Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIs Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who today announced his resignation, a man of his word? Consider his comments of recent months.
March 13, 2007:
I've overcome a lot of obstacles in my life to become attorney general. I am here not because I give up. I am here because I've learned from my mistakes, because I accept responsibility, and because I am committed to doing my job. And that is what I intend to do here on behalf of the American people.
March 14, 2007:
I work for the American people and I serve at the pleasure of the president of the United States. That's a
decision for the president to make [whether I remain attorney general]. Obviously I am focused on looking to see what happened here in this particular case with respect to these U.S. attorneys and making sure that it doesn't happen again, making sure that Congress understands what happened....But I'm also focused on the other issues that the American people care about, like child predators and gangs and drug dealers, things of that nature. So I've got a lot of responsibilities as attorney general, and I'm focused on those responsibilities.
March 22, 2007:
I'm not going to resign. I'm going to stay focused on protecting our kids. There's a lot of work that needs to be done around the country. The department is responsible for protecting our kids, for making our neighborhoods safe, for protecting our country against attacks of terrorism, to going after gangs, going after drug dealers. I'm staying focused on that.
April 19, 2007:
I believe I can continue to be effective as the attorney general of the United States.
April 21, 2007:
[I will remain attorney general] as long as I can continue to serve effectively....There are a series of priorities, a series of objectives, that I want to see accomplished, and we are working as hard as we can to achieve those objectives.
June 1, 2007:
I know that I only have 18 months left in my term as attorney general, and that really does not feel like a lot of time to accomplish all of the goals that are important to me. So often Washington seems to run at a marathon pace, but I intend to spend the next year and a half in a sprint to the finish line.
June 11, 2007:
I'm focused on protecting our kids....I am focused on the next 18 months. I don't expect the department to crawl or walk slowly toward the finish line.
July 24, 2007:
From my perspective, there are two options available in light of these allegations [regarding the firings of the U.S. attorneys]. I could walk away or I could devote my time, effort and energy to fix the problems. Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing.
While fending off attacks, Gonzales declared (1) he was not a quitter; (2) it was up to George W. Bush whether he stayed on as A.G. or left; and (3) he was committed to working hard as attorney general to protect the American people, particularly safeguarding the nation's children from Internet predators.
Well, he is quitting. And in a brief public statement today--no questions, please!--Bush said he was "reluctantly" accepting Gonzales' resignation, suggesting that Gonzales had decided to skedaddle on his own. Though Gonzales in a brief statement gave no reason for his resignation--as if one was needed--Bush explained his consigliere's departure by saying "his good name was dragged through the mud for political reason." Bush did not explain what partisan motives have spurred Republican Senators Tom Coburn, John Sununu, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Jeff Sessions, Norm Coleman, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith, George Voinovich, Charles Grassley, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Lindsey Graham to question Gonzales' credibility and performance, with several of them calling for his resignation. And, finally, what about the children Gonzales was so committed to protecting? Sadly, they will have to get on without him.
With research assistance from Matthew Blake.
******
OUT IN PAPERBACK: 
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
He's still "protecting the kids".
The maladapted ones in the sandbox at 1600 Pennsylvania AV.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/27/2007 @ 1:44pm
mr. gonzales has left the administration to write (actually ghost written by mr. rove) his memoirs:
it will be entitled:
"I DON'T RECALL"
with the subtitle:
"Pleasuring the President"
to subpoena your copy call 1-800-SQUIR-MEE or log on to:
i'mnotatlibertytosay.bs
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 1:56pm
"Pleasuring the President" Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/27/2007 @ 1:56pm
Hasn't history shown that that act in itself is an impeachable offense, or is that just when Democrats are concerned?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/27/2007 @ 2:01pm
and this guy 'dj in az' actually suggested that this was all about democrats dragging bush/gonzo through the mud in a 'political theater'. nevermind that:
1) he quit
2) numerous republicans wanted him to quit
Posted by darladoon at 08/27/2007 @ 2:02pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/27/2007 @ 2:01pm
that's great!!!!
(but this time the people of the world have played the role of "the dress")
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 2:06pm
Seems fairly typical....
Be it a football coach w/"full confidence of the University"....
Be it a corp. CEO....Bob Nardelli at Home Depot.....Carly Fiorina at HP......w/"full confidence of the Board"...
Be it The New Republic.....repeated "stand by" of Pfc. Beauchamp's Baghdad Dairies......
NYT's "support" of Judith Miller......
Quant/Hedge Funds still vouching for their "models".....
Libs/Progressives' "stand by" gambling buyers betting on housing with 100% of OPM with exotic mortgages....
Venezuelan poor's "staunch support" for Chavez even as they are emerging as the biggest victims of his inept economic (not his spending) policies...
Posted by Happy at 08/27/2007 @ 2:13pm
(but this time the people of the world have played the role of "the dress")
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/27/2007 @ 2:06pm
And the stain may never wash out. No matter how much we scrub we still feel used, cheap, and dirty.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/27/2007 @ 2:29pm
"Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!" (V.i.22-23)
"Here's the smell of blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand" (V.i.50-51).
double ouch
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 2:36pm
True, Mr Corn, I really don't see how ANY of our usual Bush fans (RIO, LVLIB, PONTI, etc.) are going to spin this as anything "partisan" (with LINDSEY GRAHAM against Gonzales?!?!?)...or that Gonzales timed this resignation, based on a strategy, not on a legitimate desire to either "do the right thing" or even "spend more time with his family!"
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 2:41pm
The top three positions in the Justice Dept. will now be vacant. Is this by design or incompetence?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 2:46pm
KROK TV, Channel 13, Libertyville, Nebraska
"NEWS FLASH-this just in.
President Bush has nominated Jack Bauer to replace out-going Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.
Stay tuned to KROK. More details at the conclusion of "Lindsay Lohan's Summer Vaction".
We now return to our regularly scheduled program."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 2:56pm
To his credit, he didn't bother to lie about why he was leaving. "¡No más!" Sometimes it's just over.
Posted by MyParadigm at 08/27/2007 @ 2:58pm
I am reminded of the situation in chess where there are no remaining pawns to obstruct the path to the king. Followed by that little dance where the king moves from square to square for as long as he can.
Posted by MyParadigm at 08/27/2007 @ 3:03pm
Late this Monday morning the American people were devastated by the announcement of from the office of Attorney General. Tired of being the Capitol Hill pinata, Bush's Fredo left tail-between-legs after multiple hit attempts by congress. Not that Gonzales will be any safer from subpoenas in his personal version of the witness protection program. After months of not recalling essential information about suspicious U.S. Attorney firings, strong arming a drugged up John Ashcroft in a hospital room over illegal wiretapping procedures, and and the illegal wiretapping program itself, Gonzales has decided that his selective amnesia has become a "harmful distraction at the Department of Justice." Gonzales joins Deputy Chief of Staff and top Bush adviser Karl Rove, as well as key republicans in congress to hang 'em up this August, while also giving the White House the opportunity to get a quick recess appointment in while congress is still on vacation.
