Conservatives Refuse To Appear On Fox News To Publicly Defend Gonzales
Conservatives Refuse To Appear On Fox News To Publicly Defend Gonzales
On Fox News Sunday this morning, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) refused to defend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against accusations that he may have perjured himself before Congress. “It’s very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question,” said Gingrich. He continued:
Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.
Later in the show, host Chris Wallace revealed that no conservative would willingly defend Gonzales on Fox. “By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,” said Wallace. “We had no takers.” Watch it:
The efforts of right-wingers to distance themselves from Gonzales have reached a fever pitch in the wake of his disastrous Senate testimony last week.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), appearing on ABC’s This Week, said “of course” Gonzales has a credibility problem. On MSNBC’s Hardball on Friday, Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT), the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, squirmed when asked by host Chris Matthews if he thought Gonzales “is a good attorney general?” Cannon refused to answer the question, offering instead, “He’s a good guy.”
National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, a reliable partisan defender of the Bush administration, admitted on Thursday that the evidence against Gonzales is compelling. “I think Gonzales has long, long, long outserved whatever usefulness he might once have had,” wrote Goldberg. “And — hey — maybe he actually did perjure himself.”
If Solicitor General Paul Clement fails to appoint a special counsel to look into Gonzales’ “words and deeds,” the New York Times writes today, “Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
120 Responses to “Conservatives Refuse To Appear On Fox News To Publicly Defend Gonzales”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis is this week's FOX Democrat. Shame on him.
July 29th, 2007 at 10:58 amThe Republicans will support Gonzales and Bush where it counts, however. They will block his impeachment and/or removal.
This is the Republican Party's choice for America. Denying justice and boycotting the Special Olympics.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:01 amwell, I'm shocked! the thugh agree that the sky is, indeed, blue.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:02 amBut they'll defend him on the floor of the house and senate and in the committee rooms which is where it really counts.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:05 amCorrected: Well, I’m shocked! the Thugs agree that the sky is, indeed, blue.
Comment by Marcus Aruelius — July 29, 2007 @ 11:02 am
July 29th, 2007 at 11:07 amIf you notice, these republicans who have new found ethics are helping Bush skirt all the blame to Gonzo as if he is the currator of this crap. The truth is, when Bush gets caught, someone else is to blame, all the while he still insists that his little buddy is fine. Talk about circular reasoning.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:12 amI would rather they prosecute Gonzalez for perjury, but I'll take impeachment if that is the only possibility. An impeachment hearing could be quite revealing. I'm fairly sure that Bush will not be able to declare Executive Privilege when it comes to impeaching Gonzalez.
One way or another, I want to force the Republicans to vote on Gonzales.
I predict that Gonzalez will quit during the August recess and that Bush makes a recess appointment for his position. That's why I think it will be to the ever lasting shame of the Democrats if they leave town for a month. They are on a roll right now and if they leave for a month, they will lose their momentum and give Bush the opportunity to slide out of his Attorney General problem.
Write or call your representatives and demand that they stay in Washington for August and complete the business at hand.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:12 amPresident Bush said the United States does not torture prisoners, commenting after Vice President Dick Cheney embraced the suggestion that a dunk in water might be useful to get terrorist suspects to talk.
WATERBOARDING:
Waterboarding is a type of torture used in coercive interrogations or for punishment. The modern form of the practice simulates drowning and produces a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his or her death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
TORTURE:
The word torture is commonly used to mean the infliction of pain to break the will of the victim or victims. Any act by which severe pain, whether physical or psychological, is intentionally inflicted on a person as a means of intimidation, deterrence, revenge, punishment, sadism, information gathering, or to obtain false confessions for propaganda or political purposes may be called torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
ORWELLIAN:
The term "Orwellian" usually refers to one or more of the following:
Manipulation of language for political ends. Most significantly by introducing to words meanings in opposition to their denotative meanings.
Invasion by the state of personal privacy, whether physically or by means of surveillance.
The total control of daily life by the state, as in a "Big Brother" society.
Active encouragement by the state of "doublethink," whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent.
