VIDEO: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath
VIDEO: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath
Watch the right-wing members of the committee take a principled stand against accountability:
SPECTER: The question is should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn.
Specter wins the vote but concludes “this is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.”
Full Transcript:
SPECTER: So the question is, should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?
HATCH: Aye.
GRASSLEY: Aye.
DEWINE: Aye.
GRAHAM: Aye.
KYL: Aye.
CORNYN: Aye.
SPECTER: By proxy, for Sen. Brownback, aye. Sen. Coburn – We’ve got enough votes already. Sen. Leahy?
LEAHY: Emphatically, no.
KENNEDY: No.
BIDEN: No.
KOHL: No.
FEINSTEIN: No.
FEINGOLD: No.
SPECTER: Aye. The ayes have it.
FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: Could you repeat that Sen. Feingold?
FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.
SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote – Well, we can rephrase the question if there’s any serious challenge of the proxies. This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
184 Responses to “VIDEO: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Dog and pony show.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:48 amEven Specter, who has already noted that this program is probably illegal has to goosestep with the party line sometimes. Besides, if the did have him swear, he's claim he couldn't talk about matters of national security in an open session.
Watch for those "weasel words" to start appearing in his testimony as well.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:50 amTO SWEAR THE WITNESS IN-OR NOT TO SWEAR THE WITNESS ISNT THE QUESTION?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amTHE REAL QUESTION MIGHT WELL BE WHETHER TO READ HIM HIS MARANDA?!?
Are the republicans going to take responsibility when the homeland dollar falls and the euro dollar rises?
Are republicans going to take responsibility when bush orders an american killed because he/she called someone in the Contentianal United States just because they are Middle Eastern or just because they don't fall into lockstep with this adminssstration?
Are republicans going to take responsibility for invading Iran only to find like Iraq they don't pose a threat?
To skirt the laws of this country puts every American at risk of being termed a spy.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amThis Congress if officially castrated.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:54 amThis Congress is officially castrated.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:55 amAnd those same conservatives sit idly by while members of their party imply that we are not patriots and don't support the troops for reasons that are so ephemeral as to defy definition. What could me a more patriotic act than to swear an oath to tell the truth about a subject that is as real as the paper the constitution is written on? And to be proud to do it, and in fact ashamed to be allowed to not do it. Fuck them all!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:55 amAnd so the den of inequities opens
Contravening its self purpose.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:56 amwhat a worthless hearing. Nothing will be done. A little noise and smoke and then, nothing. What a congress! Without a doubt congress has become nothing important.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:59 amALL HAIL KING GEORGE! RUSH TO GIVE YOUR LIFE FOR KING GEORGE! KING GEORGE THE DUMBSHIT!
just incredible. Not sworn in to testify? WTF?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:04 amI am at work and, therefore, I have no easy access to C-SPAN (nor should I since, as I said, I am at work).
Arew the Democratic senators going after the AG? Is Leahy tearing him a new one with respect to his previous misleading testimony under oath?
Tell me something all you conservatives out there: Why do Republicans feel they shouldn't have to testify under oath? Do you think they should be held accountable if they give false testimony? Why did the president refuse to be under oath when the 9-11 commission questioned him (with out being allowed to take notes, I might add)? Why are Republicans afraid to tell the truth under oath?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:06 amWhy are Republicans afraid to tell the truth under oath?
Comment by Wayne A. Schneider
Because the truth would set us free...of them.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:09 amI'm ready to cut my wrists.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:11 am#7 - DITTO worthless bunch of GOP whores. They sure made Clinton take an oath.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:11 amWTF? Arggghhhhh.....
February 6th, 2006 at 11:13 amHe's not a baseball player on steroids. There is no need to have a sworn testimony.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:14 amAre the Republicans becoming unhinged? Are they eunuchs? If they had any cojones, they'd act like men, not mice.
They're looking more like wusses all of the time.
Just my negative eight trillion dollars worth.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:14 amPeople, here is a suggestion to screw with Bush and his Illegal wiretapping.
Send emails like the example below. Have the people you send them to, to do the same. When talking on the phone, throw in similar words. This will screw them up so much that they may have no other choice but to stop.
The downfall is that if there really are terrorists, then they might not be detected. However, since our King has not done his job at detecting them before now, I don't see this being a real issue.
"Hello Jihad,
Where is the bomb? How about tomorrow and the day of doom? Defy the American King George. The planes are coming. Watch out for that ship. Take down the big penis."
Well you get the point.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:19 amYeah were all traitors aren't we? How dare we question the legitimacy, let alone the legallity of this President's actions. Why we have his own party to uphold the Constitution for all of us. Hey how about an earmark for some civics lessons for all of the GOP's grand kids, call it The Trust us trust. See it would even have the word trust in it. Thank god Raphael Palmero didn't have to be sworn in.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:22 amThe art of war is clear... who ever has the moral backing of most of their people has a distinct advantage because they can fight harder, longer, and with belief in the righteous duty to succeed.
Why do the republicans not want the democrats on their side if they want to bring an end to the radical religion movement coming from the middle east?
Are they afraid the bringing the democrats in on the game with transform it from being about oil and anti arab racism into being about Liberty vs. Religious fundamentalism?
Look at the liberal media reprinting those cartoons of mohammed. The liberals are just as ready to demand freedom and democracy as the conservatives. Even to the point of rubbing it into the faces of the muslims.
Maybe they are afraid that such a Liberty vs. Religious fundamentalism movement would end up turning on their religous fundamentalists also.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:23 amIt's apparently going to take something that in the Republicans minds is catastrophic, like let's say the upcoming 11/06 elections, for them to realize that blindly following king dumbya's regime & their party leaders (similarly corrupt morons in cahoots w/ bushco)will only lead them over a cliff.
Yea we all bitch and moan about the Dems not having balls. They all voted for it, the repubs ALL voted against it. I'm waiting for these "honest" and "principled" republican Senators & Congressmen to grow some themselves. It's either that or I will just have to conclude that there are not any honest and principled rebubs in congress.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:24 amWhats the use of having testimony if it is NOT under oath? These people lie all the time. If they lie to the Senate they can not be punished unless they are under oath, so whats to prevent them from making up any story they choose.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:26 am#11 -- National Public Radio (NPR) has the hearing on its stations. I hope you can find it in your area.
It is very interesting and you can tell -- the AG is lieing.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:28 amIt sure sounds like the AG is still acting like the personal attorney for Bush and not that of the American people. Amazing.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:31 amYes, because the Atorney General's testimony is not as important as that of a fvcking baseball player's.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:37 amYeah, but all the same, dont you trust him? I dont love the man, but really, I dont think he will lie about anything.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Worst A.G. ever.
R2K
February 6th, 2006 at 11:40 amBathrooms
Rockets
Keith Olbermann will report it.
No one else in the Gang of 500™ will.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:41 amWhere do Repugnants and their administration witnesses whom they are protecting go to change their underwear when they wet themselves? These clowns need to know this. The American People are watching and we are not amused.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:42 amSpecter was right... This isn't a good start.
