<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Face the Snark-The Royal &#8220;We&#8221; Edition</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 08:59:14 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mbbsdphil</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583937</link>
		<dc:creator>mbbsdphil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583937</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Perhaps because he received, but didn’t earn, his Harvard MBA, Mr. Bush believes in a caricature of management built around his inability to manage.  Through the lifelong enabling of his father’s friends, Mr. Bush believes that a CEO is a success by looking the part, and by being able to use dad’s giant rolodex to call in favors as if they were owed to him.   &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Like a younger son who surprisingly inherits the family estate, Mr. Bush understands that he’s now the Massa in the Big House.  But, he thinks he’s commanding when he demands that his mint julip be cold.  He has no idea what the overseer does to get the cotton planted, harvested and sold - or through whose labor that takes place - nor does he think that’s any of his business.  That’s the hired help’s problem.  And ours.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps because he received, but didn’t earn, his Harvard MBA, Mr. Bush believes in a caricature of management built around his inability to manage.  Through the lifelong enabling of his father’s friends, Mr. Bush believes that a CEO is a success by looking the part, and by being able to use dad’s giant rolodex to call in favors as if they were owed to him.   </p>
<p>Like a younger son who surprisingly inherits the family estate, Mr. Bush understands that he’s now the Massa in the Big House.  But, he thinks he’s commanding when he demands that his mint julip be cold.  He has no idea what the overseer does to get the cotton planted, harvested and sold &#8211; or through whose labor that takes place &#8211; nor does he think that’s any of his business.  That’s the hired help’s problem.  And ours.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Knut Wicksell</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583923</link>
		<dc:creator>Knut Wicksell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583923</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-583625&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;watertiger @ 54 &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;Remember Nixon unraveling during his live resignation farewell at the White House? Once he started talking about his mother, it was all downhill from there. The psyche just started spewing free associations. Jaw-droppingly scary stuff. And we were ever-so-glad that when he finished he got on a helicopter and flew away.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Every time I see the Chimperor boarding Marine One, I have flashbacks to ‘74.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Actually, watching Babs see her little precious melt down on TeeVee is going to be frosting on the cake.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-583625"><em>watertiger @ 54 </em></a></p>
<blockquote><blockquote>Remember Nixon unraveling during his live resignation farewell at the White House? Once he started talking about his mother, it was all downhill from there. The psyche just started spewing free associations. Jaw-droppingly scary stuff. And we were ever-so-glad that when he finished he got on a helicopter and flew away.</p></blockquote>
<p>Every time I see the Chimperor boarding Marine One, I have flashbacks to ‘74.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually, watching Babs see her little precious melt down on TeeVee is going to be frosting on the cake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mbbsdphil</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583914</link>
		<dc:creator>mbbsdphil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:35:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583914</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;A better analogy than Queen Victoria would have been to put Bush the Younger’s mug on a photograph of Edward VIII.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Notionally dapper, inherently weak, attracted to authoritarians, literally gelded by mumps and virtually by Mrs. Simpson.  He was tightly managed by his staff until even they could not save him from himself.  And he WAS king, just not for very long.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A better analogy than Queen Victoria would have been to put Bush the Younger’s mug on a photograph of Edward VIII.  </p>
<p>Notionally dapper, inherently weak, attracted to authoritarians, literally gelded by mumps and virtually by Mrs. Simpson.  He was tightly managed by his staff until even they could not save him from himself.  And he WAS king, just not for very long.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Oracle</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583912</link>
		<dc:creator>The Oracle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583912</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;So, I wonder if President Bush viewed the pre-election Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sex scandal as being “a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants”?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Or maybe it was an “overblown personnel matter” not deserving of the intense media coverage afforded it before last November’s elections?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Josh Marshall says: “But we know that US Attorney David Iglesias was fired because he wouldn’t submit to pressure from Republican activists and members of Congress to issue an election-timed indictment to save New Mexico’s Republican Rep. Heather Wilson.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;He also points out that what is “missing” from the DOJ document dump may be just as important as what has been released up to this point.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So, let’s look at the clues that might indicate what is “missing”:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) By last October, Bush, Rove and Gonzales had politicized as much as possible the offices of the U.S. Attorneys.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2) The Mark Foley sex scandal broke like a tsunami wave over the House Republican leadership, the White House political strategists and all the Republicans running for election or re-election around the country…including Heather Wilson of New Mexico.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3) David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, is contacted during this critical October pre-election time-frame, to generate anti-Democratic Party publicity, to help Heather Wilson in her bid to retain her seat in Congress.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;You do see the pattern, don’t you?