CrookedInc.Com [crookedinc.com]
Posted by gvincent27 at 08/27/2007 @ 3:23pm
Posted by GVINCENT27 08/27/2007 @ 3:23pm
Bush won't "recess" in a new AG. He'd catch too much grief from REPUBLICAN Senators. The Acting AG will hold the fort down until the free-for-all hearings in mid-September and some "considered by those on both sides of the aisle as respected and independent" nominee is thrown out there....just like Bob Gates.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 3:27pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/27/2007 @ 2:58pm
simón, ése.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 4:00pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 08/27/2007 @ 3:03pm
¿to a stalemate?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 4:01pm
maybe Gonzalez will replace Wolfowitz at the world bank
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/27/2007 @ 4:09pm
NO CHILD'S BEHIND LEFT...
Ought to be the Republican slogan.
Posted by w_m_bear at 08/27/2007 @ 4:21pm
or that Gonzales timed this resignation, based on a strategy, not on a legitimate desire to either "do the right thing" or even "spend more time with his family!"
Posted by MASK 08/27/2007 @ 2:41pm
YEAH, YA GOTTA RESPECT THE GUY FOR THAT...
I mean, for not pulling that "to spend more time with his family" crapola...
NOT!
(Well, that may be a bit harsh. At least he resigned without making the usual excuses.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 08/27/2007 @ 4:25pm
I call on all Republicans to surrender, like Alberto Gonzales.
Resign, Republicans, let Bush deal with it himself.
Posted by conshame at 08/27/2007 @ 4:28pm
I ignored FRANK's obvious hate of Boy Scouts and you,m a teacher, chimes in! May I ask why? Is it because they exclude gays as the sole reason? Why do you think Christians (just about all Scouts & families) think you Libs are despicable?
We completed a project at an area Elementary School...as most Eagle Projects are....community service! You Libs are often pretty low! Well deserved! It's story like you & Frank that gets passed around at campfires among us adults!
I have two sons....one is already an adult and an Eagle Scout....I won't focus on him....My younger son is 16 and working toward his Eagle Scout:
Since 2002, he has worked on 20 Eagle Projects and accumulated over 130 hours of service to our community.....as his fater, I have been both keeping track of his hours (for use on future college applications) and have helped in 80 to 90% of such projects. Perhaps your community is so LIBERAL, you know next to nothing about what Scouting is all about and yet, based on slanders and occassional abuses by despicable adults, as if such adults don't exist elsewhere but in churches and Scouting, you have long reached your sorry-ass conclusions and you are essentially, the worst of bigots! Your attitudes to Scouting is so similar to the way Ivy Leagues treat the ROTC! and I say, F&^% you!
I will continue to speak of and speak up FOR the Boy Scouts of America......if your children ever joins the military, within their first chain of command among officers, will be former Scouts!
My 16-yr old has mentioned the Air Force Academy (like his grandfather) twice now in the past year! Mom doesn't want to encourage him, I am Good! Reality is, competition is so high, it's a long, long, long shot anyway!
Posted by Happy at 08/27/2007 @ 4:31pm
Think Frito resigned per showing up on a Chris Hansen episode?
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2007 @ 4:33pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/27/2007 @ 4:25pm
Timed both in the way that he left AFTER Rove, thus removing Rove as a major target (If Gonzales had left first, the Dems would look to Rove...this way, they have to decide which guy to go after and the complication of the fact they are 'out of sight, out of mind' by not being in Washington anymore)....
and timed in the sense of it's the recess, and after the recess, comes Petreaus and his Goody-Goody-Gumdrops-in-Baghdad Report.
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 4:50pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 08/27/2007 @ 4:09pm
:+}
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 4:52pm
Although rOve and Frito are now moving targets, it's only a slight change in movement now than before, but with better contrasting envornment as a backdrop; making for a better aim-- much better targets of inquiry, investigation, subpoenas and prosecution as before. Can't say that they're being taken away from doing their important jobs of helping run the country... er, what jobs?
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/27/2007 @ 5:20pm
Maybe Ann Coulter will be the next Attorney General-- she has a law degree.
Posted by habiba at 08/27/2007 @ 5:27pm
And there's a very good chance that Gonzales simply "can't recall" having made all of those promises to protect children. He's obviously suffering from early-onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Posted by habiba at 08/27/2007 @ 5:33pm
Posted by HABIBA 08/27/2007 @ 5:27pm
hissssssssssssssssss..................
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 5:42pm
The bottom line is Gonzales lost his credibility with Congress, his department, and the American people.
Governing Justice had become a nightmare for him in which all of his time was being spent on congressional inquiries rather than running the department.
Because Gonzales and Rove were the two main proponents of politicizing the Justice Department, which has to be even-handed in its investigations, it is good to see them both no longer in government.
Good bye Fredo and goodbye Turd Blossom, and good riddance!
Posted by Metteyya at 08/27/2007 @ 6:00pm
Good bye Fredo and goodbye Turd Blossom, and good riddance!
Posted by METTEYYA 08/27/2007 @ 6:00pm
"I'll be back"--The Rovenator
©2007 K-Street Follies, Inc.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 6:09pm
Geez, HAPPY; what in the wide world of sports was THAT about? Do try to stay on subject please. P.S. I, do agree that the Cub, Brownie, Boy and Girl scouts of America do a lot of worthwhile things. But you know, so do we liberals.
Posted by The Goods at 08/27/2007 @ 6:11pm
David Corn in-sourced the article. While traveling the byways and the highways of Europe, Corn's research aid found numerous quotations by Gonzalez who had pledged to work tirelessly (no extra charge for lying to Congress or not knowing who his deputy AG's wanted to fire) in spite of all the obstacles he a poor Mexican-American had to endure.
Corn, while you're there in Europe, take a few minutes out from looking at art and see if you can determine why socialized medicine works in France and why flood control works in Holland.
If you listen to the Republicans, they'll tell you it's because government is not subject to market forces but if you think about it, you may conclude that it has more to do with Republicans actively proving government is the problem.
I hope Bush is not serious about Chertoff for AG. He would be as damaging to DOJ as he was to New Orleans when he took over FEMA.
James Comey for AG. Then things would change.
Posted by NeilSagan at 08/27/2007 @ 7:00pm
...so do we liberals.
Posted by THE GOODS 08/27/2007 @ 6:11pm
Scouts are among the children Gonzales is concerned about....and of course, rogue adult Scouters that prey on kids through their positions of trust....
I spend a lot of time over 16 yrs w/Scouting and have volunteered thousands of hours and thousands of dollars! It ain't perfect but I DO take it as my Duty to uphold it....no less than some Libs defend their whatever organizations!
Posted by Happy at 08/27/2007 @ 7:16pm
HAPPY:
Actually, I am an Eagle Scout. I have problems with the way the Boy Scouts are run, not least of which is the penchant of soutmasters to run their troops like para-military organizations.