A good start would have had Alberto Gonzales sworn in and then treated to Abu Ghraib style treatment.
Z.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:46 amEven not under oath a good question would be to ask Gonzales what he meant when he said that the administration knew they would not be able to get permission for the program so they did not ask. If as they argue now, the permission was implied in the 9/11 resolution, why did they even contemplate getting rejected by congress?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:47 amThis is the stupidest thing I've heard all day, and that's really saying something for today. Here I thought it wasn't a good way to start the hearing without swearing in Abu G, but Specter thinks it's not good because the Dems have the nerve to challenge him on his idiocy. Our country is doomed.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:47 amAnyone ever see the episode of the "Simpsons" where everyone in town adopts Bart's attitude and impulsively does whatever they want,whenever,in their own self- interest,without any regard for the "whole" or others?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:48 amEverything in town goes to hell in a handbasket.Quickly.
Don't these conservative Congressmen realize they are part of the problem that the Imperial President folks want out of the way? These elected officials are voluntarily putting their own heads on the chopping block while asking for a little off the top. All of that just so they get the money to get re-elected. Pathetic.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:49 amThis is either sarcasm, or you don't know Alberto very well.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:53 amFrom the WaPo's coverage of this alleged "hearing":
Gee, now there's some news, eh? His answers would be the same, whether or not he was under oath. That's because Prince Alberto and the King he works for have no regard for their oaths, whether it's an oath of office or an oath to tell the truth. Black is white, night is day, up is down...whether they're under oath or not, they're going to continue to shovel the same load of crap without regard for who they're misleading or lying to -- because the power of the King is absolute, you know...
February 6th, 2006 at 11:59 amThey're all whores. Republican criminals are running our country. It's a racist, dishonest, selfish party.
February 6th, 2006 at 11:59 amI am at my office and have a tv on in the display room.
Some young man just stood up and called I believe Gonzo a facist. Did I hear that right? Gonzo was looking upset when I walked in to view who it was.Specter said I want to make it clear your not a Facist.
Way to Go whomever you are !
February 6th, 2006 at 12:01 pm#38 - Youre right - standing up and shouting nonsense at a Committee hearing is real classy and a productive action. Whatever you feel, you take away every once of your credibility by acting like an ass.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:03 pmOne fascist calling another a non-fascist. Nice cover up. wink..wink...nod..nod
February 6th, 2006 at 12:04 pmthis way he can't be convicted oF LIEING TO CONGRESS!
February 6th, 2006 at 12:05 pmMore proof our gov. is CORUPT!
Look at the liberal media reprinting those cartoons of mohammed.
The corporate media is liberal only in your imagination.
The liberals are just as ready to demand freedom and democracy as the conservatives. Even to the point of rubbing it into the faces of the muslims.
Liberals would generally be happy to see real freedom and democracy in the Middle East or anywhere else. But what Bush and his criminal gang are bringing there is anything but that.
Maybe they are afraid that such a Liberty vs. Religious fundamentalism movement would end up turning on their religous fundamentalists also.
Maybe they can't bring the liberals on board because the liberals insist on asking inconvenient questions. If the Bushies are promoting freedom and democracy, why are they running torture shops? Why are they, and not the supposedly elected government of Iraq, still making all the important decisions there? Why do they continue to occupy Iraq when said government and the vast majority of the Iraqi public clearly wants them to leave?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#39 - Like we have any other option..... You fail to hold people acountable, so we must get the word out somehow.
You just don't get it do you!
Besides, I would not call it nonsense. Do you even know what Facism is? He fits the bill for it, so how is this statement wrong?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pmIt's official: We live in a fascist dictatorship!
February 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pmBut he made gonzo very uncomfy he was shifting weight on each buttock a clear sign of unease. If I wasn't a Facist I would say the gentleman is being rude but he has the 1st admen right to speak.This is after all a public meeting.
In time more and more of us will stand up and yell Facist.
#39 why aren't the republicans asking real questions instead of softballing gonzo?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#39.
Does it matter when one is dealing with people who know nothing about credibility?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pmNo, you take away every once of credibility when you refuse to swear in your witnesses under oath. At that point it doesn't matter what anyone does it is obviousely an empty, illegitimate hearing to CYA the Republican party and administration.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:07 pmRead Justice Jackson's opinion in the Steele case. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/m010506.pdf, scroll down a bit.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pmOH, MY ACHING ASS!
February 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pm#38 - Youre right - standing up and shouting nonsense at a Committee hearing is real classy and a productive action. Whatever you feel, you take away every once of your credibility by acting like an ass.
Explain to us why the Bush administration can't be considered fascist, would you?
If it's a silly question, then there has to be an obvious answer, right?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pmThe republicans don't have to go under oath because they are all Christians and thus are incapable of telling lies (unless the lies are for a higher good of course).
February 6th, 2006 at 12:09 pm#39
Whatever you feel, you take away every once of your credibility by acting like an ass.
Comment by Chase
I guess that's why this administration has no credibility.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:10 pm#5
"This Congress if officially castrated.
Comment by dlet — February 6, 2006 @ 10:54 am"
More like the Democrats are the ones castrated.
Once the GOP refused to place Gonzales under oath, they effectively declared this hearing nothing more than a cover-up for Bush’s crime. Any decent opposition would have refused to participate in the farce and walked out. The GOP would have had to backtrack and swear Gonzales especially when Gonzales himself declared that he had no objections to being sworn in. That action alone could have earned the Democrats more political points than all the speeches they ever give.
The Democrats have to be active participants in the Bush agenda because nobody can be that stupid. Or, maybe they just want to lose the next election because they don’t want to un-shit Bush's bed?
More likely: The people are being screwed by both the parties with full bi-partisan consensus.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pm#42 ...I said LIBERAL media ...aka European media. American media has been bought and paid for.
As far as the fasist comment ...you are not an ass saying something like that if it is the TRUTH.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:11 pmAnyone notice Gonzo smirking at the questions, similar to his bossman?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:13 pmTo RemoveBush: I absolutely know what facism is and AG Gonzalez, by no stretch, fits the definition.
The oath issue - how unimportant is that, really? Are you really going to debase yourself by arguing that point? Come on - argue the main point here - whether or not survaillence of terrorists is vital to our national security. If you think it's not, SAY IT YOU SAP-ASSED SON OF A BITCH. I'm fed up with your whining on and on about tertiary issues and ignoring the big ones.
If you want to impeach the guy, JUST DO IT. If you think you have tration on that, DO IT. Get together all your cohorts, call your reps and senators, start a mass movement, get it done. Wait, you cant. Youre on the lunatic fringe (just like Pat Robertson is on the right, I'll grant you that.)
Get a clue.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:14 pmHere is some more from Mr. Aftergood, he and Juan Cole are priceless resources.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:14 pmhttp://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/hoekstra020106.html
The Laws do not apply to Bush and anyone in his adminstration.
It is that simple. "We are the law."
Fucking fascists.
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 12:15 pmLiars, all of em'..
