GOP to Gonzales: Care For Some Hemlock?

posted by John Nichols on 04/20/2007 @ 09:01am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (259)

Subscribe Now

The reviews are in: The Bush White House pronounces the president "pleased" with his solicitor's response to the rabble.

It is a discreet pleasure.

While the president may be satisfied with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the response of just about everyone else -- including some of the nation's most conservative Republicans -- was anything but positive.

The online report on the testimony at the site of the National Review, America's leading conservative magazine, was headlined: "Alberto Gonzales strikes out."

The report declared the Attorney General's testimony about his role in the U.S. Attorneys scandal to have been "disastrous."

"Judging by his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, there are three questions about the U.S. attorneys mess that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wants answered: What did I know? When did I know it? And why did I fire those U.S. attorneys?" observed writer Byron York, no liberal he. "As the day dragged on, it became clear -- painfully clear to anyone who supports Gonzales -- that the attorney general didn't know the answers."

For the record, Gonzales hit what many believe to have been a record for "don't recalling" by a Cabinet member appearing before an oversight hearing: 64. And that does not count the dozens of "do-not-remember" and "can't-quite-recollect" variations.

But Gonzales will be worrying less about National Review than about Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. Sure, Democrats were tough on Gonzales, but many of the roughest critiques came from the Attorney General's partisan "allies."

The ranking Republican on the committee, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, greeted Gonzales Thursday by suggesting that the Attorney General's account of his "limited" involvement in the firing of U.S. Attorneys who appear to have rejected White House political czar Karl Rove's demand that they politicize prosecutions was "significantly if not totally at variance with the facts."

After the hearing, Specter said, "I think your credibility has been significantly impaired because of the panorama of responses you have made..."

Specter, a veteran prosecutor, said Gonzales' testimony had raised significant questions about his "ability to manage the department has been severely undercut by the way he has handled these resignations."

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, perhaps the most conservative member of the panel, was not left with any questions.

"The best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Coburn told Gonzales.

The Oklahoman rejected the Attorney General's suggestion that he was "taking responsibility" for the mess at the Department of Justice as empty talk. "[There] has to be consequences to accepting responsibility," the senator lectured.

Why the rabid response from senators who by the old rules of George Bush's Washington were supposed to be defending a Republican president's Attorney General?

Gonzales brought it upon himself.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, another veteran prosecutor, said he was "taken aback" by Gonzales' claim that he could not recall a November 2006 meeting at which he joined top Justice Department aides in a discussion of the firings of the U.S. attorneys. "To say he had no recollection whatsoever of that meeting, I have to think about that," said Sessions.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told Gonzales during the hearing Thursday: "Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch. I think it's clear to me that some of these people just had personality conflicts with people in your office or at the White House and, you know, we made up reasons to fire them."

Graham did not actually offer Gonzales hemlock. But he did take the embattled Attorney General through a painful thought process.

Noting that Gonzales said the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys "just came down to these were not the right people at the right time," the senator looked the Attorney General in the eyes and asked: "If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Call it the Gonzales standard. And, now that the Senate has heard from the Attorney General, applying it has led to the bipartisan conclusion that Alberto Gonzales is the wrong man at the wrong time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (259)

Damn, I lost my bet: the over/under on "I don't recall" was 75, and I took the over...Damn!

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 09:08am
Posted by NATHANHALE 04/20/2007 @ 09:08am

Should have taken the long odds on "How many 'I take responsibility's", NATE.

My question is this...what if he doesn't? Resign that is.

Do these Republicans step upto the plate and vote on a "no confidence" concurrent resolution? Do they push for Gonzales' impeachment?

Bush cohort resignations have a very interesting history. Look at Rumsfeld. He stayed put until AFTER the Nov 2006 midterms and then bailed. What does that indicate?

To me, it indicates that Bush and the Admin don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the Republicans. After all, if Rummy had left in August of '06, it could have saved them a seat or two.

Same for Gonzales....a knock-down fight where the GOP Senators HAVE to go after "Fredo" would hurt the party, by delaying Gonzales' departure and turning it into "forced out" instead of "left under a cloud". But given the Bush track record...it may come to that.

Now, this would surely please Mr Nichols...he's been itching for ANY impeachment (and the parallel leap in book sales) for years now...but I wonder if the Repubs might figure that out and stop short of joining the Dems in actually removing Gonzales and just let him finish out the next 20 months and bet on it having little impact in '08.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 09:17am
Conservatives: WRONG ON JUSTICE

Posted by conshame at 04/20/2007 @ 09:21am
To me, it indicates that Bush and the Admin don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the Republicans. After all, if Rummy had left in August of '06, it could have saved them a seat or two. Posted by MASK

I don't get that. Why be so pig headed? Why hurt the rest of your party? It's not exactly rational.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/20/2007 @ 09:38am
Just remember, if it werent for the "rest of the Republicans", we wouldnt have ever had a Goshzales.

Posted by conshame at 04/20/2007 @ 09:55am
Why be so pig headed? Why hurt the rest of your party? It's not exactly rational.

The seeds of your answer lie in your question?

Posted by canaar at 04/20/2007 @ 09:55am
He hasn't done anything wrong except poor judgement and looks bad, well, the repubs have already looked bad and lost the majority...a constant self flogging and going along with partisan hacks on the dem left on the comitees will not help the repubs in 08 or anywhere else. Backbone will help them, tell the dems on the commitee, "you may not like the style, but it is his decsion to make....and go home, instead, you have Sen Spector doing the dems bidding...I would never work for gvot..no loyalty or stones.

Poor taste, poor handling, poor decision making, but the truth is they thought these AGs should go and thats the decsion they made, so be it.

Gonzo looks bad as an incompetent for allowing a circus side show to be made out of his office...not the circus in Congress.

Posted by john maasch at 04/20/2007 @ 10:08am
Incompetent fool or incredulous liar...neither one should be running the DOJ!

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/20/2007 @ 10:12am
"I would never work for gvot..no loyalty or stones."

Sounds like you'd fit right in, you old lying coward.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/20/2007 @ 10:16am
I don't get that. Why be so pig headed? Why hurt the rest of your party? It's not exactly rational.

Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/20/2007 @ 09:38am

Well, it's less about rationality than EGO. Look at the situation from their perspective....i.e. "years from now".

Hard as it may be to imagine, it MAY be possible to "redeem" the Bush Presidency. (Stop snickering and keep reading).

Lyndon Johnson presided over the worst war in American history (uptil now, that is). In the early years, there was little if any way to redeem the man...the country hated him, especially the Left. Then time passed. And people, like historian Doris Kearns Goodwin came around and began to point out the "good things" that Johnson had done...always with the caveat of "Of course, the war was disasterous, but look at...." (followed by a litany of "Great Society" and civil rights talk).

Additionally with partisan spinners at the ready, the war was able to be turned into a "Republican war"...."Eisenhower sent the first troops...Kennedy wanted to remove them but was killed before he could....Nixon continued it for four more years and bombed Cambodia!" Never mind that it was Johnson who oversaw the majority of the war and the majority of the troop deployments.

The man had been a liberal on welfare, Medicare, and anti-discrimination...so he needed to be "redeemed", in order to not link those "accomplshments" with the failure of Vietnam.

Now, given Fox News, Limbaugh, etc. is it SO hard to imagine...five, ten years from now. After "President Hillary" "sell-out" (i.e. failure to initiate a full deployment or pull-out of Iraq), and the final collapse of Iraq under her Presidency....that the right-wing may attempt a "Johnson redemption" of Bush. Pointing out various items from the agenda that they like and downplaying Iraq...or even blaming Hillary (or whoever) and the Democratic Congress?

"Impossible...they can't do it...Bush was THE worst in history!"

Maybe.....but maybe not. And if Gonzales stays put, that eliminates part of the "corruption" charge AND let's the Bush Redeemers claim "Though things were charged at Gonzales, he never resigned and Congress never thought it was worthy of impeachment!"

Now maybe THAT doesn't sound "rational"...but it SURE sounds plausible!

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 10:19am
Posted by MASK

Could be. As usual Georgie Jr is putting his interests before the country's. At least LBJ had the good taste to step down.

(And while LBJ did mislead the nation, oversee the build up of troops and everything else in Vietnam, what choice did he have? What happened after the Communist Revolution in China? All kinds of accusations of "Who lost China?")

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/20/2007 @ 10:26am
Drifting off-topic, but...

"what choice did he have? What happened after the Communist Revolution in China? All kinds of accusations of "Who lost China?") Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/20/2007 @ 10:26am

Which is a reason I don't buy into the Oliver Stone et al theory of "JFK wouldn't have gotten us into Vietnam the way Johnson did".

Kennedy would have been under the SAME political pressure to not appear "weak on Communism" as Johnson was, with the same historical perspective.

Remember, both men's war experiences were World War-2 and Korea, where armed forced stopped an enemy...or garnered an armistice in a divided region of Asia....not "Vietnam" as we know it now.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 10:42am
He hasn't done anything wrong except poor judgement and looks bad

uh, remember FISA anyone?

we have to keep in mind that gonzo has been the most prominent lawyer for egregious, excessive executive authority--including the firing of 8 US attorneys for blatant political reasons.

if this isn't "wrong," then what is? yes, it's not a criminal trial. we know this. but the very point, which raised all the red flags and got the trial going was: bush is abusing his authority in order to forward an extreme, christian and right wing agenda.

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 10:53am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2007 @ 10:08am

Typical of the Kool-Aid Krew: Maasch boohoos about Specter doing the Democrats' bidding. But no mention that it was Coburn (who, no doubt, is much closer ideologically to Maasch) who called for Fredo to resign.

Yes, Maasch, it's a Democratic plot to try to restore good government at the federal level; now it's time to get active and lead the charge to throw out those Repubs with "no stones": Specter, Coburn, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn and (whoops, what's this I see?) Snowe....

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 10:54am
we all know that gonzo is not on trial for anything. we all know that he did nothing wrong.

the reason they are asking the tough questions NOW is because (apparently) non-bush loyalists were being fired. that's how the bush administration works: if you don't do what he says, you're gone.

and here is the very irony of this trial: gonzo is going because he wasn't loyal ENOUGH to bush, wasn't aggressive ENOUGH (with immigration enforcement, obscenity laws, surveillance, etc).

the very reason gonzo has been "incompetent" is because he probably feels that bush's agenda is plain wrong, too extreme......hence all the probs.

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 10:59am
i mean, seriously, how can one man (gonzo) actually run this sort of highly partisan, egregious, aggressive, extreme operation with even a modicum of transparency? impossible.

i actually sympathize with gonzo (a little)...

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 11:07am
Maybe.....but maybe not. And if Gonzales stays put, that eliminates part of the "corruption" charge AND let's the Bush Redeemers claim "Though things were charged at Gonzales, he never resigned and Congress never thought it was worthy of impeachment!"

Now maybe THAT doesn't sound "rational"...but it SURE sounds plausible!

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 10:19am | ignore this person

Equally plausible is that the DEMS continue their investigation to keep pressure on Bush and Repubs short of outing Gonzo. They ride to the election with Bush and Gonzo as constant reminders that Repubs are not the party to vote for. Have a sneaking suspicion that is in small part why impeachment was off the table in addition to the war rationale.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 11:18am
Gonzo looks bad as an incompetent for allowing a circus side show to be made out of his office...not the circus in Congress.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2007 @ 10:08am | ignore this person

And now we are seeing the apologetic ramblings of a Bush supporter who crys that he has been betrayed, and that there are no true conservatives in the party. Okay John...try this...."I don't recall ever supporting Bush and Gonzo."

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 11:23am
from one of the 8 attorneys fired:

Gonzales cited McKay's authorship of a letter criticizing delays in implementing a law enforcement information-sharing program, as well as comments he made to the Seattle P-I last fall about the staffing levels in his office.

"Generally I recollect there being serious concerns about his judgment," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee. […]

"I think it's a sad day for the Department of Justice," said McKay, who previously represented the Western District of Washington. "The attorney general missed an opportunity to testify with honor."

Asked to elaborate, McKay declined, saying, "The senators savaged him enough. I certainly don't want to talk about his absurd allegations. He's obviously so disconnected he has no idea what my performance was like and what my judgment was like, and I'll just leave it at that."

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 11:25am
i actually sympathize with gonzo (a little)...

Posted by DARLADOON 04/20/2007 @ 11:07am | ignore this person

I hope you mean for how pathetic he is. Bush sacrificial lambs deserve their fate. You have got a big heart. Don't let your guard down with these characters.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 11:32am
well, i can imagine bush (or rove) saying to gonzo: get rid of these 8 attorneys, immediately. gonzo responds, "but.....but.....that's not right." bush back to gonzo: "just do it"

that's a lot different than having him find ways to skirt FISA. that's blatant personal destruction....

at least with FISA we have debate.....deliberations...reporting, we now know that they broke the law, and continue to do so. but these attorney firings destroyed the lives/careers of 8 men and women.

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 11:54am
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/20/2007 @ 11:23am

How about, "As I recall, my thinking was, 'I never really supported him/them, I just remember thinking that I ought to support any non-Democrat who is holding the office of the President/AG.'"

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 12:01pm
but I wonder if the Repubs might figure that out and stop short of joining the Dems in actually removing Gonzales and just let him finish out the next 20 months and bet on it having little impact in '08.

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 09:17am

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I think folks like Coburn, Specter and Graham know exactly the negative effect this will have in 2008, which is why they are positioning themselves as they are. Maybe Bush digs in his heels - would not be shocking. But the longer Gonzales stays in office, the worse it is for the GOP.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/20/2007 @ 12:05pm
even a cursory glance at yesterday's testimony confirmed one thing (his body language said, "i'm lying and have been lying"); but if one has good skills in logic or mathematics, there are a plethora of instances in which gonzalez blantantly contradicted previous statements (by my count, more than two dozen instances).

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 12:09pm
One has to wonder, what all the federal prosecutors who did not get fired are up to.

One has to wonder as well what the effects by the current regime of politicizing every branch of government have been. Need I say, FEMA, New Orleans, no-bid contracts, no stem cell research, no action on global warming, no Congressional oversight for 6 years, not enough body armor for troops, not enough armored vehicles, destruction of the education system through "no child's behind left," a phony "war on terror," $9 billion missing in Iraq, the Taliban on the rise in Afghanistan and a guy named Bin Laden still at large?

Posted by Neckrub at 04/20/2007 @ 12:12pm
it is extraordinary that the highest lawyer in the land, under the aegis and "pleasure" of our supreme moral leader, cannot tell the truth about 8 routine (by their account) firings.

does this mere fact not coerce supposedly rational people like john maasch into considering that maybe something is seriously foul?

it is so plainly evident that people like john maasch are deliberately irrational in cases where pride, nation or party are at stake. it's the typical white male supremacy bullshit: too proud.

well, get over it, john. you're no different than the rest of us (minus the rational component). and liberty? rio? you're even worse because your understanding of the world includes religion.

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 12:13pm
zero: precisely.

Posted by darladoon at 04/20/2007 @ 12:14pm
it is the senate which confirmed the reptilian Gonzales who should be ashamed of themselves. ditto for those who confirmed Roberts and most of all Alito, who were so transparently lying when asked about Roe.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 12:32pm
How about, "As I recall, my thinking was, 'I never really supported him/them, I just remember thinking that I ought to support any non-Democrat who is holding the office of the President/AG.'"

Posted by NATHANHALE 04/20/2007 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person

Perfect! Can't expect John ever to come clean and admit he is full of it.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 12:35pm
Have a sneaking suspicion that is in small part why impeachment was off the table in addition to the war rationale.

Posted by ONEVOTE 04/20/2007 @ 11:18am

Yep...now, somebody needs to inform John Nichols and the Vermont State House...hehe.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 12:48pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/20/2007 @ 12:05pm

Specter, Coburn and Graham may KNOW what Gonzales will do to them in 2008....but what are they willing to DO about it?

At most, I'd see them voting for a concurrent resolution of "no confidence", but not an impeachment. And if the AG refuses to resign or Bush refuses to fire him....then what?

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 12:50pm
"Gonzo looks bad as an incompetent..." Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2007 @ 10:08am

Gonzo looks bad as an incompetent? It's hard to argue with that. You might take another baby step: Gonzo "looks" like a liar. But I think you'd still be underselling him. He is incompentent and he is a liar. How about the guy who nominated this AG? What far will you go assessing his competence?

Posted by NeilSagan at 04/20/2007 @ 12:51pm
Play match the quote with the author: Abu Gonzalez Edition

A. "I think your credibility has been significantly impaired because of the panorama of responses you have made..."

B. "The best way to put this behind us is your resignation"

C: "Mr. Gonzales has presided over an unprecedented crippling of the Constitution's time-honored checks and balances. He has brought the rule of law into disrepute, and debased honesty as the coin of the realm. He has engendered the suspicion that partisan politics trumps evenhanded law enforcement in the Department of Justice."

1. Tom Coburn

2. Bruce Fein

3. Arlen Specter

Key: A:3 B:2 C:3

Posted by NeilSagan at 04/20/2007 @ 12:55pm
And if the AG refuses to resign or Bush refuses to fire him....then what?

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 12:50pm

Nothing. They know it is much worse for the party for Gonzo to stay; so it will be everyone for themselves come 2008 and you can expect many more Republicans distancing themselves even more from this administration.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/20/2007 @ 12:59pm
Gonzales' sole enthusiastic supporters are Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and the White House. Republicans on the Abu Gonzalez looks bad list include;

Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)- "The president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership."

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR)- "For the Justice Department to be effective before the U.S. Senate, it would be helpful."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): "I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. I believe the best way for us to put this behind us is your resignation."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)- "There are some problems that he just hasn't handled well, and it might just be best if he came to a conclusion that the department is better served if he's not there.'"