When I was coming up through the BSA organization, there were some good, there were some bad. On the whole, it was a positive experience. But excluding people from that experience because of things about themselves they can't change is stupid, pure and simple. And since they are a non-profit organization (thereby receiving de facto government financial support) they should be forced to abide by the same rules as any other recipient of federal funds.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 7:37pm
pardon me, SCOUTmasters... damned keyboard is being dodgy tonight.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 7:38pm
And speaking of being concerned for our kids... how about prosecuting some of these private contractors who are fleecing the government (read: you and me and, more importantly, our children) out of literally billions of dollars. Custer Battles would be a good start... oh wait, the Bush Administration tried to prevent the bringing of any charges against them. Then, when they were finally found guilty, one of Bush's appointees set aside the verdict.
Oh yeah, this administration is ALL about looking after our kids. The unborn ones. Once they're born, fuck em. Let's ship em off to Baghdad as cannon fodder.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 7:47pm
"...Let's ship em off to Baghdad as cannon fodder."
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/27/2007 @ 7:47pm
Not all of them. Someone has to pay down the debt. Are there no workhouses?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/27/2007 @ 7:56pm
MALCONTENT:
We could always just incarcerate the rest and make them work for pennies to make all the crap the ownership class uses. Oh wait, who would pay all the taxes then?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 7:59pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/27/2007 @ 4:31pm
I've got nothing against the boy scouts except for their being homophobic. Why would you think that? My own son was a boy scout for awhile.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:11pm
The toughest job in this country is defending the Busah administration. The question everyone should be asking is if they've done nothing wrong, why would they need defending. I wouldn't want to be the next AG.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:13pm
Now if we could just get Cheney to resign in disgrace.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:14pm
No, Cheney will never resign. He's sort of the Ahab of this tale.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 8:17pm
Harry Reid, "Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), referring to the belief among many Democrats that political strategist Rove engineered the ouster of the U.S. attorneys to make room for appointees more loyal to Bush.
"This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House."
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:17pm
There is no mess. Leave the man alone.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 8:24pm
Bush said. "It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeding from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."
Bush should have said, "It's sad that we live in a time because of My incompetence that a hack like Gonzo is impede from doing his job because my decisions put him in an impossible position. He never really had a good name because he always was a political hack. I destroyed him because of political reasons."
If Bush was an honorable man, that would have been his statement.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:26pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 8:24pm
I'm sure that's what you said about Janet Reno too, right?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:27pm
I was listening to C-Span before. Half the calls that came in on the republican line were anti-Gonzo and had a good riddance air to them.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:29pm
This is what happens when croynism is rampant. Instead of getting qualified people to do a job for the country, we get political hacks whose only loyalty is to the guy that hired them. This is poison for a democracy.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 8:30pm
More like, "if we lived in a time when the congress and media did their jobs and refrained from conspiring to political witchhunts, we would be a safer, stronger, more united nation."
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 8:31pm
USAPRIDE:
As much as I dislike Clinton (both, actually), your comments smack of double-dealing. I wonder what you had to say about Ken Starr and the Lewinsky mess.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 8:40pm
A big waste of our resources. It also made us less secure - among other things. I figure, if your family forgives you, so should the nation.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 8:53pm
USAPRIDE:
Why, oh why, don't I believe you?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 8:54pm
Oh, and I'm curious as to how far your live and let live policy goes? Certainly it wouldn't extend to other crimes. I mean, hey... my mom forgave me for smoking pot in college... if I were to get busted for carrying it now, according to you, shouldn't that be enough?
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 8:56pm
Cheating on your wife is not a crime.
You're doing apples to oranges.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 8:57pm
USAPRIDE:
Well then, why not just make cheating on your wife against the law, punishable by incarceration. Hell, that's a lot more destructive to society than smoking pot.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:00pm
Why instantly run amuck? Let's stay between the lines.
I hope your next question is not going to involve pigs in flight.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:03pm
Actually, it's amok. But hey, I'm a grammar nazi.
Anyway, my point is, USAPRIDE, that based on your commentary here over the past year or more it is clear you are notoriously one-sided and hypocritical in your application of morality. And I am not the only one who will vouch for that.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:09pm
And the only flying pigs I know of are generally at Pink FLoyd concerts, or wearing police uniforms while riding in helicopters.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:10pm
Funny stuff. I'm a huge fan of the Floyd.
I'll accept your charge of my being "one-sided". But only if you concede that you have also been one-sided.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 8:31pm
I'll bet you said that during the Clinton Administration too, huh?
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:16pm
hippocritical fool
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:17pm
Wingers are like the bully in the school yard. They pick on the littlest kid and then when a bigger kid challanges them they run away with their tails between their legs. Makes me sick.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:19pm
Oh shit, here comes Frank. As usual, he will be "frank" with his input, but then again, he's never been wrong.
Now we have pigs in flight.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:20pm
USAPRIDE:
LOL actually, I haven't been. In my view, moral relativism is intellectual dishonesty. I have been just as critical, if not moreso, of liberals and progressives as I have of conservatives.
See, I expect that sort of behavior from right-wing-nutters. Hypocrisy is their modus operandi. I expect better of progressives. Unfortunately, I am often disappointed in my expectations of people on my side of the debate. Hence my post about the various presidential candidates from a few days ago.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:20pm
The only thing I ever get wrong is my spelling.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:25pm
J, do you have friends who are "wingers" that you respect?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:26pm
Some silly Blonde wingnut is on Hannity blaming the democrats for Gonzo's demise. Nothing was his fault.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:26pm
J, do you have friends who are "wingers" that you respect?
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:26pm
I do, but not for their politics or their intelligence. Most of them are good people who just don't do their homework and always fall for the soundbytes. I actually have a couple in my own family. Hell, my brother-in-law actually buys Rush Limbaugh's ugly ties.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:28pm
USAPRIDE:
No, not wingers. Wingers generally are irrational, amoral (or falsely moral), authoritarian, dishonest, and ignorant... all of which are characteristics I loathe. I do have some conservative friends whom I respect a great deal. But they are none of the above. And they have been right there with me in decrying the Bush Administration and its illegalities and malfeasance.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:29pm
Frank for Prez.
The canidate that has all the right answers.
You've got my vote. Run Frank, run...
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:30pm
FRANKGRITS:
As much as I hate to admit it, I actually like Limbaugh's ties. They do have a certain bold panache.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:30pm
Seriously, thething I hate most is stupidity. I consider George Bush to be a stupid man in the most important job in the world. If his name wasn't George Bush, he'd be some assistant manager in Walmarts. And that's pushing it. I also consider people who would elect a stupid person to the Presidency even more stupid. Look at the results. Take off the blinders and SEE the results.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:31pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/27/2007 @ 9:30pm
Well isn't that special.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:32pm
USAPRIDE:
It's not a matter of being right all the time. It's a matter of asking others who are qualified to make a determination on a difficult issue. It's a matter of being honest enough to admit culpability or mistakes, and to learn from those missteps. That ALL has been lacking in the Bush Administration.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:32pm
The only thing Dubya ever did right is to sire a couple of cute daughters. Dumb as a rock but cute.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:33pm
Not a rock. A bag of hammers. Just like their parents.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:35pm
The Bush Administration has taken away the dreams of average Americans, tinkered with their Constitution and is responsible for thousands of deaths. That's some legacy. But Clinton got a blow job so that makes all of Dubya's sins ok.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:35pm
Not a rock. A bag of hammers. Just like their parents.
