I don't think Gonzales got raked over the coals, he just never gave answers that were credible.
Chertoff will be asked some tough questions about Katrina, but he'll be approved.
Your whining about the politics of destruction is quaint.
"Stand down when they can no longer be effective."
Holy ! when ever was gonzo "effective" at DoJ?
Then entire DoJ has been roiled by his politicized incompetence, the Repug Congress won't even defend the mofo.
gonzo is just another chapter in the story of a totally failed Repug administration.
Yes, they are failing. How many people deny that? The republicans are straying away from their base, and they are dooming themselves if they continue along those lines.
I have no problem with those who clearly are moral deviants like Mark Foley being tossed out. I just wish the democrats would do the same to their deviants.
Anyway, there are clearly those who give republicans a bad name.
Many of those leaving try to do good work, but the hatred from the left is so relentless, that anything that can be used to discredit them, is. It is done so many times just as dirty tricks that I have a hard time believing these things have validity when they do!
Read past the headlines and one liners. Make sure you get all the appropriate information in full context. I see it rare that attacks against the republicans are valid to the point of endless inquiries, subpoenas, and the likes. The democrats abuse their powers to the point of personal destruction. Yes, some republicans do too. Neither side should. The democrats are masters at such art, and I cannot support such evil.
Yes, some republicans do too.
I'm sorry, but that is different. President Clinton was impeached because he clearly perjured himself during the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones.
Isn't perjury a crime?
Only when Democrats do it, apparently. (see: Scooter Libby)
My bad -- I should have just recalled the entirety of the Clinton presidency. After all, the efforts to find something on Clinton (which reached a crescendo with the Senate's refusal to convict on a charge of purjurious testimony concerning an extra-marital affair) began essentially the day after he won election in 1992. You're right, focusing just on the impeachment was wrong on my part.
I could care less about any government officials personal life itself as long as it doesn't interfere with their job. I specifically stated the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Please don't make my words mean something I didn't say. The republicans didn't have to hunt for the perjury, it came out in court!
I don't recall very much from back then, and I'm not sure where to start on it if I wanted to research it. Will you agree that the Clinton's were clearly involved in business with people who were handed jail time for illegal activities? I would say there were cir stances to investigate.
Yes, I'm sure some of the investigations were unwarranted. However, I would place good money on a bet that most were warranted, if we could ever determine the actual truth, had merit. Look at how many investigations the democrats do that do have clear simple legal explanations, yet the democrats pursue them anyway. for tat doesn't work here. Look at the cir stances involved. Look at the merit of the complaints and actions. The democrats clearly abuse their powers when it comes to investigations. The republicans usually had good cause.
At least the republicans had a clear case for a proceeding that history will not record as a witch hunt. How many of the hearing are the democrats doing that are clear witch hunts?
Let's also not forget that president Clinton was found guilty of "Contempt of Court," paid a fine, and had his license to practice law suspended.
so, gonzo buckled under to a witch hunt? guess he never heard that "sticks and stones" thing.
Republicans = virtuous and good, acting only when there is perfect justification
Democrats = witch hunting evil, acting on whims and without any justification whatsoever
Got it.
The intended sarcasm will go over his head. He actually believes that.
yeah I think politicizing the DOJ when justice is supposed to be blind is doing a great job. Thats the best interests of the country. Going to a sick AG's hospital room trying to get him to sign something that he normally wouldn't.
Hmmmm, if Ralph Lopez wants to switch parties, seeing how he is a Texan he could fit right in with the crew up there.
WC pulled the same with me when I argued the precedent of a Republican filibuster for a Supreme Court nomination.
OH but that one didnt count cause it was completely justified and the Democrats were just being evil.
In actual news, there are apparently some reports that the vacancy might be filled by Paul Clement, who was the Solicitor General when he awoke this morning and will go to sleep as the Acting Attorney General. The WH could avoid the nuisance of a confirmation battle by simply allowing General Clement to remain the Acting AG without ever making a nomination and allowing his deputy, Greg Garre, to become Acting SG for the remainder of the President's term of office.
I would imagine that there will actually be a nomination at some point, but it wouldn't surprise me if the nominee is General Clement, who is less likely to bring the sort of political opposition that Michael Chertoff might. General Clement is a definite partisan and is probably the actual legal architect of most of the Administration's recent legal posturing, but has the benefit of being far less well-known and, thus, less likely to draw significant opposition fire. Plus, General Clement, who regularly argues before the Supreme Court, would have the same sorts of advantages that Chief Justice Roberts had when pressed hard by the Judiciary Committee during the hearings on his nomination.