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)- "Sometimes, it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA)- "For you to have said this was an ‘overblown personnel matter,' I think that can't be erased. And the clouds over a lot of the professionals can't be erased and the worry by those who haven't been subjected to those clouds can't be erased. Now, I'm not going call for you resignation; I'm not going to make a recommendation on that. I think there are two people that have to decide that question. You have to decide it in the first instance. If you decide to stay on, it's up to the President to decide."

Rep. Vern Elhers (R-MI)- "Since he's such a close, personal friend, he's hurt the President by what he's doing, he should have the politeness to offer his resignation."

Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-OH)- 'Given the totality of the circumstances, I think it would be better for the President and the Department if the Attorney General were to step down."

Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA)- "Even for Republicans this is a warning sign … saying there needs to be a change."

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)- "Frankly, until these statements came out that contradicted his first statement, I was backing him, saying that he shouldn't resign. Now I think that he should."

The National Review Editorial Board- "Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start."

Mark Corallo, Justice Department spokesman (2002-2005)- "Alberto Gonzales' loyalty to George Bush has got to trump George Bush's loyalty to Alberto Gonzales."

Additionally, prior to Gonzales' testimony, a group of conservatives with ties to the White House wrote President Bush to express their displeasure with the Attorney General. They finished the letter saying:

"Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country... The President should accept the resignation." Included as signatories were: Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Reagan Justice Department, David Keene, Chariman of the American Conservative Union, John Whitehead, head of the Rutherford Institute, Bob Barr, former Georgia Congressman, and Richard Viguerie, a well-known GOP fundraiser. link [tpmmuckraker.com]

Posted by NeilSagan at 04/20/2007 @ 1:05pm
You've got to wonder is Laura and Barnie are still on board.

Posted by NeilSagan at 04/20/2007 @ 1:06pm
Barnie, yes.

Good stuff Neil.

the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy has landed some more fish.

Raise your hand if you are still a True Believer.

Master Bush, teach us,

Master Bush, protect us,

In your light we thrive.

In your mercy we are sheltered.

In your wisdom we are humbled.

We live only to serve.

Our lives are yours.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 1:17pm
I found it amazing that a person who could not remember important meetings, reasons for firing subordinates, and a litany of other incidents relating to his job was able to recall enough information to go through college and graduate school and retain a law degree. Not only did Gonzales seem alternately confused, degraded, and defensive during his questioning, he didn't even appear to be very intelligent.

This is probably not really the case, since he apparently was bright and informed enough concerning a variety of laws to interpret them to the advantage of executive privilege, but he surely did not give the appearance of competent attorney. The current administration is an embarrassment to the rest of America, Gonzales included. We have a president who cannot speak the language, does not read newspapers, and has no connection to the vast majority of our citizens. We have a vice president who is so hidden in his ivory tower he cannot begin to conceive of any point of view other than his own. Disregard of the laws of this country and the international community is rampant, and the number of legislators and other powerful figures is so great that may people are becoming immune to the stories.

During the Clinton Administration, I wrote a song with the following words. They seem more relevant now than they ever did.

REPUBLICRATS (or The Buck Doesn't Stop Here Any More)

Big business and the government are in the same old bed/ And voodoo style economy has left us in the red/ With politicians crying the press has hurt their pride/ Denials, accusations that someone else has lied.

Refrain (after each verse) There's scandals on the left and tax fraud on the right/ Money in the middle and cheating on the side/ What's happened to our statesmen we knew in years gone by/ The buck has roamed from hand to hand since Harry Truman died.

Campaign finance needs reform, our congress says it's true/ Foreign dollars have more say than votes from me and you/ Soft money contributions may be misconstrued/ But soft or hard, it comes to this: I think we've all been screwed.

It's up to you, it's up to me, to try and turn the tide/ Or corporate America will take us for a ride/ The punishment for honest folks who turn and look away/ Is government by shades and lies, and that's the price we pay.

(c)LeeAnn Gallucci 1997

Posted by LeeAnnG at 04/20/2007 @ 1:24pm
Posted by LEEANNG 04/20/2007 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person

Terrific LeeAnn. Talk to Mr. Nichols. He will nominate ya for a Pulitzer!

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 1:32pm
if Gonzales stays put, that eliminates part of the "corruption" charge AND let's the Bush Redeemers claim "Though things were charged at Gonzales, he never resigned and Congress never thought it was worthy of impeachment!"

Now maybe THAT doesn't sound "rational"...but it SURE sounds plausible!

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 10:19am |

I agree and moreover predict that Gonzales will NEITHER resign NOR be impeached. And anyway, although I think he's an obnoxious little shit, he's committed FAR worse sins (the infamous "torture memo," illegal surveillance, etc., etc.) than the Federal Prosecutor firings. I honestly can't understand all the hoopla over the firings. What??!! (Gasp!) -- Gonzales made POLITICAL decisions as A.G.? Stop the presses!

Posted by w_m_bear at 04/20/2007 @ 1:38pm
Senate Shame

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 4/19/2007

U.S. Attorneys: Democrats turned the Senate Judiciary Committee into a circus-like political rally Thursday, complete with chants from costumed demonstrators. Alberto Gonzales was the most sober man in the room.

How does "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" treat the nation's chief law enforcement officer?

With his panel breaking for lunch, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy was seen giggling as a departing Attorney General Gonzales was subjected to crowds holding up signs and bellowing "Resign!" in the hearing room. After Gonzales returned for the afternoon session, noisy demonstrators were allowed to roam freely around the room with their placards. At the hearing's final gavel they sang and shouted taunts.

Why didn't Leahy have the Capitol Police clear the room? Why didn't the ranking Republican, the liberal Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, call on Leahy to do so? Or someone on the committee concerned with the Senate's highfalutin reputation?

They didn't because that mob demanding Gonzales' scalp is what the hearing was all about. The senators may have worn suits and ties and spoken in softer tones (though not always), but their blood lust for the White House is just as fervent as the extremists who wore orange garb and pink police costumes and had "Arrest Gonzales" duct-taped on their backs.

Consider Leahy's nonsensical contention that "the Department of Justice is experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its 137-year history." Does he forget Bill Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, erecting a wall between the FBI and the CIA that buried vital intelligence that could have exposed the 9/11 plot?

The Gonzales inquisition amounted to a colossal waste of time.

• The best New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer could do was raise doubt about whether fired U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was told there were issues with her prosecution of immigration cases. Then, with a staged solemnity, Schumer asked Gonzales to resign.

• All Leahy could do was pinpoint a date -- Oct. 11, 2006 -- when the president discussed with Gonzales his concern about a lack of voter-fraud prosecutions by fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.

• The best a grandstanding GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina could serve up was the charge that many of the fired U.S. attorneys "just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and just made up reasons to fire them."

Some smoking guns, those.

Once again: Under the law, U.S. attorneys are hired and fired by the president; no public or private explanation is needed. There is no scandal. Yet Schumer was gleefully confident that Gonzales' head would roll because GOP senators were "so skeptical" of him.

The White House should realize that sacrificing Gonzales won't end Congress' feeding frenzy. It will whet it.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 1:40pm
I think the fact that clowns like Leahy, Schumer, et al allowed protestors into the Senate chambers tells you all you need to know about the merit of these proceedings. What a joke.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 1:41pm
It must be that Gonzales is really being made to serve as a kind of stand-in/proxy for Bush/Cheney.

Posted by w_m_bear at 04/20/2007 @ 1:42pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/20/2007 @ 12:59pm

They did that the day after the November midterms. Every Repub knows that they could have "weathered" Foley-gate and "bridges to nowhere" if the Administration was doing better (both in policy and polls).

Frankly, there's no DOWNside for the Bush guys for Gonzales to stay put. The Repubs won't impeach him....the Dems won't (despite Mr Nichols and HSUB hopes and dreams about "higher ups" being impeached, if the Dems aren't calling for Gonzales to resign or be impeached..Dubya and Dick are safe until 2009).

In less than 8 months we are NECK DEEP into the Primary Season and it'll be "Look what Hillary said about Obama"..."Look what Obama said about Hillary"..."Look what McCain did THIS time and it's on YouTube!" and "Fredo" will be sitting in his comfy chair at D.O.J. and writing his memoirs on the company computer.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 1:54pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person

Investor's Business Daily? You've got to joking. Read by the richest (read Bush supporters)target audience consisting of the richest 10% of Americans who enjoy Bush tax cuts. Can you find any other source Ponti who might be a little more objective?

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 1:58pm
"..."Look what McCain did THIS time and it's on YouTube!"

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person

Can you believe this guy? It is like he is suicidal. Maybe somebody should get McCain into counseling.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 2:01pm
I think the fact that clowns like Leahy, Schumer, et al allowed protestors into the Senate chambers tells you all you need to know about the merit of these proceedings. What a joke.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 1:41pm

did you see all the "clowns" exiting their little car?

Specter, Graham, Sessions, Coburn?

What does that do to your "Hate Bush "theory?

as far as your article, maybe they are not aware of the comments made by former employees of the JD. Many have said they think this JD is the worst they have worked for.

"Third, and most significantly for present purposes, there was an almost immediate influx of young political aides beginning in the first half of 2005 (e.g., counsels to the AG, associate deputy attorneys general, deputy associate attorneys general, and deputy assistant attorneys general) whose inexperience in the processes of government was surpassed only by their evident disdain for it."- So says Daniel Metcalfe, a senior attorney at the department who retired in January, before the current controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys erupted. He views the episode as an "awful embarrassment" that has only worsened already-low morale at the department, especially among career attorneys.

Hemlock Kool-aid all around bar maid. At least for the 25% that see no evil, hear no evil, but speak it daily.

--

Read by the richest (read Bush supporters)target audience

You mean chimpies Qaida?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 2:06pm
"Fredo" will be sitting in his comfy chair at D.O.J. and writing his memoirs on the company computer.

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 1:54pm

And this country will be worse off for it. Just so ChimpCo can score political points? Vunderbar.

Again, this is why neo-cons should not be allowed to run guvt. They don't believe in it, can't manage it and can't act without bribes. That is why they hate guvt, because that is the way they run it. The circular reasoning of the neo-clowns.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 2:11pm
Aren't these the people that are supposed to be fighting the GWOT? If they can't even run an office, have no idea what is going on, and can't remember anything, how are they going to save us from the mushroom clouds? Besides capturing 400 innocent people and locking them up in Cuba for 3 years.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 2:13pm
The Gonzo Mad Man's situation reminds me of this joke, told famously in An American Werewolf in London:

There a plane crossing the Atlantic that is having engine trouble and has to lighten the load. On board are a Brit, a Frenchman, a Mexican and an American - from Texas.

After throwing overboard all of the extraneous baggage, etc, the plane is still too heavy, and there are no parachutes.

First, the Brit stands up, says 'God save the Queen,' and jumps out. But the plane is still too heavy.

Next, the Frenchman stands up, says 'Vive la France,' and throws himself from the plane. But the plane is still too heavy.

Then the Texan climbs to his feet, shouts 'Remember the Alamo,' and chucks the Mexican out.

And so it will go in the case of a Mexican-American, one Alberto Gonzales. An erzatz cowboy named Chimpy will chuck him out of the plane when expeditious to do so.

It actually surprises me that the said Chimpy has yet to do so - he runs the risk of the Dems finding something really explosive in the 'lost' RNC email cache

Posted by skeletonman at 04/20/2007 @ 2:16pm
Posted by CRABWALK

It sounds about like the way Georgie Jr ran a few companies into the ground while in the oil business in TX.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/20/2007 @ 2:18pm
He hasn't done anything wrong except poor judgement and looks bad

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/20/2007 @ 10:08am

Well, he's told the truth four or five different ways and at least two of them under oath.

I believe it was Senator Whitehouse yesterday who chastised Gonzales for setting a standard so low -- one had to break the law in order for it to be improper.

I would remind everybody here that for an offense to be impeachable, it needn't be a statutory crime. What we are investigating here is not any overt case of obstruction of justice. It is whether eight US Attorneys were fired for not being sufficiently loyal Bushies, which apparently means sticking it to Democrats and laying off Republicans. It is clear to all but the thirty percenters that Iglecias was removed for not filing a case against some Democratic officials fast enough to satisfy Senator Domenici and Congressman Heather Wilson, whose interest in the matter was clearly connected to filing those charges before last November's election. Meanwhile, we have a case of an apparently spurious prosecution of a Democratic office holder in Illinois by a US Attorney who seems to have been on the list but was removed after the charges were filed. Tragically, a conviction was won and the official spent several weeks in prison before the conviction was overturned by an appellate court. One of the judges on the appellate panel called the evidence "beyond thin." Another US Attorney in New Jersey made noise about ethic violations by Senator Menendez, a Democrat who was seeking re-election, before the election last year. No charges were filed at all and Menedez won an election that was in doubt in the final weeks thanks in no small part to the allegations.

This is a disturbing pattern. We might want a little bit more to go on before opening impeaching hearings against Gonzales (and certainly a little more against Bush, who had to have signed off on the plan).

The second article of impeachment recommended against President Nixon in 1974 was for sicking the FBI and the IRS on his political enemies, among other things. There's no specific law against that, but it's not something the President should be allowed to do. Even worse than that is to politicize the Justice Department and bring prosecutions on a partisan basis. Neither the President nor the Attorney General should be permitted to that.

The question is not whether they were doing it, but whether they gave explecit direction to their subordinates to carry it out or whether their subordinates were running amok unsupervised.

Either way, it's time for those responsible to step down.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 2:20pm
Thanks, OneVote. I appreciate the compliment.

As I have noted many, many times before, I have all the freepers and trolls on my ignore list, so I would not be aware of the comment by Pontificus (what an appropriate name for a freeper!!!) concerning protesters being allowed in the senate chambers without someone else's pointing it out.

Oh! My! Goodness! Allowing the people of the United States to view or participate in a senate hearing! Is Pontificus a patriot? Or is he in favor of dictatorship? Hm. I guess this particular rightwinger doesn't think "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" pertains here. Throw out the constitution, inhibit free speech, keep "we the people" out of it. Enter Executive Privilege, secrecy, and unaccountability.

ROTFLMAO

Posted by LeeAnnG at 04/20/2007 @ 2:24pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 2:13pm

Besides capturing 400 innocent people and locking them up in Cuba for 3 years.

You think all the people that have been locked up in Guantanamo are innocent? You know they were mostly captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that a significant fraction of those that HAVE been released have been recaptured in those two places? And you assume that because GWB is the one that captured them, they must all be innocent?

Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 2:25pm
Posted by LEEANNG 04/20/2007 @ 2:24pm

Oh! My! Goodness! Allowing the people of the United States to view or participate in a senate hearing! Is Pontificus a patriot? Or is he in favor of dictatorship?

Allowing protesters into the Senate chambers is a breach of Senate tradition and decorum and smacks of mob rule. This is not 'participation', this is a circus, brought on by circus clowns, and is a reflection of the frivolous nature of these hearings.

Hm. I guess this particular rightwinger doesn't think "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" pertains here. Throw out the constitution, inhibit free speech, keep "we the people" out of it. Enter Executive Privilege, secrecy, and unaccountability.

LeeAnn, I'm sure you're a very nice lady, and lots of the lefties on hre will say nice things about you, but make no mistake - this place is on the very left wing extremes of society. Many of the people here are barely sane, so my suggestion to you is to find a better group of people to mix with.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 2:35pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/20/2007 @ 12:05pm

Maybe Bush digs in his heels - would not be shocking. But the longer Gonzales stays in office, the worse it is for the GOP.,/i>

I disagree. Rewarding the bad faith of Senate Dems by throwing them a scalp is the absolute worst thing Bush could do. Regardless of Gonzales' competence, if I were Bush, I'd keep him on.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 2:44pm
I agree with IBD. Rewarding these kinds of political witch hunts will only encourage more of same.

Once again: Under the law, U.S. attorneys are hired and fired by the president; no public or private explanation is needed. There is no scandal. Yet Schumer was gleefully confident that Gonzales' head would roll because GOP senators were "so skeptical" of him.

The White House should realize that sacrificing Gonzales won't end Congress' feeding frenzy. It will whet it.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 2:49pm
You know it's bad for a Bush appointee when even the most conservative members of his party are saying that the only way to "put this behind" them is the appointee's resignation. But, Gonzalez will not step down as long as he enjoys Bush's support; the Shrub knows he'll never get another crony past a Democrat-controlled Senate unless he makes a recess appointment, and that is likely to cause even more damage to himself politically at a time when he needs strength enough to order an attack on Iran. So it comes down to how long Bush and Cheney think it behooves them to hold on to their pet stormtrooper.

Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 04/20/2007 @ 2:52pm
And if the AG refuses to resign or Bush refuses to fire him....then what?

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 12:50pm

Bingo. Lines get drawn. GOP vs. hsuB. hsuB no longer able to destroy more of the USA, per oversight, digs in heels and gives his single finger salute to his traitorous repub congressmen. And in so doing scoots them over to the dems side for their mere survival. Thus an increase in oversight and an emboldened new bipartison supermajority vote at every turn, congress vs. hsuB. And since hsuB can't impeach congress-- guess who wins... hsuB's signing statements look very different with a hostile veto proof congress out for his blood. hsuB/heney/ove have no clue what's about to hit them-- big time, e.g. last November X1000.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 2:56pm
BTW, the more focus on A.G.-gate, takes the focus of hsuB-gate. For a while.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 3:03pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/20/2007 @ 3:03pm

Well, the Dems are doing exactly what they promised to do during last Fall's elections - tie up the Administration (and the Congress) in phony investigations for the rest of the President's term. Who knew that politicians would keep their promises?