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/27/2007 @ 9:35pm
Yeah but you gotta admit, they're kinda cute, especially the brunette.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:36pm
So, you believe that almost 62,000,000 are wrong and you are right. Keep in mind that about 4,000,000 more of us voted for GWB.
The math simply does not add up - in your favor, that is.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:37pm
I wish this blog was like real life so that we could just put the wingers in some ignore cell, never to be heard from again. That would be progress. I don't mean actual conservatives, I'm talking wingnuts here.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:38pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:37pm
That may be the silliest post I've ever seen here and I've seen a lot. That is way too simplistic. But there is an awful lot wrong with the way we elect leaders in this country. It wasn't always that way but it sure as hell is now. Imaging somebody listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and actually taking them serious. Aparently Millions of sheep/dittoheads do.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:41pm
It's a beautiful country.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:41pm
FRANKGRITS:
You know what they say about showdogs. The prettier they are, the stupider they are.
USAPRIDE:
I am saying you ALL are wrong... everyone who voted for Bush AND Kerry last time out. If we are honest, we ALL know this country is fucked up. But we continue to settle for the bullshit candidates that are pre-selected for us. No wonder this country is so messed up. And then we have a substantial minority (hint: that's you!) in this country who thinks that's just ducky. I guess you like it when people piss on your back and tell you it's raining.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:42pm
Do you considered me a wingnut Frank?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:44pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:44pm
Sometimes I can give you the benefit of the doubt but when you post things like you've done tonight, it's awfully hard. You know that republicans tortured Bill Clinton for 8 years and even before that. BTW, he was soundly re-elected.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:48pm
USAPRIDE:
If you have been honest about your true feelings in your posts here, there is no doubt you are a right-wing-nutter.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 9:49pm
BJ never got a majority of the vote. I didn't hear you complaining about the electoral college back then.
Hmmm..............
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 9:51pm
The country has become way too polarized and it's all because of people like Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, Rupert, Murdoch, Richard Mellon Schaif, Tom Delay, etc., etc. Name one democrat who plays that dirty.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:51pm
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:51pm
See, I give you the benefit of the doubt and you go and say something stupid again. Come and borrow some books from me. Read them and we'll have some good conversations.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:53pm
I've said it a hundred times now. There's only one way to get the country back on the right track. We have to marginalize the republican party in the next election. We need to elect a dem to the WH and increase substantially the seats in both Houses. We need to keep this situation in tact for the next 12 years at least and at the same time allow the emergence of a viable third party. In no event should we ever let neo-cons into anything resembling power again.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:56pm
gotta go now. Chew on that for awhile.
Posted by frankgrits at 08/27/2007 @ 9:57pm
USAPRIDE:
That has got to be the most nonsensical comment you have made in a while.
FRANKGRITS:
I disagree. The Dems are just another side of the same problem. Let's not forget, the Dems gave us NAFTA, Viet Nam, the CIA... need I go on?
We need a viable third party immediately. The longer progressives and liberals cling to the idea that the Democratic Party in general holds any promise for improving this country is sorely mistaken. Worse, even. False hope breeds apathy when unfulfilled.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 10:01pm
That Frank never learned how to go on the paper.
Poor soul.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 10:02pm
J, what is your take on Mr. Frank?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 10:06pm
Thanks for your time. I always appreciate the opportunity to share ideals.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/27/2007 @ 10:14pm
I like Frank, I just disagree with him on pinning any hope on the Democrats.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/27/2007 @ 10:21pm
Forced resignation from Gonzales is the first step for Americans to voice their strong disapproval for the Bush administration. It is no surprise to anyone that our president and his administration have stirred and cause scandals within White House and hid truth from the American public. Similar to the dealings with the war in Iraq, this administration has been feeding lies to the public. Now the war has proven to be a failure and is causing more violence, terror and poverty in this world. According to the Borgen Project, it only takes $19 billion dollars annually to eradicate world hunger and poverty. However, our government has already spent more than $450 billion dollars over this fruitless war in Iraq. It is time for the Bush Administration to take a real interest in the lives of the American people as well as people who are in desperate needs around the world. Stop the lies and stop poverty now.
Posted by Mstessyrue at 08/27/2007 @ 10:28pm
The math simply does not add up - in your favor, that is.
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/27/2007 @ 9:37pm
So one would assume given your love of mathematics, that you accept the figure "29-32%" for said President's approvals...and "65-70%" for support for withdrawel from Iraq?
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 10:31pm
Posted by MSTESSYRUE 08/27/2007 @ 10:28pm
One thing I'm always curious about when those figures are mentioned....the European Union could EASILY raise such a figure ($19 billion) from cuts to ITS military and social spending....
yet it falls to US to come up with the money. The Europeans could put up HALF that atleast and show demonstrable results rather than basis it on analysis and theories....yet they won't do anything without OUR involvement.
Why?
Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 10:34pm
Well, it's a damn shame that, 35 years after Watergate, John Dean is still the only Republican who puts his country before his party.
Posted by nathanhale at 08/27/2007 @ 11:40pm
...battles over essentially irrelevant questions... Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/27/2007 @ 11:28pm
Questions like whether members of the Executive Branch can and will execute their powers with competency?
Posted by nathanhale at 08/27/2007 @ 11:51pm
Two questions:
1) How exactly do you define a "winger"?
2) This one's for Jorcheim: why is the mere existence of a Central Intelligence Agency bad? Is it preferable to not do intelligence work while other countries (actually, pretty much all of them) are doing it, or is there some other means by which intelligence work can be done?
Posted by Thrawn at 08/28/2007 @ 12:09am
I am an Eagle Scout.
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/27/2007 @ 7:37pm
And hopefully, you will always remain an Eagle Scout! From past postings, I know you're young with lots to experience and learn! On Scouting, think of how one can teach leadership to 11-18 yrs old if NOT through some kind of hierarchy that is democratically elected/rotated and with increasing responsibilities? No need to answer.....the time will come when you have learned to handle much greater responsibilities than just for yourself. You know how much work it takes, on your part & your parents + other adults, for you to achieve the rank that less than 10% of all Scouts reach....it's a long road! It is not a mystery to dedicated Scouters and Scouts that our nation's foremost explorers, the Astronauts, are overwhelmingly Scouts, most are Eagle Rank!
As for the non-profit status and exclusion of gays, I think for the gays themselves, it would be a difficult environment! Kids below 16 can be very cruel....and each year, one or two kids leave our troop simply because they were bullied in some fashion or another! Besides, many private organizations have exclusionary rules of one sort or another! I am fairly sure in my years w/the Boy Scouts (excluding Cub Scouting part), there have been gay Scouts that were unknown to us.....like the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"....our troop has NEVER asked about a kid's sexual orientation and I don't know of any area troops that does! Staying in the closet, while in Scouting, should not be a huge burden!