February 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pmit seems the radical republicans are starting yet another social movement:
the RIGHT TO LIE movement.
recall that the oil executives were not required to be sworn in in their congressional testimony.
why take this tact?
to prevent the public from knowing the truth.
if sworn in, the individuals testifying, like gonzales, would either have to perjure themselves or they would have to tell the truth.
telling the truth would not be good for the republican party and the white houses.
lying under oath would not be good for the individual republicans who would have to lie.
any other examples of the newly established
RIGHT TO LIE
to congress and the american people??
February 6th, 2006 at 12:17 pmHey Chase.... Have you served your country?
My guess would be no. Most Republicans can talk sh*t but can't back it up.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:18 pmAll of these facist Smirk . The Smirking Chimp has instructed them to do so.Its like all the Red ties or red suits or dresses.
I cracked up watching the SOTU nonaddress ,Democratic women wore Red that was sweet and the thugs got pissed.
Feinman is questioning now and gonzo don't want to amswer questions now.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:19 pmFeinstein sorry about that. gonzo refuses to answer any question.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pmRemoveBush: Have I served my country? In what capacity, might I ask?
I assume you mean militarily - to that I say no, I have not. I don't think that precludes me from stating my opinion, and I do not think military service is the only way to serve the country.
Good job once again skirting the issue.
PS. The GOP backs it up - they win elections. And please don't cast me in the Republican party - I am by no means a solid republican.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:21 pmRiddle me Please, SOMEONE.
Why is the FISA court even RELEVENT when it comes to warrentless wire taps, er... terrorist sevailence programs, if they, the talkies like AG Gonzales, hold up the president's authority to make such a move with no defference toward FISA as GRANTED by Congress's express authority as the ultimate reasoning to his decisions???
February 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pmTo RemoveBush: I absolutely know what facism is and AG Gonzalez, by no stretch, fits the definition.
But you can't tell us why not.
The oath issue - how unimportant is that, really? Are you really going to debase yourself by arguing that point? Come on - argue the main point here - whether or not survaillence of terrorists is vital to our national security.
No, the issue is whether there should be court oversight on the surveilance of alleged terrorists, to keep the executive branch from abusing its power. The law says there should.
Nobody that I know of thinks that there shouldn't be surveilance when it's been properly authorized by court order. That argument is a straw man.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#56
The point is not whether or not survaillence of terrorists is vital to our national security.
The point is can not should it be done with or without court order. Leagally or illegally.
I think everyone agrees survaillance is necessary. You just need to get past that talking point and realize what the real issue is. An Imperial President or the Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.
And by the way I don't like Bush but this issue goes way beyond a dislike for a certain person. This is about our country and if think that is lunacy well thank the gods I'm not sane.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:22 pmI wonder if the person who stood up and yelled "fascixts" was a paid Republican operative to make the left look unhinged?
Cut to a small room where Senator Jeff Sessions hands a rolled up wad of bills and says: "Great stuff Jethro, now all those liberals look unhinged and and dangerous".
-GSD
The Republican Senators are complicitous in the destruction of this nation, they are the quislings and dupes and they are doing it with relish. Sick bastards. Specter is the worst, because deep down inside he knows better.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pmgotta proof read more often
February 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pmPS. The GOP backs it up - they win elections.
Only with the help of rigged computers, and corrupt election officials like Blackwell and Harris who keep likely Democratic voters away from the polls.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#45 the answer is simple it is to give the appearance of investigation without really investigating. This way the punditry, the administration and the republican controlled congress can say see...we had hearings and found no wrong doing. It's a strictly cosmetic CYA move.
Chase, the argument is not whethter monitoring terrorists is vital to our national security, the issue is does the president have the right to trump the constitution simply because he feels he has the right to trump the constitution.
Until Gonzales answers what he meant when he said that "the administration knew there was no way they would get permission for what they wanted to do, so they didn't ask", until he answers what he meant by that we must assume they knew what they were doing was illegal. Also he needs to answer how the 9/11 resolution gave the president the power to start this program prior to 9/11. Both of these are very sticky points and are also good startng places for the investigation.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pmWhy are Republicans afraid to take oaths?
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pmI mean, if they have nothing to hide, why not take the oath?
-GSD
February 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pm66: I would like the other commenter to first define 'facist' how it applies to the AG. He didnt, so I am waiting. Also, the AUMF authorizes the president the power to engage in a "war on terrorism" (whatever that exactly is) in addition to authorizing incident activities. I believe (according to court precedent) this does in fact authorize the survaillence. Only a court (not Congress, not this forum) can deem it "illegal."
February 6th, 2006 at 12:26 pmand 70: no no no. completely untrue. come on bud, do you really believe all the elections are rigged? i mean really?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:28 pmChase - the main point of this THREAD, is that they chose not to Swear the AG in. So if you are going to pout and call us feeble for debating the topic of the THREAD, well, then you will just have to write us off.
Other threads will come up which will alow us to discuss the merits & legality of bushco's moves here. Part of those questions, will come up in today's hearing (ie - Leahy lead in questions). They will be other threads.
So let's not put the cart in front of the horse. Should bush be impeached for ordering the spying on americans without a warrant? ABSOLUTELY. But you and I both know it won't happen with this congrss.
Jan 07 BABY.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:29 pmThat is a non-answer. Tell us why you don't think he is a facist.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:30 pmMark - Its of no use talking to Chase. He is sitting in his basement holdiing his blankie affraid that the Democrats will hold the Republican part responsible for thier lies and being traitors to the US. He is affraid that his SENSE of security will be lost if KING George is taken down.
These people have no sense of reality. They can only dispute the little issues and don't have a clue to the big pictures. They will argue, "Hes trying to protect us your *&#$)(#$)#$". However, they dont seem to realize that he has done a HORRIBLE job and is not even trying. If he was, he would have been doing it legally and openly with Congress to ensure that the terrorists did not have a legal leg to stand on if they were to come to court.
They just don't get it. Poor poor sheeple.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#74
February 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pmWow...just realized that Congress can't deem it illegal huh? Courts must determine this...huh. Well guess who would call for an investigation if they think there is enough reason to do so? Who is the Attorney General? Use the power of logic.
It is only the backbone of our society. But then again, you don't believe Bush has done anything wrong, so you are an empty arguement.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:31 pmHave you served your country by putting your ass on the line in the military?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pmThe fvck you aren't.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pmComment by orionATL
Oh, well if you look at it
The Right to Lie is the new and improved
Conservative Republican
Right to LiFe campaign.
The "F" is moved over to the governmental descriptive as
FASCIST
February 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmThanks everyone for commenting. I'd just ask that everyone stick to the substance rather than attacking each other personally.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:34 pmHey Judd, why do I have to enter a 4 character code?????
February 6th, 2006 at 12:35 pmYep. Electronic voting is not a secure way to cast a ballot. The code for the Diebold machines was posted to a wide open public FTP, or do you not remember that?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:36 pmWe've installed some software to deal with comment spam. So if you have to enter a code, that's why.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pmRemoveBush: Can you tell me why the AG is a facist? If not, I'm afraid you are just like the dipshit that stood up and yelled.