The denial or rewriting of past events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian
July 29th, 2007 at 11:13 amhttp://www.warcrimeswatch.org
Published on Friday, November 3, 2006 by The Nation
War Criminals, Beware
by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith
On November 14 a group of lawyers and other experts will come before the German federal prosecutor and ask him to open a criminal investigation targeting Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales and other key Bush Administration figures for war crimes. The recent passage of the Military Commissions Act provides a central argument for the legal action, under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction: It demonstrates the intent of the Bush Administration to immunize itself legally from prosecution in the United States, even for the most serious crimes.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, which the President promoted and recently signed into law, provides retroactive immunity for civilians who violated the War Crimes Act, including officials of the Bush Administration. Such an attempt to provide immunity for their crimes, it will be argued, is in itself evidence of an effort to block prosecution of those crimes. Indeed, according to Scott Horton, chair of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association, when Yugoslavia sought to immunize senior government officials, the United States declared the act itself to be evidence of such a conspiracy.
“The United States declared the act itself to be evidence of such a conspiracy.â€
“The United States declared the act itself to be evidence of such a conspiracy.â€
“The United States declared the act itself to be evidence of such a conspiracy.â€
July 29th, 2007 at 11:14 amLast May, Cheney appeared on Larry King. He stepped in it big time, but few people caught it. I alerted Rude Pundit and he wrote about it.
an excerpt:
Then Cheney made this statement: "In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with." So, like, if, in a sense, the Gitmo campers are "prisoners of war," then, in a sense, don't they get Geneva Conventions protections?
Cheney and Gonzales have been playing a semantics game to justify torture, since "war" was never formally declared. It's pretty obvious why they chose to embark upon the path of war without ever formally declaring it - so they could not be held accountable for the War Crimes they knew they'd be committing.
Bush tells us every day that we're at war. Cheney and Gonzales tell us that we're not REALLY at war.
Problem is, Cheney is on tape stating not only that we are at war, but that we are holding "prisoners of war."
The Geneva Conventions DO APPLY, and Cheney is guilty of war Crimes.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0505/30/lkl.01.html
KING: They specifically said, though, it was Guantanamo. They compared it to a gulag.
D. CHENEY: Not true. Guantanamo's been operated, I think, in a very sane and sound fashion by the U.S. military. Remember who's down there. These are people that were picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan and other places in the global war on terror. These are individuals who have been actively involved as the enemy, if you will, trying to kill Americans. That we need to have a place where we can keep them. In a sense, when you're at war, you keep prisoners of war until the war is over with."
So this is the war without end, and these prisoners will be held forever?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
New Yorker
From the article:
Yoo believed that the President's role as Commander-in-Chief gave him virtually unlimited authority to decide whether America should respond militarily to a terror attack, and, if so, what kind of force to use. "Those decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make," he wrote in a law article.
A top Administration official told me that Yoo, Addington, and a few other lawyers had essentially "hijacked policy" after September 11th. "They thought, Now we can put our views into practice. We have the ability to write them into binding law. It was just shocking. These memos were presented as faits accomplis."
In Yoo's opinion, he wrote that at Guantánamo cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of detainees could be authorized, with few restrictions.
"The memo espoused an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the President's Commander-in-Chief authority,"
So this same approach was used across the board. Addington effectively sought to obtain "legal opinions" which were in fact illegal, with the specific intent to provide Bush and Cheney with sufficient legal cover to behave as Dictators and Kings, as there were virtually no laws that applied to them, as determined by edict.
This is where we stand today. There is not one single law that applies to Bush or Cheney. They have found lawyers who were willing to craft opinions stating that they were above the law, and in so doing, have subverted the Constitution of the United States.
This activity was intentional, willful and treasonous.
They were sworn to uphold the constitution.
Given this information, others in a position to do something about it (who also swore under oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC) now have an obligation to fulfill.
They must call for the impeachment of this administration. It is their legal obligation given the evidence before them.
Time to choose sides, folks.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:15 amDid anyone notice this nugget in the New York Times editorial today:
Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
This is the first time I've seen that in print. Of course, it's understood that The Decider doesn't have the wattage to initiate anything, but I've never seen this bit memorialized before.
Did I miss something?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:16 am#
Did anyone notice this nugget in the New York Times editorial today:
Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
This is the first time I’ve seen that in print. Of course, it’s understood that The Decider doesn’t have the wattage to initiate anything, but I’ve never seen this bit memorialized before.