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by ONEVOTE 04/20/2007 @ 2:01pm

Poor "Maverick John" probably can't fathom that there isn't "a Media" anymore that has the video cameras and would edit such things from the news.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 3:22pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 2:13pm

Besides capturing 400 innocent people and locking them up in Cuba for 3 years.

You think all the people that have been locked up in Guantanamo are innocent? You know they were mostly captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that a significant fraction of those that HAVE been released have been recaptured in those two places? And you assume that because GWB is the one that captured them, they must all be innocent?

Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 2:25pm |

No, I don't know that, because it isn't true.

The Pentagon's data show that only 8 percent of the prisoners at the base are even alleged to have been Al Qaeda fighters--assuming the allegations against them are true.

Many were actually "captured" in Egypt, Pakistan and places other than Afghanistan. An awful lot of them were victims of false information supplied to Pakistani intelligence services. Some picked up in Afghanistan were victims of tribal conflicts, they were not Takiban but were fingered as such to get them out of Afghanistan . Many were handed over for bounties, but were never Taliban or Al Qaida.

As far as I know, about 7 people have been released and returned, or went for the first time, to Afghanistan. But, if you listen to wingers, you would think it was a "significant fraction". whatever that is.

BBC:

Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbasi, Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg were reunited with their families on Wednesday night.

Washington had claimed all four were "enemy combatants" who trained at camps run by al-Qaeda.

The four men have been released by UK police a day after returning from Guantanamo Bay.

They were released after UK police concluded there was not enough evidence to charge them with any offence.--

You do know that almost 200 detainees have been released back to their home countries, and those countries have released them? They were not "the most vicious" after all. You do know that a Canadian citizen was kidnapped, flown to Syria, tortured and then released, right? You are cool with that? So you can feel safe? After 4 years, how many of these "most vicious" have actually been charged with ANYTHING? about 1/2 a dozen.

CBS news :

Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value. This # has gone up since that report was filed.

"n Denmark, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane, who was released in February from the U.S. naval base on Cuba's southeastern tip, said he would go to Chechnya to fight with rebels there against Russia.

"The Muslims are oppressed in Chechnya, and the Russians are carrying out terror against them," the 31-year-old Dane, who has an Algerian father, told Danish television in September.

Abderrahmane, who was never charged in Denmark upon his return, later backtracked. After being questioned by Danish intelligence agents, he said he would stay in Denmark, hand over his passport and honor his pledge. Danish intelligence officials are keeping tabs on Abderrahmane. I don't think Russia is doing right by the Chechyans, do you PONTI?

Why is Gitmo Iin Castros Cuba and not on US soil?

Now, having written that, there some wretched scum down there. So, charge them, try 'em and lock em up if found guilty. That used to be the American Way.

Idiot. Go drink some more Kool-aid.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:24pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/20/2007 @ 2:56pm

As usual, your fantasies get ahead of themselves, HSUB. Sure...on a few issues, mostly about Bush, the GOP will join with the Dems in your "super majority". But there's only 20 months left. (Or 6 months, if you include the imminent double bill of impeachment...hehe) and not everything that Bush vetos, the Republicans will oppose.

Plus, if the Dems try to move on more gun control legislation (in the wake of Va. Tech), they're going to smack up against many of THEIR OWN caucus (like Senator Webb among others) and will lose that "super majority".

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 3:26pm
And you assume that because GWB is the one that captured them, they must all be innocent? ---Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 2:25pm

Curious, PONTI....you assume that because GWB is the one that captured them, they ALL must be GUILTY....right?

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 3:28pm
...tie up the Administration (and the Congress) in phony investigations for the rest of the President's term.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 3:10bm

Er, you mean they promised to do their job, like do oversight -- unlike the previous rollover, do-nothing, pro-perv repub majority congress? Real as it gets, nothing phony there at all.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 3:28pm
POTIFICUS, are you in favor of graft, no-bid contracts to political "friends", overcharging the US for gas, food and services? Do you think Bechtel, Halliburton etc should get full payment for jobs they have not completed?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:31pm
Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 3:28pm

Thank you.

We know that Chimpy has never been wrong about serious matters before.

Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 31, 2003; Page A01

KRAKOW, Poland, May 30 -- President Bush, citing two trailers that U.S. intelligence agencies have said were probably used as mobile biological weapons labs, said U.S. forces in Iraq have "found the weapons of mass destruction" that were the United States' primary justification for going to war.

In remarks to Polish television at a time of mounting criticism at home and abroad that the more than two-month-old weapons hunt is turning up nothing, Bush said that claims of failure were "wrong." The remarks were released today.

"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons," Bush said in an interview before leaving today on a seven-day trip to Europe and the Middle East. "They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

"And we'll find more weapons as time goes on," Bush said. "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:35pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/20/2007 @ 3:31pm

so, Sessions, Coburn, Graham, Specter, National Review and Bruce Fein are all minority haters?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:36pm
Call to all Nation readers!

Folks, I am organizing a LOSE THE WAR NOW!!!! rally in Washington, DC, for the first really nice day, right after school lets out. For you guys on the fence, I guarantee that there will be plenty of opportunity to hit on chicks from Greenpeace. We need to march on Washington and demand the immediate surrender of our troops and imposition of Sharia law! Who's with me?

Reid Offers Bleak Assessment of Iraq War Email this Story

Apr 19, 9:50 PM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

(AP) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev. gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in... Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday the war in Iraq is "lost," triggering an angry backlash by Republicans, who said the top Democrat had turned his back on the troops. The bleak assessment - the most pointed yet from Reid - came as the House voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.

Reid said he told President Bush on Wednesday he thought the war could not be won through military force, although he said the U.S. could still pursue political, economic and diplomatic means to bring peace to Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.

Republicans pounced on the comment as evidence, they said, that Democrats do not support the troops.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 3:36pm
And Generals Clark, Shinseki, Hoar, Eaton, Odom, Zinni and more are

America Haters!!!>

Your grasping at straws will do you no good RIO, sheep don't have hands.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:39pm
Folks, I am organizing a LOSE THE WAR NOW!!!!

You already lost it PONTI. It's been four years.

Just for giggles, try to replace the word "Clinton" for "Bush" when defending this admin. See if you still hold the same position. Would you support Bill or hillary after a four year war that is not showing much, if any, progress?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:42pm
2 million Iraqis have voted with their feet.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 3:45pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 3:42pm

You already lost it PONTI. It's been four years.

I got one here! Any more? Come on guys, we need to demand nothing less than complete and unconditional surrender from our troops immediately!

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 3:55pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 3:45pm

2 million Iraqis have voted with their feet.

Hey Crabbie, is it time to restore the rightful government to Iraq? You know, the one that got 100 percent of the vote, much more than George Bush?

Perhaps we can even restore the mass grave policy? Anything to make George look bad, eh?

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 3:57pm
Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 3:45pm

You're right, Crabbie. We need to reverse the effects of George Bush's illegal war. First, we need to round up all those Iraqis who should have been mass-murderedy by Saddam Hussein, and gas them. Then, we need to round up all those women who would have been raped, and rape them. Then, we need to round up all those people who would have been tortured to death, and torture them to death. Perhaps we can even dig up Saddam Hussein, the right and just ruler of the sovereign country of Iraq, and restore him to his rightful place, the one the Bush junta stole from him!

Only then will things be right in the world, eh Crabbie?

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 4:03pm
Oh, and I forgot Crabbie!

SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ALL!

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 4:06pm
And so it will go in the case of a Mexican-American, one Alberto Gonzales. An erzatz cowboy named Chimpy will chuck him out of the plane when expeditious to do so.

Posted by SKELETONMAN 04/20/2007 @ 2:16pm | ignore this person

Or how about this? Bush offers Dems Gonzo's head for the promise to take deadlines out of the supplemental? Everybody wins except for poor Gonzo!

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:07pm
Poor "Maverick John" probably can't fathom that there isn't "a Media" anymore that has the video cameras and would edit such things from the news.

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person

He even has the stupidity to blame it on the Veterans!

Heres to hoping that he stays in the race for more Republican blunder yucks!

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:12pm
What is most amazing is how the Demoncrat party has in a strictly partison effort has been able to surplant their viceral hatred of republicans, conservatives, and the Bush administration with this political "witch hunt" that has NO precedent (other than former Demoncrat presidential actions), NO real substance, and is totally invalid!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/20/2007 @ 3:31pm (with empasis addec by JR)

At least two Republicans on the panel called for his resignation or suggestede strongly he should resign yesterday. Only one GOP Senator was consistantly friendly. That's really partisan, Rio.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/20/2007 @ 4:12pm

At least two Republicans on the panel called for his resignation or suggestede strongly he should resign yesterday. Only one GOP Senator was consistantly friendly. That's really partisan, Rio.

Totally irrelevant. They're dissatisfied with his handling of the witchhunt per se, not validating it.

Posted by pontificus at 04/20/2007 @ 4:16pm
With his panel breaking for lunch, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy was seen giggling.... Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 1:40pm

Awwww, wook at the poor widdle Attorney Gen'wal...Awwww, now dat mean Midder Weahy is giggwing at him....

Actually, this reminds me of the Spurs/Mavs basketball game on Sunday. The one where Tim Duncan, who wasn't even in the game at the time, got a technical foul because he was laughing. So what happens after the game? The referee who called the technical gets suspended for the rest of the year.

But, great job, Pontifurbator: since that post, you've turned from the disaster that is Fredo to the even bigger disaster in Iraq. Have you shot your wad yet?

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 4:21pm
Oh! My! Goodness! Allowing the people of the United States to view or participate in a senate hearing! Is Pontificus a patriot? Or is he in favor of dictatorship? Hm. I guess this particular rightwinger doesn't think "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" pertains here. Throw out the constitution, inhibit free speech, keep "we the people" out of it. Enter Executive Privilege, secrecy, and unaccountability.

ROTFLMAO

Posted by LEEANNG 04/20/2007 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person

Right Wing Authority figures like Ponti believe in closed door sessions. Wouldn't want the public to know what going now. Ponti would also like to remove all the gallery seating from court houses, the end of jury trials in those courts that have Bush appointed judges, government approval of all media releases, NSA surveillance of American citizens, etc. He loves Gonzo! He is like a mother watching her perp son go off to jail. Lordy, lordy.

How about writing some lyrics to the song "Ode to Gonzo, My Good Boy Gone Bad"?

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:23pm
Actually, this reminds me of the Spurs/Mavs basketball game on Sunday.

I thought the ref was correct. Duncan had gotten the first technical while he was on the bench for arguing or yelling at the ref. then he carried on when the ref made another call, and boing out he went.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 4:26pm
Why waste everyone's time trying to defend these fools. Unless- you want this story to continue- giving cover to the real story unfolding in Iraq. Could be worst month for cusulties- army extending 12 months to 15 months, obviously wounded soldiers forced back in action, and a mojority of Americans calling for a time table. 85-90% of Americans would be unable to pick the AG out of a police lineup- so I guess he'll drag this out until a special prosecutor is hired, then he'll step down over a three day weekend.

Posted by phillymark at 04/20/2007 @ 4:27pm
Anything to make George look bad, eh?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 3:57bm

Bwahahahaha, like hsuB can look even worser?

Do you really think impeachment would even be brought up by so many if hsuB wasn't the worst president in US history and a complete and utter failure? The only thing saving his ass is that he keeps everyone disoriented per the shear magnitude and unrelenting inconsistency from one incompetently caused failure to the next one. You'd think one could no longer be surprised by the depth of esoteric idiocy of being the hsub could go-- then OH DUH, there they go again! WOW. The hsuB admin is like quicksand or even a black hole, really dense, unstable, sloppy and sunk.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 4:29pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/20/2007 @ 4:26pm

Wrong your are, JR. Duncan's first tech came when he argued a foul while he was in the game.

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 4:29pm
LeeAnn, I'm sure you're a very nice lady, and lots of the lefties on hre will say nice things about you, but make no mistake - this place is on the very left wing extremes of society. Many of the people here are barely sane, so my suggestion to you is to find a better group of people to mix with.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 2:35pm | ignore this person

Yeah LeeAnn. Ponti suggests RepublicanNationalCommittee.Com. Very nice people who brought you deficit spending, cuts in social programs, war in Iraq, the hatred of the world, rampant corruption, environmental destruction, sky high oil prices, blowing it in Afghanistan, torture of political prisoners, massacre of Iraqi citizens...well you get the idea. Now this is a better class of people for you to associate with? You decide.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:34pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/20/2007 @ 4:31pm

On the John Nichols Impeachment thread, your bud BARRY25 blamed it on "the liberals"....any rebuke of him for divisiveness?

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 4:36pm
Try another question for PONTI....

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 3:36pm

So you think we're WINNING in Iraq? Okay, I'll grant the benefit.....what evidence do you have of that? We can start with the successes we've seen with "The Surge" if you like?

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 4:37pm
At least McCain only wants to bomb the sworn enemies of state!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/20/2007 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

Bomb bomb bomb --- bomb bomb Iran....that is my plan...to bomb Iran.....we will have them rocking and wheeling....

Ah....what state is that Bravo? Israel? Didn't know you were blogging from Tel Aviv. This is the United States guy.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:39pm
Wrong your are, JR. Duncan's first tech came when he argued a foul while he was in the game.

Posted by NATHANHALE 04/20/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

let's go to the videotape. this clip shows him on the bench for BOTH technicals. take a look and tell me what you think.

http://spursreport.com/newsstory_duncanejected.html

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 4:41pm
Wrong your are, JR. Duncan's first tech came when he argued a foul while he was in the game.

Posted by NATHANHALE 04/20/2007 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

let's go to the videotape. this clip shows him on the bench for BOTH technicals. take a look and tell me what you think.

http://spursreport.com/newsstory_duncanejected.html

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 4:43pm
Wrong your are, JR.

Me wrong? lächerlich

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 4:45pm
So you think we're WINNING in Iraq? Okay, I'll grant the benefit.....what evidence do you have of that? We can start with the successes we've seen with "The Surge" if you like?

Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 4:37pm | ignore this person

Mask -- Ponti measures 'surge' success by body count. More Iraqi dead...more success. There's alot of them - 6 million less recent dead in Baghdad alone. Come on...give war a chance. All we have to do is insure that daily body count exceeds birth rate and we are guaranteed of eventual victory.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 4:52pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/20/2007 @ 4:43pm

D'OH! Right you are! (not that you had to post it twice) . When was the last time you saw somebody get Tee'd up without saying anything -- by a ref who was on the other side of the court? When was the last time an NBA ref got suspended for teeing somebody up? When will Nowitzke ever get a ring? ...(and yes, it is ridiculous)

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 4:54pm
double post, so shoot me. it was inadvertent, not like your pathetic swipe at me. fact is, I knew what I was talking about, you didn't. the rest is opinion.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 4:57pm
When will Nowitzke ever get a ring? ..

this should be the year of the Kraut, who incidentally spells his name Nowitzki

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 5:02pm
Posted by MASK 04/20/2007 @ 3:26pm

Keep dreaming pessimistically. Why wouldn't the dems push through leg that they 'can' get a supemajority on too? Er, just like maybe-- the 329-78 House of Representatives vote that followed the Senate and stripped hsuB of the authority to appoint United States Attorneys on an interim basis...

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 5:02pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/20/2007 @ 5:02pm

Don't hold your breath: we'd hate to lose you here.

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 5:03pm
what's yer cherce?

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 5:06pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/20/2007 @ 4:12pm

At least two Republicans on the panel called for his resignation or suggestede strongly he should resign yesterday. Only one GOP Senator was consistantly friendly. That's really partisan, Rio.

Totally irrelevant. They're dissatisfied with his handling of the witchhunt per se, not validating it.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/20/2007 @ 4:16pm

What disreputable right wing shill gave that idea?

Sentor Coburn and Senator Sessions were there. Senator Spector was there. They didn't show any disrespect for the "witch hunt". Instead, they asked Mr. Gonzales tough questions and Coburn, a Republican, overtly called for his resignation.

Mr. Gonazales got little defense from panel members of either party, with the exception of Senator Hatch.

To the accusation that this is a partisan witch hunt, I say those who make such an accusation are partisan fools.

It is true that Mr. Gonzales has not handled the hearings very well. He would have done better to have had one story (instead of several) that was at least reasonably consistant with the document the committee had at hand and with the testimony of other witnesses.

If so many people are calling Gonzales a liar today, it is because they have good reason to call him a liar.

And your defense of Gonzales is pathetic, Ponti. You start with the usual ad hominen attacks against the Senators questioning him ("clowns") and the posters of this board who oppose him and his boss ("Many of the people here are barely sane"), and add a red herring ("I think the fact that . . . Leahy . . . allowed protestors into the Senate chambers tells you all you need to know about the merit of these proceedings", omitting, of course, that the protesters did nothing disruptive while the hearings were in session) with is a very lame attempt at guilt by association. Not to mention your typical attempts to change the subject by responding to an irrelevant post about Guantánamo and then adding a post or two out of the blue about Iraq.

No sale.

As usual, you are declaring the scandal a non-scandal and acting as if your mere declaration makes it so.

No sale.

As for the piece for the IBD, there is one thing in it with which I agree:

The White House should realize that sacrificing Gonzales won't end Congress' feeding frenzy. It will whet it.

That is true. The White House should also realize that if they don't "sacrifice" Gonazales it won't end the "feeding grenzy" in Congress. That is because the Bush regime is the most corrupt and incompetent in American history, more reminscent of the courts of the royal and imperial tyrants of seventeenth/eighteenth century Europe than of any past administration, including Nixon's. The feeding frenzy won't stop for the simple reason that for six long years Bush and his cronies have left behind plenty of food for a thousand hungry investigators.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 5:08pm
What disreputable right wing shill gave that idea?

that describes Ponti to a T.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 5:13pm
Pontificus is the biggest fraud on this board.