And really boss, grow up. Sitting in my basement holding a blankie? Come now. I'm not at all worried about about accountability. If officials have committed crimes, by all means remove them - I don't care what party they are from. I have yet to be convinced of that. And you're certainly not helping in that effort.
DLET: The AG doesn't make the final determination of legality - courts do. You think you've been spied on? Bring a suit.
Kindness: Re: the topic of this tread - an oath was unnecessary. If he lies, the penalty is the same either way. I think they should have put him under oath, but there is no need to waste time going over and over it.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pmThe next time I ever have to appear before a judge or I am asked to take an oath, I'm going to say "why do I need to? Our Government doesn't seem to so why should I, you can take me at my word."
I bet that will go over really well.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:38 pmSpudge: A.) I'm not not solidly aligned to any one party. Sorry man, I'm just not. B.) Electronic voting is accurate - but I'll agree that it could use some more work. I'm involved with the VerfiedVoting initiate. I recommend you check it out. c.) Have you put YOUR ass on the line for the country? I'll admit I have not. Will you?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:41 pmand 70: no no no. completely untrue. come on bud, do you really believe all the elections are rigged? i mean really?
No, not all of them. But enough to keep the Republicans in the White House and as the majority party in Congress.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:41 pmSo now we dont have to take oaths for Truth?
Why even have a Hearing?
Didnt mr gonzales give an oath when he got the AG job?
Didnt bush also give an Oath when he became presi-dense?
So we are telling the People of the World, now, that its OK for the President, the congress, and the Attorney General that Its OK to lie?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:41 pmWell, since that is the topic of this thread and something we want to discuss, you are welcome to go to another thread.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:42 pmBecause a Fasist government is one that does not allow to be checked. It is deemed that it is the SUPREME power and no one else can tell them anything about what they want to do.
Since KING Bush has PROVEN to be doing this very thing, and Gonzi is supporting it 1000, this puts him in that very catagory.
I am grown up... Your the one who comes on here and attackes people. You and your hatred. You don't debate you call names and perform child like stunts. Case in point:
February 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pm"If you think it’s not, SAY IT YOU SAP-ASSED SON OF A BITCH. I’m fed up with your whining on and on about tertiary issues and ignoring the big ones."
You sure post like a republican stooge.
I work IN the technology industry. COmputers cannot be trusted. Period.
I am a veteran of Operation Desert Storm.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pmOkay Fine Mr Bush, everytime I get on the Phone, I will speak your code words of Death and Destruction, and then if you ask what Im doing, I will say, so what if I lied?
You Lied, why cant I Lie?
If congress Lies, why cant I lie?
If Politicians lie and mislead
why cant I lie and mislead?
Its OKAY for you to Lie, so Lets ALL LIE.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:45 pmwe can be the Nation of Liars and Lawlessness
Spudge, I can't believe you even responded to that condescending tripe.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pmWayne (#11) Your argument is irrefutable. Any nutcase who takes issue with it and rationalizes a waiving of the oath cannot possibly be taken seriously. When Bush testified with Big Dick and didn't take the oath, the whole country should have realized the extent of the deceit, but of course almost nobody noticed.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:46 pmfly-man,
True that.
Tripe. Mmmmmmm.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pmTo me this is huge. Gonzales had the balls to lie about the hypothetical when u knew all along what was going on. he only approved it. The left needs to raise hell if we can't get these guys under oath.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pmJudd - Can you contact me offline via my email to discuss this? I have some other questions.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm#90
February 6th, 2006 at 12:49 pmThat's the whole point no one knows but the people that do the spying. Oversight by the courts is needed to protect the people and that is why when the prez says he will do it without legal authorization it's a problem...a huge problem.
Sen. Sessions and AG Gonzales all but had a masterbatory exchange.
Sen. Sessions:I like you.lol
AG Gonzales:Thank you Sen. Yes, I do too.
Sen. Sessions:You da a good job
AG Gonzales:Thank you Se. I agree.
Ugggggggggggh
Makes me sick.
Sen. Sessions all but gave him a hand(job) for being such a good and fine Attorney General. Everythings gonna B ok with those two. But what about our Constitutional Rights?
I've been steaming from Yahoo.com VIDEO
February 6th, 2006 at 12:50 pmSpudge: I genuinely thank you for your service. I really do. I dont think it gives you a monopoly on the opinion here, but it does give you insight that non-veterans like myself do not have.
You post like a democrat stooge. Do you hear me running you down for that?
RemoveBush: I apologize for losing my cool. Second, that's not an accurate definition of fascism, not even close. There are opportunites for dissent in the US, very very protected dissent at that. You can say what you want and you WILL NOT end up in jail, in a gulag, etc. Fascism, at least the short definition, is state control over all aspects of life: political, cultural, economic, etc. I hardly think that's the case here.
If the Democratic party would run a reasonable candidate, THEY WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY IN 2008. I don't think that's possible, with Dean at the helm.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:51 pmGo Spudge!
Hell, SPudge is a Computer Guy, I can tell by what he says, I know Computers as well.
If a Person makes it A person canhack it.
Besides that the HACK has beem demonstarted on the Diebold Machines.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:52 pmWhy is it so easy to hack?
Because the Machines are WIndows CE based.
And we ALL know Windows has a Terrible Security Record.
#90
February 6th, 2006 at 12:53 pmalso the AG can make or break a case and if he was part of the group that said this is legal for the prez to do and he is now in this position to basically scuttle any investigation, that doesn't raise any red flags for you?
RemoveBush: Can you tell me why the AG is a facist? If not, I’m afraid you are just like the dipshit that stood up and yelled.
If he stood and Yelled Privitization!
wouldnt that be the Same thing?
Yuppers
February 6th, 2006 at 12:55 pmOn an earlier post I attempted to give Arlen Specter a modicum of credit for at least saying on "Meet the Press" that Bushiva had some explaining to do...
...yet this lock-step al Cracker republiscum Bushite inbred and his criminal co-conspirators Hatch, Grassley et al. managed to destroy the scintilla of integrity I was willing to ascribe to this inquiry by NOT requiring Gonzales to be sworn, and refusing to allow into evidence the video of Bushiva's 2004 speechifying- where he described, "any wiretapping of terrorists requires a warrant"...
"By...by the way nothing's changed, any surveillance we're doing ...we're getting warrants for," Bushiva lies...
These "hearings" are the republiscum sending a message to their inbred base:
"Bushiva is our god, whose only wish is to keep us all safe from harm. The Democrats only want to make our god Bushiva look like a demon. This (hearing) is necessary to expose the Democrats for the Bush-hating, unAmerican partisans they are."
The Democrat's mistake was not standing up and walking out the minute that vote to not swear Gonzales in took place...
The republiscum have NO interest in preserving America's core democratic principles or protecting the people...
Their sole interest is in making their god Bushiva look all powerful and reverent, while maintaining political/corporate/military power and their WASP male privilege at home and abroad...
