A scary thought for the day: Who do you suppose could possibly replace Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales if (when?) he goes down for the count?

"Another big loose end involves what U.S. attorneys who weren't fired did to please their employers. As I pointed out last week, the numbers show that since the Bush administration came to power, federal prosecutors have investigated far more Democrats than Republicans.

"But the numbers can tell only part of the story. What we really need--and it will take a lot of legwork--is a portrait of the actual behavior of prosecutors across the country. Did they launch spurious investigations of Democrats, as I suggested last week may have happened in New Jersey? Did they slow-walk investigations of Republican scandals, like the phone-jamming case in New Hampshire?

"In other words, the truth about [what the attorney general five days ago dismissed as an] 'overblown personnel matter' has only begun to be told. The good news is that for the first time in six years, it's possible to hope that all the facts about a Bush administration scandal will come out in Congressional hearings--or, if necessary, in the impeachment trial of Alberto Gonzales."

--Paul Krugman, in his NYT column today, "Overblown Personnel Matters"


I suppose the Vegas oddsmakers already have a line out on whether, and even how long, Idiot Al "The Torture Guy" Gonzales can hold onto his job as U.S. attorney general. And who could say anything but "Good riddance" as the little turd slithers his way back to the Lone Star State?

But of course it's not as if enlightenment is about to beam down on the Department of Justice. Surely we don't kid ourselves that Idiot Al "The Torture Guy"--who after all has never shown himself to be anything more than the wind-up toy of the most pathetic human being ever to squat in the White House--has really been masterminding policy at DoJ, do we? (By my rough count, Idiot Al is approximately one mind short of the equipment needed for any kind of "minding" activity.)

The imagination boggles trying to conjure up What Comes Next. This is a regime that has made attorneys general of, successively, Loathsome John Ashcroft and Idiot Al "The Torture Guy." Take this opportunity to make up your own Ashcroft-and-Gonzales joke. ("Dumb and Dumber"? "The Sleaziest and the Slimiest"?) Then consider: Where do we go from there?

Speaking of the scandal of the political purging of U.S. attorneys, I hope everyone is considering a point that Paul Krugman has now made in two columns: While it's gratifying to see attention focused on this small group of U.S. attorneys who failed to live down to the Bush regime's expectations for the administration of (wink, wink!) "justice" in their districts, what about the 80-plus others? What have they done to hold onto their jobs?

As I've pointed out here before, remember that we're dealing with a pool of Bush appointees to begin with, operating in an environment that was totally politicized from the outset. (Have we forgotten all those accounts of Ashcroft ordering that final decisions on all prosecutions and nonprosecutions be kicked up to Washington?) And since this regime's conception of "justice" is "what we owe to the corporate and personal cronies for whose benefit government exists," it's safe to say that these aren't, for the most part, the best and the brightest of the country's pool of legal talent.

Is it any wonder that all those dozens of congressional and other Republicrooks whose passports to the pokey Howie has chronicled so extensively here in DWT are mostly still unindicted? And yet even by these dismal standards, the fired U.S. attorneys clearly went too far in the direction of, you know, occasionally trying to do their jobs.

Here's Krugman's take today:

March 12, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Overblown Personnel Matters
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Nobody is surprised to learn that the Justice Department was lying when it claimed that recently fired federal prosecutors were dismissed for poor performance. Nor is anyone surprised to learn that White House political operatives were pulling the strings.

What is surprising is how fast the truth is emerging about what Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, dismissed just five days ago as an "overblown personnel matter."

Sources told Newsweek that the list of prosecutors to be fired was drawn up by Mr. Gonzales's chief of staff, "with input from the White House." And Allen Weh, the chairman of the New Mexico Republican Party, told McClatchy News that he twice sought Karl Rove's help--the first time via a liaison, the second time in person--in getting David Iglesias, the state's U.S. attorney, fired for failing to indict Democrats. "He's gone," he claims Mr. Rove said.

After that story hit the wires, Mr. Weh claimed that his conversation with Mr. Rove took place after the decision to fire Mr. Iglesias had already been taken. Even if that's true, Mr. Rove should have told Mr. Weh that political interference in matters of justice is out of bounds; Mr. Weh's account of what he said sounds instead like the swaggering of a two-bit thug.

And the thuggishness seems to have gone beyond firing prosecutors who didn't deliver the goods for the G.O.P. One of the fired prosecutors was--as he saw it--threatened with retaliation by a senior Justice Department official if he discussed his dismissal in public. Another was rejected for a federal judgeship after administration officials, including then-White House counsel Harriet Miers, informed him that he had "mishandled" the 2004 governor's race in Washington, won by a Democrat, by failing to pursue vote-fraud charges.

As I said, none of this is surprising. The Bush administration has been purging, politicizing and de-professionalizing federal agencies since the day it came to power. But in the past it was able to do its business with impunity; this time Democrats have subpoena power, and the old slime-and-defend strategy isn't working.

You also have to wonder whether new signs that Mr. Gonzales and other administration officials are willing to cooperate with Congress reflect the verdict in the Libby trial. It probably comes as a shock to realize that even Republicans can face jail time for lying under oath.

Still, a lot of loose ends have yet to be pulled. We now know exactly why Mr. Iglesias was fired, but still have to speculate about some of the other cases--in particular, that of Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for Southern California.

Ms. Lam had already successfully prosecuted Representative Randy Cunningham, a Republican. Just two days before leaving office she got a grand jury to indict Brent Wilkes, a defense contractor, and Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, the former third-ranking official at the C.I.A. (Mr. Foggo was brought in just after the 2004 election, when, reports said, the administration was trying to purge the C.I.A. of liberals.) And she was investigating Representative Jerry Lewis, Republican of California, the former head of the House Appropriations Committee.

Was Ms. Lam dumped to protect corrupt Republicans? The administration says no, a denial that, in light of past experience, is worth precisely nothing. But how do Congressional investigators plan to get to the bottom of this story?

Another big loose end involves what U.S. attorneys who weren't fired did to please their employers. As I pointed out last week, the numbers show that since the Bush administration came to power, federal prosecutors have investigated far more Democrats than Republicans.

But the numbers can tell only part of the story. What we really need--and it will take a lot of legwork--is a portrait of the actual behavior of prosecutors across the country. Did they launch spurious investigations of Democrats, as I suggested last week may have happened in New Jersey? Did they slow-walk investigations of Republican scandals, like the phone-jamming case in New Hampshire?

In other words, the truth about that "overblown personnel matter" has only begun to be told. The good news is that for the first time in six years, it's possible to hope that all the facts about a Bush administration scandal will come out in Congressional hearings--or, if necessary, in the impeachment trial of Alberto Gonzales.

UPDATE: REMEMBER WHEN JACK CAFFERTY USED TO BE A SHILL FOR THE BUSH REGIME?

Jack Cafferty agrees with Senator Schumer that Gonzales must step down (or be fired or be impeached). He also seems to think Karl Rove is the Bush Regime's "#1 political hack" and that his behavior in all this is "disgraceful." Asked by straightman Wolf Blitzer if he likes Gonzales, Cafferty admits he doesn't. "If you look up the word 'weasel' in the dictionary Wolf, you'll see Alberto Gonzales's picture there."