He has something to say about the detainees in Gitmo and when someone gives him facts showing most turned out to be innocent . . . he goes away.

He has something to say about the Democratic witch hunt and when someone gives him qutoes from several Republicans . . . he goes away.

When soemone challenges him to cite something showing we are winning in Iraq . . . he goes away.

Hey Ponti. Why don't you all just do us a favor, go away and stay away. We can cut out the middleman and stop wasting people's time.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/20/2007 @ 5:17pm
PONTIFICUS is funnee.

Am I allowed to re-use the new word I learned?

lächerlich!

"HEY Hey! we overturned our former business partner. Created a failed state that harbors terrorists. Killed hundreds of thousands of people, caused 2 million to flee their homes. Brought even more instability to an unstable region!!

Woo hoo!! We are winning.

Gonzo is doing a fine job!! Not only moonbats want him to resign but so do guys with the magic (r) next to their names!! Moonbats (r)

Hyuck hyuk. 7 of 500 have gone to fight. 1.4% is a " significant fraction"

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 5:18pm
It's tough to be in the 27% crowd.

On the fringe.

Posted by Hman23 at 04/20/2007 @ 5:21pm
PONTI do you think overcharging the US taxpayers for gas, services and food for the troops is OK? Do you think guvt contractors that have not finished their work in Iraq should get paid the full amount of the contracts? Do you think no-bid contracts that go to politically connected companies are the best way to run a war? Don't you think congress has a role to play if they think these things have occurred?

You funnee guy, you.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 5:22pm
And, why'd he choose "Pontifurbator" anyway, when the real Pontiff told Chimpy to kiss his ring & keep his army out of Iraq?

Posted by nathanhale at 04/20/2007 @ 5:25pm
Nat, no answer for me?

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 5:29pm
As it does for more than 95% of Americans and about the same for the rest of the world.

Only those 2% fringe like yourself and other atheists here lack that framework.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1

That's it, sheepboy, stick with the herd, and all of you can bleat in unison how y'all are right.

Posted by mtspence05 at 04/20/2007 @ 5:37pm
Only those 2% fringe like yourself and other atheists here lack that framework.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2007 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person

I thought you believed in separation of church and state Liv? Remember, you rationalized your tax dodge church on that basis? So what the hell (excuse me Pastor) does your religion have to do with people's political views which so eloquently wax on in your blogs when you ought to be preparing your sermon for your congregation this Sunday.

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 5:45pm
Only 53% of Americans are following the Justice Department controversy either very or somewhat closely:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27220

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2007 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person

Jeez Liv. I don't remember the hearings being broadcast live on but a few stations such as CSPAN 3 when just about every station was airing VT shooting. You think that could have influenced the numbers?

Posted by OneVote at 04/20/2007 @ 5:49pm
Only 53% of Americans are following the Justice Department controversy either very or somewhat closely:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27220

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2007 @ 5:43pm | ignore this person

what a weak line. another sad sack

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 5:54pm
First hsuB burned 'we the people', then our constitution, then the MSM, UN, Powell, ..., Rumsfeld, Blame, Libby, N.O., USA's, Fredo (?),...

But on the other hand just think of all the documentaries that are going to come out on all of it anyway! May the MSM make up for their lack of journalism:

Among the few heroes of this devastating film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, "The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should've all been doing that."

At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.

But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, "I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war…We didn't dig enough. And we shouldn't have been fooled in this way." Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to "dig deeper," and he replies, "No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas….nope, I don't think we followed up on this."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574260

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 6:24pm
BTW-- isn't "Fredo", a hsuB racist slur per really Frito? hsuB doesn't come off as sophisticated enough to use a reverse pun ala 'The Godfather'. Dumb enough to be a closet racist though.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 6:29pm
Er, as in Frito Bandito...

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 6:32pm
Husb:

Fredo is short for Alfredo.

Please don't try to make something out of it that it isn't. We've already got enough real stuff to nail him and, unlike Bush's case for war against Iraq, we don't need to make it up.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 6:33pm
Re-- Alberto is really Alfredo?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 6:37pm
It has long become routine for critical comments about this administration to spew forth

from my fingers, so much so that I rarely bother any longer. However, I can't let go of

this Gonzales thing. It occurs to me that while Bush's critics rightfuly (and dare I say

finally) have their collective foot upon the throat of this administration, our presidents'

( AKA the "band leader") competance is never examined. Now that the people have regained a

voice, we use it to pursue the "Bushies," instead of the "conductor" of our discontent; at

this rate, Bush will be out of office before we use OUR Constitutional right to throw him

out. As the famous line from the movie "Braveheart" says, the Bushies are "mere sheep,

easily dispersed if you [remove] the shepard." America still needs time for Cheney when

circumstances permit. President Bush should be impeached, and then Cheney. Lets return

power to its RIGHTFUL owner. the people; if we do not do this, then it will next be the

democrats attempting to run rough-shod over the will of the people. Its time to send all

polititions for a refresher civics 101 class.

Posted by raven4 at 04/20/2007 @ 6:38pm
I would think Alberto would become a Bert or Al... For short-- not Fredo or really Frito. I'm thinking in terms of the "Turd Blossom" hsuB mean spirited/attitude guy.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/20/2007 @ 6:45pm
Husb:

Good point.

OK, I don't know where Fredo comes from and I really don't care. As long as he is soon Gone-zalaes.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 7:06pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/20/2007 @ 5:31pm

Odd statistic for you to quote, LL, considering that a MAJORITY of those believers, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims....you think are WRONG in what they believe.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 8:10pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/20/2007 @ 7:06pm

It may refere to John Casale's character from "Godfather I & II".

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 8:10pm
Mask:

Thanks.

I watched the first [i]Godfather[/i] years ago and thought it overrated. I didn't watch any of the other films.

I don't remember the character. Or should I say "I don't recall"?

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 8:47pm
more info on "Fredo" [en.wikipedia.org]

actually rather an ironic or insulting nick for AG Gonzales.

Posted by Mask at 04/20/2007 @ 8:57pm
Rio:

This thread is about Alberto Gonzales and whether or not he attempted to turn the Justice Department into a partisan shop and if so who told him to it.

There is another thread here about Hillary Clinton's candidacy where that thing you just cut and pasted in here wouldn't smell as badly of stale red herring.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 10:48pm
I think we have reached a point where it would be to our advantage if Gonz didn't resign. he is a stinking corpse and a constant reminder that Bush "presides" over a criminal gang of liars.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 11:21pm
But we know that the Clintons are the barometer of ethics. How do we know? Because we read all the time how "Bill Clinton did a similar thing..."

RIO

for goodness sakes! The Koresh cult gunned down federal agents who were serving a valid warrant. Koresh had sex with little girls. General Boykin, The Christian General, lead the military strike.

Get over it.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 11:30pm
Jack, give the Coppola flicks another chance. part two is best, though the one film chronological version is very good too, De Niro plays the young Don. Fredo is Al Pacino's older brother who betrays him, after being passed over for leadership.he is allowed to live as long as mom is still alive. after that it's curtains.

what sets this film apart from mob movies before and after, is a sense of the epic, and an aspect of the "Bildungroman" for the Pacino character. Coppola does this by means of highlighting the rituals of life, baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. the casting is magnificent. look for the great actor , director, and teacher Lee Strasberg in one of his last roles.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 11:34pm
‘We've never been stay the course, George!'

hehe. Liar.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 11:35pm
Nat, I just wanted your pick of NBA champ, after you shot down mine.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 11:36pm
Or how about this? Bush offers Dems Gonzo's head for the promise to take deadlines out of the supplemental? Everybody wins except for poor Gonzo!

Posted by ONEVOTE 04/20/2007 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person

that would not be a win for the american people. besides the Gonz is gone with the wind, he will not be Lazarus.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/20/2007 @ 11:39pm
LUVVY, polling the public...

According to a new PEW study, 66% can name their governor

31% don't know who the Vice President is

37% know chief Justice Roberts is considered a conservative, not a moderate or liberal

36% were able to name Putin as the leader of Russia unprompted.

I bet more sheep know who got booted off of Idol (got that one "American IDOL!?) than know who Gonzo is.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/20/2007 @ 11:43pm
From one JR to another:

I think we have reached a point where it would be to our advantage if Gonz didn't resign. he is a stinking corpse and a constant reminder that Bush "presides" over a criminal gang of liars.

That's been commented upon in the last 24 hours. Yes, the Democrats are benefitting from having this thing draq out. Ponti may be ready to declare this thing over, but that's about as effective as his other declarations of non-scandal. Unfortunately for the Republicans, as I told Ponti up stream somewhere, whether Gonzales resigns or not will have no effect on future investigations. This is the most corrupt and incompetent American administration ever with a political philosophy more in line with a Stuart or a French Bourbon than Thomas Jefferson. It will go to the end simply because there is that much material to investigate.

Since I'm not a politician, I would prefer that Gonzales would just resign now. That's what's best for everybody. The Democrats will have plenty more opportunities to point out that the Emperor is naked.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/20/2007 @ 11:47pm
Rio:

You need a lesson, so to show you what a nice guy I am, I'll give you one. Free of charge. Please click here.

Now, beyond that, I'm not going to tell you what I think of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno, because it is not relevant to a discussion about G. W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales. Even if Clinton and Reno are as sinister as you say they are, that has no more bearing on this discussion than how many severed heads of Indian villagers Timur the Lame use to scale the walls of Delhi.

Also, again to show you what a nice guy I am, I will give you the link to the other thread where your cut and pated droppings may be more relevant. It's here.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 12:09am
Again, from one JR to the other:

Thanks for the advice on The Godfather.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 12:31am
OK, I don't know where Fredo comes from and I really don't care. As long as he is soon Gone-zalaes.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/20/2007 @ 7:06pm

Not to belabor the point, but I think the 'spin' was always that ‘someone' heard hsuB call Gonzales 'Fredo', a nickname and which was a reference to the 'Godfather' movies. However, that makes no sense per hsuB's simpleton ways. It makes more sense that someone heard hsuB call Gonzales 'Frito', a derogatory term and hsuB's spin machine quickly spun it so it wouldn't sound too derogatory or at least misdirect any impact of him using such a term. What's as curious, is how Gonzales could stay with such a demeaning boss. Is he as demented as Rove, hsuB's 'Turd Blossum'? If so get ready for Gonzales to have absolutely no shame.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 01:22am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 04/20/2007 @ 9:34pm

Give the Koresh krap a rest, OK? He was a nut-job who shot and burned a bunch of people alive. Why do you feel the need to defend someone who was so blatantly un-Christian (passing himslef along to others as the "2nd-coming" in order to have his way with all the females in his flock)

As to your plateful of rightly called "red herring", what does taht have to do with the issue at hand - just like your defense of Koresh - NOTHING

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 02:28am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 02:28am

Give the Koresh krap a rest, OK? He was a nut-job who shot and burned a bunch of people alive.

Actually, it was Janet Reno's FBI that ended up burning people, including young children alive, through pure incompetence. I doubt if any of the village idiots brandishing torches for Gonzales here on The Nation were doing so in THAT appropriate case. Such are the limitations of rank partisanship.

Not to in any way excuse the actions of that pedophile Koresh. Just condemnning the incompetent way he was handled.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 05:31am
Oh, and I should also add that it was Janet Reno's ATF that sent a young child, Elian Gonzales, back to slavery in Cuba, a condition which his mother gave her life to address. Futilely, as it turned out. But of course that's all okay here on the pages of The Nation, because it was LEFT WING SLAVERY, and in the warped world view of leftists, there is no such thing.

Since God has a sense of humor, however, this little episode cost Gore the election. Chuckle.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 05:57am
Speaking of pedophilia, it's interesting to note that the Muslim religion allows the marriage of girls as young as 7 to men of any age. Many of the mullahs in Iran and other Muslim countries are reported to take advantage of this. I would bet that this and the chronic pederasty reported in places like Afghanistan are at the heart of much of the fanaticism.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 06:05am
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/20/2007 @ 11:47pm

Jack, I'm pleased to note that you often exhibit flashes of sanity in your posts. It's a long road, but you may get there. Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases:

This is the most corrupt and incompetent American administration ever with a political philosophy more in line with a Stuart or a French Bourbon than Thomas Jefferson. It will go to the end simply because there is that much material to investigate.

As anyone who lived through the period can attest, Carter has to be the hands down winner in any contest for Administration incompetence. Followed closely by Nixon and Johnson.

As for today, the Dems, last election cycle if you recall, promised to tie up this Administration in hearings for their own sake. This Gonzales thing, coming closely on the heels of the Plame non-scandal, just happens to be next in line. After this, there will be another. There's no substance to any of this, it's just partisan wrangling. Most Americans know that, that's why they really don't give a shit.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 06:11am
Posted by HMAN23 04/20/2007 @ 5:17pm

Pontificus is the biggest fraud on this board.

He has something to say about the detainees in Gitmo and when someone gives him facts showing most turned out to be innocent . . . he goes away.

The fact that I am not around to debunk every bit of nonsense on this board should not be taken as validation of same, HMAN. I DO have other things to do. In the peculiar case of Gitmo, Crabbie made the typically absurd claim that 'All of the 400 inmates are innocent', presumpably because Bush put them there. To 'back this up', he provided some anecdotal evidence regarding one or two. This is so patently stupid I really don't see why I should be faulted for not wasting my time on it.

He has something to say about the Democratic witch hunt and when someone gives him qutoes from several Republicans . . . he goes away.

Previously addressed. Republicans are mostly concerned that Gonzales has given the fanatical Dems something to chew on, not that he did anything in particular scandal-worthy. The Repubs are well-aware that this is nothing but a witch-hunt. They just don't like it when the Admin guys start wearing wigs and carrying broomsticks.

When soemone challenges him to cite something showing we are winning in Iraq . . . he goes away.

Hmmm...I must have missed that. But there actually is some evidence of that; attacks and fatalities are way-down in areas where the surge has taken place. By the way, it looks like Rumsfeld really did screw up in Iraq, and it probably is getting time to leave.

Hey Ponti. Why don't you all just do us a favor, go away and stay away. We can cut out the middleman and stop wasting people's time.

No way! You guys are way too much fun! Where else can I find such political retards as those who think socialism is a really good idea? I can't BUY this kind of entertainment!

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 06:28am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 06:11am

it's just partisan wrangling. Most Americans know that, that's why they really don't give a shit.

Oh, and I should note, that anything, like these circus trials, that keeps Messrs. Schumer, Leahy, and Kennedy away from exercising actual governance is a good thing. Since they've already proposed the biggest tax increase in history (but only on other people, mind you), here's hoping they continue to find ways like this to keep themselves off the streets.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 06:40am
Crabbie made the typically absurd claim that 'All of the 400 inmates are innocent', PONTIFICUS

No, I didn't. You are the one that added "ALL".

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 08:35am
You know when your dog shits on the rug? You yell, mnaybe swat hinm on the nose with a rolled up paper? You use logic - "Rover, don't shit on the rug. Shit outside."

And Rover just looks up at you with eyes that seem intelligent - but the next day there's more shit on your rug.

Arguing with lemmings is like reasoning with your dog. The facade of human intelligence makes you keep trying, but let's face it - it's essentially a waste of time.

Posted by Turk33 at 04/21/2007 @ 08:39am
Poor taste, poor handling, poor decision making, but the truth is they thought these AGs should go and thats the decsion they made, so be it.

To John Maach: Really? I guess that came out at the hearing,

Posted by Buzzardbob at 04/21/2007 @ 08:42am
RIO, so if the FBI filled out forms with false information, that make s it OK to gun down ATF agents? If a man claiming to be Christ locks himself and others in a building and refuses to acknowledge the law enforcement, what should they do? Go away?

What if, say, the head of the CIA went to the UN and said "Slam dunk". Can we shoot him?

PONTI, Reno was following THE LAW. This law, backed by evangelical fundies, said that children should be with their parents. You would have the AG violate a law passed by congress? Oh, Yes you would, sorry.

And young Elian is living a good life as a show piece for Castro, hardly a "slave".

Clinton had problems with Reno because she would not always tow the line. Unlike Gonzo who seems to have all size ball hitches for all occasions.

(On a personal note, a cousin of mine worked for Janet while dealing with brain cancer. She was incredible in dealing with his illness and working around his infirmity. The JD set up a trust fund for his kids and held 2 memorials for him. I never met her, but my family has all good things to say about her, and they are not real big Clinton fans, many voted for Chimp twice.)

but this has nothing to do with the republicans that want Gonzo to leave, now does it? Funny how you keep leaving the republican committee members out of your rantings. Is there something about the republican shredding of gonzo that makes you uncomfortable?

And why won't you answer my simple questions about oversight? Is it OK with you for companies to overcharge you for services?

"By the way, it looks like Rumsfeld really did screw up in Iraq, and it probably is getting time to leave.

You must really hate America to say something bad about Rummy!! According to Chimpy, Rummy did a fine job. And I have never seen you write a bad word about Chimp and his decisions, that is reserved for the lefty, traitor, socialist haters.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 08:55am
Posted by TURK33 04/21/2007 @ 08:39am

My dogs house trained readily. But, dogs are smarter than sheep.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 08:56am
No answer yet from the Apologists on the question "What are Gonzos qualifications to be AG, other than loyalty to Chimpy over the years? "

What makes him the best man for the job?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:00am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 06:05am

the Bible has some pretty young marriages in it, I think.

Maybe a ride out to Colorado City Utah is in the cards for you.

"In the 1920s, Lorin C. Woolley of Centerville, Utah, claimed God had authorized him to perpetuate plural marriage, saying he received this commission while a young man in 1886 through the ministration of Jesus Christ, John Taylor, and Joseph Smith. "

Many of the "wives" are in their early teens.

