have a reason to roll over on Gonzales. Yet.

Posted by NonyNony | March 13, 2007 9:31 PM

Ummm, Why are on earth are you reading Bob Shrum's autobiography? Are you also reading Ken Lay's "How to win friends and influence people"

Posted by jvoe | March 13, 2007 9:38 PM

Oh yes, Shrum hates Carter because Carter lied about whether he was invited to debate Alan Dershowitz. Great observation by the first commenter.

Posted by Steve | March 13, 2007 9:44 PM

I suspect that Mr. Shrum doesn't like James Earl Carter, the worst president in American History because the latter is a god damn lier. By the way, ad hominum attacks on Alan Dershowitz will only prove the attackers inability to address the issues.

Posted by: SLC on March 13, 2007 09:16 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, I guess ad hominem attacks on Carter are fine. I can't tell whether you're serious or not. Either way, well done sir. Well done.

Posted by michesmith | March 13, 2007 9:48 PM

Why on earth would Alberto Gonzalez literally use the phrase "mistakes were made"

It's not quite the "it depends on what the definition of is is" stuff that you learn at Yale law school. He's really gonna have to bring it if he wants to see HLS climb to the top spot in the USNWR rankings.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 13, 2007 9:49 PM

SLC, I find it strange that you in particular call Carter the worst president in American history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be very concerned with the interests of Israel. And from that perspective, you may not like the things Carter has done since his presidency; but during his presidency he facilitated the Camp David peace accords. Those were good for Israel, weren't they? It's good for Israel no longer to be at war with Egypt. So from your perspective he may be the worst ex-president, but it seems strange to call him the worst president.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 13, 2007 10:52 PM

Weiner, you are worse than the Protocols of Zion(TM). If you cannot see the obvious harm caused to both American and Israeli interests by Jimmy Carthomocide, that's the final proof of your Chomskian (sp?) Hate-America blinders.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 13, 2007 11:15 PM

settle down, folks. it's pretty clear that "SLC" is just an offshoot of the "Al" franchise, i.e. a republican operative paid to troll MY's site. So you can expect the same mixture of lies, nonsense, and abuse from him as from the various Al's.

(Some of whom, to be fair, do get off a good line now and then. SLC not yet.)

Posted by Count Cant | March 13, 2007 11:16 PM

settle down, folks. it's pretty clear that "SLC" is just an offshoot of the "Al" franchise, i.e. a republican operative paid to troll MY's site.

That's not his species at all. I'd be willing to wager he's never voted republican in his life, much less got paid. Thar blows a Tom Lantos democrat and though they are rarely seen in the wild, they make a shitload of noise on the internet if the Holy State isn't being given sufficient respect.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 13, 2007 11:28 PM

Ummm, Why are on earth are you reading Bob Shrum's autobiography?

Gonna write a book review.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 14, 2007 12:32 AM

Speaking of did-they-really-say-that moments, how about White House spokesperson Dana Perino's statement today that "We stand by the Department of Justice assertion that they identified the seven U.S. attorneys who were removed, as they have said, based on performance and managerial reasons."

Posted by Trickster | March 14, 2007 12:41 AM

Thanks for ruining my overpolite trolling, everybody!

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 14, 2007 12:47 AM

Speaking of bitter, TDS showed a clip of Bush when he was asked by reporters about the speculation that he would nominate Gonzalez to the SC. Bush mused at length about how he might well do this - Gonzalez was very well qualified etc etc but it was all just speculation - and he did this whilst Gonzalez was right beside him.

John Stewart's comment at the time "So its clear, Gonzalez will be the next SC nominee ..... either that or Bush is being a COMPLETE DICK to Gonzalez"

Posted by murcielago | March 14, 2007 2:40 AM

Thinking of SLC's post, does anyone else automatically lose respect for a poster when he makes two spelling errors and two punctuation errors in the space of three sentences? I keep thinking this is a failing of mine, and I'm wondering if it's common.

As for Gonzales, he seems amazingly deaf to the politics here. The problem is that they were lying about the reasons for the firing, not that they fired people for political reasons. (He's going to be on the Today show this morning. Might be worth a look.)

Funny to think that both Gonzales and Meirs were SC potentials. Guess we could have done a heck of a lot worse than we did.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 14, 2007 6:39 AM

I dislike Shrum intensely, but am thankful for his good offices in electing Republican presidents in the races he has run.

Now suddenly I find that the guy does have brains enough to detest the silly little fraud from Plains, GA. So Bob gets one gold star.

Posted by daveinboca | March 14, 2007 7:20 AM

Thinking of SLC's post, does anyone else automatically lose respect for a poster when he makes two spelling errors and two punctuation errors in the space of three sentences?

On this blog?

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 14, 2007 8:49 AM

Maybe Gonzales has been watching Battlestar Galactica. Baltar used the infamous formulation when trying to save his skin once again on the Cylon base ship.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | March 14, 2007 8:57 AM

Re Ed Marshall

Mr. Marshall is 100% correct, proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I am a liberal Democrat who has never voted Rethuglican (I even demurred at voting for anti-semitic Congressman James Morans' Rethuglican opponent). The problem with some individuals on this blog is that they consider a negative attitude toward the State of Israel to be a requirement for somebody to be labeled a liberal Democrat. Incidentally, I find Mr. Marshalls' backhanded slap at Congressman Lantos, a survivor of the Nazi death camps, to be highly inappropriate.