The only way they can be thwarted- and the vision of "a more perfect Union" preserved- is the working poor/middle class masses and WASP females have to unite in the '06 elections to take back the House and Senate...
Otherwise, Germany 1933'ish...
February 6th, 2006 at 12:55 pmtotally off topic but worth a read and watch this State bush has been to MN 17 times watch Diebold flip MN to republicans:
President Bush is visiting Minnesota for the 17th time of his presidency, USA Today reports. "A state with a rich Democratic tradition, Minnesota has seen Republican growth in recent years and is now one of the nation's most contested political states."
February 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pmThis should be relatively easy to get past....Simply ask him a question that possibly might invoke an answer different from those that he has already testified to under oath. When the answer comes back different...the follow up question will be..so Mr. Gonzales..on such and such a date you said ..... but today you said...... now my question is..... were you lying to us then or are you lying to us today.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pm108: Youre right, no doubt. But isnt that the system we have here? Why would an AG of the same party try and sabotage a program he feels is vital to national security? He wouldn't - regardless of the party in power.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pmI never said I had a monopoly here. It is you that came here and told us all to stop talking about what we are interested in discussing. If you don't want to debate this issue, which is the fact that Alberto Gonzales did not swear an oath to tell the truth, you are welcome to go to a different thread where other topics are being discussed.
Once again, I am just pointing out your lies. You said you weren't a republican, but then post comments like this:
You are the one who lied and said you were not republican. It is not my fault that you can't keep yourself from lying, just like Bush and Gonzales. It is written into your DNA.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#133
February 6th, 2006 at 1:00 pmBecause as AG it is his responsibilty to uphold the law...not interject his beliefs. If the law is changed to what he believes then he can fell warm and fuzzy.
Haha what about this:
PS. The GOP backs it up - they win elections.
makes ME a republican? I'm just stating an observation. Come on man.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe Bush neo-cons want to destroy the government, and create a Ownership society. Fascism. Call it Privatization. Whatever.
Now where does this come from? mainly thru the Reconstrucionist Groups (neo-cons) whom want to Abolish Min wage, to abolish social security, to create poor farms, to allow Business to run amok with no oversite.
Thats Reconstructionist, or Privatization, or Fascism.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe haters of Humanity the Bush White House
February 6th, 2006 at 1:03 pmGonzales Not Sworn In During Surveillance Hearings...
This independent voter has the same reaction as our reader "Elrod" who left a comment under another post and says it better than we could:Just curious but why did [Senator Arlen] Specter insist that [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzalez not b......
February 6th, 2006 at 1:03 pm"RemoveBush: I apologize for losing my cool."
Apology accepted, but lets try to hold debates.
"Second, that’s not an accurate definition of fascism, not even close."
Actually, it is pretty close. Have you seen the latest Patriot Act? It does just this and every day we are closer and closer to this, so by saying our President is a Facists is not completely false. I don't know how old you are, but when in your lifetime was the last time that a president did as much that this one has and has gotten away with it? I can bet that if any other president was to try 1/1000 of the crap this president did, congress would have impeached them.
This is a solid and direct indication that our liberties and the constitution is going by the wayside. When a president and anyone in his Administration can do anything they want, un-challenged, and not be held accountable or allowed to be put under oath is walking that line of Facism.
Would you not agree? Since you say that you don't belong to a party, and by the way neither do I, what comments can you give to support ALL of the ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL things this president has done?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#107 - CORRECT. And like I posted on a different thread, Diebold is out in TN. Much like in NC, the Diebold scums came over here and acted like the trash they are.
Management came over and basically said they don't and won't back up the system with paper. We proved to them that it is EASY to hack and their reply - trust us. Sound familiar?
Well, TN doesn't trust them - BYE!
February 6th, 2006 at 1:03 pmThe spy hearings, take four...
By way of background, keep in mind that while AG Gonzales has come before the Senate Intelligence committee today (though not under oath...)...
February 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pmFascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II.
Authoritarian=Unitary executive= Above the LAW
February 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pmERGO FASCISM
Gonzales is a war criminal. He has more blood on his hands than the animals in our military.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:08 pmCan we agree on that TERM of Fascism?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:10 pmFascism, at least the short definition, is state control over all aspects of life: political, cultural, economic, etc. I hardly think that’s the case here.
Comment by Chase #106
Chasingyourowna*s,
In Bushiva's FACIST world:
Political fascism:
Real warriors who are members of the opposition have their service (in combat), and in the case of one former Democrat senator who lost limbs in Vietnam was - when running against now republiscum Senator Saxby Chambliss- publicly humiliated (by having his photo superimposed with a photo of Osama bin Laden in a tv add)...
John Kerry was "swift boated" with lies...
...all for a desserter...
Economic fscism:
poor/middle class working families are hit with the largest regressive taxes (while the Bushite administration crows about tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy)...
what "regressive" taxes? Go to your grocery store, heat your home, fill up your gas tank, ask your local school board how they're doing budget wise, buy medicine, look at your 401k (if you're lucky enough to even be able to afford one...
Cultural:
...you republiscum are like the pig squealing aliens in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", say something against your god Bushiva and his war and you're labeled a 'terrorist sympathizer", rail against corporate welfare and you're a lowlife moocher, speak out against economic disparity and inequity and you're a leftist socialist pinko communist...
You freakin' inbred retards have no idea what you're supporting, do you Chasinyourowna*s?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pmIf you can't see how that makes you look like a republican hack to everybody who reads it, that is your problem to deal with. If you want people to think you are non-partisan, stop posting like you are a republican.
Now get on topic or leave.
Why don't you think Alberto Gonzales should have to testify under oath.
Here is why I think he should have to:
Because he is a lying sack of shit and I want him to get the book thrown at him for perjury.
Your turn.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pmYeh thats what I thought.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pmIn their Zeal for power and control the pro-bush folks have created, inadvertently perhaps, a very undemocratic situation.
Oh and on the Diebold thing. California is refusing to certify them here also. Not that any of the other machines are trust worthy, but I feel a tiny bit better knowing Diebold won't be one of them.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pmWhoa!
This new system of verifying posts is causing a huge snafu, sorry about the multiple repetitive postings...
February 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pm#Oh and on the Diebold thing. California is refusing to certify them here also. Not that any of the other machines are trust worthy, but I feel a tiny bit better knowing Diebold won’t be one of them.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 6, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Same here, they are Terrible machines.
you would think they would go with a Unix based system, or one of its derivatives.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:17 pmThe 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
by Dr. Lawrence Britt
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14-defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. - Check this one is occuring continually
2. Disdain for
the Recognition of Human Rights -
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. Check ( see abu Grhaib, see how we send prisoners to secret prisons etc...)
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats
as a Unifying Cause -
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. - Check (democrats, Arabs, feminists, the ACLU etc...)
4. Supremacy of the Military -
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. Check, duh.
5. Rampant Sexism -
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. Check, though they have token women I don't think there is a single female who makes any substantive contributions to policy. Rice fills a position and makes no policy.
