What does it say about who we are as a nation when openly corrupt people like these cannot be held accountable?

In lighter news:

“Nation Survives Brief Bush Presidency

‘Vice’ president Dick Cheney had his robotic heart replaced this morning, apparently without complications…

While Cheney was under the knife, George W. Bush enjoyed two hours of being ‘in charge.’ White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush sat in Cheney’s chair, pretended to talk to ‘big important people’ and ‘the King of China’ on the telephone, appointed his dogs to the Supreme Court, and had ‘secret service agents’ accompany him to lunch at an Applebee’s in suburban Maryland, where he enjoyed a ‘presidential burger’ with curly fries and then had some ice cream.”

http://wonkette.com/politics/dept%27-of-saturday-is-surgery-day/nation-survives-brief-bush-presidency-283579.php

President Bush often insists he has to be the decider ... even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity.

Bush signed the Schiavo bill passed by Congress, but it was congressional Republicans who lead that crusade. Using that episode to pad the Bush-as-decider list is disingenuous, at best.

there are three possible explanations ... The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

While I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration, this is a completely blue-sky accusation with no supporting evidence that I'm aware of, certainly none presented in the editorial. It's a reach even to call this directly relevant to the question of firing Gonzales.

Correct me if I am off here, though, because I have not been following this story that well.

Just like there was no conviction in the underlying crime in the Scooter case, more about the illegal acts are not known because they are a pack of lying thieves. If the NY Times hadn't run the stories about domestic spying, people would be saying that accusing them of spying is just blue-sky. When you have a pack of liars like these guys, they have to prove that your accusations aren't true or at least answer questions with the semblance of telling the truth.

But the problem isn't so much asserting the possibility of more unknown surveillance. The problem is taking a particular, and particularly inflammatory, possibility--they're listening to our domestic calls, too!--and tossing it out in a way that many people will latch on to it as truth even with no supporting evidence at all, just on the principle that whatever is the worst thing we can think of, the Bush administration is probably doing it. That's the same kind of bullshit rabble-rousing that people like Bill O'Reilly like to pull.

Rockear @4, you refer to the NYT's original stories that exposed the warrantless surveillance back in 2005. The whole point of those stories was that the NYT had dug up the evidence and had a real case to make.

As for the Schiavo thing, yes, Bush backed up his party by flying back to D.C. to sign the bill, but backing up his party is exactly what that was about. DeLay and Santorum and Frist were the ring-leaders of that fight from start to finish. There's such an abundance of stupidity and evil that does rightfully belong to Bush, why try to hang something on him that doesn't?

As for wiretaps - you say we can only make statements if we have proof yet they won't and haven't willingly let people know what they doing - courts can't be trusted or used, the congress, even a republican one, can't be allowed to know, testimony only in secret and without transcripts. Had the NYT not been fed the info we wouldn't know anything although I believe people had been questioning what the administration was doing - but you think that was wrong too, most likely.

March 17th, 2005
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

March 21,2005 Monday
US President George W Bush has signed a law designed to force doctors to keep a severely brain-damaged woman alive.
The legislation was passed by both houses of Congress after an impassioned debate and approved by the president in the early hours of Monday.

Whatever @8: Oh yes, I think it's wrong to question the Bush administration's actions, because obviously anyone who doesn't wholeheartedly endorse without question every possible criticism of Bush is really a Bush supporter. Certainly, concern for good journalism and well-reasoned argument could never possibly trump the political imperative to hurt Bush as much as possible. </sarcasm>

you say we can only make statements if we have proof...

No, I did not say that. I criticized the opposite extreme, pulling inflammatory accusations nearly out of thin air to create a repeatable meme. If you approve of that kind of rhetoric, you'll find plenty of it on Fox News.

The quotes you provide don't do anything to support your assertion that Bush was "behind" the Shiavo episode. As for Rove, I never said he wasn't.

And when I don't respond to your next post, it won't be because you've won. It'll be because I'm tired of arguing the rudiments with a selective listener.