Re Matt Weiner

What James Earl Carter accomplished at Camp David was to bribe Egypt and Israel to the tune of some 5 billion plus a year into agreeing to behave themselves, despite the fact that there were really no bilateral issues between them in the first place. As a for instance, unlike the case of the Palestinians, there was no dispute as to where the border was.

Re michesmith

Calling James Earl Carter a god damn lier is not an ad hominem attack at all (unless there is an objection to the first two words). The link to the attached article proves the accusation.

Re steve

Mr. steves' interpretation of my comment re Shrum is inaccurate and unreliable. What I said was that Shrum probably doesn't like James Earl Carter because the latter is a liar. The linked article proves that James Earl Carter is a liar. There was no implication that the Shrum biography and the Dershowitz op ed were related.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2007 8:58 AM

Matt, I hope you are getting paid well for reading Mr. Shrum's musings. Or you get an "A" on your book report.

Posted by jvoe | March 14, 2007 9:03 AM

"What James Earl Carter accomplished at Camp David was to bribe Egypt and Israel to the tune of some 5 billion plus a year into agreeing to behave themselves, despite the fact that there were really no bilateral issues between them in the first place. As a for instance, unlike the case of the Palestinians, there was no dispute as to where the border was."

Israel occupied the Sinai and was placing settlements in it. I think that is a pretty damn big bilateral matter.

SLC, I think maybe you should buy yourself an encyclopedia and look up Israel and Egypt just so you can be sure you're talking about the same countries as everyone else when you use those names.

Posted by Njorl | March 14, 2007 9:35 AM

Re Njorl

The statement as to the fact that there was no dispute as to where the border between Egypt and Israel was refers to the condition prior to the 1967 war. After the 1967 war, brought on by Egyptian President Nassers' attempt to divert attention from his fiasco in Yemen, Israel indeed occupied the Sinai Peninsula and placed settlements there in proximity to the international border. The fact that the Israelis were willing to trade the settlements in exchange for James Earl Carters' bribe is proof that there was no dispute as to where the border was.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2007 9:53 AM

What's this "James Earl Carter" business? Is this akin to referring to Barak Obama only as "Barak Hussein Obama"? Is it supposed to be some kind of jab at Carter? I don't really get it. Maybe I'm supposed to think of that other James Earl -- James Earl Jones -- and then think of Darth Vader.

Posted by jw | March 14, 2007 10:13 AM

SLC, as usual you're not making a bit of sense, but you haven't answered the question of whether Carter's deeds as President were good for Israel. Looks to me like they were.

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 14, 2007 10:16 AM

"[T]he 1967 war [was] brought on by Egyptian President Nassers' attempt to divert attention from his fiasco in Yemen...."

Er -- what? There's lots of reasons you can point to in regards to the Six Day War: water conflicts with Syria, increased Palestinian guerilla activity, outrage over the Samu' raid and the consequent pressure on Egypt to support actions against Israel, Soviet brinksmanship, to name a few. But the key elements are incoherence: intra-Arab rivalries, Hussein's fear of internal strife, Nasser's vacillation, the Israeli political crisis, Abba Eban getting undercut by his own government, the Americans unwilling to get involved because of Vietnam, the Soviets miscalculating the likelihood of war ... if there's one thing that's certain, it's that no one, Nasser perhaps least of all, really wanted or expected a war.

The Yom Kippur War, of course, was a different matter -- Egypt was preparing for an invasion even in the midst of the War of Attrition, and when Nasser died it was inevitable. And although Carter's drive for Middle Eastern peace was at heart a function of his own zealotry, preventing another outbreak of Israeli-Egyptian hostilities is an achievement worth remarking on.

Posted by WatchfulBabbler | March 14, 2007 11:23 AM

SLC,
I wonder if you are even aware that your last post is quite clearly an admission that you were wrong. Probably not.

Posted by Njorl | March 14, 2007 11:28 AM

When you write your review of the book I hope you suggest that Shrum be hogtied, gagged and thrown over the fence to the Republicans. If this guy was a horse he'd be glue.

Posted by JMo | March 14, 2007 12:37 PM

Re Njorl

My last comment was a clarification of my previous comment in response to Mr Njorls' comment. The fact is that the border between Israel and Egypt was accepted in 1949 after the Israeli war of independence and was not challenged by either party.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2007 12:38 PM

SLC,
You said that there were no bilateral matters between Israel and Egypt. I pointed out that you were wrong. You then spouted irrelevancies about 1967 borders and 1949 borders. No agreement about borders changes the fact that Israel was occupying and settling Egyptian territory before Camp David, and ceased to do so as a result of the agreement. If you can't accept that you were wrong, then you were obviously lying, and Bob Shrum will hate you forever.

Posted by Njorl | March 14, 2007 3:53 PM