Personally, in 2004 in Texas, I voted to allow civil union even though it was defeatd statewide.
Posted by Happy at 08/28/2007 @ 12:34am
Personally, in 2004 in Texas, I voted to allow civil union even though it was defeatd statewide.
Posted by HAPPY 08/28/2007 @ 12:34am
good for you
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 12:49am
HAPPY:
Actually, I'm 31. I would hardly call that young. Certainly not old, but if you are trying to imply that because I am not in my 60s, then my opinions aren't valid, I would recommend you stick that preconception where the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2007 @ 01:05am
THRAWN:
The EXISTENCE of the CIA is not, in and of itself a bad thing. The lack of popular oversight, and the carte blanche that organization has been granted IS a bad thing. From Iran-Contra, to assassinating foreign leaders, to overthrowing democratically elected governments, to whatever other black bag ops it has been perpetrating, they are not appropriate for an ostensibly democratic nation.
Posted by jorcheim at 08/28/2007 @ 01:08am
...and each year, one or two kids leave our troop simply because they were bullied in some fashion or another!
Posted by HAPPY 08/28/2007 @ 12:34am | ignore this person
Let's see...Happy says he's been teaching this for 16 years...
Scout Law
A Scout is:
Trustworthy
Loyal
Helpful
Friendly
Courteous
Kind
Obedient
Cheerful
Thrifty
Brave
Clean
Reverent
...and yet every year "one or two kids leave our troop simply because they were bullied".
Given that those laws that are bolded above have clearly NOT been taught very well in Happy's troop, perHAPs it's time for Happy to retire and let some other Scout Master do the job.
Clearly that would make 'one or two kids' each year a lot more...
...happy!
Posted by Lillian at 08/28/2007 @ 03:09am
No Katrina accountability for Chertoff (the Israeli) - thanks to Joe Lieberman, the AIPAC representative.
Joe Lieberman Betrays Hurricane Katrina victims after being elected in 2006, with the help of the GOP:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/60797/
A prominent Republican who chairs I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's legal defense fund in the CIA leak affair co-hosted a fundraiser Wednesday for Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is running for re-election as an independent after losing the Democratic party primary.
Mel Sembler, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman, helped organize a reception that raised about a "couple hundred thousand dollars" for Lieberman, who was in attendance. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/21/america/NA_POL_US_Connecticut_ Senate.php
So Israeli agent Chertoff is protected by Israeli agent Lieberman who was backed by Israeli agent Sembler - the former Ambassador of Italy during the time frame of the Niger Forgery being planted in Rome - http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_11_13_patriotboy_archive.html#113186 638454783857
The smoking gun of the lies that led to war: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=June2002GhorbanifarM eeting
AIPAC's operatives, Ledeen, Rhode, Franklin (indicted for spying on behalf of AIPAC) Ghorbanifar, etc. were all present for this secret meeting.
AND Sembler was also the head of the "Save Israeli Agent Scooter Libby" defense fund.
And now the administration wants to put Chertoff in charge of the entire US Judicial System? Guess who Bush works for...AIPAC.
Posted by plunger at 08/28/2007 @ 07:19am
No doubt Gonzolas exited at a bad time, but no thanks to Demoncrats with no focus except partison intrest
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/27/2007 @ 11:28pm
Gonzalez and Rove politicized FEDERAL AGENCIES. That is illegal. If it is up to the Democrats to bring the Constitution back into the conversation for ALL Americans, the Republicans should be ashamed that it wasn't their own idea.
Stop with the whole two party madness. The MFs BROKE THE LAW. The Republicans appear to condone it by their inaction.
Posted by plunger at 08/28/2007 @ 07:23am
ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF FEDERAL INDICTMENT:
AIPAC SPY SCANDAL:
CONSPIRACY TO COMMUNICATE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
1. Defendant LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN was employed by the United States government at the Department of Defense (DoD) in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), International Security Affairs (ISA), Office of Near East and South Asia, Office of Northern Gulf Affairs, Iran desk, and held a Top Secret security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). FRANKLIN'S office was located within the Pentagon, in the Eastern District of Virginia. FRANKLIN was also a Colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).
2. Throughout his employment with the United States government, FRANKLIN repeatedly signed written agreements acknowledging his duty to safeguard classified information
3. At no time was FRANKLIN authorized to release classified information to ROSEN and WEISMANN except with respect to Overt Acts 43 and 44 in count one.
4. Defendant STEVEN J. ROSEN was employed as the Director of Foreign Policy Issues for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, D.C. ROSEN was hired by AIPAC in or about July 1982. AIPAC, according to its website, is " America's ProIsrael Lobby." AIPAC lobbies the U.S. Congress and Executive Branch agencies on various issues related to Israel and U.S. Foreign policy in the Middle East. As the Director of Foreign Policy Issues, ROSEN lobbied on behalf of AIPAC, primarily with officials within the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. During the time period of this indictment, ROSEN did not have a U.S. government security clearance and was not authorized to receive or possess U.S. government classified information.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2005/franklin_indic tment_04aug2005.htm
WAYS, MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY
A. It was part of the conspiracy that, in an effort to influence persons within and outside the United States government, ROSEN and WEISSMAN would cultivate relationships with FRANKLIN and others and would use their contacts within the U.S. government and elsewhere to gather sensitive U.S. government information, including classified information relating to the national defense, for subsequent unlawful communication, delivery and transmission to persons not entitled to receive it.
B. It was further part of the conspiracy that FRANKLIN would use his position as a desk officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to gather information relating to the national defense, for subsequent unlawful communication, delivery and transmission to ROSEN and WEISSMAN and others not entitled to receive it.
C. It was further part of the conspiracy that FRANKLIN, ROSEN and WEISSMAN would meet at locations in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, to exchange information, including classified information relating to the national defense.
D. It was further part of the conspiracy that FRANKLIN would unlawfully deliver, communicate and transmit classified national defense information in an effort to advance his own personal foreign policy agenda and influence persons within and outside the United States government.
E. It was further part of the conspiracy that ROSEN and WEISSMAN, without lawful authority, would communicate to persons not entitled to receive it, classified information relating to the national defense.
On or about June 11, 1999, WEISSMAN had a conversation with FO-1 and told FO-1 that a "Secret FBI, classified FBI report" on the Khobar Towers bombing had been prepared and that he (WEISSMAN) had gotten this information from three different sources, including United States government officials.
On or about March 13, 2003 , WEISSMAN had a separate conversation with FO-1. WEISSMAN asked FO-1, "Have you talked to Steve about Iran lately?" WEISSMAN related that "we" had heard from a "friend of ours in the Pentagon" about a national intelligence document. WEISSMAN discussed specifics about the classified draft internal policy document and the internal deliberations of United States government officials.
On or about March 18, 2003 , in a conversation with a member of the media about the classified draft internal policy document, ROSEN stated, "I'm not supposed to know this," and that it was a "considerable story." He encouraged the member of the media to pursue the story.
