Balkinization  

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Goodling Written Statement

Marty Lederman

is now posted.

Several interesting things. Perhaps foremost, she basically accuses DAG McNulty of perjuring himself before congressional committees in several respects, and of deliberately withholding from the Committee information about Senator Domenici's role in the removal of David Iglesias. With AG Gonzales having in essence blamed McNulty for the whole mess, and now this, it will be very interesting to hear what more McNulty has to say about all the other actors . . . now that they all seem to have decided to tap him as the fall guy.

Second, Goodling writes that her "understanding at the time" was that the AG's secret Order of March 2006, transferring the delegation of responsibility for career DOJ employment decisions from the DAG and Associate to the AG Chief of Staff and the White House Liason (Sampson and Goodling) -- which I discuss here -- "generally formalized the historical practice of the this Administration." In other words, those decisions had been fully politicized and removed from the aegis of the professionals long before the order was issued. "Generally." And yet the order was issued secretly, without distribution to the DAG and Associate. Hmmmm. This warrants follow-up.

Third, Goodling acknowledges that in deciding whom to hire for jobs as Assistant U.S. Attorneys (line prosecutors), her decisions "may have been influenced in part based on political considerations." She calls this a "mistake," but in response to questions from Rep. Scott, later conceded that "“I know I crossed the line of civil service rules." See TPM's account here.

Fourth, she acknowledges that she also "took political considerations into account in making recommendations for positions as Immigration Judges and members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, and she thought that was permissible because Kyle Sampson had told her that OLC "had provided guidance some years earlier indicating that Immigration Judge appointments were not subject to the civil service rules applicable to other career positions. In late 2006, however, the Civil Division "expressed concerns that the civil service rules might apply" to such immigration judges.

This is also an area for further investigation. Did OLC conclude that the civil service laws don't apply to immigration judges? If so, what was the theory? (I'm not aware of any such OLC Opinion; but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere. Anyone know offhand what the law is on this?) And how did the Civil Division come to express its concerns? On what grounds?

There's at least one other very interesting thing about her opening statement, too. More on that later. [UPDATE: See here.]

[UPDATE: As usual, Hilzoy's impressions of the testimony, and of Goodling, are more incisive than anyone's.]

Comments:

Is it illegal to ask whether they are members of the Federalist Society? I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?
 

I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?

Please provide your source for that assertion.
 

yep. Hilzoy nails it.
 

Charles:

I don't know if you're deliberately misreading Marty's comment, but I'll charitably assume you're doing it accidentally. Marty mentioned that Ms. Goodling admitted that she may have checked on the political affiliations of Assistant United States Attorneys. Appointments to those positions, unlike appointments to the U.S. Attorney positions, are supposed to be made on a non partisan basis. Thus, the political affiliations of Clinton's nominees for U.S. Attorney positions, whatever those affiliations might have been, are totally irrelevant.
 

Anderson:

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/research.html http://www.nndb.com and http://www.google.com

profhsg:

You don't think any of Clinton's AUSA hires were Democrats either? As I understand Goodling's testimony, OLC had indicated that Immigration Judge appointments, for instance, were not subject to the civil service rules. On the waiver requests, it seems that Goodling is admitting "in a very small number of cases" that her decisions may have been influenced in part based on political considerations, and she regrets that mistake.
 

Charles, translated: "No, I don't actually have a source for that assertion -- would you find one for me, please?"
 

monica goodling was given the job because they knew she would be an efficient partisan hiring machine.

white, christian, republicans.

she did her job well.

except for that thing about justice.

i can't wait to see what McNulty has to say about all of this.
 

white, christian, republicans...

oh, yeah, and with total disdain for DOJ's quaint traditional notions of fairness, competency and justice.
 

ie. culture warriors for the right.
 

Not at all, Anderson. You asked for the source(s) I got that from, so I gave them to you. Every Clinton U.S. Attorney I've looked up was indeed a Democrat. I'm surprised you would doubt that in any event.
 

that's the bombshell.

the AG LIED!!!!!!!!

GONZO SPEEDY GONZALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

why did my feed go dead???????????????????????????????????????????????????
 

internet skip. recess. wtf.

the witness wants consultation with her lawyer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


whooooohooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
 

She said "Attorney General Gonzales lied"? I am surprised her lawyers is not right there at the table a la Oliver North.
 

I'll go read her written statement fairly quickly, but I think she's a pretty good witness. Maybe it's because she's kind of hot, but it's my sense she is sincere and trying to tell the truth.

It's interesting that she's a much better witness than the Attorney General of the United States.
 

Did Gonzales testify that he never saw a list or had never been briefed on the replacements?
 

charles, 2:04 pm: "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats"

charles, 3:06 pm: "every Clinton U.S. Attorney I've looked up was indeed a Democrat"

(Emphasis added.) Those two claims are not the same. Why are you backpedaling? Is it because you were caught making a claim that you shamelessly pulled out of your hat?

If your main goal is to prove that you're a complete waste of time, and that only a fool would take any statement of yours at face value, you're doing a fine job.
 

Not at all, I've looked up over one hundred so far and haven't found a single Republican in the whole bunch -- also, the first quote was a question and the second quote was my assertion -- again, as I said above, I guess it just must have all been a big coincidence.
 

Well, if you dig deep enough long enough, you can find someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation.

How many weeks has it taken to find this one silly person who was honest enough to actually admit that :::gasp::: political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions?

Apparently they did not teach the class on selective amnesia during testimony when she attended Regent's Law School. I thought that was a mandatory class after the Clinton years...
 

From the Republican Grimoire:

"An that ye LIBERALS do conjure up ye Vasty Spirits of Culpabilitie, against ye Partye or President, avert their curses ye may, with the mighty name of CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON."

I can't quote more, as the Grimoire's contents have been known to drive readers into utter madness or despair; the original, I believe, is kept under lock and key in the rare books room of what used to be Miskatonic University, but is now Regent.
 