6. Controlled Mass Media -
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. - Check contrary to belief the media is primarily a conservative media, though opnly FOX & Talk Radio appear to be outwardly controlled by the republican party.
7. Obsession with National Security -
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. - Check, their whole selling point period.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. Tough one, not. Big check here.
9. Corporate Power is Protected -
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. Check, once again...duh!
10. Labor Power is Suppressed -
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. Check, this adminstration loves entities and dislikes the workers. Example they love the military, yet seem to treat soldiers with disrespect.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. - Check, lets monitor classrooms for politically correct conservative content. Or Lynne Cheany and her bad professors list (think I forgot Lynne?)
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. - Unless it is the crimes they commit.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. Check - heck of a job...fill in the blank
14. Fraudulent Elections -
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. - Check. Just read the FEC reports before you say bullshit on this one.
That pretty much defines fascism.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pmRemoveBush said for me: if our leaders don't have to testify under oath, then neither should anyone else have to.
Chase (I think it was you; too many posts to make sure. Sorry if I'm wrong): if one were to testify under oath, they could be charged with perjury (sp? too tired to look up). On the ethical, moral, and politically correct perspective, wouldn't it have been a bonus had AG insisted he testify under oath so as to give ALL the American People some measure (even if it is scant) of peace of mind that this administration is on solid ground?
I mean, come on! The 'misrepresentations' are too numerous to count now. There's alot of us who are not believing what they're saying! And why should we be blamed for that? If I misled you on several different occasions; occasions in which endangered your life, would you trust me?
As to political victory, wouldn't you say that a significant factor involves funding? It has also been shown that the Diebold Machines can be manipulated without detection, especially since there is no paper trail. Would you find it frustrating if the IRS told you that you owed thousands of dollars more than what you thought you did, yet you did not have the paperwork to prove it, thus you were responsible? Gore one the 2000 election. The Supreme Court and the Senate let him down. Kerry won the 2004 election due to Ohio election irregularities and many thousands of voter being disenfranchised from (primarily) Ohio and Florida.
The Republicans legislators have won by negative campaigning and smear tactics. With that said, it doesn't say much for our society/nation, does it? That there is a significant number of Americans that buy into that; it really isn't pretty.
So maybe, then, we shouldn't be surprised by this travesty. Lobbyists will steal, and our Congressmen will coerce to obtain the financial favors. Maybe the Democrats didn't win because most of them had some measure of integrity. Silly them, right? They lost, nanner, nanner, nanner.
So goes the baby out with the bathwater. Enough said...for now.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:19 pmmr ho,
You hear Google is going to release a Linux distro of its own?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:21 pm[...] Watch Swearing In [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 1:25 pmThat pretty much defines fascism.
Comment by Mark — February 6, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Well, thats a long version, but we seem to agree upon it.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:27 pmAnd can we now agree its not good for democracy?
#mr ho,
You hear Google is going to release a Linux distro of its own?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 6, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Nope hadnt heard that one, sounds interesting..got a link?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:28 pmmr ho,
What's the matter, can't Google it?
Sorry, I just had to.
Here's one for ya.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_linux/
February 6th, 2006 at 1:31 pmI was reading about fascism in history.
Arresting and detaing without legal defense
Torture
Spying
Invasion and Occupation of soveirgn countries
Propaganda
Eliminating rights for National Security
Etc.
The last fews years of American history...
February 6th, 2006 at 1:32 pmWhat a travesty.
Apparently, Pres Bush isn't the only one in this administration who is above the law.
His minions and foot soldiers get a free pass too.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:37 pmThe Republicans legislators have won by negative campaigning and smear tactics. With that said, it doesn’t say much for our society/nation, does it? That there is a significant number of Americans that buy into that; it really isn’t pretty.
So maybe, then, we shouldn’t be surprised by this travesty. Lobbyists will steal, and our Congressmen will coerce to obtain the financial favors. Maybe the Democrats didn’t win because most of them had some measure of integrity. Silly them, right? They lost, nanner, nanner, nanner.
So goes the baby out with the bathwater. Enough said…for now.
Comment by Lisa — February 6, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Hmm Well after seeing many of the Democratic Senators, such as the 'Cloture crowd', I wonder how many have integrity.
Kenndey is interested in Self-Protectionism, as are many of them. Heck Kennedy says "we shouldnt Impeach" then he and leahy file this resolution, then they dont make him take an oath...
I feel like Im watching 'As the Stomach Turns' or some other really poorly written and acted Soap Opera.
#
mr ho,
What’s the matter, can’t Google it?
Sorry, I just had to.
Here’s one for ya.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/ 2006/ 01/ 31/ google_goes_desktop_linux/
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 6, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Umm, sorry, was reading some other stuff..thanks for the Link.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pmI guess I could come up with a excuse, perhaps
I never took an oath to use google..
But that would be lame..=)
Kudos Spudge.
I was giving you a typical troll answer. But it fit good, since we were talking about Google. :)
February 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pmmr ho is gonna eat and take dog for a walk.
BBL
Saper Aude
February 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pmWOAH
Go Russ!
February 6th, 2006 at 1:48 pmYou got to be kidding!? He lies under oath previously to Congress, so now they let it go? Meanwhile US soldiers are putting their lives on the line.
Exactly how many Democrats are there on this ersatz committee?
Do you think they could just get up, walk out, and tell the media on the steps of Congress that "hey, we will not endorse this travesty unless he goes under oath".
When, oh when, are Democrats going to learn to stand for something, refuse crap and kick some political heads. It's sure as hell what the GOP is doing.
This is boloney.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pmjust another dog and pony show.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:00 pmthere can be no other explanation for not wanting to question him under oath other than wanting to give him license to lie...
February 6th, 2006 at 2:11 pmSomeone please explain to me why *anyone* testifying before the Senate should *ever* NOT be under oath?
GOP == "Right To Li
February 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pmfe"The following comments are ALL premised upon proper legal authority and in compliance with the law.
Impeachment for these people is not enough. They have committed unspeakable crimes such as murder, overthrowing or attempting to overthrow democratically elected govts (Venezuela, Haiti) as well as kidnapping, torture, etc...
EVERY single Bush administration official who participated in these atrocities, upon proper legal conviction (The Haig or an American Court) should be thrown in jail for life. As a supporter of capital punishment, I will go on the record as saying that EACH of them, again upon proper legal conviction, should be executed. But if you oppose capital punishment, then nothing less than life imprisonment should be it. Enough is enough, it is time to bring charges.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pm#150 - All but one line is completely accurate. "Impeachment for these people is not enough."
Unfortunately, these people MUST be impeached in order to be tried. It is writen in the constitution that this is the only means by which the president, vice president, and so on can be tried.
So before a criminal case can be brought about, we must impeach them first. Then we can execute criminal actions against them.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:32 pmBush has proven he doesn't have to follow any laws if they seem too pesky.
The Bush republicans have proven they don't have to follow any laws if they seem too pesky.