Posted by plunger at 08/28/2007 @ 07:44am
AIPAC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5t_55OWbo
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/AIPACClinton.html
Oct. 25, 2006 - While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials--Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.
The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15419753/site/newsweek/
THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IS HIJACKED. DEPORT AIPAC
Posted by plunger at 08/28/2007 @ 07:45am
Anyone here know whether Alberto Gonzales was admitted to Harvard, Law, thus giving his career a huge boost at the outset, because ... his name was "Gonzales"? And he checked the right box on his application to underscore that fact? Could it be that this guy was pathetically out of his depth from the start and hence so contemptably obsequiosness and toward serving his similarly pathetic benefactor rather than the law of the land?
We already know that the hideous George W. Failure was an affirmative action admission to Yale ("heritage admission" = affirmative action to the untalented and stupid offspring of the ALREADY rich and priviledge). So what about Gonzo? Is he another product of this system that conservimals* have been wildly angering about for decades now?
Conservimals, where is the outrage over this?
(* "Conservative" crossed with what they demonstrably are in their deeds: "criminals" and "animals")
Posted by John_Shaft at 08/28/2007 @ 09:37am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/28/2007 @ 12:02am
It is a simple question and RIO KORESH has been asked dozens of times, but let us try again:
RIO KORESH, are conservimals like yourself in favor of child molestation and do you see yourself as a servent of Warren Jeffs and all that he stands for?
Simple questions. All that we ask are "yes" or "no" replies.
And, while we are on this topic, would you applaud if conservative Republican/conservimal Senator Larry Craig snagged a few minors with his (cough) "wide stance" (Craig's words in the police report) in the public public bathroom? Yes, Craig said that his "wide stance" in the adjacent stall accounted for why he extended an arms and a leg into that next stall while he was supposedly taking a dump in the public bathroom.
Do you approve of this, RIO KORESH? Is it a plank in the conservimal platform -- you know, for the kids' sake?
Posted by John_Shaft at 08/28/2007 @ 09:45am
9:37 post, "so contemptably obsequiosness and toward serving" should say "so contemptably obsequious toward serving" ...
Posted by John_Shaft at 08/28/2007 @ 09:48am
I would recommend you stick that preconception where the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by JORCHEIM 08/28/2007 @ 01:05am
I don't appreciate the retort above! My early `read' of you has been proven substantially correct, you are no more than a typical young libs full of themselves and discourteous...almost all of you in that catagory, are banned from my screen!
31 is a young puppy.....still very wet behind the ears! Goodby and good luck to you.....Someday, use your Scouting for something more positive than to insult people....you are already pretty alone in your views!
Posted by Happy at 08/28/2007 @ 10:17am
Well, it's a damn shame that, 35 years after Watergate, John Dean is still the only Republican who puts his country before his party.
Posted by NATHANHALE 08/27/2007 @ 11:40pm
-------------------
Even if presuming that is true, you will NEVER find a Demoncrat of whom that could be said!
Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/28/2007 @ 12:02am
RIOB can only see dems as putting our nation above their party if they do exactly whatever the repub new cons criminally and unconstitutionally demand of them... which is that dems do nothing to get in the 'repub new con unitary exec/corporate profiteering' way and that dems not only keep silent about it but voice adamant approval of the crime.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/28/2007 @ 12:47pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/28/2007 @ 03:09am
one cannot assume that the teacher is not trying because the student will not or can not learn (or refuses to put the lessons into practice).
just try teaching polyharmony--many try, few understand.
plus a lot of kids are just plain mean.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by PLUNGER 08/28/2007 @ 07:23am
excellent post, sir.
SPOKEN straight from the heart (based on facts)
excellent.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 1:02pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/28/2007 @ 1:02pm
If EVERYTHING he did was like that...no need for everybody to put him on Ignore!
Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 2:24pm
MUSK;)
have you seen my 12:52 post on the "bathroom problems" thread.
'bout sums up the name-calling (i hope!)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 2:30pm
Isn't Fleischer using the old Jr. H. sch. fake reasoning of, "IF YOU SMELT IT-- YOU DEALT IT":
"Fleischer blames Dems for Gonzales' mistakes: Former Bush spokesperson says Congress is responsible for "politicizing" Justice Department - I'd almost forgotten how breathtakingly dishonest former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer can be. Yesterday, on Fox News, he blamed congressional Dems for "politicizing the Justice Department, unfairly so and dangerously so." Faiz sets the record straight: It was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who fired attorneys for political reasons; it was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who gave the White House political team unprecedented power to intercede in the affairs of the Justice Department; it was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who allowed his department to illegally hire attorneys based in part on their loyalty to the Republican Party and the Bush administration; it was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who dissembled and misled about the administration's spying activities; and it was Alberto Gonzales, not Congress, who lied in stating that all Bush appointees would be Senate-confirmed."
http://blogreport.salon.com/default.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/28/2007 @ 3:11pm
Isn't Fleischer using the old Jr. H. sch. fake reasoning of, "IF YOU SMELT IT-- YOU DEALT IT":
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/28/2007 @ 3:11pm
although this is worrisome, i'm more frightened of bushco's "SILENT, BUT DEADLY".
what a gas. :+{
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 3:31pm
Imaging somebody listening to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and actually taking them serious. Aparently Millions of sheep/dittoheads do.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/27/2007 @ 9:41pm
Imaging somebody listening to Keith Olberman or Randi Rhodes and actually taking them serious. Aparently hundreds of sheep/dittoheads do.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2007 @ 3:57pm
You know that republicans tortured Bill Clinton for 8 years and even before that. BTW, he was soundly re-elected.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/27/2007 @ 9:48pm
Soundly re-elected with less than 50% of the vote running against a liberal Republican (I voted 3rd party that year)? And you forgot to add that he was first elected with only 42% of the popular vote...a real mandate that was.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2007 @ 3:59pm
a real mandate that was.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/28/2007 @ 3:59pm
U.S. Population, 2006 estimate 299,398,484 - Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2005 24.8% (74,250,824) = 225,147,659 possible voters (minus prisoners, felons, etc.). let's say 220,000,000 possible voters.
1992 total votes cast=103,756,701 =47% of possible voters=20.4% for winner
1996 total votes cast=94,686,514=43% of possible voters=21.5% for winner
2000 total votes cast=104,338,854=47% of possible voters=22.9% for "weiner"
2004 total votes cast=121,056,394=55% of possible voters=28.1% for "winner"
seems like no one is ever given the "mandate"
i guess it's a case of the blindly greedy leading the blindly apathetic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 4:50pm
Hey Mask,
Bushfools seems awful quiet today. Perhaps he heard John Conyers this morning on Democracy Now on why there will be no impeachment of Bush and Cheney
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, my response is that we have several things to do in -- I begin this part of our conversation by indicating that I have nothing but the highest regard for Cindy Sheehan. But the question of how we orchestrate moving a congressional schedule forward of accomplishments -- we're pretty proud of what we've done in eight months after having no control over the agenda for twelve years. We also are trying to make sure that we don't bring resolutions or hearings that would put the election in jeopardy. We could close down the Congress -- I have been in more impeachment hearings than anybody in the House or the Senate. And our legislative attempts to reverse so many things would come to a stop. And it is doubtful if we wouldn't go into an election with not one, but at least two attempts to remove the top executive officers in the country, I don't think that that can happen.