But, I bet you are mistaken about the Koran and age 7. That is not to say that pederasty is not alive and well. I believe I brought this up a while ago. A customer of my wife's, CPT US Army, returned from Afghanistan complaining that he was protecting village elders that would regularly molest the boys of the village. This was done for sexual pleasure as well as to indoctrinate the boys into their little cults of fanaticism. Your money at work, PONTI.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:08am
Sir Ponti the Clueless & LL

Uh...in a word, NO. They burned because their "savior" wouldn't let them leave...and I suppose the ones with bullet holes were the ones taht tried. So sorry, you lose. You're wrong tilting at windmills like a right-wing Don Quixote with LL close behind as your Sancho Panza.

Same with the Elian thing....it has already been addressed, so I won't belabor it, but he's far from a "slave" at his Dad's house.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 09:23am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 09:23am

Same with the Elian thing....it has already been addressed, so I won't belabor it, but he's far from a "slave" at his Dad's house.

Like I said, in the left wing world, left wing slavery doesn't exist.

Here's a clue for you, dumb shit:

IF THE STATE WON'T LET YOU LEAVE, YOU ARE A SLAVE.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:35am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 08:55am

And young Elian is living a good life as a show piece for Castro, hardly a "slave"

Like I said, in the left wing world, left wing slavery doesn't exist.

Here's a clue for you, dumb shit:

IF THE STATE WON'T LET YOU LEAVE, YOU ARE A SLAVE.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:37am
Does he want to leave? Does his dad want him to leave?

I hate Castro too, but the LAW of the US was that he had to be returned to his father. A law that was supported by the religious right.

slave |sl?v| noun chiefly historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

• a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation

Maybe Elian meets the 3rd definition " a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something". But then, so do you. A slave to the RNC.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:41am
Next, you fucking morons will be telling me that the North Koreans aren't slaves either.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:42am
Are all the people held in Gitmo, or who were held there, guilty of being terrorists against the United states?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:41am

Does he want to leave? Does his dad want him to leave?

So, you're saying that only slaves who WANT to leave are actually slaves? So, all of those slaves, like Uncle Tom, who were happy with their slave status, weren't actually slaves? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:44am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:42am

Are all the people held in Gitmo, or who were held there, guilty of being terrorists against the United states?

So now you're equating ordinary Cubans or North Koreans with terrorists?

By the way, do you think North Koreans are not enslaved? Or only the ones who want to leave?

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:46am
What about the law, PONTI?

The law said he MUST be returned to his father. Family values. Children belong with there parents.

these are the pillars of the rights policies.

Marriage is a sanctified, unless congress wants to get involved?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:47am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:41am

slave |sl?v| noun chiefly historical a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

• a person who works very hard without proper remuneration or appreciation

Maybe Elian meets the 3rd definition " a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something". But then, so do you. A slave to the RNC.

If someone holds your life and liberty in their hands, as Castro most surely does the entire population of Cuba, then they are slaves. If you don't realize this, you don't have a brain in your head.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:49am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:47am

The law said he MUST be returned to his father. Family values. Children belong with there parents.

Stop hiding behind the letter of the law. The intent of the law is not to force children into slavery.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:50am
So now you're equating ordinary Cubans or North Koreans with terrorists?

What? How do you find your way to work?

Simple question, why do you think all the people held at Gitmo are dangerous and guilty of being terrorists? Almost 200 have been released. 7 have gone to fight in Afghanistan, not a "significant percentage". Why is Gitmo in Castros Cuba? Do you see the irony?

Gotta go rebuild the Throne Room, massive flooding catastrophe. I did find a good reasonably priced plumber though. I will be thinking of you Ponti, when I take my first dump in the new Throne.

Libby- GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY

Buwahahaha.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:52am
Stop hiding behind the letter of the law

too rich!!!

The intent of the law is not to force children into slavery.

Really? That is in the law? Seeing as slavery has been against the law for some time here, why would they make that kind of rule now?

baa baa .

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 09:56am
So now you're equating ordinary Cubans or North Koreans with terrorists?

What? How do you find your way to work?

Simple question, why do you think all the people held at Gitmo are dangerous and guilty of being terrorists? Almost 200 have been released. 7 have gone to fight in Afghanistan, not a "significant percentage". Why is Gitmo in Castros Cuba? Do you see the irony?

What I see is you refusing to answer direct questions, and making apologies for Janet Reno for sending a child into a lifetime of slavery in Castro's Cuba. And then, you deny the plain and simple fact that all Cubans are slaves, whether they are happy with it or not. Typical blind, weaselly leftist.

And whether you like it or not, every single inmate in Gitmo was picked up on suspicion of terrorism, and every one of them for very good reasons, regardless of your knee-jerk rejection and hatred of everything Bush does. Jailing a select number of suspected terrorists, most of whom make absolutely no bones about their intention to kill as many non-believers as possible, is completely different than enslaving an ENTIRE NATION. But then again, as a blind leftist, I would not expect you to be able to comprehend the difference.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:57am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:56am

How do you get up in the morning, Crabbie? You don't think ordinary Cubans are enslaved? You won't answer the question about North Korea?

Why don't you go live there? We don't need idiots like you here.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 09:58am
All you other leftists here on-board with the idea that Cubans aren't slaves? That they aren't really being deprived of anything if they don't actually want to leave?

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 10:03am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:52am

Gotta go rebuild the Throne Room, massive flooding catastrophe. I did find a good reasonably priced plumber though. I will be thinking of you Ponti, when I take my first dump in the new Throne.

Since you are almost completely full of shit, I'm sure you're going to be spending a lot of time there, and you may disappear down that hole altogether, which would be a net plus for mankind.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 10:08am
Crabbie made the typically absurd claim that 'All of the 400 inmates are innocent', PONTIFICUS

No, I didn't. You are the one that added "ALL".

Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 08:35am

Gee, Crabby, maybe you can reconcile this statement, then, because to me it means you're saying all 400 inmates are innocent:

Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 2:13pm

Besides capturing 400 innocent people and locking them up in Cuba for 3 years.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 10:15am
Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 09:08am

But, I bet you are mistaken about the Koran and age 7. That is not to say that pederasty is not alive and well. I believe I brought this up a while ago. A customer of my wife's, CPT US Army, returned from Afghanistan complaining that he was protecting village elders that would regularly molest the boys of the village. This was done for sexual pleasure as well as to indoctrinate the boys into their little cults of fanaticism. Your money at work, PONTI.

We can take on their armies and defeat them, but it's going to be a lot tougher to change their society. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and because we fail to turn them into Iowans after 2 years, it doesn't mean we've failed.

And regarding marriage in Iran, my original point stands, and I don't see a substantial difference between 7 and 9:

http://ncwdi.igc.org/html/nassrin.htm

Constitutional Violence in Contemporary Iran By: Nasrin Saifi, President, Association of Iranian Women, Northern California Jan. 18-19, 1997

... Girl children suffer from the worst conditions in Iran today. According to the clerical regime's rules and regulations, a girl child can virtually be bought or sold with the consent of her male guardian. Note (1) of article 1210 of the Civil Code states: "Age of puberty for a boy is at 15 full lunar years and for a girl is at nine full lunar years."

Article 1041 of the Civil Code provides that "Marriage before puberty is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interest of the child are duly observed." This "permission of the guardian," often means a "cash payment."

The result of this law is that "selling" or forcing very young girls to marry much older husbands has become a common "source of Income" for poor families. ...

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 10:34am
PONTI,

You are peeing up a rope , old sport..you are appealing to common sense where you post here...BIG MISTAKE...

Its all emotional...

Of course the Gitmo Camp is full of innocents!!! Everybody knows we go to Afgan and Iraq just to pick up 6th century men and torture them..why not?!!!!

Its open season on innocents peoples of the world..and what ever they did to us..we deserved it!!!(So do the Israelis,,see, the US and the Jews are the MAIN threat to world peace...and global warming).

Now about paradise(Cuba)and the peace loving man that happens to grace Cuba...well, if we weren't fucked up, Castro wouldn't be there!!! BUT...it turned out well, he is there and he is an inspiration!!! ANYWAY, Its our fault...and all those people who risk there lives to come here from there?Damm fools for sure.. Our fault!!we created the situation there!!!

However, despite the US,(forget the rest of the world), those people down there are blessed with sunshine, good beaches, meat one a week, rice cookers for every house(now theres a real thing). free bikes(think mof the global carbon no carbon foot print image!)electricity for 3 hours a day whether we need it or not!! AND..no pesky elections..free parades for 5 hours a day...why the only thing to screw up that deal would be for Castro to die(God forbid) and the Cuban Americans head back into Havanna and build up the island to the 21st century in 2 years..the good news...they could always find a home for those Che posters here...

Who wouldn't go there?

Heeeeey, did I mention health care?.,..Weeeelllll, we are talking free health care here...and they export it to other peace loving peoples(we could learn from them, you know),like Bolivia...and they healped people in Angola, don't forget(despite most were killed and never returned to Cuba)...

Ponti, enjoy the week end..I am off to my sons double header...

Posted by john maasch at 04/21/2007 @ 10:57am
Why argue with Pon-the-fecal-ness? His assertions are monuments consistently built of circular straw topped with red herring and smell of their crap. Does anyone see a morsel of truth in there somewhere, ever? Why occupy a bench close to that?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 10:58am
Ponti,

Why is it the MSM will not show the planes hitting on 9/11? When is the last time we saw those images...or why don't the networks, or Bush, say, just once,...on Wednesday we are going to show you who we are fighting and what we are up against,,,and show Pearles beheading, Bergs beheading,ect.,along the kids in military fatigues in the peaceful Palistine...at 12 years old?

Ever wonder why all we are told is if we only leave Iraq then all will be ok ..and we can talk to the people then in Iraq, Iran, Syria??

And no on ever questions....

Posted by john maasch at 04/21/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 04/21/2007 @ 11:03am

Ponti,

Why is it the MSM will not show the planes hitting on 9/11? When is the last time we saw those images...or why don't the networks, or Bush, say, just once,...on Wednesday we are going to show you who we are fighting and what we are up against,,,and show Pearles beheading, Bergs beheading,ect.,along the kids in military fatigues in the peaceful Palistine...at 12 years old?

They don't show those images because they don't want to remind people that we are at war and that there are evil people in the world who want to kill us. How else could this board be populated with blithering idiots who think George Bush is the enemy and not the fanatics that cut peoples' heads off with dull knives.

The leftist world view comes from a fact that leftism is a self-referential cult. Thus the necessity to view the world as a victim of capitalism and all of the evils in the world as directly attributable to it.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 11:12am
"If someone holds your life and liberty in their hands"

Kinda like those 8 attorneys who refused to be RNC drones and were fired?

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 11:13am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 11:13am

"If someone holds your life and liberty in their hands"

Kinda like those 8 attorneys who refused to be RNC drones and were fired?

Uh, no, actually not at all. Do you think their life and liberty are in someone else's hands, as are the Cubans and North Koreans? Or are you, like others, unable to discern the difference between a political appointee and a slave because of your hatred of Bush?

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 11:23am
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 11:13am

Actually, that's not quite accurate, LOC. It's not really Bush, you hate, it's capitalism. It's this hatred that dictates your worldview. If Bush was a Democrat, I'm sure you'd love him.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 11:25am
And I still conclude that hsuB calls or called Gonzales 'Frito' and not the made up spin on it, 'Fredo'. Another example of or MSM refusal to investigate hsuB? I haven't heard a credible or intelligent explanation for hsuB's nickname of 'Fredo' as aposed to and in keeping with hsuB's 'Turd Blossom' for Rove, 'Pootie-Poot' for Putin, 'Altoid Boy' for Israel Hernandez, 'Guru' for Rice, 'Rock Bama' for Barack Obama, 'Quasimodo' for Dick Cheney, 'Weadnik' for Doug Wead, etc. Either hsuB deminishes the person's name or he makes up something derogatory about their appearance or their behavior.

If this came out 'now'-- how would it affect the push for Gonzales to resign? With his close ties to hsuB, would it increase or deminish the call for deeper probing per their misconduct?

Or rather if it does ever get out it was really 'Frito' uttered by hsuB, not 'Fredo', would it be a hsuB Imus moment?

Consider our increasing hispanic population pollitical pull, see old sit:

http://www.sdlatinofilm.com/trends12.html

NMAADC announced in January 1971 that it would file a $610 million suit in Federal court "for the malicious defamation of the character of the 6.1 million Mexican Americans in the United States."14 The suit would seek damages of $100 for each Mexican American based on earlier arguments about the psychological damage of negative stereotypes, framing this action in its most extreme rhetoric to date: "Chicanos have thus become the media's new 'nigger.'"15 By this time, Chicanos protesting Frito Bandito had gained broad support within government, industry, and the press, while the protest became a rallying point within emerging Chicano publications: El Grito, La Raza, Regeneration. Even Advertising Age joined the chorus against Frito-Lay, citing it for its lack of corporate "good faith.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 11:45am
ONTIFICUS

No, I didn't. You are the one that added "ALL".

Posted by CRABWALK 04/21/2007 @ 08:35am

Gee, Crabby, maybe you can reconcile this statement, then, because to me it means you're saying all 400 inmates are innocent:

Posted by CRABWALK 04/20/2007 @ 2:13pm

Besides capturing 400 innocent people and locking them up in Cuba for 3 years.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 10:15am

You are assuming they are guilty. I am going by the credo established 200 years ago that people are innocent until proven guilty. Who told you they are guilty of wanting you dead? The same guys that told you Saddam had WMD's and was working with AL Qaida to distribute them? The same guys that had a canadian citizen tortured by the Syrians? The same guys that told you the war would take weeks, not years and cost less than 2B? Why did almost 200 get released if they were out to get you?

Reno has been out of power for years, Gonzo holds the post now. What Reno did has nothing to do with Gonzo, now does it?

Actually, that's not quite accurate, LOC. It's not really Bush, you hate, it's capitalism. It's this hatred that dictates your worldview. If Bush was a Democrat, I'm sure you'd love him.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 11:25am

WOW, another omniscient Neo-con.

Of course the Gitmo Camp is full of innocents!!! Everybody knows we go to Afgan and Iraq just to pick up 6th century men and torture them..why not?!!!!

Its open season on innocents peoples of the world..and what ever they did to us..we deserved it!!!(So do the Israelis,,see, the US and the Jews are the MAIN threat to world peace...and global warming).

Now about paradise(Cuba)and the peace loving man that happens to grace Cuba...well, if we weren't fucked up, Castro wouldn't be there!!! BUT...it turned out well, he is there and he is an inspiration!!! ANYWAY, Its our fault...and all those people who risk there lives to come here from there?Damm fools for sure.. Our fault!!we created the situation there!!! MAASCH.

Who here EVER said Castro was an inspiration? Why were 200 inmates released with no charges if they were guilty of wanting you dead? Why, after 4 years has not a single person at Gitmo received a trial? Don't you think a process to do that should have been in place BEFORE we started rounding up enemy combatants?

Did you 2 wombats read what I wrote? Of course many in Gitmo are scum, they deserve to be tried and if found guilty, punished. But you both ASSUME their guilt, based often on nothing than a jailhouse snitch, a clan feud or having the same name as a real terrorist. You 2 rail against Castro, then defend a Castro like policy.

I see neither of you can come up with a reason Gonzo should be AG other than King George wants him to be. Great way to run a nation.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 12:06pm
8% are AlQaida, so says the Pentagon.

As I see it, PONTI and RiO are cool with the shooting of federal agents, RIO last week called for the deaths of members of congress. Both are fine with someone claiming to be Christ raping little girls. Both are fine with citizens refusing a federal warrant, they must assume the court system has collapsed and Koresh would not get his day in court. Both are comfortable with people being grabbed, held without charges, tortured and then released because they pose not threat to the US. Maybe if Castro claimed to be Christ?

But, we, not of the Hamster/sheep, are dangerous to American Ideals. Go figure.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 12:13pm
Crabwalk,

The new cons that post here are as dense and callus as der hsuB misleader.

The only solution is to impeach them.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 12:20pm
Gee, Crabby, maybe you can reconcile this statement, then, because to me it means you're saying all 400 inmates are innocent:

Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 10:15am | ignore this person

So, Blather, your walking along a street in an American town and a police car stops next to you and tells to stop and assume the position. They handcuff you, put you in the car, take you to the police station and put you in a cell.

1) Are you innocent or guilty? Please explain your answer.

You sit in jail for two weeks without being able to contact anyone to tell them where you are. You haven't seen a lawyer to service in your defense. You are brought before some people who will ask you questions and you don't answer them to their satisfaction.

2) Are you innocent or guilty? Please explain your answer.

You are locked in a blacked out cell for weeks at a time only being feed through a slot in a metal door. You have been there for months. You are brought before some people who will ask you questions. They tell you that if you answer correctly you will be allowed to contact your family.

3) Do you answer the question truthfully and return to your blacked cell for who know how long, or do you tell them what they want to hear? Please explain your answer.

4) If you tell them what they want to hear, you are guilty. Correct? Please explain your answer.

You see in my country, before the Military Commission's Act of 2006, you would have been presumed innocent.

5) Those prisoners taken to a US Military base before the Military Commission's Act of 2006 would have to be presumed innocent. Correct? Please explain your answer.

If you answer "No" to this then you should have answered "Guilty" to question one.

A maximum of 20 points for each correct answer based on explaining your answer.

Bonus 25 point question:

Explain how an intelligent person knows whether a stranger is innocent or guilty of a crime just based on whether they are in jail or not.

"Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law"

Sophocles

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 1:24pm
IF THE STATE WON'T LET YOU LEAVE, YOU ARE A SLAVE.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 09:35am

Uh...no? At least not per the American Heritage Dictionary, oh Clueless One...

slave (slāv) noun

1) One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

2) One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

I think the word "prisoner" might be accurate though...

pris·on·er (prĭz'ə-nər, prĭz'nər) noun

1. A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint, especially while on trial or serving a prison sentence.

2. One deprived of freedom of expression or action:

..and since ChimpCo has Gitmo in Cuba, we know you can't possibly be decrying someone having prisoners - guilty or not!

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 1:26pm
Of course, if you have pictures of Elian chained in the corner rolling Cohibas then please post the link. Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 1:28pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 1:28pm

LoC, slaves in the south were generally not put in chains. That does not mean they were not slaves. And perhaps you will agree, unlike Crabby, that just because a slave does not want to leave, that DOES NOT mean they are not slaves.

I see you. like Crabbie, prefer to play word games and bob and weave rather than face the issue squarely. If it makes you happier to call the Cuban people prisoners rather than slaves, which is more accurate, fine, but I really don't see the importance of the distinction, other than to allow you to disagree with me.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 1:43pm
Oh wait. It just occurred to me that leftists cannot afford to admit that Cubans and North Koreans are slaves. If they were, leftists would not have at their disposal the cheap morality of those who like to bash America for an institution that was banned 150 years ago, and be faced with their own hypocrisy that they ignore the institution of slavery where it exists today. Now I understand.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 2:04pm
Jack, I'm pleased to note that you often exhibit flashes of sanity in your posts. It's a long road, but you may get there.

And I am pleased to note that on rare occasions, you make a good point. But this is not one of them.

Unfortunately, this is not one of those cases:

This is the most corrupt and incompetent American administration ever with a political philosophy more in line with a Stuart or a French Bourbon than Thomas Jefferson. It will go to the end simply because there is that much material to investigate.

As anyone who lived through the period can attest, Carter has to be the hands down winner in any contest for Administration incompetence. Followed closely by Nixon and Johnson.

Indeed, Carter spent four years spinning his wheels trying to get a handle on the job. I do not believe that Nixon or Johnson were incompetent, per se. Were it not for Vietnam, LBJ would have been in the top tier of presidents.

Still, I would not say Carter is a worse president than Bush.

As for today, the Dems, last election cycle if you recall, promised to tie up this Administration in hearings for their own sake. This Gonzales thing, coming closely on the heels of the Plame non-scandal, just happens to be next in line. After this, there will be another. There's no substance to any of this, it's just partisan wrangling. Most Americans know that, that's why they really don't give a shit.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 06:11am

Well, if you're going to pompously declare Bush's scandals non-scandals and not listen to any argument as to why they are scandals, then in your eyes Bush can never be guilty of anything. If you insist on saying that black is white and up is down, then you will look just like the next fool with no credibility.

There was a sheme, whether it was hatched in the White House of the Justice Department or the White House is yet to be determined, to politicize US Attorneys' offices. Eight US Attorneys who were either prosecuting Republicans or not procescuting enough Democrats or who weren't bringing changes against Democrats at a more politically opportune time for the simple reason that he was not yet ready to move forward. Meanwhile, a US Attorney who was almost fired brings spurious charges against a Democratic office holder in Illinois and somehow wins a conviction, causing the woman to spend a few weeks in the federal pen before an appeals court threw the case out, remarking that the evidence against her was "beyond thin."

That is a scandal.

In explaining this situation to COngress, under oath, the Attorney General tells the truth more than one way and none of them aren't full of contradictions of either the documents at hand, prior testimony or itself.

That is a scandal.

White House staffers and members of the OVP conspired to blow the cover of a CIA counterpoliferations officer in a political smear campaign against the officer's husband.

That is a scandal.

Bypassing normal intelligence channels, raw, unvetted documents were stovepiped to the OVP on a fishing expedition to find evidence against Iraq in order to drum up support for a war that was really unnecessary. Since these documents were reviewed in the OVP by people with no expertise in examining documents, it should come as no surprise that they used forged documents to support claims that were false.

That is a scandal.

Secret prisons run by the US government engage in torture in contravention of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, all to which the United States is a party.

That is a scandal. It is also a serious crime against humanity.

Those are all scandals, with real substance, and no one, including you, can twist the facts in a way to make them disappear or otherwise explain them away with sophism.

And that isn't even all of them. I have other things to do today than rehash the Bush regime's response to Hurricane Katrina, Cheney's shepharding of Halliburton no-bid contracts through the procurement system, the OSP's role in distorting intelligence prior to the war against Iraq, or the mystery of the missing $9 billion in Iraq, among other things, that don't need to be drawn up in details on a thread concerning the scandal in the Justice Department.

This is the most corrupt and incompetent administration in US history. The sooner it is removed from power, the better off we will all be. I stand on that.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

Well, if you're going to pompously declare Bush's scandals non-scandals and not listen to any argument as to why they are scandals, then in your eyes Bush can never be guilty of anything. If you insist on saying that black is white and up is down, then you will look just like the next fool with no credibility.

It's not that I don't listen, it's just that most of these arguments are so easily debunked. And I DO debunk them. It's just that YOU refuse to listen.

There was a sheme, whether it was hatched in the White House of the Justice Department or the White House is yet to be determined, to politicize US Attorneys' offices. Eight US Attorneys who were either prosecuting Republicans or not procescuting enough Democrats or who weren't bringing changes against Democrats at a more politically opportune time for the simple reason that he was not yet ready to move forward. Meanwhile, a US Attorney who was almost fired brings spurious charges against a Democratic office holder in Illinois and somehow wins a conviction, causing the woman to spend a few weeks in the federal pen before an appeals court threw the case out, remarking that the evidence against her was "beyond thin."

That is a scandal.

No, it's not.

First, we have to define what you mean by 'politicize'. If you mean that USAG's should be executing their duties according to the priorities of the Bush Administration within the good faith limits of the law then that is perfectly acceptable. If you mean that these attorneys were expected to persecute their enemies and be nice to their friends, that's bad BUT THAT HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. At worst, from what I have heard, Domenici may have prevailed upon Bush's people to get Iglesias fired, which MAY be problematic. And then there's that issue with Lam, but still, nothing is proved. And we are left with 91 remaining attorneys for which NOTHING IS EVEN ALLEGED. A mighty thin case, far far from scandalous.

Many people here, I might add, do not seem to understand this point at all anyway. Like the protesters the Dems let into the hearing, they're just rabble cheering the talking points.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 2:51pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

In explaining this situation to COngress, under oath, the Attorney General tells the truth more than one way and none of them aren't full of contradictions of either the documents at hand, prior testimony or itself.

That is a scandal.

Nope, not yet. If he's hiding something criminal, it's scandalous. If he didn't really know what was going on and is trying to cover that up, that's just incompetence.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 2:56pm
Frito. Does that mean fried?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

White House staffers and members of the OVP conspired to blow the cover of a CIA counterpoliferations officer in a political smear campaign against the officer's husband.

That is a scandal.

Nonsense. Plame had her husband Wilson sent to Niger. Wilson came back and lied about the results of his trip in an op-ed, completely contradidicting what the American CIA and British intelligence had already concluded. If there was a smear conducted, it was by the Wilsons and their all-too-willing accomplices in the media and on the left. At the end of the day, what Bush said in his SOTU speech has been confirmed true, and what Wilson wrote, or which he represented himself to be saying, is a lie. He and Valerie Plame, both admitted Gore supporters, used their government positions of trust to smear the Administration, and they did not get away with it. End of story.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:00pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

Bypassing normal intelligence channels, raw, unvetted documents were stovepiped to the OVP on a fishing expedition to find evidence against Iraq in order to drum up support for a war that was really unnecessary. Since these documents were reviewed in the OVP by people with no expertise in examining documents, it should come as no surprise that they used forged documents to support claims that were false.

That is a scandal.

This 'forged documents' canard has been debunked many times. They are the prototypical red herring. The forged documents had little or nothing to do with the overall case for the war presented by the President. Not even worth reviewing again.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:03pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

Secret prisons run by the US government engage in torture in contravention of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, all to which the United States is a party.

That is a scandal. It is also a serious crime against humanity.

It is neither. Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. Many, if not most Americans, especially in the wake of 9/11, are not in favor of extending the provisions of the Geneva Convention, (which were never intended to cover terrorists) to terrorists.

The Geneva Convention allows soldiers caught out of uniform to be shot as spies. As far as myself and most Americans are concerned, we would not be too concerned if most of the terrorists caught on the battlefields in Afghanistan in Iraq were summarily shot. You disagree, fine. But that's all it is, a disagreement. Your opinion weighs no more on this subject than anyone else's, and anyone who disagrees with you IS NOT a criminal, despite what you might think, because this is INTERNATIONAL LAW, not US law.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:13pm
Has anyone actually heard hsuB call Gonzales Fredo on tape in the early '90's when Gonzales first started working with hsuB, re: DWI-gate? Or was it Frito and then spun Fredo?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 3:16pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 2:16pm

Those are all scandals, with real substance, and no one, including you, can twist the facts in a way to make them disappear or otherwise explain them away with sophism.

And that isn't even all of them. I have other things to do today than rehash the Bush regime's response to Hurricane Katrina, Cheney's shepharding of Halliburton no-bid contracts through the procurement system, the OSP's role in distorting intelligence prior to the war against Iraq, or the mystery of the missing $9 billion in Iraq, among other things, that don't need to be drawn up in details on a thread concerning the scandal in the Justice Department.

You know what you've got, Jack? You've got a pile of policy disagreements and hyperventilating which you hope, when it's somehow all added together, to somehow amount to a whole which is greater than then sum of its parts. And it all falls woefully short of being anything meaningful.

This is the most corrupt and incompetent administration in US history. The sooner it is removed from power, the better off we will all be. I stand on that.

You're not standing, you're raving.

The Bush Administration has done a great job in promoting a roaringly-good economy and, after 9/11, protecting this country from terrorist threats. If they were corrupt and incompetent, they would have just stood pat like Clinton did for 8 years while we were attacked around the globe.

You may not like the tactics of the Bush Administration, but the results have been good, if not spectacular. Your views were presented in two elections, and you lost both times. You may not like it, too bad Jack. Better luck next time. Maybe if you leftist Democrats had any credibility whatsover in terms of national security, the American people might actually trust you folks with protecting it. I would suggest you get started; you might want to ditch the knee-jerk anti-Americanism first.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:20pm
Delusional. What does that mean?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 3:24pm
politicize] you mean that these attorneys were expected to persecute their enemies and be nice to their friends, that's bad.

That is exactly what I mean. I agree with you for the administration to set reasonable priorities for US Attrneys is within the purview of the president and the Attorney General.

At worst, from what I have heard, Domenici may have prevailed upon Bush's people to get Iglesias fired, which MAY be problematic.

Senator Domenici specifically asked Iglecias if he was going to have those prosecutions brough before the election and became upset when Iglecias told him they would not. Most reasonable would conclude that Domenici was putting improper political pressure on Iglecias.

we are left with 91 remaining attorneys for which NOTHING IS EVEN ALLEGED.

Read it and weep, Ponti.

It's not that I don't listen, it's just that most of these arguments are so easily debunked. And I DO debunk them. It's just that YOU refuse to listen.

How can you debunk any argument with all your bunk?

If this affair doesn't involve politics at the basest level, why does the name of Karl Rove keep popping up? He seems to be a key player in this matter. Are you so naive to think that where Rove is involved, politics are not?

Based on the above, there are plenty of reasons to make allegations of politicizing the Justice Department in the bad sense of the word. Any one who says that there is no reason to believe by any stretch of the imagination has no imagination.

That's bad . . . but still, nothing is proved.

That sounds like a reason to investigate further.

Your case agaisnt the committee hearings is summarily dismissed.

This scandal will continue to be investigated, and it should be.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 3:25pm
Pontius

re: "The Bush Administration has done a great job in promoting a roaringly-good economy and, after 9/11, protecting this country from terrorist threats" the immediate reaction I get is..Bwah-ha-ha-ha-...whew-hew BVut I can easily discount the first half of that (as can any sane, reasoning person) just go to thye KVH "Progressive Gap" thread and see: Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/20/2007 @ 2:31pm. The second I don't need to as it was done by the Iraq Study Group who noted that operation Desert Debacle has created more terrorists than have been killed. So we are worse off...and have basically tilted world opinion against us in nearly all quarters. Those that hated us then still do, only moreso, and those who "almost disliked us" most certainly do now....

Yessirree...at ChimpCo we are busy making problems for future generation to solve. We like to call it "thinking ahead"

Which would be why polls put him at the top of "Worst Prez EVER"

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 3:37pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 04/21/2007 @ 3:24pm

Delusional. What does that mean?

You'll find it in the dictionary, right near 'dyslexic'.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:37pm
Ponti-In the real world Gore got more of the popular vote than did Bush in 2000 and Bush is the first war time president to come that close to losing in 2004.The American people do not view Republicans as being better at national security than Democrats.In America war time presidents get re elected regardless of political party.Check out how many Americans came out to vote for Sen. Kerry and compare that with how many people come out to vote in other elections for both parties combined.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/21/2007 @ 3:40pm
Delusional. What does that mean?

You'll find it in the dictionary, right near 'dyslexic'.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:37pm

A perfect example. No perspective equating the distance between what's true and what's false.

I knew Pon-the-fecal-ness would not dissapoint.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 3:46pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 3:25pm

Jack,

I think we agree that any Administration which abuses the Justice Dept is abusing the system and there should be consequences. If attorneys were improperly fired for not persecuting people, there should be consequences, depending on the circumstances. But I think only have two ALLEGED incidents at this point, and there's 93 attorneys, so even the allegations are far from comprehensive.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:47pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 3:37pm

re: "The Bush Administration has done a great job in promoting a roaringly-good economy and, after 9/11, protecting this country from terrorist threats" the immediate reaction I get is..Bwah-ha-ha-ha-...whew-hew BVut I can easily discount the first half of that (as can any sane, reasoning person) just go to thye KVH "Progressive Gap" thread and see: Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/20/2007 @ 2:31pm.

LoC, by all conventional measures, the economy is doing very well. The fact that KVH, as insulated as she is by her trust fund and elitist attitude from the economic consequences of anything, disagrees, means not a whit to me or, for that matter, anyone else as a practical matter.

The second I don't need to as it was done by the Iraq Study Group who noted that operation Desert Debacle has created more terrorists than have been killed. So we are worse off...and have basically tilted world opinion against us in nearly all quarters. Those that hated us then still do, only moreso, and those who "almost disliked us" most certainly do now....

More terrorists than ever? Really? Where are they all? Sipping chamomile tea with KVH? Because we haven't seen any of the HERE, now have we? And come to think of it, it's been pretty quiet around the world for the last 3 years, hasn't it? I mean, compared to Clinton's term, when nothing significant was done to fight terror?

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 3:52pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:00pm

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:03pm

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:13pm

The only thing that's debunked is your defense of the Bushies. You're just too full of yourself to realize it. Explaining it away with sophism doesnt' cut it, bub.

We'll discuss that in more appropriate threads on each subject as the occasion arises.

The Bush Administration has done a great job in promoting a roaringly-good economy . . .

More sophistry. As Paul Krugman said, if your figures show people should be happy and they're not happy, then you're looking at the wrong figures. Really, Ponti, that was something that even Ronald Reagan could figure out, and successfully used against Jimmy Carter.

You may not like the tactics of the Bush Administration, but the results have been good, if not spectacular. Your views were presented in two elections, and you lost both times. You may not like it, too bad Jack. Better luck next time. Maybe if you leftist Democrats had any credibility whatsover in terms of national security, the American people might actually trust you folks with protecting it. I would suggest you get started; you might want to ditch the knee-jerk anti-Americanism first.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:20pm /b>

Let's see, Osama has not been caught; al Qaida is still in business and stronger than previously, enough so that Pakistani forces stay out of northwestern Pakistan; while the US itself has not been attacked since September 11, Bali, Istanbul, Kenya, madrid and London have been; the Taliban again have enough credility in Afghanistan to be negotiated with by the government; Iraq was invaded for no reason, diverting troops from Afghanistan (where the terrorists were) so that we could fight them in Iraq (where they came after our troops); Iraq is in a state of civil war; the reconstruction of Iraq has failed to deliver stable supplies of drinking water and electricity; reconstrution contracts were awarded on the basis of political loyalty rather than qualifications; $9 billion is unnaccounted for in Iraq; and 60% of the Iraqi people think it's OK to shoot at American troops.

If that is your idea of a "spectacular" success, it's no wonder you can't find incompetency in the Bush regime. What is your idea of incompetency, anyway?

The Bush regime is the most corrupt and incomptent in American history. Its concept of the power of the presidency is reminiscent of the doctrine of the devine right of kings used by European tyrants of the seventeenth/eighteenth century than to anything our Founding Fathers had in mind.

These are scandals. Brace yourself for more investigations.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 3:58pm
Frito. How derogatory a term is that really? Gonzales doesn't seem to mind it... for 15 years now.

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 4:00pm
N. Korea holds its people in bondage. Castro is a dictator that jails dissidents, librarians and defectors. They are both regimes that should be overthrown by their people and replaced by liberal democracies. Not the kind we have in Iraq, either, but one were the elected officials are able to produce order.

Ponti, you have never read any defense of either of these regimes (excluding Castros holding vast forests in reserve for his grandkids kids) from me.. You are pulling sht out of your ass to make some sort of point that eludes me. Is your point that Reno upheld the law as Attorney General of the United States, a law championed as a "pro-famliy" effort by the religious right? And that she should have ignored the will of congress? Are you, and Maasch, saying that the guvt should tell a father how to raise his kids? Because I know that neo-cons view any guvt intrusion into child rearing as a no-no.