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Karl Rove’s mind, the essential thing before any election is to control “the message,” to control “the publicity,” and the Mark Foley sex scandal had turned last year’s Republican election strategy upside down. Instead of Rove ordering the “swift-boating” of Democrats, the Mark Foley sex scandal was “swift-boating” Republicans around the country, and the scandal was based on facts, not on fabricated lies.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thus, all the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys were mobilized to “pushback” against the negative publicity of the Mark Foley sex scandal in an attempt to push this scandal into the background and replace this negative publicity detrimental to Republicans with news reports of contrived Democratic Party improprieties.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This is what is missing in the emails released. Any internal White House deliberations involving the Mark Foley sex scandal, as well as any communications with anyone in the DOJ that refers to the handling of the Mark Foley sex scandal last October, are not being released.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don’t believe the Mark Foley scandal was the sole reason for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys in November, but I do believe it served as a catalyst. Why? Because Rove and the neo-con Republican strategists realized that if certain U.S. attorneys were unwilling to “break the law” concerning “pushback” over the Mark Foley sex scandal, then (in Rove’s and their minds) how could these rogue U.S. Attorneys be trusted to “help” the Republican cause in the lead-up to the November 2008 elections? Thus, eight U.S. Attorneys, who chose following the apolitical, non-partisan “rule of law” over helping the Republicans retain control of Congress last year, HAD TO GO.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Which, of course, makes one wonder how corrupt the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys who were not fired are? What did they do to help “pushback” last year against the negative Republican publicity generated by the Mark Foley sex scandal? Can any of them be trusted to follow the “rule of law” and put aside their partisan allegiances, especially in the lead-up to the November 2008 elections?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Any “rule of law” American, whether Democrat or Republican or Independent, should be very concerned over the answer to these questions.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, I wonder if President Bush viewed the pre-election Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sex scandal as being “a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants”?</p>
<p>Or maybe it was an “overblown personnel matter” not deserving of the intense media coverage afforded it before last November’s elections?</p>
<p>Josh Marshall says: “But we know that US Attorney David Iglesias was fired because he wouldn’t submit to pressure from Republican activists and members of Congress to issue an election-timed indictment to save New Mexico’s Republican Rep. Heather Wilson.”</p>
<p>He also points out that what is “missing” from the DOJ document dump may be just as important as what has been released up to this point.</p>
<p>So, let’s look at the clues that might indicate what is “missing”:</p>
<p>1) By last October, Bush, Rove and Gonzales had politicized as much as possible the offices of the U.S. Attorneys.</p>
<p>2) The Mark Foley sex scandal broke like a tsunami wave over the House Republican leadership, the White House political strategists and all the Republicans running for election or re-election around the country…including Heather Wilson of New Mexico.</p>
<p>3) David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, is contacted during this critical October pre-election time-frame, to generate anti-Democratic Party publicity, to help Heather Wilson in her bid to retain her seat in Congress.</p>
<p>You do see the pattern, don’t you?</p>
<p>In Karl Rove’s mind, the essential thing before any election is to control “the message,” to control “the publicity,” and the Mark Foley sex scandal had turned last year’s Republican election strategy upside down. Instead of Rove ordering the “swift-boating” of Democrats, the Mark Foley sex scandal was “swift-boating” Republicans around the country, and the scandal was based on facts, not on fabricated lies.</p>
<p>Thus, all the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys were mobilized to “pushback” against the negative publicity of the Mark Foley sex scandal in an attempt to push this scandal into the background and replace this negative publicity detrimental to Republicans with news reports of contrived Democratic Party improprieties.</p>
<p>This is what is missing in the emails released. Any internal White House deliberations involving the Mark Foley sex scandal, as well as any communications with anyone in the DOJ that refers to the handling of the Mark Foley sex scandal last October, are not being released.</p>
<p>I don’t believe the Mark Foley scandal was the sole reason for the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys in November, but I do believe it served as a catalyst. Why? Because Rove and the neo-con Republican strategists realized that if certain U.S. attorneys were unwilling to “break the law” concerning “pushback” over the Mark Foley sex scandal, then (in Rove’s and their minds) how could these rogue U.S. Attorneys be trusted to “help” the Republican cause in the lead-up to the November 2008 elections? Thus, eight U.S. Attorneys, who chose following the apolitical, non-partisan “rule of law” over helping the Republicans retain control of Congress last year, HAD TO GO.</p>
<p>Which, of course, makes one wonder how corrupt the Republican-appointed U.S. Attorneys who were not fired are? What did they do to help “pushback” last year against the negative Republican publicity generated by the Mark Foley sex scandal? Can any of them be trusted to follow the “rule of law” and put aside their partisan allegiances, especially in the lead-up to the November 2008 elections?</p>
<p>Any “rule of law” American, whether Democrat or Republican or Independent, should be very concerned over the answer to these questions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AngryOne</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583857</link>
		<dc:creator>AngryOne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:37:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583857</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;When it comes to defending the criminal wrong-doing of the Bush administration, few Republicans in Congress circle the wagons better than Texas Senator John Cornyn. With the exploding scandal over the firings of U.S. attorneys threatening the White House, Cornyn has come to the assistance of fellow former Texas Supreme Court justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. How ironic then that the same John Cornyn who defends “the Judge” now was the same man who two years ago excused violence against judges.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the story, see:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000571.htm&quot;&gt;“Cornyn Threatens Judges, Protects Gonzales.”&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to defending the criminal wrong-doing of the Bush administration, few Republicans in Congress circle the wagons better than Texas Senator John Cornyn. With the exploding scandal over the firings of U.S. attorneys threatening the White House, Cornyn has come to the assistance of fellow former Texas Supreme Court justice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. How ironic then that the same John Cornyn who defends “the Judge” now was the same man who two years ago excused violence against judges.</p>