Well, Anderson, it is kinda off topic, but YOU were the one who asked for my source -- here are the nominations I've checked so far -- if you can prove any were Republicans, I'd really appreciate it:

Nora M. Manella, Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Joseph Preston Strom, Jr., Kendall Brindley Coffey, Larry Herbert Colleton, James Lamar Wiggins, and Kent Barron Alexander;

Mary Jo White, Betty Richardson, Zachary W. Carter, Patrick H. NeMoyer, James Patrick Connelly, John Thomas Schneider, and Janet Ann Napolitano;

Charles Robert Tetzlaff, William David Wilmoth, Gaynelle Griffin Jones, Karen Elizabeth Schreier,
Judith Ann Stewart, Walter Michael Troop, and Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.;

Stephen Charles Lewis, Vicki Lynn Miles-LaGrange, Thomas Justin Monaghan, John W. Raley, Jr., Randall K. Rathbun, Frederick W. Thieman, Michael Joseph Yamaguchi, and Paula Jean Casey;

Paul Kinloch Holmes, III, Lynne Ann Battaglia, Scott M. Matheson, Jr., Robert P. Crouch, Jr., David M. Barasch, Veronica Freeman Coleman, Edward L. Dowd, Jr., Helen Frances Fahey, Claude Harris, Jr., and Kathryn E. Landreth;

Jay Patrick McCloskey, Henry Lawrence Solano, Jon Ernest DeGuilio, Christopher Droney, Peggy A. Lautenschlager, Emily Margaret Sweeney, John Joseph Kelly, Carl Kimmel Kirkpatrick, Michael Rankin Stiles, Frances Cuthbert Hulin, Sherry Scheel Matteucci, and Alan D. Bersin;

James Burton Burns, Joseph Leslie Famularo, Walter Charles Grace, Michael David Skinner, Patrick Michael Patterson, Katrina Campbell Pflaumer, Charles Joseph Stevens, Don Carlos Nickerson, Stephen John Rapp, and Donald Kenneth Stern;

Rebecca Aline Betts, Robert Charles Bundy, Larry Herbert Colleton, Harry Donival Dixon, Jr., Lezin Joseph Hymel, Jr., David Lee Lillehaug, Kenneth Ray Oden, Paul Michael Gagnon, Mark Timothy Calloway, Walter Clinton Holton, Jr., and Kristine Olson Rogers;

Janice McKenzie Cole, Michael Hayes Dettmer, Saul A. Green, Stephen Lawrence Hill, John Marshall Roberts, Kent Barron Alexander, David D. Freudenthal, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Gregory Moneta Sleet;

Charles Redding Pitt, Faith S. Hochberg, John Michael Bradford, Thomas Joseph Maroney, Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., Joe Bradley Pigott, Charles R. Wilson, Steven Scott Alm, and Joe Bradley Pigott;

J. Don Foster, Patrick M. Ryan, James Allan Hurd, Jr., James William Blagg, Calvin D. Buchanan, J. Rene Josey, Donna A. Bucella, Loretta E. Lynch;

Wilma Lewis, Beverly Martin, Douglas Jones, Thomas Scott, Mary Lou Leary, and Sharon Zealey;

Byron Jones, Denise O’Donnell, Paul Warner, Scott Lasser, Paul Seave, Ellen Curran, Stephen Robinson, Richard Deane Jr., Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Green, Harry Litman, and Jose Rivera;

Melvin Kahle, Gregory Vega, Thomas Strickland, Donna Bucella, Daniel French, Quenton White, Jackie Williams, Mervyn Mosbacker Jr., and Carl Schnee;

Daniel Webber Jr., Norman Bay, Steven Reed, Ted McBride, and Audrey Fleissig.

I also never said those were my "only" sources -- here are some more:

http://lawyers.martindale.com/marhub

http://www.nexis.com/research

http://www.congress.gov/nomis/

http://www.fec.gov
 

charles:

If it was committed by a GOP Administration, it is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it was committed by the Clinton Administration, it is a coincidence from which we should moveon.org.
 

Charles,
You are an idiot. US Attorneys - the ones in charge of the districts - are not covered by the Civil Service Act, and therefore, the President may lawfully take into consideration their political leanings in deciding whether to offer any of them a position (or more specifically, nominate them).
 

charles: "the first quote was a question"

This is the complete sentence which contained "the first quote:"

I guess it must have been a big coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats then?

That's not just "a question." It's a question which happens to contain an unqualified assertion. The assertion is this: "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats." You stated that assertion as if it's an established fact that you're in a position to prove. But when you were asked to show proof, you essentially admitted you couldn't.

(By the way, your sentence is not even a real question. It's a statement disguised as a rhetorical question. The statement you were really making was this: 'I think it's no coincidence that all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats.')

We already know you lack integrity. We just appreciate the way you keep proving it over and over again.

"if you can prove any were Republicans"

More pathetic backpedaling. You didn't say none of them were Republicans. You said they all were Democrats. Maybe you're pretending to be too thick to understand that those claims are quite different.

"http://www.fec.gov"

Maybe this is your way of telling us that anyone who ever supported a Dem candidate is fairly labeled as a Dem, in your world. Am I reading you right? Otherwise I can't imagine why you're mentioning fec.gov.

Speaking of gratuitous links, why did you mention martindale? It could be you understand it better than I do, but I can't find the place where it lists party registration.

Anyway, you have some truly amazing research skills. You've presented 129 names, and you seem to be claiming that you verified that they're all Democrats. Really? I picked just one (Michael Joseph Yamaguchi) and can't manage to verify that. Could you let us in on the secret and tell us how you figured out that Yamaguchi is a Democrat?

bart: "someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation"

As far as I can tell, "the subject matter of the investigation" is Bush's project to politicize the DOJ. Today Goodling admitted that she was so eager to politicize the DOJ that she was willing to break the law in order to do so. Only on Planet Bart would this be considered "unrelated."

"How many weeks has it taken"

The whole process would move much more quickly if the Bushist perpetrators were not chronic stonewallers and amnesiacs.

":::gasp::: political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions"

There would be nothing to ":::gasp:::" about if "political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions" with regard to political positions. Trouble is, "political considerations partially colored her hiring decisions" with regard to positions that, by law, are supposed to be non-political.

