Have you found, like myself, that there is little good news out there these days? I believed, like so many others, on November 7, 2006, that the Dems really would stop Bush. Heck, I thought they would at least fight him if not actually beat him. My hopes were high that night! Maybe that's why I haven't been around here since. Boy, was I wrong. Things are worse. We are about to go to war with Iran, as anyone with an eye can see. War with Iran 72,000,000 hits! Now, I know it's not just the number of hits that makes war with Iran so certain. But, all the media seem on board once again. He's even gotten France this time and will probably get Germany.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a guy to boo my own team, but when a teammate lets me down time after time. Then, it's time to look for new mates. So my ire is particularly directed at Nancy "Impeachment is off the Table" Pelosi, even though headlines say a majority supports impeachment now of Bush and Cheney, because she believes that she is helping the American people by continuing to send legislation to Bush that she knows will be vetoed and then spun, but when it comes to war funding she hasn't done the same. And, while I have little faith in Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein presently deserve way more opprobrium. Talk about selling out your team. Talk about being an enabler of Bush. I will not vote for Schumer again. You can't say bring on the primary soon enough. Schumer's lustre wore thin during the Roberts hearings, not to mention his inaction with respect to Alito, but the reason Mukasey hurts is because Mukasey, a former federal judge, won't say that waterboarding is torture, and then Schumer supports the guy. By not ostracizing Mukasey, he is endorsing the notion that they can pretend we do not torture! That is an enabler of Bush. Feinstein does the same thing. She will make a big stink to show how she's fighting for us, but then vote another way when it really matters. Significantly, it seems these two are about to vote in favor of telecom immunity. It was reported this morning that Feinstein thinks the telecoms can't defend themselves. She and Chuckie say that they shouldn't be held liable when the government came a knocking.
Well, the Senators are so disingenuous words fail me. You see, Madam Senator and Chuck, in the 90's, you passed legislation that was supposed to protect our privacy when it comes to our phone calls. And, when we learn that Bush asked them to commit the very abuse that legislation was designed to prevent, to pretend the telecoms didn't know it was wrong, or they can't defend themselves in Court or they shouldn't be held liable is not good enough. Everyone knows, and knew, it was illegal.
Anyway, some of you might be wondering by now what this has to do with my title: Alberto Gonzales has a defense fund.
Well, now I will tell you. I usually try to avoid any story that contains Bush or Cheney or really any other figure in their Administration. I figure nothing good can be gained because everything they say is a lie. Yes, I know I could just flip it around. Like, if Bush says we are making progress (I almost wrote "making success"), that really means we are not. I also try to avoid the Washington Post. I find nothing good comes out of it. Oddly enough, a story from Dan Eggen, who must cover the Justice Dept. or has very good sources therein, caught my eye. Today, my hat is off to the Washington Post. Take a look at this story. Alberto's defense fund. As a matter of fact, skip the story and scroll down to the Comments section. I was expecting a few anti-Bush sentiments to get past the censors, but, there is not one comment in support of Gonzo, Bush or any of them. Take a look for yourselves, but here are a few of my favorites:
CardFan starts it off with humor and then gets serious: I wonder how much money it takes to defend against charges of torture and war crimes? Perhaps there should be a fund developed for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld while they're at it?
My personal favorite is from Acindc007: Now why wold he need a defense fund. After all, don't cons love to say you do not have to worry about anything if you did not commit a crime?
Another typical post was from Sprintlawyer: I would not give a dime for his defense. The man is a liar and a crook. Bush, rove,and gonzales have nearly destroyed the justice dept and the constitution. They fired good men because they wouldn't use the justice dept as the republican campaign headquarters.
A little pre-holiday cheer from Cole Brackett: Skip the defense fund, and just imprison the moron. Make sure you have extra room for Cheney and Bush in the cell. It would be just what America wants for Christmas.
Unfortunately I agree with Aznights: Gonzo ... in the end ... will get a full pardon ... but keep your eyes on the ratbags still in power.
Another truism from Smeesq: Bush could save all the donors money if he'd just pardon his compadre NOW.
123Njord says: The setting up of a defense fund for this former attorney general is both interesting and an opportunity. On the one hand is the question as to why he would need legal defense. The other aspect is far more interesting and informative, the who's and what's that are behind the setting up of the defense fund. Sounds like a pragmatist, to me!
So that is my little piece of good news: The American people really get it even if Hillary and Chuck and Nancy and Feinstein don't. By the way, if you wondered, like me, how long the Washington Post piece has been up, it doesn't say, but I have been writing this diary for some time and there is still not a single supportive comment. I can't even find a single innocuous comment like everyone deserves the best defense or bemoaning the high cost of attorneys' fees. Not one.
Whatever happened to the WaPo Ombudsperson? I guess things will change when the Malkins and O'Lielys get a hold of this anti-American sentiment.