REP. JOHN CONYERS: Well, because unless I've got the Constitution in one hand and a calculator in the other, so I've got any kind of hearings on removing both the President and the Vice President -- or putting it in reverse, remove the Vice President and then the President -- within the months remaining, would require 218 votes in the House of Representatives. That's my calculator giving me this information. And then, in the Senate we need two-thirds to convict. Notwithstanding all of my progressive friends that would love to see me start impeachment hearings, those votes I do not think exist in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526252
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2007 @ 4:54pm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/28/1526252
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/28/2007 @ 4:54pm
whoa, brotherly
don't let your buddies know you were at the democracy now site. big trouble. they'll revoke your NRA membership :::]]]
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 4:57pm
don't let your buddies know you were at the democracy now site. big trouble. they'll revoke your NRA membership :::]]]
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/28/2007 @ 4:57pm
You probably missed my previous comments in other years here. I have noted that rather than listening to conservative radio, I spend most of my time on leftist radio and tv. I watch and listen to Democracy Now, Pacifica Radio (KPFK in LA), Free Speech tv, Link tv, Bernie Ward in San Francisco (KKGO), and read many leftist sites like Counterpunch.
That's why I know that I am more informed than the average conservative as to leftist thought. It also means I seldom listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. I have shared with others that I find Hannity to lack depth in his thinking. I also find it humorous at most liberals think O'Reilly is a conservative. He is way too liberal for me on social issues.
BTW, I am not a member of the NRA although I do support their goals.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:35pm
Mr. Conyers:
The votes weren't there to impeach Nixon at the BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS either. Does the concept of "DISCOVERY" ring any bells,with INDICTMENTS and TESTIMONY UNDER OATH by ALL the CO-CONSPIRATORS?
Public opinion moves votes. Public Testimony, UNDER OATH moves public opinion. Your argument about nt having the votes prior to the investigation is an AIPAC-SPONSORED RED HERRING.
No shit, Sherlock!
Begin the process NOW and see where DISCOVERY and TESTIMONY leads.
It is your Constitutional Obligation, and the Voters gave you a MANDATE to INVESTIGATE, and cleanse the system of corruption and politicization of FEDERAL OFFICES.
Karl Rove was a POLITICAL OPERATIVE officed in the PEOPLE's HOUSE.
THAT is ILLEGAL.
Do your job - or suffer the consequences. The Anti-AIPAC vote will end your career in 2008.
Are you with US or against US?
Posted by plunger at 08/28/2007 @ 6:15pm
The country has become way too polarized and it's all because of people like Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, Rupert, Murdoch, Richard Mellon Schaif, Tom Delay, etc., etc. Name one democrat who plays that dirty.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/27/2007 @ 9:51pm
Begala, Carville, McAuliffe, HRC, Howard Dean, Soros, Gore, Michael Moore, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Donna Brazille, and on and on.
Frank, you do know that Murdoch is a Hillary supporter?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2007 @ 6:58pm
Even before his appointment to the AG, Gonzales's known more as a Rove's clone rather than a lawyer, not even a mediocre lawyer. This is a fatal flaw in the system. You could be anything and decide the fate of many people just by association. Now he's gone to be close to his family. Good for him.
Posted by Helen DAO at 08/28/2007 @ 11:45pm
Posted by LILLIAN 08/28/2007 @ 03:09am
one cannot assume that the teacher is not trying because the student will not or can not learn (or refuses to put the lessons into practice).
just try teaching polyharmony--many try, few understand.
plus a lot of kids are just plain mean.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/28/2007 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person
I would grant you the germ of a point here, but curious...how do you reconcile this...
"...the student will not or can not learn"
...with this...
"...each year, one or two kids leave our troop simply because they were bullied in some fashion or another!"
Remember, we're not talking about a student. Happy claims to have been doing this for 16 years, which means...
...that's 16 to 32 kids who were bullied and ostracised by a group who Happy is supposed to be teaching the ideals of being 'friendly, courteous, kind, reverent, etc.'
And, he's touting these 'bullies' as being great examples of our 'future leaders'.
Does that not strike you as being a major disconnect? Or do you buy the notion that bullying 2 or 3 dozen kids so badly that they leave the Boy Scouts is the kind of 'quality' we should have in our 'future leaders'?
It seems to me to beg the question...
"how many of these bullies were asked to leave the Boy Scouts because they clearly couldn't embrace the ideals of Scouting...and ended up pushing out others who quite possibly did embrace those ideals"?
Posted by Lillian at 08/29/2007 @ 12:27am
Posted by LILLIAN 08/29/2007 @ 12:27am
well, i can't speak for the HAPSTER (i tried once) and so i don't know the particular dynamic of his group or how he deals with these situations.
personally, i was bullied in school (fat and smart--bad combination). most of the time, my teachers were totally clueless about any of it.
you do make a good point, however. if someone is bullied in the group, it is not the victim who should be ostracized.
i tried scouting for a while, but it just wasn't the type of environment for me (unlike my sisters who spent a long time in girl guides). i guess i liked reading and lego better!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2007 @ 02:32am
Posted by LILLIAN 08/29/2007 @ 12:27am
You must be the `perfect' person that I've never met in real life anywhere!
First off: Scouting is a voluntary organizations and no one at the Troop level is paid and no one is forced to participate either at the kid or parent level.
Second: Often, we find out after the fact, why a (generally youngish) Scout eventually dropped out and learn that some (or even the biggest) reasons was the kid didn't get along well enough to enjoy his experience. Nothing unusual about that since we adults, don't see these kids that often. This isn't school where they show up every week day! Even the active Scouts, don't show up at every meeting or campouts where lots of interactions are observed and conflicts dealt with. When we do see something, it is ALWAYS dealt with on the spot but our disciplinary `tool chest' is very limited and on occasions, for repeat offenders, they have been `encouraged' to leave....however, we often debate amongst ourselves (adult leadership that is), that it is exactly those troubled kids we ought to help out the most.....and we DO TRY but we have our limits due to item ONE cited! We all have our own kids, don't forget, and we aren't `trained' to be social workers or child psychologits nor does Scouting (at least in ur district) has a `Special Ed' section for `troubled Scouts'!
Third & Lastly: Your holier-than-thou attitude tells me you have NOT worked with kids much and seems to blame adults...that includes teachers....when the root/seed problems, lie in the homes!