We already know that the rule of law means nothing to you, but we appreciate the way you keep reminding us.
 

jukeboxgrad:

Sure, Nomination: PN513-103 (originally hired as Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Carter Administration -- he's only constributed to Democrats per on-line search -- I don't know of any Republicans who ONLY contribute to Democrats, do you?)

Michael Joseph Yamaguchi, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Department of Justice; vice Joseph P. Russoniello, resigned.
Received: July 29, 1993
Referred: Senate Judiciary
Latest Action: September 30, 1993 - Confirmed by the Senate

Later recommended by Senator Feinstein (D-CA) for federal District Court Judge, Yamaguchi withdraws his name from consideration without comment amid speculation that Yamaguchi's decision is the result of controversy over a misstep in a drug prosecution case. Senator Boxer (D-CA) also gave him ringing endorsement. Yamaguchi admires Thomas Jefferson for his intellectual pursuits; Thomas Edison for his inventive mind; Cicero for his brilliance as an orator and writer; Harry Truman for his complexities; and Robert Kennedy for his lawyering and political bravado.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-2354220.html

Again, I'm sure that is all just a big coincidence, and Yamaguchi is NOT really a Democrat. God forbid. We certainly can't make ANY reasonable inferences about all these ties to Democrats, can we? Wouldn't be prudent. Reasonable inferences only work when John Ashcroft is in a hospital.

Besides, you are an idiot. U.S. Attorneys - the ones in charge of the districts - are not covered by the Civil Service Act, and therefore, the President may lawfully take into consideration their political leanings in deciding whether to offer any of them a position (or more specifically, nominate them). We should have both listened to Alex in the first place.
 

Charles, I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or mocking me. But your citations to persons being nominated to the judiciary who are the same party as the President (Democrat in your examples), is also besides the point because those appointments are ALSO not covery by the Civil Service Act. In other words, there is, again, nothing improper in taking the political persuasion of a judicial nominee into consideration.
 

charles: "originally hired as Assistant U.S. Attorney during the Carter Administration"

That doesn't prove he's a Democrat. It's just circular as claiming that he must be a Democrat, since Clinton hired him.

"he's only constributed to Democrats per on-line search"

I found one contribution by Yamaguchi. He gave Dianne Feinstein $250 in 1996. Are you claiming he made other contributions?

"We certainly can't make ANY reasonable inferences about all these ties to Democrats, can we?"

It's possible he's a Dem. It's also possible he's an independent who leans Dem (a large category). He might even be a RINO. The problem is that you didn't say 'Clinton hired lots of people who have ties to Democrats.' You said, as if it were a proven fact, that "all Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations were Democrats" (emphasis added). We see now that you're not in a position to prove that (you've admitted you haven't even researched them all). If you were an honest person, you would have said something like this: 'I've checked a bunch of his nominations, and they seem to be people with ties to Democrats.' There would have been nothing surprising (let alone improper) about that, so instead you made something up.

bart: "it was committed by the Clinton Administration"

You're suggesting that Bush simply did what Clinton had already done. Nice job pretending you don't understand the difference. Trouble is, Sampson himself admitted he understood the difference. He described the difference in an email to Miers (1/9/06):

Harriet, you have asked whether President Bush should remove and replace U.S. Attorneys whose four-year terms have expired. I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. Attorneys.

The U.S. Code provides that each United States Attorney "shall be appointed for a term of four years . . . [and] shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his sucessor is appointed and qualifies." … Accordingly, once confirmed by the Senate and appointed, U.S, Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinately (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan .and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.


(See link, pdf, pdf. Emphasis in the original.)

In other words, the prior practice, under Reagan and Clinton, was to install your crowd at the start, but then leave them in place. Reagan and Clinton both did this:

…historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan. Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.

Then again, you probably don't trust LAT, so maybe you'd like it hear from those moonbats over at Fox News:

When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.

It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.


In other words, Reagan and Clinton hired their own people, but then left them alone to do their job. This wasn't enough for Bush, though, so he developed his own innovation: that he would install his own people, just like Reagan and Clinton did, but then he would replace his own people if it turned out they weren't "loyal Bushies." Here's how this seems to have been defined: they weren't willing to support Rove's fraudulent voter-fraud allegations.

Here's the standard Bushist talking point on this subject:

news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993.

That's how Brit Hume said it. And that's essentially what you're saying. Trouble is, that talking point is doubly fraudulent. First of all, it glosses over the fact that what Clinton did was no different than what Reagan did. More importantly, it glosses over the fact that what Bush did is quite different than what Clinton and Reagan did. Fox knows this. Even Gonzales' former chief of staff Sampson knows this. I think you know this, too, but you think you can get away with pretending you don't.
 

LOL -- Sampson was obviously mistaken about the Clinton Administration -- or, are you prepared to accept all the rest of his testimony too? As for Judge Yamaguchi, or anyone else I posted, I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats. As you said, there would be nothing surprising (let alone improper) with all of them being Democrats either.
 

Charles:

I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats.

Say, Charles, you misspelled "assertion". No charge for the editing.

Cheers,
 

Cheers.
 

OK, now that we have Charles on record as admitting to asserting a presumption as true, can we just drop that assertion and get on with the ... ummm ... "discussion", keeping that in mind?

Cheers,
 

The "rebuttable presumption" is "Clinton did it first!"
 

charles: "if anyone can rebut the presumption"

Just in case you have trouble grasping what Arne said, I'll go over it again for you. There's a material difference between the following two statements:

A) They were all Democrats; I don't mind conveying the impression that this is a proven fact, and that I possess such proof.

B) I presume they were all Democrats; I think this is a reasonable inference, even though I don't have proof.

An honest person would have said B. You're something different, so you said A.

Speaking of presumptions, it's now reasonable for us to presume that all your future statements which appear in the form of A should actually be interpreted as B. Thanks for reminding us that your words are basically worthless.