And for the record, are you suggesting that if I see a person with an ATF jacket standing at my door with what I know is an invalid search warrant, that I should gun that person down and barricade myself and family in my house for 50 days? Because thats not how I would approach the situation normally.

I still don't see what this has to do with republican congressmen excoriating Gonzo.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 4:14pm
Turd Blossom has made no fuss about his name, so whats a little racism between buds?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2007 @ 4:15pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 3:58pm

,i>More sophistry. As Paul Krugman said, if your figures show people should be happy and they're not happy, then you're looking at the wrong figures.

Talk about sophistry. What I'm hearing is, if you don't like the facts, argue your 'feelings'. What nonsense.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 4:15pm
It has long become routine for critical comments about this administration to spew

forth from my fingers, so much so that I rarely bother any longer. However, I can't let go

of this Gonzales thing. It occurs to me that while Bush's critics rightfuly (and dare I

say finally) have their collective foot upon the throat of this administration, our

president's (AKA "the band leader") competance is never examined. Now that the people have

regained a voice what do we use it for? To pursue the "Bushies," instead of the "conductor"

of our discontent; at this rate, Bush will be out of office before we have an opportunity to

use OUR Constitutional right to throw him out. As the line from the movie "Braveheart"

says, the "Bushies" are "mere sheep, easily dispersed if you [remove] the shepard." America

still needs time for Cheney's Satanic soul, when circumstances permit, of course. President

Bush should be impeached, and then Cheney next. I'll hold my nose and accept Pelosi. Lets

return power to its RIGHTFUL owner. the people; if we do not do this, then it will next be

the democrats attempting to run rough-shod over the will of the people. Its time to send

all polititions for a refresher course in civics 101!

Posted by raven4 at 04/21/2007 @ 4:29pm
our president's (AKA "the band leader") competance is never examined.

This is almost as good as when DR DECIBEL calls Bush a 'moran'.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 4:37pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:52pm

On the first point:

"By conventional measures"...means you didn't read my post, nor even follow the link as I post evidence of "conventional measures" that deny your claim. I never was referring to the KVH post per se...but to links I left for JM that aply to your comment. Next time read before you respond off-the-cuff.

On the second:

So you deny the results of the Iraq Study Group? (...and I never said we have more terrorists "here"...although it could be. Funny thing about them. You never know unitl its too late.) Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of anything. (Meaning that we haven't been attacked in 3 years is NOT necessarily correlatable to ChimpCo) I haven't been bitten by monkeys in, well, ever. That is becasue I wear a magical amulet that wards off killer monkeys.

But the ISG notes the world at large is a more dangerous place as a direct result of Operation Desert Debacle" There are regular bombings all over the mideast (and occasionally other places - like the UK, etc.) There are some notalbe improvements - like air travel. However, this probably should have been done long ago - it just took a tragedy to wise up and smell the potential.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 4:52pm
...and the Clinton thing? a plate of red herring I see. Why bother, it means nothing.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 4:53pm
This is for Ponti, from a previous thread. His post is posted, and my response is in bold.

You losers have been saying we're losing from the beginning,

No, we toppled big, bad Saddam, and then because the morons you worship are as stupid as you are and had no plan for the power vacuum that developed, it's been a cluster fuck ever since

all because you place your hatred of GWB above the welfare of the country.

I know that you lemmings do things irrationally, but our "hatred" of Bush is because he has done nothing but lie, fuck-up, mis-manage, and leave in ruins almost everything he has touched.

And every time you undermine the war effort in this way, you're providing aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging them to kill civilians and our soldiers.

And there it is folks, the patented bullshit lemming response to anybody who has the temerity to expose the lemmings for what they are - lying, un-American, Constitution-hating, ignorant ideologues.

Proud of yourself, TURKEY?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/19/2007 @ 6:35pm

You're fucking-A right I'm proud, you slippery, stupid, propaganda-spouting douchebag! Unlike you lemmings, I know that my thoughts and actions have been in the spirit of American freedom and patriotism. Unlike you lemmings I have never supported surrendering civil liberties of ANY American just so I could have the illusion of being safer. Unlike you lemmings I have never condoned an illegal war against a pathetic pissant who never attacked America. Unlike you lemmings I have never had to compromise my principles in the support of any elected official. I have no problem sleeping at night, except when I think about the lemming-in-chief still having a say in the affairs of my country, and you and the rest of the 30% club who still believe the lemming bullshit. Now that scares the hell out of me!

Posted by TURK33 04/19/2007 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person

Posted by Turk33 at 04/21/2007 @ 4:59pm
More sophistry. As Paul Krugman said, if your figures show people should be happy and they're not happy, then you're looking at the wrong figures.

Talk about sophistry. What I'm hearing is, if you don't like the facts, argue your 'feelings'. What nonsense.

Ponti:

That's not what I'm arguing. I'll keep this brief, because it's off topic. The same figures no long mean what they used to meam.

Here's another Krungman piece on the same theme.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

I think we agree that any Administration which abuses the Justice Dept is abusing the system and there should be consequences. If attorneys were improperly fired for not persecuting people, there should be consequences, depending on the circumstances. But I think only have two ALLEGED incidents at this point, and there's 93 attorneys, so even the allegations are far from comprehensive.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:47pm

Two alleged incidents without any one looking too hard is quite a few in this period of time.

The message that is being sent by the administration to other US Attorneys is exactly the one neither you or I want sent. The case of Steven Bishipic's prosecution of Georgia Thompson in particular suggests that this is how a US Attorney keeps his job if he is about to be purged, while Mr. Iglecias' case suggests that if the attorney using professional judgment to trump political considerations will be held against one, when it should be an argument in his favor.

In any case, those facts are enough to justify the commitee to hold more hearings. Among the other things that must be determined is who at the White House was in on this; clearly, that means asking Karl Rove and Harriet Miers questions (on public, under oath and with a stenographer present and working and CSPAN cameras operating).

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 04/21/2007 @ 4:52pm

But the ISG notes the world at large is a more dangerous place as a direct result of Operation Desert Debacle"

The ISG report is a typical liberal document, consisting of meaningless blather and little else. They ludicrously insist the world is a more dangerous place, despite the evidence that terrorism is down significantly across the world except in the one place where we expect it, Afhganistan and Iraq. The conclusions contradict common sense, because it's a political report meant to confirm pre-existing political biases. It is, in sum, worthless.

There are regular bombings all over the mideast (and occasionally other places - like the UK, etc.)

No there are not. There are regular bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent, Israel. Just as one might have expected. It's always been exactly the point to fight the terrorists over there, not here, so this is an indication of success, not failure.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 5:16pm
I think that the 'Ficus doesn't just listen to Rush. I think that he IS Rush.

I see that you are still raiding your depends and flinging the contents at the walls. How's that pilonidal cyst? You know, the one that used used as a wussy excuse to avoid the draft, Limpsack?

Posted by skeletonman at 04/21/2007 @ 5:21pm
Ponti-I'm still waiting for the communist horde we were going to have to fight here instead of over there if we left Nam."They" can already get here in small numbers so how are "they" going to get here in the large numbers you people keep talking about? AQ wasn't in Iraq until bush gave them a place to do their thing in.If he had just gone into Afghanistan then this mess would be pretty much over and then we could have done more to keep saddam under control.

Posted by i'm nobody at 04/21/2007 @ 5:28pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 5:12pm

More sophistry. As Paul Krugman said, if your figures show people should be happy and they're not happy, then you're looking at the wrong figures.

Talk about sophistry. What I'm hearing is, if you don't like the facts, argue your 'feelings'. What nonsense.

Ponti:

That's not what I'm arguing. I'll keep this brief, because it's off topic. The same figures no long mean what they used to meam.

Here's another Krungman piece on the same theme.

We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

Jack: a) your link doesn't work b) I'm not going to subscribe to TimeSelect to read an article by Paul Krugman and c) a politically-motivated hack like Krugman could make the Great Depression look like a boom if he had an agenda and was willing to use the right figures and ignore the traditional ones, so I'm not buying him in any case.

I think we agree that any Administration which abuses the Justice Dept is abusing the system and there should be consequences. If attorneys were improperly fired for not persecuting people, there should be consequences, depending on the circumstances. But I think only have two ALLEGED incidents at this point, and there's 93 attorneys, so even the allegations are far from comprehensive.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 3:47pm

Two alleged incidents without any one looking too hard is quite a few in this period of time.

You think no-one has been looking too hard? I don't.

The message that is being sent by the administration to other US Attorneys is exactly the one neither you or I want sent. The case of Steven Bishipic's prosecution of Georgia Thompson in particular suggests that this is how a US Attorney keeps his job if he is about to be purged, while Mr. Iglecias' case suggests that if the attorney using professional judgment to trump political considerations will be held against one, when it should be an argument in his favor.

Two cases ain't much, and neither one is too serious, yet.

And as I have said before, since Karl Rove has not yet been confirmed to be "The Devil", as seems to be the operating assumption on the left, his involvement is not prima facie evidence of a crime.

In any case, those facts are enough to justify the commitee to hold more hearings.

As has been stated numerous times by prominent Democrats, the existence of the Bush Presidency, combined with a slim Democratic majority in Congress, is enough in and of itself to justify endless hearings into anything and everything. Nothing new there. Hopefully, at some point everyone will just get sick of the waste of time and money and start asking if these folks don't have something better to do, like pass legislation.

Among the other things that must be determined is who at the White House was in on this; clearly, that means asking Karl Rove and Harriet Miers questions (on public, under oath and with a stenographer present and working and CSPAN cameras operating).

I think we all better just get used to the fact that hearings into everything, up to and including the brand of toothpaste that Rove uses, will be the order of the day so long as Congress is in session. As I've said before, that's probably a good thing, because it keeps them away from doing anyting REALLY damaging to the country.

Posted by pontificus at 04/21/2007 @ 5:32pm
sorry, that should be 'you used'

Posted by skeletonman at 04/21/2007 @ 5:34pm
Sorry about the link

Jack: a) your link doesn't work b) I'm not going to subscribe to TimeSelect to read an article by Paul Krugman.

Try this.

Ponti, you should know me better to think that I would feed a capitalist pig like The New York Times by subscribing to Select. I always post Krugman from from places he can be read for a price fit for a democratic people to exchange information and ideas.

a politically-motivated hack like Krugman could make the Great Depression look like a boom if he had an agenda and was willing to use the right figures and ignore the traditional ones, so I'm not buying him in any case.

Gee, you think Krugman is a neoconservative?

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 5:50pm
Ponitificator

Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 5:16pm...hmmmm The ISG report Off the US Institute for Peace web site "USIP facilitated the bipartisan ISG at the urging of Congress." (so bipartisan BEFORE the 11/06 elections, but since you don't agree with the results its liberal hogwash. Uh-huh) So basically what you are saying is since you don't agree, it's not a valid document, even though the study group was approved by a "bipartisan Congressional approval process."

Yeah, peace...what a liberal concept. You don't mind if us Liberals claim that peace idea right since you guys aren't using it? (and contrary to the WingNut B Wrongington dictionary...Liberal is NOT an epithet. In fact its meaning is quite uplifting:)

from the American Heritage Dictionary:

lib·er·al (lĭb'ər-əl, lĭb'rəl) adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

5. Tending to give freely; generous:

as opposed to:

on·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] –adjective

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low:

Not "bad", but not exciting either

You talk as if bombings in the mideast didn't occur before Operation Desert Debacle? I seem to remember bombing in Beiruit when I was a kid. Obviously that "fight them there" is crap as noted in the ISG report. It has just given a new place for bombings to concentrate in the mideast. However, if you google "bombing" you'll see in the headlines (in addition to your list)

Algeria, Morrocco, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, and of course, the newfees are rife with the recent "progress" in Iraq GWB was just mouthing. I beleive its over 200 killed last week. Hmmm....must be defined kinda different in that "Wrongington's Dictionary" you guys use.

And the item 1...the economic one. I take you've given up as you are obviously wrong. Funny how those Kool-Aid talking point wash away in the light of reality isn't it?

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/21/2007 @ 6:35pm
Either BLATHER can't handle two thoughts at one time or he doesn't like taking test. So, I'll ask the questions again, one at a time.

Gee, Crabby, maybe you can reconcile this statement, then, because to me it means you're saying all 400 inmates are innocent:

Posted by BLATHERIFICUS 04/21/2007 @ 10:15am | ignore this person

So, Blather, your walking along a street in an American town and a police car stops next to you and tells to stop and assume the position. They handcuff you, put you in the car, take you to the police station and put you in a cell.

1) Are you innocent or guilty? Please explain your answer.

I think we all would like to know.

"The law will never make men free, it is men that have to make the law free." - Henry David Thoreau

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 7:51pm
BLATHERIFICUS

You sit in jail for two weeks without being able to contact anyone to tell them where you are. You haven't seen a lawyer to service in your defense. You are brought before some people who will ask you questions and you don't answer them to their satisfaction.

2) Are you innocent or guilty? Please explain your answer.

"Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny." Edmund Burke

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 7:57pm
BLATHERIFICUS

You are locked in a blacked out cell for weeks at a time only being feed through a slot in a metal door. You have been there for months. You are brought before some people who will ask you questions. They tell you that if you answer correctly you will be allowed to contact your family.

3) Do you answer the question truthfully and return to your blacked cell for who know how long, or do you tell them what they want to hear? Please explain your answer.

"If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable." - Louis D. Brandeis

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 8:00pm
BLATHERIFICUS

4) If you tell them what they want to hear, you are guilty. Correct? Please explain your answer.

"Whenever men take the law into their own hands, the loser is the law. And when the law loses, freedom languishes." - Robert F Kennedy

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 8:03pm
BLATHERIFICUS

You see in my country, before the Military Commission's Act of 2006, you would have been presumed innocent.

5) Those prisoners taken to a US Military base before the Military Commission's Act of 2006 would have to be presumed innocent. Correct? Please explain your answer.

"In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics." Earl Warren

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 8:05pm
BLATHERIFICUS

A maximum of 20 points for each correct answer based on explaining your answer.

Bonus 25 point question:

Explain how an intelligent person knows whether a stranger is innocent or guilty of a crime just based on whether they are in jail or not.

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." - Martin Luther King, Jr

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 8:09pm
GOP to Gonzales: Care For Some Hemlock?

Gonzales to GOP: Sure, now if only I could recall where you left it.

Posted by Will C. at 04/21/2007 @ 8:12pm
Coprogressive:

What's this? The Trial of Pontificus K?

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 8:15pm
Do you think that's what Gonzales really has on hsuB and why hsuB won't ask Gonzales to step down-- hsuB really did call Gonzales 'Frito'!!!!! hsuB thinks Gonzales will spill the 'Frito' beans!!!!

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/21/2007 @ 9:35pm
What's this? The Trial of Pontificus K?

Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 8:15pm

No, Jack, but he does seem to be all over the map with his blathering. He reminds me of my Ex-wife. Whenever we would get into a discussion about vacations, child rearing, finances, etc. I would try to explain my thinking. I would start to think she was coming around to my arguments, when she would realize her mind was starting to change and she would snap back to her original position. Blatherificus is a little different in that no logic on earth will move him for his delusional positions. So, I don't bother trying to engage him in debate, it would be like talking to my Ex, so I ask him for his view of specific thoughts. Like being picked up off the street by the police. Would he consider himself innocent or guilty. He seems to think that anyone that was sent to Gitmo was guilty. It use to be in my old country, called the United States of America, that a person was innocent until proven guilty. But I guess with the new regime that has changed. It was a surprise to me, I guess I didn't get the memo.

"We only want, we only ask, that when we stand up and talk about one nation under God, liberty, justice for everybody, we only want to be able to look at the flag, put our right hand over our heats, repeat those words, and know that they are true." Barbara Jordan

Posted by COProgressive at 04/21/2007 @ 9:58pm
You fellas have to remember. Scootificus was tried and found guilty. Yet the hamsters still proclaim him innocent. One doesn't have to take many steps into hamsterland to understand how from that position, the hamsters could see perfectly clearly that those who have not been tried are actually guilty. Innocence only happens after being found guilty, not before. and this is why the hamsters would never dare try the guys down in GITMO. If they are found guilty, the hamsters would have to let them go

It's an upside-down universe out there in the vast red wasteland

Posted by Will C. at 04/21/2007 @ 10:10pm
Copressive:

My reference was not to your ex-wife, but to Franz Kafka. The Bush-Ashcroft-Gonzales concept of justice seems Kafkaesque to me, too, so you're not wrong to raise such issues.

Were I to have a gentle one-on-one with Mr. Gonzales, I might offer a critique of one of the more disturbing things he said recently, namely, that there is no inherent right to Habeas Corpus in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were men of the late Enlightenment/early romantic period; I have always read the Constitution as a document of the romanticists (it helps that I regard myself as a romanticist). I would not have occurred to such people to insert an explicit right to Habeas Corpus in the document, because they regarded it as one of those inalienable human rights spoken of, but not enummerated, in the Declaration of Independence. It is a natural right to not be imprisoned by the state for no reason. We therefore regard it as the state's obligation and duty to either charge a detainee with a crime or release him.

The Constitution makes suspending Habeas Corpus conditioned on emergency or rebellion. I would add that I do not beleve that Habeas Corpus should be suspended even in such cases, except when conditions make operating a court infeasible.

It is not surprising that one with such a twisted view of Habeas Corpus in particular would have a twisted view of human rights in general. To me, as a romanitc, human rights, such as the right to due process, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc., are as universal as they are inalienable. One doesn't have those rights because one is an American, one has those right because one is human.

