Monica Goodling Helped the Terrorists Win
Apparently, in Monica Goodling’s world, Democrats are scarier than terrorists. That’s the only thing I can conclude from the news that Goodling even politicized the hiring of am EOUSA counter-terrorism position, resulting in the US being served by an unqualified hack rather than someone who knew something about terrorism.
For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.
In a post 9/11 world, how did this go unmentioned? And what does President Bush plan to do about the fact that this woman helped the terrorists win?
He plans to pardon her. What else?
LOL.
Related question. If W is impeached (i.e. tied up in an impeachment investigation) when he tries to pardon himself and his mob, is he prohibited by law from doing so? Or does he have to already have been tried in the Senate and convicted?
Monica Goodling was unqualified herself so she could hardly be expected to hire others who were qualified. She is a completely vapid, silly nothing who, like so many in the administration, was put there to do their bidding – nothing else.
Truly sucks that the media will alot absolutely no coverage to this scandal, too busy spewing whatever the campaigns are spinning.
The AP report says she might lose her law license, which I think may be what we should focus on. Team Bush will have few ways to stonewall such an investigation, and I’m much more interested in getting everything into the public record than I am in prosecuting flunkies like Goodling and Sampson. I have little doubt that Rove is already saying, “Don’t worry, Bush will take care of you,” so criminal charges are pointless. But if all of these jokers lose their licenses, it’ll be a strong deterrent to the next group that tries something like this.
In a similar vein, I think all of the doctors involved in the torture program should also lose their licenses, but it seems that that only happens on “Law & Order”.
I notice the report stopped short of indicating whom might have given her the orders to hire only loyal Bushies. It seems they would like us to believe that it was her idea.
Boxturtle (Anybody check her butt for barnacles?)
9/11 provided a smokescreen and many talking points to enact the Bush/Cheney agenda.
Why do all the reports that we wait for like the 9/11 comission, Abu Graib, whatever – stop short of the actual decision-makers?
This is like the Cosa Nostra. The bosses seem to be effectively insulated against from the people who “push the buttons”. Gonzales knew nothing. Scott Horton believes Mukasey is insulated from knowing anything that might make him able to do his job.
So- from experience, we can expect any future IG report – CIA tapes, any ongoing investigation Mukasey has cited as a reason for not answering HJC’s questions – to point fingers at the flunkies. A few “bad apples” are to blame for everything.
Others have said Monica’s law license might be at risk. Are there enough jobs at think tanks like AEI to employ all of these
loyalbad apples?The current DOJ IG-OPR report’s mentions of actors in the Western District of MO constitutes an interesting crew, helping supplement information available widely elsewhere on the internet. Politicalcortex and firedupmissouri* are two such sites.
I thought the WA-DC USA Taylor hiring dispute’s account interesting reading.
I was disappointed the timeline OPR-IG examined only extended part way back institutionally, although attempting to examine problems thematically rather than offices structurally, which would be more revealing of the source of the impetus to abrogate the standing rules.
The glossing of importance of permissions provided from Goldsmith and Levin is too cursory to provide impact to contemporaneous effort to coopt OLC. The entire picture seems intended to obfuscate the view of the leadership, substituting accusations of infractions by zealous, willing subordinates. I saw nothing about the voting rights section which by 2005 was in upheaval for reasons similar to Goodling’s political purification process in hiring. And the report seems to avoid aspersions about congress and lobbying persons, as well. In sum, attempting to leave fundraising and consultation channels intact to preserve party viability, very much the same purpose as inspired the most nefarious of the report’s actually named problem persons. Similar to the impactful DOJ FBI IG recent report, for whose fact gathering ex-employee Ashcroft refused to give an interview, in the current DOJ ‘Goodling’ report, MonicaGoodling also declined to make any contribution beyond what she supplied in testimony in congres, refusing now to be interviewed regarding what she knew of the process she controlled when she worked in various capacities there.
____
*The current firewall on my workstation is delinking to that website(FiredUpMO), but traditionally it has provided helpful local synthesis.
maybe they were not concerned about terrorism….
I don’t want to beleive that BushCo could have been involved in 9/11, but it sure helped their fascist agenda.
So…..who is it?