Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, you only implied it to the point of suggestion. I suppose you are no longer suggesting it, because you're now backpeddling, again.> No, I didn't imply it, and I didn't suggest it. I said it, because it's true. I'm sorry you can't understand reality. <Again, he was in the ICU, and such a statement borders on rank idiocy.> Idiocy is continuing to state something as fact when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Comey testimony makes it clear that not only was Mr Ashcroft capable of making his wishes clear, he did so.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<None of these reports you read about Comey's testimony mentioned, um, Comey's testimony??>> <Of course they did. They just did not reproduce it in total. > Every report I read of this incident, in print and online, mentioned either via Comey's testimony or in summarizing, that Ashcroft was in the ICU. Unless you're relying solely on far-right news sources, it's hard to see how you could have missed that. But no matter - we've established now, even to you, that Ashcroft was indeed in the ICU. Gonzalez and Card must have known that, as that's where they found him. They also had to have known that Ashcroft had designated Comey to make decisions in his stead while he was in the ICU. So you still haven't answered how in the world it could be ethical for Gonzalez and Card to do an end run around Comey - who was made acting A.G. for the specific reason of making decisions in Ashcroft's stead - and visit a man they knew was very, very ill in an ICU to try to get a decision out of him that was different than Comey's, even though Ashcroft himself had already made the same decision as Comey when he was in good health. How in the world is that ethical?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Every report I read of this incident, in print and online, mentioned either via Comey's testimony or in summarizing, that Ashcroft was in the ICU.> Neither the Washington Post editorial that you linked to earlier, or the NY Times report that ecdc linked to soon after, mentioned that Ashcroft was in the ICU. I did a Google search and only got left wing blogs talking about it. After Kartoon linked to the Dallas News report, I tried again, but the Dallas News was the only hard news source that mentioned it amongst the first 10 links that came up. <How in the world is that ethical?> Again, as long as they didn't go there assuming he would be unimpaired and thus unable to make a coherent decision, and they didn't try to threaten or bribe him to change his mind, I don't see anything unethical in what they did.
Originally Posted By jonvn "No, I didn't imply it, and I didn't suggest it. I said it, because it's true." OH, in that case you were, and are, simply lying. Thanks for the clarification. "Comey testimony makes it clear that not only was Mr Ashcroft capable of making his wishes clear, he did so." No. You're lying again.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't see anything unethical in what they did<< That's really no surprise, is it? Undying support and defense of this administration requires a rather liberal interpretation of pesky things like "ethics."
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Again, as long as they didn't go there assuming he would be unimpaired and thus unable to make a coherent decision, and they didn't try to threaten or bribe him to change his mind, I don't see anything unethical in what they did.<< You're wrong.
Originally Posted By jonvn Of course he's wrong. It's outright dishonesty to suggest that these people would not know the condition of the AG, or that somehow someone in the hospital for a week, let alone the ICU would be in any condition to make clear headed decisions. It's simply disgusting at how low some people will go in order to defend what is becoming more and more a criminal outfit we have in the Admin.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Neither the Washington Post editorial that you linked to earlier, or the NY Times report that ecdc linked to soon after, mentioned that Ashcroft was in the ICU. I did a Google search and only got left wing blogs talking about it. After Kartoon linked to the Dallas News report, I tried again, but the Dallas News was the only hard news source that mentioned it amongst the first 10 links that came up.> You only go to the first 10, huh? Anyway, an editorial is not really a hard news STORY and is of necessity compressed. Why the NY times article didn't mention it I don't know, but everyone else here knew he was in the ICU - it was pretty common knowledge, so it can't just have been mentioned one or two places. And, of course, it was in Comey's testimony itself. <<How in the world is that ethical?>? <Again, as long as they didn't go there assuming he would be unimpaired and thus unable to make a coherent decision,> Perhaps your Freudian slip is showing, but I'm guessing you meant "as long as they didn't go there assuming he would be impaired." But that's not a logical assumption. Anyone in an ICU is on pain meds at the very least. For something as painful as pancreaitis -which as vbdad55 pointed out, brings "untold pain" - they'd be some heavy duty meds. According to Comey, Ashcroft eventually roused himself and stood his ground, but he also said Ashcroft seemed out of it when they first got there. The logical assumption would be that anyone in the ICU for 6 days with pancreatitius might very well be out of it. And since there WAS a designated acting AG, there was no need to see Ashcroft in the first place, unless they were trying to do and end run around Comey. <and they didn't try to threaten or bribe him to change his mind, I don't see anything unethical in what they did.> Wow. I mean, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but wow. You don't see anything unethical in what they did. Wow. Says a lot.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Meanwhile, we were told by a poster who supposedly has superior knowledge of the law that Monica Gooding would not have been offered immunity if she didn't have some dirt to spill, and people were sure she would point the finger at AG Gonzales. Didn't happen." What a joke. The Repubilcans on the committee did everything but ask her out on a date. <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003722490_robinson29.html" target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.c om/html/opinion/2003722490_robinson29.html</a> An excerpt: "Everyone else who was listening last Wednesday had to be flabbergasted as Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee — apparently having been struck deaf and blind — lobbed softball after softball at witness Monica Goodling. This was after Goodling had already fessed up to applying a political litmus test for career Justice employees. I repeat: career employees, not political appointees. Only loyal Republicans should bother to apply. The deaf and blind Republicans on the committee apparently missed that part of her opening statement. They also missed the part when she accused Gonzales' former deputy, Paul McNulty, of telling untruths to Congress — and, in the process, hanging Goodling out to dry. Those dogged GOP interrogators did, however, manage to elicit from Goodling the startling disclosure that she believes she is a good person, and also the revelation that while she might have broken a few laws, she didn't set out to do anything illegal."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Ashcroft confirms that there was, contrary to what Gonzales testified, significant debate.... From todays AP story.... >>WASHINGTON - The administration was sharply divided over the legality of President Bush's most controversial eavesdropping policies, a congressman quoted former Attorney General John Ashcroft as telling a House panel Thursday. "It is very apparent to us that there was robust and enormous debate within the administration about the legal basis for the president's surveillance program," Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, told reporters after a closed-door meeting with Ashcroft. The point is critical to two matters being considered in the Democratic-controlled Congress: One is the House and Senate Intelligence committees' ongoing review of 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which includes an extensive examination of the president's warrantless eavesdropping program. The other is the House and Senate Judiciary Committees' parallel examinations of current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' service to the administration. Under that probe, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey revealed that Gonzales, then White House counsel, tried to pressure him and a critically ill Ashcroft to certify the legality of the wiretapping program. Comey and Ashcroft, who was in intensive care during Gonzales' 2004 hospital visit, refused to comply. Also Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee authorized _ but did not issue _ subpoenas to Gonzales and to the custodian of records at the Executive Office of the President for all administration documents on the legality of the program. The panel approved giving Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., authority to issue the subpoenas, 13-3, with Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa voting with the Democrats. The White House made no move to comply. "It's important for Congress to understand that the information the committee is requesting is highly classified and not information we can make available," said Bush spokesman Tony Fratto. "Also important is for Congress to respect our need to ensure that internal executive branch deliberations are confidential. Democrats have insisted that the hospital story appears to contradict Gonzales' congressional testimony that there had been no significant disagreement within the administration over the program. Gonzales has stood by his testimony. In his first public comments on the subject, Ashcroft told reporters he was pleased to cooperate and "to signal that I want to do everything I can to make sure that the framework we have for defeating terror, defending the liberty and security of the United States in the context of our Constitution, that that capacity remains intact and is functioning properly." He refused to take questions.<<