"there would be nothing surprising (let alone improper) with all of them being Democrats either"

Exactly. Which raises the following question: why did you mention it, to begin with? Oh, right, we almost forgot: in your usual style of compound deception, you were falsely suggesting that USAs are civil service jobs. And that Goodling apply political considerations when hiring civil servants was no different than Clinton applying political considerations when hiring USAs.

This was quickly pointed out to you. But instead of taking responsibility for your deception, you made a pathetic attempt at misdirection.

Your practice is to be simultaneously misleading on so many levels at the same time that it takes a concerted effort to sort it all out.

"Sampson was obviously mistaken about the Clinton Administration -- or, are you prepared to accept all the rest of his testimony too?"

Sampson's statement which I cited was not part of his testimony. It was in an email he sent to Miers.

And he wasn't "obviously mistaken," anymore than LAT and Fox were "obviously mistaken" when they said essentially the same thing he did. You're just "obviously" blowing more smoke.

One more time: Fox said "it is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job" (emphasis added). That's what Bush did. Seven on the same day. And a bunch of others, too. For no apparent reason. Fox News and Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, both stated that this was essentially unprecedented. You claim they're wrong. Really? Prove it. Unless you want us to adopt the "presumption" that you're consistently a complete waste of time.
 

As for Judge Yamaguchi, or anyone else I posted, I would definitely be open to revising my statement if anyone can rebut the presumption they were registered Democrats.

Again, the political affiliation is irrelevant, as your statement was about "US attorneys," but the original post was about "assistant US attorneys"--a whole different animal by the rules. So, yes, it would be illegal to consider their political affiliation in the hiring process.

Take a gander at the donations of assistant US attorneys during the Clinton administration, and you'll see that many of them are/were Republicans.

Now, here's your next research project: during the Clinton administration, how many candidates for the position of assistant US attorney weren't hired because they were Republicans?
 

Well, if you dig deep enough long enough, you can find someone someplace who will have violated some law unrelated to the subject matter of the investigation.

"I mean, of course you'll find illegal activity if you look...."
 

Bart writes:If it was committed by a GOP Administration, it is a high crime or misdemeanor.

If it was committed by the Clinton Administration, it is a coincidence from which we should moveon.org.


So if we reverse polarity, everything will be just fine, according to you?

There are still a few people concerned with what's ethical, as opposed to what fits your politics.
 

jukeboxgrad:

"Compound deception" huh? Just for asking simple questions and pointing out facts. Interesting.

Look, to be fair, I finally did find ONE Clinton U.S. Attorney who is a registered Independent (although I don't know what his registration was back when he was evaluated and nominated). So, I will no longer make the above claim (whether in the form of a question or not). Nothwithstanding, I have now double-checked all the names I've gathered to date above (NOTE: I don't know if these are ALL of Clinton's U.S. Attorney nominations either), so that one instance may just be the exception that proves the rule. Let me know if there are any other questions.

PMS:

For all those "non-political" jobs like Immigration Judge or assistant U.S. Attorneys, no one even answered my first qestion on that in this thread: "Is it illegal to ask whether they are members of the Federalist Society?" I don't think it is. What someone hiring cannot do is discriminate based on political affiliation. That is now being addressed on another thread dealing just with these kinds of issues: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/curious-case-of-goodling-and.html

As for your requested "next research project" I'm not even done with my first one! I will note that Melanie Sloan (the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) was indeed hired as an assistant U.S. Attorney during Clinton's term, although I'm going to just leave it up to your own judgment whether she's a Democrat or not:

1993: Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Joe Biden;

1994: Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for Charles Schumer;

1995 - 1998: Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee with John Conyers;

2003: approached by Norm Eisen to co-found CREW, which she ran single-handedly until 2005 when she began to be able to hire her own staff. CREW is counsel of record for the civil lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Until its demise, Sloan was a regular guest on Al Franken's show on Air America Radio.

http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2007/mostfearedwoman.asp
 

Oh, as for Kyle Sampson and Fox News claiming "it is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. Attorneys who were his choices for the job" I don't know that seven have ever been dismissed all on the same day, but so what? They could have ALL been dismissed legally, and in hindsight that might have been the better political move.

We are probably never going to agree that it was good when Clinton replaced U.S. Attorneys but bad when Bush did it. Can we at least agree on the facts that, second term, Clinton replaced MORE than seven who had been his initial choices for the job:

1) Audrey Fleissig replaced Edward L. Dowd, Jr.;

2) Steven Reed replaced Walter Troop;

3) Norman Bay replaced John Kelly;

4) Daniel Webber, Jr. replaced Patrick Ryan;

5) Quenton White replaced John Roberts;

6) Daniel French replaced Thomas Maroney;

7) Loretta Lynch replaced Zachary Carter; and

8) Donna A. Bucella replaced Charles R. Wilson.

That's just the first eight I picked out from above. Tere were, in fact, dozens of U.S. Attorneys replaced in Clinton's second term. No Congress investigated him on that though. They had their hands full with all the other investigations of Clinton.
 

During my research, I also found out that Zach Carter was a member of St. John Lutheran Church in Mamaroneck, N.Y.:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3942/is_200002/ai_n8882254/pg_2

Scary what you find on the Internet these days.
 

"That's just the first eight I picked out from above. Tere were, in fact, dozens of U.S. Attorneys replaced in Clinton's second term. No Congress investigated him on that though. They had their hands full with all the other investigations of Clinton.

"# posted by Charles : 6:55 PM"

And, as we well know, we wouldn't have heard about Monica if any of those investigations of multiply-refuted fake "scandals" had turned up anything actionable.
 

"Did Gonzales testify that he never saw a list or had never been briefed on the replacements?

"# posted by Charles : 3:25 PM"

It's so much easier to state what Gonzales testified to knowing:

That he didn't know anything. And, whatsmore, he still knows nothing.

On which you'll doubtless base an "rebuttable presumption" that such is evidence that he is supremely qualified to head the DOJ.
 

