as suspected. . .

The case against the suspects is suspect:

[T]he criminal complaint that details the plot describes an effort that was alternately ambitious and clumsy, with the men at turns declaring themselves eager to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah and worrying about getting arrested or deported for buying weapons or possessing a map of a military base.

And lookie here: The US Attorney that is bringing this case against the Fort Dix Six (it does have such a nice ring) is none other than Chris Christie, the former Bush “pioneer” who issued a string of squirrelly subpoenas last year against Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ). In what is now an all too familiar story, Christie used his position to attempt to exert influence on an election. Christie’s investigation seemed at the time to dovetail very conveniently with the themes raised by the campaign of Republican challenger Tom Kean, Jr. With Kean’s loss last November, the always-silly investigation of Menendez seems to have taken a backseat to the GWOT ™.

I would also like to point out something else: Assuming there is something to this “terror plot” (a big assumption, I know), let us all take note of how this “plot” was uncovered.

The authorities first caught up with the men in January 2006, when personnel at a video store alerted the authorities after the suspects requested that he transfer onto a DVD a videotape of the group shouting about jihad as they fired assault weapons at a range in the Pocono Mountains.

Got that? A video store employee dropped a dime on these guys. That was followed up with good, old-fashioned human surveillance and the recruiting of an informant. There were no high-tech, extralegal, NSA electronic intercepts, no FISA warrants, no National Security Letters—there were absolutely none of the newfangled constitution trampling tools or Patriot Act hooey that the Bush Administration claims it absolutely must have to win this new “war.” None of that was needed here. . . it has yet to be shown how any of it is needed anywhere.

Of course, all of that secret surveillance could come in handy when doing opposition research for the next election cycle. . . and we’ve got about seven-dozen United States Attorneys in position to run with the “evidence.”

going, going. . . Gonzo!

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate thinks that AG Alberto Gonzales actually, sorta, kinda, did a bang-up job, from the administration’s point of view, when he stammered and fumphered through a day’s worth of evasion testimony on Thursday. Her rationale is that by refusing to answer practically anything asked of him, by behaving with a sort of churlish arrogance, he was confirming the over-arching view of the Bush White House, often given the overly legitimating name of “the theory of the unitary executive,” but more appropriately summed up by the quote, "l’état, c’est moi."

I, of course, think Abu-G looked like an idiot—which is why I both agree and disagree with Lithwick. Yes, from the standpoint of the loyal Bushies—as we now know they are called (believe it or not, to them, that’s a compliment)—Gonzo did sort of, kind of hit a home run. . . but he hit it by taking one for the team.

By appearing on Capitol Hill to be every inch the un-prepared, in-over-his-head hack that he might in “real life” actually be, the Attorney General has allowed everyone—leading Republicans included—to chalk up the whole US attorney purge scandal as a story about incompetence. . . shall we say, unitary incompetence.

Now, at least as far as this story gets told at this time, Gonzales must resign because he is a bad manager or an ineffective bureaucrat—or maybe even because he is a bit of a jerk—but few of his newest detractors are even intimating that maybe, just maybe, Gonzales was doing his job (politicize the US attorneys to stop corruption probes and manipulate elections) as instructed by his bosses in the executive branch.

That would be Rove. That would be Cheney. And yes, that would be the singular, solitary, unitary President George W. Bush.

we cut out the middleman

From TPM:

Out of all the issues raised in today's Albuquerque Journal story on the Iglesias firing and any potential sourcing questions, the central fact asserted is that after Sen. Domenici's pressure call to Iglesias and before Iglesias's name appeared on the firing list, Sen. Domenici had a conversation about firing Iglesias with President Bush himself.

The ABQ Journal article has it all (minus a named source on the point and a WH denial of the charge), but the gist is so:

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) pressured US attorney David Iglesias to bring a politically charged and baseless voter “fraud” prosecution in an attempt to influence close November 2006 congressional elections. Iglesias refused.

Sometime just after the November elections, Domenici calls Gonzales, Rove, and, most importantly, President George Bush to complain about Iglesias’s recalcitrance.

David Iglesias does not show up on the (now public) list of US attorneys to be fired that was drawn up by Justice in October of 2006. Iglesias is one of the eight attorneys fired on December 7, 2006.

By law, only the President of the United States has the authority to fire a US attorney.

Is everybody with me here? President Bush made sure that Iglesias was dismissed because Sen. Domenici complained that Iglesias didn’t do enough to tamper with an election.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be on the hot seat tomorrow when he goes to Capitol Hill to testify—and he should be properly filleted (and, soon after, removed)—but AG AG is just the middleman. In the end, it is the White House, President Bush and Karl Rove, that made these bold moves in attempt to politicize the attorneys and corrupt the electoral process.

As they say, developing. . . .