Posted by Happy at 08/29/2007 @ 10:49am
...if someone is bullied in the group, it is not the victim who should be ostracized.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/29/2007 @ 02:32am
The dynamics of bullying is quite fascinating and it apparently occurs in all income category! The bullied is usually--but definitely not always--the shy or awkward type. Humanity will probably NEVER be rid of this problem...otherwise, we wouldn't be humans...:)))
Posted by Happy at 08/29/2007 @ 10:54am
"In talking about the skills necessary for any president, Bush has almost always focused on personnel first. "If I were interviewing a guy for the job of president," he said when I interviewed him for Time in August 2004, "I'd ask, How do you make decisions? How would you get unfiltered information? Would you surround yourself with hacks? Are you scared of smart people? I've seen the effect of the Oval Office on people. People are prepared to come in and speak their minds, and then they get in there, and the place overwhelms them, and they say, 'Gee, Mr. President, you're looking good.' I need people who can walk in and say, 'Hey, you're not looking so great today.' " This kind of talk thrilled Bush supporters, but the president has never exercised the kind of emotion-free decision-making he bragged about. When it came to personnel decisions, his personal sense of loyalty, his hostility to the Beltway establishment, and his stubbornness all clouded his judgment. Tolerating incompetence has harmed Bush in any number of ways. The worst of these is locking in the idea that he's oblivious to reality."
http://www.slate.com/id/2172858/nav/tap1/
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/29/2007 @ 4:19pm
Third & Lastly: Your holier-than-thou attitude tells me you have NOT worked with kids much and seems to blame adults...that includes teachers....when the root/seed problems, lie in the homes!
Posted by HAPPY 08/29/2007 @ 10:49am | ignore this person
HAHAHAHA...holier-than-thou??....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Go back and read your first several posts Happless...your lectures to all about how great and important scouting is and how, as a Scout Master for the past 16 years, you've been turning out America's future leaders, astronauts, etc. They pretty much define 'holier-than-thou'!
And your powers of 'observation' are apparently pretty much non-existant(and would be more appropriately termed 'jumping to idiotic conclusions'). I've been working with kids my entire life...as a martial arts instructor, soccer coach, softball coach, little league baseball coach, tutor, Sunday school teacher, catechism teacher...and much, much more! In EVERY one of those cases, I have focused on, and had great success at, teaching kids kindness and respect for one another. I can say without hesitation that no kid EVER felt compelled to quit one of my teams, or classes, becuase he was bullied. And one absolute truth I've learned (yes learned!) from the experience of working with and teaching kids is that, if you spend all of your time acting like 'the leader' or 'the teacher', you will ALWAYS miss-judge what, exactly, the kids are really learning (or feeling, or actually doing!)
Given that important lesson of my experience with kids, and your obvious and constant 'big-shot', 'boasting', posts on this board, I could probably make a fairly educated guess as to why you apparently missed why 16 -32 kids under your guidance apparently got bullied so badly they felt compelled to quit.
Posted by Lillian at 08/30/2007 @ 01:51am
And BTW Happless...I found this statement...
"Often, we find out after the fact, why a (generally youngish) Scout eventually dropped out and learn that some (or even the biggest) reasons was the kid didn't get along well enough to enjoy his experience."
...quite interesting. It indicates that, apparently, you equate a kid 'getting bullied' with 'a kid didn't get along well enough'.
If you took the time to work through this apparently critical confusion of yours, you might discover something about why those 16 - 32 kids probably walked away thinking Scouting sucks.
Posted by Lillian at 08/30/2007 @ 02:02am
HAPPY, as you are to much the coward to go to Iraq to help them build a stock market, are you enlisting all of your Eagle Scouts? Not just the 3 you like to brag about.
Generational commitment!!!!
Having been a scout, and being friends with a couple of Eagle Scouts, I know that bullying, teasing, and homo-phobia are basic tenets of scouting. And what the hell does God have to do with scouting anyway? A great brainwashing group if i've ever seen one.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 09:10am
Posted by CRABWALK 08/30/2007 @ 09:10am
Crabby (& LIL),
Sorry about the state of Michigan going down the tube so rapidly....w/Detroit leading the country in housing price declines at 11%!
Also, you are sounding more and more like CS and less and less interesting! Whether I or anyone Conservative goes to Iraq, is really isn't your business, is it? Some of you get tired of my speaking up for Scouting, fine, ignore my comments or even better, put me on ignore altogether....you know I'm not shy about screening you loonies out....in fact, LIL, who I don't chat with, is the chosen one today! As for you, one more mention of that tired "Why don't you go to Iraq?", will be the last I see from you!
When I'm time-starved, but unwilling to give up TN (almost hate to admit), pruning posters here is just like pruning my stocks when I find I have too many to split my attention on! Consistently consistent, that's HAPPY!
Posted by Happy at 08/30/2007 @ 10:35am
Posted by HAPPY 08/30/2007 @ 10:35am
So, when you goin'?
Or are you unwilling to support your ideals? Is it just that it might interfere with you making more money off the backs of people that actually work?
Or is it that you are just a coward?
Go ahead, put me on ignore, that would be typical of the neo-con mindset, put your hands over your ears and go "blah blah, I don't care that Chimpy lied, blah, I don't care if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, b;ah, b;ah, I'm a coward". "don't let those gay kids into my group, they scare me and might make me face reality or change my stone-age opinions".
been nice chattin' with ya, Happy, too bad you are so easily cowed. It would be better if you could stand up for what you believe in and/or could find the words to support your positions.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 11:35am
Or as RIOKORESH would say:
"Happy is going to cut and run. demons! demons under my bed!..(psst, Rush, what do I say next?)"
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 11:37am
Go ahead, put me on ignore...
Posted by CRABWALK 08/30/2007 @ 11:35am
As yo wish! I'll still see your battles w/MASK and others....that's enough!
Posted by Happy at 08/30/2007 @ 11:38am
March 22, 2007:
I'm not going to resign
July 24, 2007:
Since I have never been one to quit, I decided that the best course of action was to remain here and fix the problems. That is exactly what I am doing.
Rumsfeld
"If I felt I could not be effective I'd resign in a minute. I would not resign just because people were trying to make a political issue of it,"
Bush:
"We were never stay the course"
Lying is just doing business as usual for the neo-cons. They treat it like policy. Just another tool.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 11:45am
Posted by HAPPY 08/30/2007 @ 11:38am
He cut and ran. Can't even face an anonymous blogger, yet alone some terrorists.
Coward. Sheep.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 11:46am
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 11:54am
Well LIL, I guess HAPPY felt bullied, so he went home crying about the big bad liberals and their questions he can't answer.
Feel free to copy this so happythecowrd can read it.
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 12:01pm
I know The Coward ran away, but...
Whether I or anyone Conservative goes to Iraq, is really isn't your business, is it?
Yes it is, happycoward, if you are unwilling to put your money and body where your mouths are, then the policies you advocate must not be worth much. Just talk and blather, not something you actually believe in. YOU wnated a war, now YOU won't fight for your country, or talk Eagle Scouts into fighting for their country. Why should we support YOUR war if YOU are unwilling to?
Posted by crabwalk at 08/30/2007 @ 12:05pm
i think arguing with some of these conservatives is like what it must have like to argue with fanatical communists. no facts can shake their belief.
Posted by pretzel at 08/30/2007 @ 2:16pm