"As for your requested "next research project" I'm not even done with my first one! I will note that Melanie Sloan (the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) was indeed hired as an assistant U.S. Attorney during Clinton's term, although I'm going to just leave it up to your own judgment whether she's a Democrat or not:

"1993: Nominations Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Joe Biden;

"1994: Counsel for the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee for Charles Schumer;

"1995 - 1998: Minority Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee with John Conyers;

"2003: approached by Norm Eisen to co-found CREW, which she ran single-handedly until 2005 when she began to be able to hire her own staff. CREW is counsel of record for the civil lawsuit filed by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame. Until its demise, Sloan was a regular guest on Al Franken's show on Air America Radio.

"http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2007/mostfearedwoman.asp

"# posted by Charles : 6:16 PM"

One fact about Melanie Sloan is uequivocal: she has ethics, therefore is able to act impartially. It was CREW which reported Jefferson (D-LA) to Congress, et al.

You made no mention of that fact -- ethicality -- because obviously not a coin among the small change with which you "reason".

One other point: Though it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that there are two categories of AGs -- AGs and Asst. AGs -- and that AGs are legitimately subject to selection on the basis of political position, but that Asst. AGs are not -- you have dishonestly continued to ignore that distinction.

Do you wonder why your ideological kith and kin are being kicked to the curb, and shoved back into the septic tank which, as a matter of self-respect, vomited them out to begin with?
 

Allow me to repeatedly point out that Melanie Sloan was indeed an assistant U.S. Attorney -- pointing out ONE Democrat does not make her a Republican -- you aren't honestly making that argument, are you?
 

