Originally Posted By Dabob2 You may feel differently, KT, but to me the politicalization of a Justice Dept. that is supposed to be impartial IS a big deal. Betraying our counties ideals by insisting that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" IS a big deal. Allowing the government to snoop on citizens without warrants IS a big deal. I would think a libertarian like you wouldn't like that last one either. But again, you may feel differently.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This particular investigation showed that the attorney general was repeatedly lying to congress, as well as being evasive.> Well no. What it showed was that the attorney general wasn't very good at explaining himself, especially when he keeps getting cut off by bullying Senators. A stronger man could have presented himself better, but may not have been a better AG.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Gonzales was the author of the infamous "torture memo". He was instrumental in increasing the power of the executive branch to near imperial levels. Gonzales pooh-poohed the geneva conventions as "quaint", and is largely responsible for the abuses of guantanamo and abu ghraib. Gonzales presided over the politicization of the justice department, undermining the constitution he was sworn to uphold and protect in the process. He lied to congress. He badgered the former AG on his sickbed in an attempt to gain authorization for the warrantless wiretaps. In sum, bush supporters would have you believe that people opposed gonzales's term out of a misplaced frustration with the bush administration in general. Gonzales doesn't accept any personal responsibility for his actions, so why should bush supporters? Instead, just chalk it up to grumpy liberals. Geez - take a look at the man's record whydoncha? He earned every criticism he received on the merits of his own actions.
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.>> <Repetition of an error does not make it a fact. President Bush did not fire all the attorneys at the beginning of his first term.> Okay, here's the real deal: <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys" target="_blank">http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind ex.php?title=Bush_administration_U.S._attorney_firings_controversy/Firings_and_activities_of_fired_U.S._attorneys</a> "George W. Bush: Did not dismiss all the attorneys en masse when he assumed office. Bush Allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months until he replaced with his own selections early in his administration." So he dismissed all but a handful, and them they kept for several months. So, as so often with you, technically correct but rather misleading. <Rather, he did what most presidents do, and that is replace (or keep them, in some cases) as their terms expired.> Most presidents? According to that source, of the last four, Reagan and Clinton dismissed all immediately, GWB dismissed all but a few (and kept them for only a few months), and GHWB kept some (from a pres. of the same party, of course), but doesn't say how many. I would guess that most presidents replacing a president of the other party dismiss them all immediately or (as with Bush 43) all but immediately. <<The most recent being Clinton and William Cohen.>> <Well no. The most recent was President Bush and Norman Mineta.> Right you are, I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Lieberman's name has been floated. It's an intruiging possibility as those things go.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So lies about sex are the same as lies that cause wanton death, destruction and misery for millions of people.> The only person I'm aware of whose lies have caused wanton death, destruction and misery for millions of people would be Saddam Hussein. I'm not aware of a single claim by President Bush that could be considered a lie. Most of the accusations made by the Bush administration against Saddam were true, and the few that weren't were the same claims made by the previous administration.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Post 43 could serve as the official Alberto Gonzales bio.> Sure, if you're more interested in caricatures than truths.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So he dismissed all but a handful, and them they kept for several months. So, as so often with you, technically correct but rather misleading.> Your posts are both incorrect and misleading.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Meanwhile, back in the real world: <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpgon285348891aug28" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/op inion/ny-vpgon285348891aug28</a>,0,6000527.story "He had to go. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who announced his resignation yesterday, was painfully unsuited to be the nation's top law enforcement official. He had too little respect for the truth, the rule of law and the Constitution. And he was loyal to a fault, to his patron and friend, President George W. Bush. Gonzales was Bush's enabler. When he should have provided principled counsel on the requirements of the law and the Constitution, he instead fashioned rationalizations for torture, indefinite detention and warrantless wiretaps. When it appeared that the administration fired eight United States attorneys it judged insufficiently partisan in selecting targets for prosecution, Gonzales fronted a clumsy cover-up. His evasive, shifting explanations for the firings - sprinkled with convenient memory lapses and a stunning lack of accountability - left even many congressional Republicans exasperated with his artless dodges." There's more, but that sums it up nicely. Gonzalez' loyalty was to Bush rather than to the Constitution, and that in itself makes him a terrible A.G.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So he dismissed all but a handful, and them they kept for several months. So, as so often with you, technically correct but rather misleading.>> <Your posts are both incorrect and misleading.> Not so. The real story - how many were fired and when - is there for all to see. And when I AM wrong, I admit it. Would that you would.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom As far as the majority of American Citizens are concerned this is the Democratic Party jumping up and down saying "this is important to us, so it should be important to you". Meanwhile, the nurtured hords yell for more handouts and "bread and circus", all of which the politicians are more than happy to dole out with no thought to sustainability.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Sure, if you're more interested in caricatures than truths. << You can take potshots at others who are critical of gonzales, or you can step up to the plate, show the strength of your convictions, and defend his tenure as AG. Which will it be?
Originally Posted By jonvn San Jose Airport is named for Norman Mineta. Quite an honor, considering he's still alive. I thought they usually do that for people have already passed on. Gonzales was not doing a good job. He had very little support. So he went. Good riddance.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The polls showed a majority thought Gonzalez should resign, actually, KT.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>As far as the majority of American Citizens are concerned this is the Democratic Party jumping up and down saying "this is important to us, so it should be important to you".<< Reminds me of Watergate. >>Meanwhile, the nurtured hords yell for more handouts and "bread and circus", all of which the politicians are more than happy to dole out with no thought to sustainability.<< Hooray! More beating up on the poor. Good thing they don't have the Internet (or know how to type) otherwise, they might be able to respond.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The real story - how many were fired and when - is there for all to see.> Yes, and it's what I said, not what you said. <And when I AM wrong, I admit it.> No, you don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can take potshots at others who are critical of gonzales, or you can step up to the plate, show the strength of your convictions, and defend his tenure as AG.> I did. If you want to take potshots at Republicans, you need to expect some return fire on occasion.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<The polls showed a majority thought Gonzalez should resign, actually, KT.>> <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/" target="_blank">http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenu mbers/</a> <Gonzales and the Base August 27, 2007 11:21 AM While the controversy that today ended Alberto Gonzales’ tenure as attorney general has not been front and center of public concerns, he’s hardly been popular – perhaps most tellingly, lacking a strong partisan base that might otherwise have shored him up. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll we conducted in June, 52 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Gonzales handled the U.S. attorney firings, while only half as many, 25 percent, approved. Barely over a third, moreover (35 percent), were prepared to say Gonzales should keep his job; 43 percent though he should lose it. On both these questions, quite a lot of people – 23 and 22 percent, respectively – had no opinion, an indication of inattention to the issue. To some it's probably seemed like more of the usual political fare from Washington, overshadowed by more pressing issues, especially the 800-pound gorilla of current public concerns, the war in Iraq.> 35% said he should stay, and another 22% had no opinion. <an indication of inattention to the issue>
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<Hooray! More beating up on the poor. Good thing they don't have the Internet (or know how to type) otherwise, they might be able to respond.>> Who's beating up on the poor? I say if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a duck, then its a duck. So, regardless of if your Walmart or Suzie Snowflake if your getting a tax break or handout its all adds up to the same thing; free money!