<p>For the story, see:<br />
<b><a href="http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000571.htm">“Cornyn Threatens Judges, Protects Gonzales.”</a></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Guitar_Playing_Bastard</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583826</link>
		<dc:creator>Guitar_Playing_Bastard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:17:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583826</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-583709&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Eureka Springs, AR @&lt;br /&gt;
                113              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;GPB - I love it when the ja-whoe-bas show up at my door. I always manage to have them looking at the ground and whimpering as they scurry back to the car.&lt;br /&gt;
Next year I am answering the door fully nude with a pitch-fork in one hand. (my pitch-fork is parked inside the front door ready and waiting.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One time when the Mo-Mos showed up, I started talking about the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre&quot;&gt;Mountain Meadows Massacre&lt;/a&gt;. They stood there for about three minutes and then it must have dawned upon them what I was talking about and they suddenly developed the nervous complaint and had to go. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also answered the door buck-naked one time, but without the pitchfork. Eye like saucers, man.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-583709"><em>Eureka Springs, AR @<br />
                113              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>GPB &#8211; I love it when the ja-whoe-bas show up at my door. I always manage to have them looking at the ground and whimpering as they scurry back to the car.<br />
Next year I am answering the door fully nude with a pitch-fork in one hand. (my pitch-fork is parked inside the front door ready and waiting.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One time when the Mo-Mos showed up, I started talking about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre">Mountain Meadows Massacre</a>. They stood there for about three minutes and then it must have dawned upon them what I was talking about and they suddenly developed the nervous complaint and had to go. </p>
<p>I also answered the door buck-naked one time, but without the pitchfork. Eye like saucers, man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583799</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583799</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Harriet Miers is a very smart lawyer and, whether you chose to believe it or not, she’s honest.  Rove is a proven liar, and if they depose him without counsel, he’ll wind up in the slammer.  If they ever get Harriet on the stand, with or without counsel, Shrub is finished.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harriet Miers is a very smart lawyer and, whether you chose to believe it or not, she’s honest.  Rove is a proven liar, and if they depose him without counsel, he’ll wind up in the slammer.  If they ever get Harriet on the stand, with or without counsel, Shrub is finished.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aliasofwestgate</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583796</link>
		<dc:creator>aliasofwestgate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:50:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583796</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-583624&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;tommy yum @&lt;br /&gt;
                53              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-583613&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;moi @&lt;br /&gt;
                44              &lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;’cause i’m such a huge fan of watertiger’s, i wanted to change my nom de plume to woodsnake&lt;br /&gt;
but it just doesn’t sound as sexy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I too am a woodsnake.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Actually i AM a firesnake. *grins* Which would work, but it would take forever to get used to as a screen name.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-583624"><em>tommy yum @<br />
                53              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="#comment-583613"><em>moi @<br />
                44              </em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>’cause i’m such a huge fan of watertiger’s, i wanted to change my nom de plume to woodsnake<br />
but it just doesn’t sound as sexy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I too am a woodsnake.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Actually i AM a firesnake. *grins* Which would work, but it would take forever to get used to as a screen name.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dejah</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583789</link>
		<dc:creator>dejah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:42:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583789</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Yup. That presnential liberry’ll be empty, just like Dubya’s haid. But, let the  man have his little vanity; he has precious little else going for him at the moment. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;WOnder if Pickles’ll be the library marm?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yup. That presnential liberry’ll be empty, just like Dubya’s haid. But, let the  man have his little vanity; he has precious little else going for him at the moment. </p>
<p>WOnder if Pickles’ll be the library marm?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daveb99</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583764</link>
		<dc:creator>daveb99</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:16:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/03/25/face-the-snark-the-royal-we-edition/#comment-583764</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nancy Pelosi really gets under his skin. Outsmarted by a girl. Oh, my!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nancy Pelosi really gets under his skin. Outsmarted by a girl. Oh, my!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.227 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-16 01:29:47 -->