mesothelioma Mesotheliomais a form of cancer that is almost always caused by exposure to Asbestos In this disease, malignant cells develop in the mesothelium, a protective lining that covers most of the body's internal organs. Its most common site is the pleura (outer lining of the lungs and internal chest wall), but it may also occur in the peritoneum (the lining of the abdominal cavity), the heart the pericardium (a sac that surrounds the heart or tunica vaginalis.
Most people who develop
mesothelioma have worked on jobs where they inhaled asbestos particles, or they have been exposed to asbestos dust and fiber in other ways. Washing the clothes of a family member who worked with asbestos can also put a person at risk for developing Mesothelioma Unlike lung cancer, there is no association between mesothelioma and smoking but smoking greatly increases risk of other asbestos induced cancer.Compensation via
Asbestos funds or lawsuits is an important issue in
mesothelioma The symptoms of
mesothelioma include shortness of breath due to pleural effusion (fluid between the lung and the chest wall or chest wall pain, and general symptoms such as weight loss. The diagnosis may be suspected with chest X-ray and CT scan and is confirmed with a biopsy (tissue sample) and microscopic examination. A thoracoscopy inserting a tube with a camera into the chest) can be used to take biopsies. It allows the introduction of substances such as talc to obliterate the pleural space (called pleurodesis, which prevents more fluid from accumulating and pressing on the lung. Despite treatment with chemotherapy, radiation therapy or sometimes surgery, the disease carries a poor prognosis. Research about screening tests for the early detection of mesothelioma is ongoing.
Symptoms of mesothelioma may not appear until 20 to 50 years after exposure to asbestos. Shortness of breath, cough, and pain in the chest due to an accumulation of fluid in the pleural space are often symptoms of pleural
mesotheliomaSymptoms of peritoneal
mesothelioma include weight loss and cachexia, abdominal swelling and pain due to ascites (a buildup of fluid in the abdominal cavity). Other symptoms of peritoneal
mesothelioma may include bowel obstruction, blood clotting abnormalities, anemia, and fever. If the cancer has spread beyond the mesothelium to other parts of the body, symptoms may include pain, trouble swallowing, or swelling of the neck or face.
These symptoms may be caused by
mesothelioma or by other, less serious conditions.
Mesothelioma that affects the pleura can cause these signs and symptoms:
chest wall pain
pleural effusion, or fluid surrounding the lung
shortness of breath
fatigue or anemia
wheezing, hoarseness, or cough
blood in the sputum (fluid) coughed up hemoptysis
In severe cases, the person may have many tumor masses. The individual may develop a pneumothorax, or collapse of the lung The disease may metastasize, or spread, to other parts of the body.
Tumors that affect the abdominal cavity often do not cause symptoms until they are at a late stage. Symptoms include:
abdominal pain
ascites, or an abnormal buildup of fluid in the abdomen
a mass in the abdomen
problems with bowel function
weight loss
In severe cases of the disease, the following signs and symptoms may be present:
blood clots in the veins, which may cause thrombophlebitis
disseminated intravascular coagulation a disorder causing severe bleeding in many body organs
jaundice, or yellowing of the eyes and skin
low blood sugar level
pleural effusion
pulmonary emboli, or blood clots in the arteries of the lungs
severe ascites
A
mesothelioma does not usually spread to the bone, brain, or adrenal glands. Pleural tumors are usually found only on one side of the lungs
Diagnosing
mesothelioma is often difficult, because the symptoms are similar to those of a number of other conditions. Diagnosis begins with a review of the patient's medical history. A history of exposure to asbestos may increase clinical suspicion for
mesothelioma A physical examination is performed, followed by chest X-ray and often lung function tests. The X-ray may reveal pleural thickening commonly seen after asbestos exposure and increases suspicion of
mesothelioma A CT (or CAT) scan or an MRI is usually performed. If a large amount of fluid is present, abnormal cells may be detected by cytology if this fluid is aspirated with a syringe. For pleural fluid this is done by a pleural tap or chest drain, in ascites with an paracentesis or ascitic drain and in a pericardial effusion with pericardiocentesis. While absence of malignant cells on cytology does not completely exclude
mesothelioma it makes it much more unlikely, especially if an alternative diagnosis can be made (e.g. tuberculosis, heart failure
If cytology is positive or a plaque is regarded as suspicious, a biopsy is needed to confirm a diagnosis of
mesothelioma A doctor removes a sample of tissue for examination under a microscope by a pathologist. A biopsy may be done in different ways, depending on where the abnormal area is located. If the cancer is in the chest, the doctor may perform a thoracoscopy. In this procedure, the doctor makes a small cut through the chest wall and puts a thin, lighted tube called a thoracoscope into the chest between two ribs. Thoracoscopy allows the doctor to look inside the chest and obtain tissue samples.
If the cancer is in the abdomen, the doctor may perform a laparoscopy. To obtain tissue for examination, the doctor makes a small incision in the abdomen and inserts a special instrument into the abdominal cavity. If these procedures do not yield enough tissue, more extensive diagnostic surgery may be necessary.
There is no universally agreed protocol for screening people who have been exposed to
asbestosScreening tests might diagnose mesothelioma earlier than conventional methods thus improving the survival prospects for patients. The serum osteopontin level might be useful in screening asbestos-exposed people for
mesotheliomaThe level of soluble mesothelin-related protein is elevated in the serum of about 75% of patients at diagnosis and it has been suggested that it may be useful for screening. Doctors have begun testing the Mesomark assay which measures levels of soluble mesothelin-related proteins (SMRPs) released by diseased mesothelioma cells
Incidence
Although reported incidence rates have increased in the past 20 years, mesothelioma is still a relatively rare cancer. The incidence rate is approximately one per 1,000,000. The highest incidence is found in Britain, Australia and Belgium: 30 per 1,000,000 per year. For comparison, populations with high levels of smoking can have a lung cancer incidence of over 1,000 per 1,000,000. Incidence of malignant mesothelioma currently ranges from about 7 to 40 per 1,000,000 in industrialized Western nations, depending on the amount of asbestos exposure of the populations during the past several decades. It has been estimated that incidence may have peaked at 15 per 1,000,000 in the United States in 2004. Incidence is expected to continue increasing in other parts of the world. Mesothelioma occurs more often in men than in women and risk increases with age, but this disease can appear in either men or women at any age. Approximately one fifth to one third of all mesotheliomas are peritoneal.
Between 1940 and 1979, approximately 27.5 million people were occupationally exposed to asbestos in the United States.[ Between 1973 and 1984, there has been a threefold increase in the diagnosis of pleural mesothelioma in Caucasian males. From 1980 to the late 1990s, the death rate from mesothelioma in the USA increased from 2,000 per year to 3,000, with men four times more likely to acquire it than women. These rates may not be accurate, since it is possible that many cases of mesothelioma are misdiagnosed as adenocarcinoma of the lung, which is difficult to differentiate from mesothelioma.
Working with asbestos is the major risk factor for mesothelioma. A history of asbestos exposure exists in almost all cases. However, mesothelioma has been reported in some individuals without any known exposure to asbestos. In rare cases, mesothelioma has also been associated with irradiation, intrapleural thorium dioxide (Thorotrast), and inhalation of other fibrous silicates, such as erionite.
asbestos
is the name of a group of minerals that occur naturally as masses of strong, flexible fibers that can be separated into thin threads and woven.
asbestos
has been widely used in many industrial products, including cement, brake linings, roof shingles, flooring products, textiles, and insulation. If tiny asbestos particles float in the air, especially during the manufacturing process, they may be inhaled or swallowed, and can cause serious health problems. In addition to mesothelioma, exposure to asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer, asbestosis (a noncancerous, chronic lung ailment), and other cancers, such as those of the larynx and kidney.
The combination of smoking and
asbestos exposure significantly increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the airways (lung cancer bronchial carcinoma). The Kent brand of cigarettes used
mesothelioma in its filters for the first few years of production in the 1950s and some cases of
mesothelioma have resulted. Smoking modern cigarettes does not appear to increase the risk of mesothelioma.