That would seem quite possible for this administration. I thought with Congress in recess the White House would offer up a recess appointment to avoid an ugly confirmation hearing but allowing Clement to serve as acting-AG also avoids the confirmation hearing.
Speculation is the Fredo was fired. I don't buy that. I think the White House wanted to hang on to him until '09 to protect the White House from investigations that the Justice Department would be responsible for.
FWD do you think Clement would be partisan in the role or conduct himself in an independent manner.
I came across this about Clement........
Sounds like the kind of guy they need about this time."I felt he did an excellent job," Dunham says. "He can make the unreasonable sound reasonable."
From what I read, I would think that General Clement is a much, much smarter version of Al Gonzales. He's unabashedly a Bush believer and has played a role in formulating the legal strategies employed to defend the Administration's policies -- I'd think that if General Clement were to become AG, his role in policy-making would become more pronounced, and, at the same time, the Administration's legal policies might become more difficult to contest.
Putting Chertoff up for another Congressional confirmation at this point would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline for this administration. Bush would be well served to stick with the relative nobody Clement for the remainder of his term.
[QUOTE=Wild Cobra]
Yes, I'm sure some of the investigations were unwarranted. However, I would place good money on a bet that most were warranted, if we could ever determine the actual truth, had merit.
Yes. I would love to find out why Bush and his surrogates knowingly pushed 'questionable and un-verifiable' intelligence information to justify the rush into Iraq. If we could only get the truth.
I see so people who aren't truthful to Congress get a pass but lying under oath in a civil proceeding is an impeachable offense.Look at how many investigations the democrats do that do have clear simple legal explanations, yet the democrats pursue them anyway.
The clinton's were investigated from the day they took office. I am not sure if you have ever been involved with investigative work but it's amazing that the GOP Congress felt the need to start right away. The democrats in turn have been in the majority for 8 months and accoprding to you they have abused the power to investigate when the GOP congress ok'd it for 8 yrs?for tat doesn't work here. Look at the cir stances involved. Look at the merit of the complaints and actions. The democrats clearly abuse their powers when it comes to investigations.
If Clinton would not have perjured himself the 8 yrs would have been for naught.. but it's the dems who have abused the power..The republicans usually had good cause.
Ken Starr is a republican hack.. history will show that. But in all fairness the GOP didn't and won't invetigate itself (see mark Foley)At least the republicans had a clear case for a proceeding that history will not record as a witch hunt. How many of the hearing are the democrats doing that are clear witch hunts?
Let's also not forget that president Clinton was found guilty of "Contempt of Court," paid a fine, and had his license to practice law suspended.[/QUOTE
DOJ being politicized! You got to be kidding. Clinton
fired everyone of the Federal Prosecutors and no one
blinked an eye. Al fired eight and you would think some
crime was committed. Of course most of you Dimms do
think that the case. No crime has been committed. The
hearing is for one purpose only. Trying to get someone
to mis-state something so they can be tried for
perjury. Ring a bell.
Federal prosecutors serve at the will of the President. He
can fire them anytime he feels like it, for any reason.
As I have said twice already, the dimm-o-craps are
just doing their normal thing. Politics of personal
destruction.
Can anyone tell me what crime they have uncovered
yet? Come on big mouths tell me just one they have
found with their hearing on the firings.
Republican support on this board has dwindled down to Xray , the newbie WC and very seldomly, 101A.
Yoni = MIA
Gtown = making a pink ass of himself
vashner = who?
AHF = he is still ing about Pop or about the refs in some old Bball game
On the other hand, Dems and liberals have flourished.
Um, they found enough that Alberto Gonzales was essentially forced to resign. If there wasn't a real problem with the manner in which DOJ has operated under Gonzales, I'm quite certain that there wouldn't have been a resignation.
And as others have pointed out in this thread, it wasn't just Democrats in Congress that have come to the conclusion that there were major problems with Gonzales' oversight of DOJ; several Republicans (who must also be engaging in the politics of personal destruction, right?) have also reached the same conclusion and expressed those concerns publicly. But you're right, xray -- it's probably better to ignore that fact and pretend that it's just Democrats. Makes for better political vitriol.
Oh, wait, I forgot -- Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been expounding on how Al Gonzales is just a great man and a wonderful human being and that no reasonable person could survive the sort of hate mongering that the Democrats in Congress have been serving up. That's right -- Gonzales is just an innnocent victim in all of this. My bad. I'll try to keep up with the prevailing GOP spin before posting next time.
The problem with Gonzales is that he excelled at creating issues out of non-issues.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