When Mr. Gonzales argues for the state's right to torture any one, my response is horsepucky. The Geneva Conventions are not quaint or outdated. They are the foundations of universal international law. Prisoners of war are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention and persons living in occupied territory or combat zones are protected by the Third. There is such thing as an "illegal combatant" who has no rights at all. Far from being sound legal advice, the l egal memos to Mr. Bush form Mr. Gonzales, Professor Yoo and Judge Bybee would be more properly used as Exhibit A in war crimes trial against the authors.

As for the Military Commissions Act, it is a gross violation of human rights with nothing to recommend it. Torture is a bust as an effective interrogation technique. Waterboarding, which apparently is a favorite form of torture in Mr. Bush's gulags, was once considered an effective way to get witches to confess. That should tell us what we need to know about the kind of information one gets from a torture victim. It is very effective at getting the subject to tell the interrogator what he wants to hear, but less effective at getting the subject to tell the interrogator what he needs to know. I present as an appendix to this post my own critique of Alan Dershowitz' rationale for torture.

I would like to believe that all the detainees in Guatánamo are terrorists, but I seriously doubt that. What I do believe is that the kangaroo court system established by the Military Commissions Act is not capable of rendering a fair decision on the guilt of any one detained. While I may personally believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind behind the September 11 attacks, I disregard his recent reported confession as it was obtained under this system where the accused has no rights and may be subjected to torture.

After World War II, we gave the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany a trial, after which severl of them were hanged. That's right. Nazis were entitled to due process. It certainly wasn't a right they earned by their heinous deeds. They earned a noose with those. Still, it was no favor or gift. All Goering and Ribbentrop and Hess and their friends had to do to be entitled to the right of due process was to be born human. The United States of America, founded in the romantic philosophy that embraed natural law, recongnized this. It was not a granting of priviledge, but the recognition of a natural right. If these rights can be recognized for Nazis, they can be recognized for terror suspects in Guatánamo. The same principle applies to them. Should the solemn hour ever come, as it should, that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their aides are brought before a court to face justice for war crimes in Iraq and crimes against humnity arising out of the so-called war on terror, then I, for one, will pay special attention that their rights to due proecees not be violated as the rights of terror suspects in Guatánamo are.

I am proud to say that I am a democrat. When I was in junior high school, we learned in our world history class in the segment on the second World War that under democracy citizen are assumed to have rights and under fascism it is assumed that citizens have no rights but what the state grants them. The state, according to democratic theory, exists to protect the rights of its citizens. I recalled that lesson as I watched the YouTube presentation of Gonzales' testimony in January before the Senate judiciary committee in which he said that there is no explicit right to Habeas Corpus under the COnstitution. That recollection, juxtaposes to what I was hearing from Gonzales, sent chills down my spine. I asked myself, "Is the attorney General really a fascist?" I hope my answer is wrong.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/21/2007 @ 11:45pm
If you mean that these attorneys were expected to persecute their enemies and be nice to their friends, that's bad BUT THAT HAS YET TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION

isn't the entire point of initiating and conducting an investigation to establish conclusions? in other words, of course it "has yet to be established".......that's what they're conducting an investigation. is there something inherently wrong with asking questions? if the bush administration is innocent, then why can't they just tell the truth? and tell it clearly? we've had so many blatantly contradictory statements.....maasch calls the hearings a "circus", but not this incompetent administration? one that has given sooooooo much material to every comic in the land?

Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2007 @ 11:46pm
i'm so incredibly fed up with these little authoritarians....running around and supporting the most blatantly corrupt, incompetent, evil, authoritarian, even fascist (!), presidencies.....of all time.

Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2007 @ 11:47pm
And for five and a half minutes of levity:

Please click here.

Posted by Jack Rabbit at 04/22/2007 @ 12:31am
100% 100% 100% REPUBLICANS OWN THIS SHHIT

WRONG ON IRAQ

WRONG ON JUSTICE

WRONG ON BUSH

100% 100% 100% REPUBLICANS OWN THIS SHHIT

Posted by conshame at 04/22/2007 @ 01:46am
No there are not. There are regular bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent, Israel. Just as one might have expected. It's always been exactly the point to fight the terrorists over there, not here, so this is an indication of success, not failure.

There was a series of al-Qaida attacks in Saudi Arabia starting from 2003. The successes against Islamists there was a function of the Saudis finally snapping their security into shape, not of our being in Iraq. There was the al-Qaida attack on multiple targets in Istanbul in November 2003. There was the multi-target attack in Amman in November 2005. al-Qaida in the Maghreb (formerly The Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat) is very active. Of course, as gets pointed our regularly here, the overwhelming majority of the insurgents in Iraq (90-95%) are Iraqis, whom we wouldn't be fighting at all if we weren't fighting them over there.

his involvement is not prima facie evidence of a crime.

No, but his involvement does buttress the case that the USAtty firings were motivated by partisan political concerns.

Hopefully, at some point everyone will just get sick of the waste of time and money and start asking if these folks don't have something better to do, like pass legislation.

Perhaps ask the Republicans if they won't filibuster same like they did on the Iraq issue in February; or ask Bush about vetoing the stem-cell bill.

First, we need to round up all those Iraqis who should have been mass-murderedy by Saddam Hussein, and gas them. Then, we need to round up all those women who would have been raped, and rape them. Then, we need to round up all those people who would have been tortured to death, and torture them to death.

As soon as you resurrect the 600,000 or so people estimated to have lost their lives as a result of this war and find homes for the 2 million or so who have fled the country.

I doubt if any of the village idiots brandishing torches for Gonzales here on The Nation were doing so in THAT appropriate case.

Actually, although The Nation archives are purchase-only for pieces that old, David Corn did criticize Reno's handling of Waco here. There is a comment dated 1999 which put much of the blame for Waco on law-enforcement bungling.

And whether you like it or not, every single inmate in Gitmo was picked up on suspicion of terrorism, and every one of them for very good reasons, regardless of your knee-jerk rejection and hatred of everything Bush does.

Plame had her husband Wilson sent to Niger. Wilson came back and lied about the results of his trip in an op-ed, completely contradidicting what the American CIA and British intelligence had already concluded. If there was a smear conducted, it was by the Wilsons and their all-too-willing accomplices in the media and on the left. At the end of the day, what Bush said in his SOTU speech has been confirmed true, and what Wilson wrote, or which he represented himself to be saying, is a lie. He and Valerie Plame, both admitted Gore supporters, used their government positions of trust to smear the Administration, and they did not get away with it. End of story.

No, Plame suggested him, she did not make the decision to send him (I suspect that the fact that he had been on diplomatic postings in both Iraq and Niger may have had something to do with it). He didn't lie, no evidence has been presented that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger except for a Nigerian minister's assumption that an Iraqi trade delegation was attempting to do so.

Why is it the MSM will not show the planes hitting on 9/11? When is the last time we saw those images...or why don't the networks, or Bush, say, just once,...on Wednesday we are going to show you who we are fighting and what we are up against,,,and show Pearles beheading, Bergs beheading,ect.,along the kids in military fatigues

Maybe it's because neither Saddam Hussein nor Islamic Jihad/Hamas/al-Aqsa had anything to do with 9/11.

Terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention.

Except, of course, that one is simply not entitled to assume that the inmates in Gitmo are terrorists. The Geneva Convention requires that a competent tribunal (and I don't think the current kangaroo courts count) make that determination. SCOTUS has held that the GC covers Gitmo as well.

If they were corrupt and incompetent, they would have just stood pat like Clinton did for 8 years while we were attacked around the globe.

Or they might have gone into a country that had nothing to do with al-Qaida, diverting troops from Afghanistan in the process, and tied down US resources fighting an insurgency composed overwhelmingly of Iraqis who the US would not otherwise have been fighting.

The ISG report is a typical liberal document,

Didn't know that James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Ed Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor and Alan Simpson (all ISG members) were liberals. Do you want to break the news to them or should I?

Posted by brunowe at 04/22/2007 @ 02:19am
Were to even begin with PONTI?

Jeez!

OK, Brunowe covered the fallacy that the ISG was some sort of liberal group. I would love to read the response from PONTI on that. Baker and Meese liberals? Wow, the world is a'changin'.

PONTI says terrorism is down. Where do you get your info PONTI? YOUR guvt says attacks are up.

2005: Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year

Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198 or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer., up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.

I would like to note that PONTI excludes Iraq, which is funny because one would think the Chimpies central war on terror would decrease terrorism if it was working.

Of course chimpy, being Chimpy, tried to hide these figures initially.

"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.

Is Larry Johnson suddenly a liberal?

how about a report form 16 US intelligence agencies?

The report, Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, points out the "centrality" of the US invasion of Iraq in fomenting terrorist cells and attacks. One section of the 30-page report, Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement, describes how the American presence in Iraq has helped spread radical Islam by providing a focal point for anti-Americanism.

While arguing that there has been success in dismantling the leadership of al-Qaida and its ability to plan major operations, the report says that radical cells have moved to more than 5,000 websites to organise and spread their message.

In his speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, President Bush said: "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."

But in a speech in April, thought to be largely based on the report, CIA chief General Michael Hayden, then deputy director of national intelligence, painted a more alarming picture. "New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge," Gen Hayden said. "If this trend continues, threats to the US at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide."

A republican led House:The report comes days after the House intelligence committee warned that Iraq had become a breeding ground for terrorists and that the danger facing the US was "more alarming than the threat that existed" before 9/11.

From The Guardian. Attack the source, PONTI, you have nothing else.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 09:56am
Some more reports from liberal scum:

By Josh White Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 21, 2007; Page A01

The Marine Corps chain of command in Iraq ignored "obvious" signs of "serious misconduct" in the 2005 slayings of two dozen civilians in Haditha, and commanders fostered a climate that devalued the life of innocent Iraqis to the point that their deaths were considered an insignificant part of the war, according to an Army general's investigation.

Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell's 104-page report on Haditha is scathing in its criticism of the Marines' actions, from the enlisted men who were involved in the shootings on Nov. 19, 2005, to the two-star general who commanded the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq at the time. Bargewell's previously undisclosed report, obtained by The Washington Post, found that officers may have willfully ignored reports of the civilian deaths to protect themselves and their units from blame. Though Bargewell found no specific coverup, he concluded that there also was no interest at any level in investigating allegations of a massacre.

"All levels of command tended to view civilian casualties, even in significant numbers, as routine and as the natural and intended result of insurgent tactics," Bargewell wrote. He condemned that approach because it could desensitize Marines to the welfare of noncombatants. "Statements made by the chain of command during interviews for this investigation, taken as a whole, suggest that Iraqi civilian lives are not as important as U.S. lives, their deaths are just the cost of doing business, and that the Marines need to get 'the job done' no matter what it takes."

----Aren't we there to SAVE the Iraqis? Or are we there to make people like PONTIFICUS FEEL safe?

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 10:03am
FG & CoProg

Yeah...same here with Pontificator. He half-heartedly addressed one point which I easil dismantled and he ignored the rest as then assumes he is right about something? Do these people really believe the crap they spew. I gotta wonder about the degree of self-delusion required to live in that world...

...and remember, here at ChimpCo its all about the problems. We create problems so America in the future will have issues to address. We call it "Thinking ahead!"

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/22/2007 @ 10:05am
In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States, including 16,586 (58%) suicides, 11,071 (39%) homicides (including 270 deaths due to legal intervention), and 1,006 (4%) undetermined/ unintentional firearm deaths.

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002) National Vital Statistics Report Volume 50, No. 16, September 16, 2002, p. 69.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 10:05am
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,

Trying to forget my feelings of fear.

Teardrops rolling down on my face,

Trying to forget my feelings of fear.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,

Wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms.Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,

Wo-o-o, feel you again in my arms.

(apologies to Gemini.)

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 10:08am
Why does Newt Gingrich get so much air time? Thrice divorced voice of morality? Resigned under an ethics cloud.

WTF??

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 10:39am
NEWT, author of The Contract. How much of this did they achieve?

On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;

FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;

SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.

THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.

Posted by crabwalk at 04/22/2007 @ 10:47am
yes, the hamsters really believe the crap they spew

Posted by Will C. at 04/22/2007 @ 12:26pm
Posted by JACK RABBIT 04/21/2007 @ 11:45pm

Thank you Jack for that wonderful post. I, too, nearly fell on the floor when I heard someone who was supposedly the AG for "We the People" say such a fascist statement. Senator Spector (R) couldn't believe what he was hearing. AG Gonzalez was the chief law enforcement officer in the country and had so little respect for the rights of the people. It's a wonder to me why people didn't take to the streets and overthrow this lawless regime.

I think the problem with AG Gonzalez is that he is in way above the level his intellect can support. He hears others in this lawless administration verbalize this trash talk and he takes it to heart not understanding was he is saying. It is much like a child in the home picking up language from the home and saying it in school or in mixed social gatherings to the embarrassment of their parents. He just strikes me as not a very smart guy. He is just another one of the "flunkies" Bush like to keep around him to help him feel superior. AG Gonzalez is just clay in the hands of those that are in control of our government. What a terrifying thought after all those years we thought we lived in the land of the free.

But Bush won't let him go easily. He will continue to use AG Gonzalez as a bargaining chip with the Congress. He won't do the "right thing" for either this country or his party. It's all about the spoiled little rich kid in him that wants it all his way to the detriment of our country and his party. It's all about George. What hubris!

Again, thanks for that great post, spells it out so much better then I ever could.

And as to Blatherificus, sometimes I wonder if he is just a contrarian just for the sake of being obstinate. Or maybe Blatherificus is really my Ex-wife!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Independence

Posted by COProgressive at 04/22/2007 @ 2:35pm
The reason George W. Bush is so pig-headed is that he's totally convinced history will vindicate him with regards to the Iraq War and the general incompetence and corruption of his administration.

And Republicans take notice, he doesn't have your back. For as long as you drink his cool aid everything's dandy. But go against his view of anything and you're left out to dry.

George Bush acts like an impetuous child who needs to have his way at all costs. He's going to hang on to Alberto Gonzales IF ONLY TO STICK IT IN THE FACE of Democrats and Republicans who want him ousted for his corruption and incompetence. In George Bush's feeble mind, he must be livid at the chutzpah of these Democrats and Republicans as they try to remove someone HE HAD DECIDED was the BEST MAN to head the Justice Department. Since he feels he is ALWAYS right then the Democrats and Republicans calling for Gonzales' ouster MUST BE WRONG! You want additional proof. Look at his recess appointment of Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. If the whole idea is an honest attempt at trying to work with Congress, George Bush just mouths the platitudes. His ego is too monumental to ever consider working with anyone unless that person or group RUBBER STAMPS his ideas. He must be nostalgic for the days when Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, and George Allen bent over to take it up the (well, you know where).

I remember watching him give an extremely idiotic speech in front of a "friendly" Republican crowd. He said that he doesn't worry about his legacy because he's read three biographies on Washington (must be pop-up books) and "if they're still writing about number 1, then number 43 dudn't (sic) have to worry just yet." Guess he's quite oblivious to the 4-6 books written about how he and Cheney cherry-picked information to take America into an unjustified and unprovoked war in Iraq.

Message to America - pick an intelligent president next time! Otherwise, you will have more intelligent and sinister powerbrokers using him as a puppet for their world designs. I'd like to say that there's a special place in hell for Cheney and Rove. But I wonder if even Satan will take the risk?

Posted by lamp1255 at 04/22/2007 @ 3:47pm
Republicans: WRONG ON HONEST GOVERNMENT

Posted by conshame at 04/22/2007 @ 11:15pm
Honesty. Suppose it's just a missing genetic marker in new con repubs! Can they really be blamed for their defect? Should we require they start showing up with the require mandatory accommodations form from HHS first before they can lie again?

Posted by hsuBfools at 04/23/2007 @ 08:20am
Dead thread but what the heck, more librool scum speak out:

"I don't think they should be celebrating that, because the attorney general's testimony was very, very damaging to his own credibility," Specter said. "Charges are being made that the Department of Justice was the political arm of the White House."

Mr. Specter said that it was up to President Bush to demand a resignation, but that Mr. Gonzales's presence "is bad for the Department of Justice."

"It is harmful," he said. "There has been a very substantial decrease in morale. There's no doubt about that."

Posted by crabwalk at 04/23/2007 @ 08:32am
to quote Monty Python:

"No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay?"

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/23/2007 @ 09:36am
the communsit left, represented by the nation, harps on the gonzales testimony. the US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. the president does not need to explain why he fired this scum. they were actively working against him, so they deserved to be fired.

Posted by gunga din at 04/23/2007 @ 1:42pm
Let me preface this by saying Bwah-ha-ha-ha

Bush Reiterates Support for Gonzales

By DAVID STOUT and DIANA JEAN SCHEMO Published: April 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 23 -- President Bush strongly reiterated his support for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today, declaring that Mr. Gonzales's testimony on Capitol Hill last week had increased his confidence in him.

"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Mr. Bush said.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/23/2007 @ 2:00pm
Let me preface this by saying Bwah-ha-ha-ha

Bush Reiterates Support for Gonzales

By DAVID STOUT and DIANA JEAN SCHEMO Published: April 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 23 -- President Bush strongly reiterated his support for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today, declaring that Mr. Gonzales's testimony on Capitol Hill last week had increased his confidence in him.

"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," Mr. Bush said.

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/23/2007 @ 2:01pm
ooops

Posted by leftofcenter at 04/23/2007 @ 2:01pm
gunga dumb

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2007 @ 01:31am
"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job,, I especially liked the 62 times he said I don't remember. that's my kind of guy." Mr. Bush said.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2007 @ 01:49am
Seig Heil.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 04/22/2007 @ 09:58am | ignore this person

it's Sieg Heil.

Posted by johannesrolf at 04/24/2007 @ 12:23pm