Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/gonzales/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/08/27/gonzales/index.html</a> One of the worst AGs in history. Period.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan He wasn't just on the Democrats' list. Plenty of GOP folks had had it with him, too. Only the president and Tony Snow appeared to believe Gonzales was "doin' a heckuva job."
Originally Posted By DAR Well one thing is for sure. When any future attorney general fires someone he better have a good reason for it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's Bush's reaction from CNN: "President Bush on Monday said he reluctantly accepted the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whose "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons." After months of standing by his top prosecutor and "close friend," Bush spoke briefly in Texas to praise Gonzales, saying the attorney general endured "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department." Bush said it's "sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person" is impeded "from doing important work." Presidential whining. How unbecoming. Also very telling. These morons think they've done nothing wrong.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>"sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person" is impeded "from doing important work."<< I think his idea of "talented and honorable" means something different than most people's definition of it.
Originally Posted By gadzuux As john edwards said - better late than never. But so much of the damage has already been done. By all accounts, the justice department has been thoroughly demoralized by the months of corruption scandals. But bush places a greater priority on his misplaced loyalty than he does to the effectiveness of one of the key facets of government. And just becuase gonzales is "out" doesn't mean he's off the hook. The hearings and investigations will continue, as they should.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "As john edwards said - better late than never. But so much of the damage has already been done." I agree with Edwards, but I also agree with the second sentence. It's like closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Here's a pipe dream- if Bush wants to restore any kind of credibilty, appoint a Democrat.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I never did understand why the President didn't just do like his predecessor and fire ALL the attorneys, hiring back just those he wanted.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 For the umpteenth time, Bush DID fire all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term, as most presidents do. He then fired in the middle of his term a select few, which is very rare, and is what raised the eyebrows to begin with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <He should have just fired them all again.> But most of them were his people at that point. How it usually works is that the incoming president fires all of them, and hires others. Reagan fired all the Carter-appointed guys and replaced them; Clinton fired all the Bush guys; Bush II fired all the Clinton guys. But at that point, they're THAT president's appointees. A two-term president typically simply keeps who he appointed before, who now have more experience, etc. That's why firing the 8 or 9 he did raised the eyebrows. In recent history, a few have been fired for incompetence, but only in isolated incidences. 8 or 9 all at once looked fishy, and when the attorneys in question (all Republicans) reported having similar experiences - they were either investigating Republicans or refusing to press investigations of Democrats that they thought had no merit - that really raised eyebrows. Which were further raised when Gonzales and co. initially insisted they were fired for "merit," and then the memos turned up showing that the real reason was that they weren't considered "loyal Bushies," and the attorneys in question turned out to have glowing performance reviews as well.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Here's a pipe dream- if Bush wants to restore any kind of credibilty, appoint a Democrat.>> LOL.. yea right like there is a single Democrat out there that is credible. LOL
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Are we really to the point of division in this country where a Republican can't envision a single Democrat who would be suitable for a given cabinet position, or vice versa? It's worth noting that once in a while, presidents have appointed cabinet secretaries from across the aisle. The most recent being Clinton and William Cohen.
Originally Posted By friendofdd LOL I'm with you, KT. Regardless how it is done, it is the President's right to do so. And most things presidents do have at least some political motivation. I am not a supporter of Gonzales. If anything I was disappointed at his "weak" showing before congress and I think we need somebody else. But the firings simply showed that our "new congress" can't figure out what they should do for the country so they will start yet another "investigation" of the Administration. The electorate didn't give them the majority because they promised they would "get Bush".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "LOL.. yea right like there is a single Democrat out there that is credible. LOL" Looks like you missed my point, but are you saying there are no credible Democrats?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> But the firings simply showed that our "new congress" can't figure out what they should do for the country so they will start yet another "investigation" of the Administration. << This particular investigation showed that the attorney general was repeatedly lying to congress, as well as being evasive. Sounds like time well spent to me. Of course, the republican party makes heroes out of people who perjure themselves before congress - see oliver north.