Some studies suggest that simian virus 40 may act as a cofactor in the development of mesothelioma.
Asbestos was known in antiquity, but it wasn't mined and widely used commercially until the late 1800s. Its use greatly increased during World War II Since the early 1940s, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos dust. Initially, the risks associated with
asbestos exposure were not publicly known. However, an increased risk of developing mesothelioma was later found among shipyard workers, people who work in asbestos mines and mills, producers of asbestos products, workers in the heating and construction industries, and other tradespeople. Today, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets limits for acceptable levels of
asbestos exposure in the workplace, and created guidelines for engineering controls and respirators, protective clothing, exposure monitoring, hygiene facilities and practices, warning signs, labeling, recordkeeping, and medical exams. By contrast, the British Government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) states formally that any threshold for
mesothelioma must be at a very low level and it is widely agreed that if any such threshold does exist at all, then it cannot currently be quantified. For practical purposes, therefore, HSE does not assume that any such threshold exists. People who work with
asbestos wear personal protective equipment to lower their risk of exposure. Recent findings have shown that a mineral called erionite has been known to cause genetically pre-dispositioned individuals to have malignant mesothelioma rates much higher than those not pre-dispositioned genetically. A study in Cappadocia, Turkey has shown that 3 villiages in Turkey have death rates of 51% attributed to erionite related
mesotheliomaExposure to
asbestos fibres has been recognised as an occupational health hazard since the early 1900s. Several epidemiological studies have associated exposure to asbestos with the development of lesions such as asbestos bodies in the sputum, pleural plaques, diffuse pleural thickening, asbestosis, carcinoma of the lung and larynx, gastrointestinal tumours, and diffuse mesothelioma of the pleura and peritoneum.
The documented presence of
asbestos fibres in water supplies and food products has fostered concerns about the possible impact of long-term and, as yet, unknown exposure of the general population to these fibres. Although many authorities consider brief or transient exposure to
asbestos fibres as inconsequential and an unlikely risk factor, some epidemiologists claim that there is no risk threshold. Cases of mesothelioma have been found in people whose only exposure was breathing the air through ventilation systems. Other cases had very minimal (3 months or less) direct exposure.
Commercial
asbestos mining at Wittenoom, Western Australia, occurred between 1945 and 1966. A cohort study of miners employed at the mine reported that while no deaths occurred within the first 10 years after crocidolite exposure, 85 deaths attributable to mesothelioma had occurred by 1985. By 1994, 539 reported deaths due to mesothelioma had been reported in Western Australia.
Family members and others living with
asbestos workers have an increased risk of developing
mesothelioma and possibly other asbestos related diseases. This risk may be the result of exposure to
asbestos dust brought home on the clothing and hair of
asbestos workers. To reduce the chance of exposing family members to asbestosMany building materials used in both public and domestic premises prior to the banning of
asbestos may contain
asbestos Those performing renovation works or activities may expose themselves to asbestos dust. In the UK use of Chrysotile asbestos was banned at the end of 1999. Brown and blue
asbestos was banned in the UK around 1985. Buildings built or renovated prior to these dates may contain asbestos materials.
For patients with localized disease, and who can tolerate a radical surgery, radiation is often given post-operatively as a consolidative treatment. The entire hemi-thorax is treated with radiation therapy, often given simultaneously with chemotherapy. Delivering radiation and chemotherapy after a radical surgery has led to extended life expectancy in selected patient populations with some patients surviving more than 5 years. As part of a curative approach to
mesothelioma radiotherapy is also commonly applied to the sites of chest drain insertion, in order to prevent growth of the tumor along the track in the chest wall.
Although
mesothelioma is generally resistant to curative treatment with radiotherapy alone, palliative treatment regimens are sometimes used to relieve symptoms arising from tumor growth, such as obstruction of a major blood vessel.
Radiation Therapy when given alone with curative intent has never been shown to improve survival from
mesothelioma The necessary radiation dose to treat mesothelioma that has not been surgically removed would be very toxic.
Chemotherapy is the only treatment for
mesothelioma that has been proven to improve survival in randomised and controlled trials. The landmark study published in 2003 by Vogelzang and colleagues compared cisplatin chemotherapy alone with a combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed (brand name Alimta) chemotherapy) in patients who had not received chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma previously and were not candidates for more aggressive "curative" surgery. This trial was the first to report a survival advantage from chemotherapy in malignant pleural
mesothelioma showing a statistically significant improvement in median survival from 10 months in the patients treated with cisplatin alone to 13.3 months in the combination pemetrexed group in patients who received supplementation with folate and vitamin B12. Vitamin supplementation was given to most patients in the trial and pemetrexed related side effects were significantly less in patients receiving pemetrexed when they also received daily oral folate 500mcg and intramuscular vitamin B12 1000mcg every 9 weeks compared with patients receiving pemetrexed without vitamin supplementation. The objective response rate increased from 20% in the cisplatin group to 46% in the combination pemetrexed group. Some side effects such as nausea and vomiting, stomatitis, and diarrhoea were more common in the combination pemetrexed group but only affected a minority of patients and overall the combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin was well tolerated when patients received vitamin supplementation; both quality of life and lung function tests improved in the combination pemetrexed group. In February 2004, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved pemetrexed for treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. However, there are still unanswered questions about the optimal use of chemotherapy, including when to start treatment, and the optimal number of cycles to give.
Cisplatin in combination with raltitrexed has shown an improvement in survival similar to that reported for pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin, but raltitrexed is no longer commercially available for this indication. For patients unable to tolerate pemetrexed, cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine or vinorelbine is an alternative, although a survival benefit has not been shown for these drugs. For patients in whom cisplatin cannot be used, carboplatin can be substituted but non-randomised data have shown lower response rates and high rates of haematological toxicity for carboplatin-based combinations, albeit with similar survival figures to patients receiving cisplatin.
In January 2009, the United States FDA approved using conventional therapies such as surgery in combination with radiation and or chemotherapy on stage I or II Mesothelioma after research conducted by a nationwide study by Duke University concluded an almost 50 point increase in remission rates.
Treatment regimens involving immunotherapy have yielded variable results. For example, intrapleural inoculation of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in an attempt to boost the immune response, was found to be of no benefit to the patient (while it may benefit patients with bladder cancer.
mesothelioma cells proved susceptible to in vitro lysis by LAK cells following activation by interleukin-2 (IL-2), but patients undergoing this particular therapy experienced major side effects. Indeed, this trial was suspended in view of the unacceptably high levels of IL-2 toxicity and the severity of side effects such as fever and cachexia. Nonetheless, other trials involving interferon alpha have proved more encouraging with 20% of patients experiencing a greater than 50% reduction in tumor mass combined with minimal side effects.
A procedure known as heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy was developed by at the Washington Cancer Institute. The surgeon removes as much of the tumor as possible followed by the direct administration of a chemotherapy agent, heated to between 40 and 48°C, in the abdomen. The fluid is perfused for 60 to 120 minutes and then drained.
This technique permits the administration of high concentrations of selected drugs into the abdominal and pelvic surfaces. Heating the chemotherapy treatment increases the penetration of the drugs into tissues. Also, heating itself damages the malignant cells more than the normal cells.

