The Party of Michael Moore

But when Moore returned with his next film in 2007, O’Reilly was still very much on the warpath.  Read more 

[Updates below on blogosphere, media coverage.]

The only problem with firing all the attorney’s who weren’t “loyal Bushies” and who were investigating Republicans—Lam—or wouldn’t smear Democrats—Iglesias?

The Explainer didn’t do his job. But then, does he ever? From Bush’s speech today at 5:45:

[BUSH] The Justice Department, with the approval of the White House, believed new leadership in these positions would better serve our country. The announcement of this decision and the subsequent explanation of these changes has been confusing and, in some cases, incomplete. Neither the Attorney General, nor I approve of how these explanations were handled.

I’ll bet.

We’re determined to correct the problem.

And how! Er, I mean, and how?

[BUSH] It will be regrettable if they choose to head down the partisan road of issuing subpoenas and demanding show trials when I have agreed to make key White House officials and documents available.

Sweet Jeebus! Since when is testifying under oath about potential obstruction of justice a “show trial?” Talk about overheated rhetoric! And since when does the executive determine who gets to testify before the legislative branch? And who said the exective gets to throw out chaff and then call it “unpredented disclosure”? Gosh, it’s almost like Bush wants to be the judge and jury in his own case, isn’t it?

Unbelievably, Bush takes questions. (So where’s “Jeff Gannon” when we need him to throw The Explainer some softballs? Under Karl’s desk?)

And speaking of obstruction of justice, Bush doesn’t speak of it:  Read more