Gonzales has proven that he doesn't have to follow any laws if they seem too pesky.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:39 pmSen. Leahy
"Oh, I forgot. You can't answer any questions that are relevant to this hearing."
Total Burn
February 6th, 2006 at 3:05 pmWatched the Judiciary Committee on C-SPAN this morning. My suggestion to the RNC....
February 6th, 2006 at 3:50 pmRe-play over and ...over the "questions" of Sens. Leahy, Kennedy, Biden and Kohl. (Those POMPOUS windbags making speeches...."I'm sorry, Sen. Kennedy, you "said" alot there"...A. Gonzalez) EACH and EVERY one of those four let the American people know how unimportant their live constituents were - BUT they were very good at letting barbarians know the value of criminal procedure.
Republicans refuse to put Gonzales under oath...
"Yes, lie to us about Bush's domestic spying program, we don't mind."...
February 6th, 2006 at 3:59 pm#11 Wayne, One advantage to working in a very small office with another liberal Democrat is that we can watch C-Span while we work, yell at the TV, and otherwise rant, all while completing company business.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:17 pmBUT, we can't post on Think Progress, so I have to wait until I get home.
AG is refusing to answer anything substantive. Worse, the Reps are actually prompting him with their comments, summarizing what point they want to make, and simply asking him to confirm "Is that correct?" "Yes, Senator."
That is how the questioning has gone all morning on that side.
On the Dems side, there have been some heated exchanges, some direct and pointed questions and challenges; they have all been met with, "I can't answer that here" or "I wasn't there" or any non-answer.
The Dems are all prefacing their comments now with "I expect you'll say you can't answer......."
This is a joke. A travesty of democracy. We are witnessing the demise of the USA as we know it.
Why wouldn't the Attorney General of the United States of America want to testify under oath??? We must ask the right questions...
February 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#133 Mark, And it pretty much defines the Bush administration.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:21 pmIt seems our democratic leadership thinks they are solidly locked into their elected ofiices by virtue of being democrat and not republican.
We need to be letting them know that until some of them step into the arena and start raising absolute hell about the obliteration of our Constitution that they are on notice that they can be replaced just as easily as a crooked republican.
We have to quit spending our time pissing and moaning about what the republicans are doing and start threatening our democrat leaders with their political demise if they don't step up to the plate and fight.
If it comes to the point that we're gonna go down, by God let's go down swinging.
Let's direct our energy where it will do the most good and let our spineless democrat leadership know what we want and we will back them up before it's too late.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:36 pmListening to these hearings is like watching footage of the airplanes crashing into the WTC over and over and over... knowing that it's not an accident, and that not only is there nothing we can do about it but that those who could do something about it are perfectly willing to accept whatever happens because they can spin it in a way that helps them politically. Noticing isn't cynical, by the way, and pointing it out isn't cynical. Doing it is cynical.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:37 pm#156 Marie,
Maybe the next time the AG says he "can't" answer the question, the Dems should interrupt him and ask, "'Can't' or 'Won't'?" Let General Gonzalez get pissed if he wants to, but his "inablility" (i.e. "refusal") to answer simple questions does make a mockery of the entire congressional oversight function.
I wish the Republican senators on the committee would understand that this administration is doing everything they can to make the Legislative Branch irrelevant, and unless they stand up to them and demand answers instead of stonewalling, they might as well adjourn the whole Congress and go home to their families, because they ain't doing us any good. (For crying out loud, the president is signing bills and simultaneously making statements that he won't follow the law he just signed if he doesn't want to.)
February 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pm"Gonzales didn’t testify under oath in case there was a real investigation in 2007. It’s a CYA move so he won’t get Libby’d for perjury. His lies aren’t under oath, so they can’t be treated as a crime."
Absolutely correct. Gonzales and the rubberstamping Congressional Republicans know this. They've got each other's backs. That's how the Republican Syndicate operates.
"The oath issue - how unimportant is that, really? " Obviouisly not important at all to Republicans. We've heard nothing but lies from Bush-Republicans for 5 years, why would put this AG in the uncomfortable position of telling the truth now?
I just love the precedents these Republicans are creating....when we finally take back Congress in 2006, we'll remember the new rules and use them to our advantage.
February 6th, 2006 at 6:14 pm[...] How far have we fallen? This has happened twice recently, once when the oil executives, who anyone with an IQ over 100 knows are gouging us, and now the Attorney General of the United States, about the fact they’re spying on us in violation of law. [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 6:40 pmWhat are the legal ramifications if Gonzalez is proven to have lied during today's testimony? Anything?
February 6th, 2006 at 8:09 pm[...] Clinton was a liar my ass. We put him under oath for extramarital affairs, but we refuse to put oil executives , who are talking about stealing billions of dollars from us, (hey Republicans, get your tax break there instead of from schools and medicare). We refuse to even swear in the Attorney General while he defends a program that may be breaking the law. And check out this diddy. [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 9:15 pmUhh, uhhh, uhh, I think a fast one has just been pulled over us! Is there a precedent for this crap?
February 6th, 2006 at 9:36 pm[...] So former Enron lawyer and current torture-supporting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended today the Shrubman's unconstitutional domestic spying activities in front to the Senate Commitee for "the Truth and nothing but the Truth" and did not even have to say "I do." Swear, that is. To tell the truth. The Republican Senators all smiled and said "Aww, C'mon, he's a nice kid. He'll tell the truth. Look at him - does he look like he could tell a fib? Naaahh!!" So they did not swear in the guy, but he still got a bit of a grilling from some of the Senators. And, of course it's still not Ok for him to lie to Congress. But they should have made him put his hand on the freakin' HoLY BIBLE and SAY IT: I swear! Yeah, right, Alberto Just-don't-torture-me Gonzales. Posted on Feb 07, 06 | 2:07 am | [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 9:39 pmHonestly, in a just world, Spectre would be arrested for obstruction of justice. I may not be able to prove conclusively that he's a criminal, unlike most Republicans, but he's certainly an enabler of them, and guilty of aiding and abetting.
We need Gonzalez under oath, so the second he conclusively lies he can be slapped in irons and tossed in a cell to rot until he's willing to squeal on his boss.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:49 pm[...] VIDEO: Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath « FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS: Locations and Executive Orders Italian Priest Wants Jackson on CD » [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 10:25 pmThe consequences for testifying under oath must be alot harsher than just lying to the American People. Religion, anyone?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:14 pm[...] Think Progress has the video. [...]
February 6th, 2006 at 11:53 pmWhat I want to know is, where are all the terrorists they have arrested in the four years since they started wiretapping. Could it be possible they haven't bothered to pick any of them up, just like the two who were on the plane that hit the Pentagon. Or - perish the thought - is it possible they actually haven't identified any al Quida yet, or then again they could be the victims of rendition.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:06 amWould we believe them anyway, even if they told us.
Those who doubt that the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team will attack Iran, while so conspicuously overextended in Iraq, are ignoring the subtleties of the administration’s Middle East strategy.