What is the mesothelium?
The mesothelium is a membrane that covers and protects most of the internal organs of the body. It is composed of two layers of cells: One layer immediately surrounds the organ; the other forms a sac around it. The mesothelium produces a lubricating fluid that is released between these layers, allowing moving organs (such as the beating heart and the expanding and contracting lungs to glide easily against adjacent structures.
The mesothelium has different names, depending on its location in the body. The peritoneum is the mesothelial tissue that covers most of the organs in the abdominal cavity. The pleura is the membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the wall of the chest cavity. The pericardium covers and protects the heart. The
mesothelioma tissue surrounding the male internal reproductive organs is called the tunica vaginalis testis. The tunica serosa uteri covers the internal reproductive organs in women.
What is mesothelioma?
mesothelioma (cancer of the mesothelium) is a disease in which cells of the mesothelium become abnormal and divide without control or order. They can invade and damage nearby tissues and organs.
cancer cells can also metastasize (spread) from their original site to other parts of the body. Most cases of mesothelioma begin in the pleura or peritoneum.
How common is mesothelioma?
Although reported incidence rates have increased in the past 20 years, mesothelioma is still a relatively rare cancer. About 2,000 new cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed in the United States each year. Mesothelioma occurs more often in men than in women and risk increases with age, but this disease can appear in either men or women at any age.
What are the risk factors for mesothelioma?
Working with asbestos is the major risk factor for mesothelioma. A history of asbestos exposure at work is reported in about 70 percent to 80 percent of all cases. However, mesothelioma has been reported in some individuals without any known exposure to
Asbestos is the name of a group of minerals that occur naturally as masses of strong, flexible fibers that can be separated into thin threads and woven. asbestos has been widely used in many industrial products, including cement, brake linings, roof shingles, flooring products, textiles, and insulation. If tiny asbestos particles float in the air, especially during the manufacturing process, they may be inhaled or swallowed, and can cause serious health problems. In addition to mesothelioma, exposure to asbestos increases the risk of lung cancer, asbestosis (a noncancerous, chronic lung ailment), and other cancers, such as those of the larynx and kidney.
Smoking does not appear to increase the risk of mesothelioma. However, the combination of smoking and asbestos exposure significantly increases a person's risk of developing cancer of the air passageways in the lung.
Who is at increased risk for developing mesothelioma?
asbestos has been mined and used commercially since the late 1800s. Its use greatly increased during World War II. Since the early 1940s, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos dust. Initially, the risks associated with asbestos exposure were not known. However, an increased risk of developing mesothelioma was later found among shipyard workers, people who work in asbestos. Today, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets limits for acceptable levels of asbestos exposure in the workplace. People who work with asbestos wear personal protective equipment to lower their risk of exposure.
The risk o f asbestosrelated disease increases with heavier exposure to asbestos and longer exposure time. However, some individuals with only brief exposures have developed mesothelioma On the other hand, not all workers who are heavily exposed develop asbestos-related diseases.
There is some evidence that family members and others living with asbestos workers have an increased risk of developing mesothelioma, and possibly other asbestos-related diseases. This risk may be the result of exposure to
asbestos dust brought home on the clothing and hair of
asbestos workers. To reduce the chance of exposing family members to
asbestos fibers, asbestos workers are usually required to shower and change their clothing before leaving the workplace.
What are the symptoms of mesothelioma?
Symptoms of mesothelioma may not appear until 30 to 50 years after exposure to
asbestos Shortness of breath and pain in the chest due to an accumulation of fluid in the pleura are often symptoms of pleural mesothelioma. Symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma include weight loss and abdominal pain and swelling due to a buildup of fluid in the abdomen. Other symptoms of peritoneal mesothelioma may include bowel obstruction blood clotting abnormalities, anemia, and fever. If the cancer has spread beyond the mesothelium to other parts of the body, symptoms may include pain, trouble swallowing, or swelling of the neck or face.
These symptoms may be caused by
mesothelioma or by other, less serious conditions. It is important to see a doctor about any of these symptoms. Only a doctor can make a diagnosis
How is
mesotheliomadiagnosed?
Diagnosing mesothelioma is often difficult, because the symptoms are similar to those of a number of other conditions. Diagnosis begins with a review of the patient's medical history, including any history of asbestos exposure. A complete physical examination may be performed, including x-rays of the chest or abdomen and lung function tests. A CT (or CAT) scan or an MRI may also be useful. A CT scan is a series of detailed pictures of areas inside the body created by a computer linked to an x-ray machine. In an MRI, a powerful magnet linked to a computer is used to make detailed pictures of areas inside the body. These pictures are viewed on a monitor and can also be printed.
A biopsy is needed to confirm a diagnosis of mesothelioma. In a biopsy, a surgeon or a medical oncologist (a doctor who specializes in diagnosing and treating cancer) removes a sample of tissue for examination under a microscope by a pathologist. A biopsy may be done in different ways, depending on where the abnormal area is located. If the
cancer is in the chest, the doctor may perform a thoracoscopy. In this procedure, the doctor makes a small cut through the chest wall and puts a thin, lighted tube called a thoracoscope into the chest between two ribs. Thoracoscopy allows the doctor to look inside the chest and obtain tissue samples. If the
cancer is in the abdomen, the doctor may perform a peritoneoscopy. To obtain tissue for examination, the doctor makes a small opening in the abdomen and inserts a special instrument called a peritoneoscope into the abdominal cavity. If these procedures do not yield enough tissue, more extensive diagnostic surgery may be necessary.
If the diagnosis is mesothelioma, the doctor will want to learn the stage (or extent) of the disease. Staging involves more tests in a careful attempt to find out whether the cancer has spread and, if so, to which parts of the body. Knowing the stage of the disease helps the doctor plan treatment.
Mesothelioma is described as localized if the cancer is found only on the membrane surface where it originated. It is classified as advanced if it has spread beyond the original membrane surface to other parts of the body, such as the lymph nodes, lungs, chest wall, or abdominal organs.
How is
mesotheliomatreated?
Treatment for mesothelioma depends on the location of the
cancerthe stage of the disease, and the patient's age and general health. Standard treatment options include surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. Sometimes, these treatments are combined.
Surgery is a common treatment for
mesotheliomaThe doctor may remove part of the lining of the chest or abdomen and some of the tissue around it. For cancer of the pleura (pleural
mesotheliomaa lung may be removed in an operation called a pneumonectomy. Sometimes part of the diaphragm, the muscle below the lungs that helps with breathing, is also removed.
Stereo Tactic Radiation Therapy also called radiotherapy, involves the use of high-energy rays to kill
cancercells and shrink tumors Radiation therapy affects the
cancercells only in the treated area. The radiation may come from a machine (external radiation) or from putting materials that produce radiation through thin plastic tubes into the area where the
cancercells are found (internal radiation therapy).
Chemotherapy is the use of anticancer drugs to kill cancer cells throughout the body. Most drugs used to treat
mesotheliomaare given by injection into a vein (intravenous, or IV). Doctors are also studying the effectiveness of putting chemotherapy directly into the chest or abdomen (intracavitary chemotherapy).
To relieve symptoms and control pain, the doctor may use a needle or a thin tube to drain fluid that has built up in the chest or abdomen. The procedure for removing fluid from the chest is called thoracentesis. Removal of fluid from the abdomen is called paracentesis. Drugs may be given through a tube in the chest to prevent more fluid from accumulating. Radiation Therapy and surgery may also be helpful in relieving symptoms.
 

Post a Comment

Home