Bush has no intention of occupying Iran. Rather, the goal is to destroy major weapons-sites, destabilize the regime, and occupy a sliver of land on the Iraqi border that contains 90% of Iran’s oil wealth. Ultimately, Washington will aim to replace the Mullahs with American-friendly clients who can police their own people and fabricate the appearance of representative government. But, that will have to wait. For now, the administration must prevent the incipient Iran bourse (oil-exchange) from opening in March and precipitating a global sell-off of the debt-ridden dollar. There have many fine articles written about the proposed “euro-based†bourse and the devastating effects it will have on the greenback. The best of these are “Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar†by William R. Clark, and “The Proposed Oil Bourse†by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
The bottom line on the bourse is this; the dollar is underwritten by a national debt that now exceeds $8 trillion dollars and trade deficits that surpass $600 billion per year. That means that the greenback is the greatest swindle in the history of mankind. It’s utterly worthless. The only thing that keeps the dollar afloat is that oil is traded exclusively in greenbacks rather than some other currency. If Iran is able to smash that monopoly by trading in petro-euros then the world’s central banks will dump the greenback overnight, sending markets crashing and the US economy into a downward spiral.
The Bush administration has no intention of allowing that to take place. In fact, as the tax-cuts and the budget deficits indicate, the Bush cabal fully intends to perpetuate the system that trades worthless dollars for valuable commodities, labor, and resources. As long as the oil market is married to the dollar, this system of global indentured servitude will continue.
Battle Plans
The Bush administration’s attention has shifted to a small province in southwestern Iran that is unknown to most Americans. Never the less, Khuzestan will become the next front in the war on terror and the lynchpin for prevailing in the global resource war. If the Bush administration can sweep into the region (under the pretext disarming Iran’s nuclear programs) and put Iran’s prodigious oil wealth under US control, the dream of monopolizing Middle East oil will have been achieved.
Not surprisingly, this was Saddam Hussein’s strategy in 1980 when he initiated hostilities against Iran in a war that would last for eight years. Saddam was an American client at the time, so it is likely that he got the green light for the invasion from the Reagan White House. Many of Reagan’s high-ranking officials currently serve in the Bush administration; notably Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Khuzestan represents 90% of Iran’s oil production. The control over these massive fields will force the oil-dependent nations of China, Japan and India to continue to stockpile greenbacks despite the currency’s dubious value. The annexing of Khuzestan will prevent Iran’s bourse from opening, thereby guaranteeing that the dollar will maintain its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency. As long as the dollar reigns supreme and western elites have their hands on the Middle East oil-spigot, the current system of exploitation through debt will continue into perpetuity. The administration can confidently prolong its colossal deficits without fear of a plummeting dollar. In fact, the American war-machine and all its various appendages, from Guantanamo to Abrams Tanks, are paid for by the myriad nations who willingly hold reserves of American currency.
This extortion-scheme is typically referred to as the global economic system. In reality, it has nothing to do with either free markets or capitalism. That is just philosophical mumbo-jumbo. It is the dollar-system; predicated entirely on the ongoing monopoly of the oil trade in dollars.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:59 amThis is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.
You can say that again, Arlen. Why are you shocked that the Dems would find it fishy that one swears in baseball players but not AG's and price gouging oil executives?...
February 7th, 2006 at 11:47 amThis is utterly unbelieveable. Why didn't the Democratic members just walk out. If Gonzales had nothing to hide, why not swear him in---not that it would keep him from lying anyway.
Heck, Mickey G., if there is a hell, these guys alreadfy had space reserved. Why should they care?
February 7th, 2006 at 5:40 pm"in a democracy...you can be spectators but not participants"
-the Chomskie
Tell them they are fascists! Yell at that TV!
SLEEPERS AWAKE
February 7th, 2006 at 5:54 pmSham hearings, sham government...
Monday wasn't a good day for democracy. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did anything but, revealing the proceedings to be a...
February 7th, 2006 at 7:05 pmIf Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is not obligated to testify under Oath, then how do we know he is telling the Truth?? And the question must be asked, "Why is he not made to testify under Oath?? Sounds dishonest to me. Does that mean we are to infer/imply that Attorney General Gonzales is not telling the Truth and was counseled not to testify under Oath as a coverup??? This is just as inexcusable as the issue itself, "not going through the "secretive" FISA Court to obtain warranted domestic surveillance because this method would be "exposed" to the Terrorists. May we examine this strange rationale?????
February 7th, 2006 at 9:33 pmThe very fact that Arlen Specter is presiding over any type of Judiciary Committee is a joke. Can anyone say 'magic bullet theory?' Being from Texas, I can attest to Cornyn's status as village idiot. All he will ever do is tow the party line. Whether the man actually has a brain is debatable. And of course, AG Alberto. How clever of him to use Washington's name to justify criminality. I am sure the redneck conservative base is going around telling liberals that even George Washington would approve of wiretapping.
February 8th, 2006 at 9:34 am[...] “Whatever the limits of the president’s authority given under the authorization of the use of military force and his inherent authority as commander in chief in a time of war, it clearly includes the electronic surveillance of the enemy,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), while speaking (not under oath) on Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. [...]
February 8th, 2006 at 10:16 am[...] Unfortunately, Gonzales wasn’t interested in answering it when he spoke — amazingly, not under oath — to the committee. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Attorney general, I understand. I was here when that attack happened, and I join with Republicans and Democrats and virtually every member of this Congress to try to give you the tools that you said you needed for us to go after Al-Qaeda, and especially to go after Osama bin Laden, the man that we all understood masterminded the attack, the man who is still at large. Now, back to my question, did you come to the conclusion that you had to have this warrantless wiretapping of Americans inside the United States to protect us before the president signed the resolution on September 18, 2001? You were the White House counsel at the time. [...]
February 8th, 2006 at 10:22 amSeeing this should hammer home the fact that the Dems need to win the mid-term elections if for nothing else to get subpeona power. See how these asshole Repugs like getting grilled under oath like they did to President Clinton.
February 9th, 2006 at 1:08 am[...] This wouldn’t be the first time Gonzales has misled the Judiciary Committee about the program. Perhaps, Gonzales needs to return to the committee to clarify his answers – this time, under oath. [...]
February 9th, 2006 at 10:59 am[...] This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing. [...]
February 9th, 2006 at 11:02 am[...] You know, I was thinking, and in the time it took them to argue about swearing in Alberto Gonzales, they probably could’ve actually sworn him in like three times. The lunatics are definitely running the asylum. [...]
February 9th, 2006 at 11:12 am[...] Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez sent the Senate Judiciary Committe a letter yesterday to “clarify” his testimony — you remember, when the committee’s Republicans voted not to swear him in — from last month. It’s a fantastic legalistic way of lying to Congress and the American people. Gonzales appeared to suggest yesterday that the Bush administration’s warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that the president acknowledged in mid-December. [...]
March 2nd, 2006 at 8:02 pm[...] last year, Gonzales testified before the Senate, and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee refused to put him under oath. As it turns out, much of Gonzales’ testimony was [...]
March 21st, 2007 at 10:05 pm