Did I miss something?
Comment by Ninbus — July 29, 2007 @ 11:16 am
That's NEW!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:19 amI predict that Gonzalez will quit during the August recess and that Bush makes a recess appointment for his position.
Comment by bilbobaggins — July 29, 2007 @ 11:12 am
That's the only alternative to continued stonewalling. I wonder if they would still want Gonzo to testify after he's replaced. The only way they can keep a crony as A.G. is the recess appointment.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am"Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping."
It's a reasonable conclusion to draw from Gonzo's testimony this week when he utterly refused to answer who had sent him to the hospital, even when specifically asked whether it had been Bush or Cheney. But, yes, that's the first time I've seen it in print. Somebody knows, and somebody tod the NYT.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:22 amEditorial
Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story
Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: July 29, 2007
President Bush often insists he has to be the decider — ignoring Congress and the public when it comes to the tough matters on war, terrorism and torture, even deciding whether an ordinary man in Florida should be allowed to let his wife die with dignity. Apparently that burden does not apply to the functioning of one of the most vital government agencies, the Justice Department.
Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so — even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing.
Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute.
Both men say that in March 2004 — when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel — the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. Mr. Comey said the White House later modified the eavesdropping program enough for the Justice Department to sign off.
Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over “other intelligence activities.†He declined to say what those were.
Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration’s activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes.
That was plain enough. It confirmed what most people long ago concluded: that Mr. Gonzales is more concerned about doing political-damage control for Mr. Bush — in this case insisting that there was never a Justice Department objection to a clearly illegal program — than in doing his duty. But the White House continued to defend him.
As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different†from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login
July 29th, 2007 at 11:23 amIf you were a Republican with any hope of ever holding elective or appointed office again someday - would you want to be associated in any way with Alberto "Seedy" Gonzales?
The same would apply if you were retiring and wanted to keep your legacy looking good.
Didja notice that lil' George didn't come out publically to defend "Fredo' this time? He let Tony Snow-Job do his dirty work. And look at the reaction he got, even by the attack poodles in the lapdog press.
If you watch Jon Stewart, Jay Leno or any comedian you'll see that Gonzo is a laughingstock. At least half the country is laughing at him.
The other half? They aren't laughing anymore.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:24 amThere are simple legal problems and there are complicated legal problems. Whether Bush can wiretap without obtaining a warrant is a simple legal question that most first-year law students can answer in under an hour. The Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court decisions that have interpreted it prohibit the government from wiretapping without judicial authorization. That is, a law enforcement official has to provide a factual basis that establishes probable cause to believe that a person is committing a crime, and due to the circumstances of the case, a wiretap is the only reasonable way to obtain evidence against that person. In other words, standard investigatory procedures haven't worked. The law enforcement official submits the factual basis in writing under oath. A judge reviews the application and if he or she determines that the affidavit establishes probable cause (which means a reasonable basis to believe that a person is committing a crime), and there is no other way to collect additional evidence, the judge will sign an order authorizing the wiretap. The wiretap authorization always contains an expiration date and the law enforcement people monitoring the wiretap are required to minimize the information gathered. That is, they can record only information that is pertinent to the investigation. The rest has to be deleted from the recording. In other words, wiretaps are kind of a last resort and they are strictly limited in scope.
FISA broadened law enforcement's ability to wiretap, as all of you know. FISA concerns wiretapping for intelligence gathering purposes as opposed to investigating specific criminal activity. The legal standard is the same, however (probable cause), and as you've all read, the government can start the wiretap without obtaining judicial authorization as long as they seek authorization within 72 hours.
There is no other legal authority to wiretap.
Gonzales, Miers, and Ashcroft apparently told Bush that his inherent powers under the Constitution and Congress's authorization to invade Iraq give him legal authority to do anything that he deems necessary to fight the war on terror. They likely based their opinion on Assistant Attorney General Woo's legal opinion that drew that conclusion. However, there is no language in the Constitution or the Congressional authorization that authorizes the President to violate the Constitution or existing laws. Therefore, Woo's argument is as lame as lame can get. The truth of the matter is that this is a no-brainer legal "problem." This is not a matter about which reasonable people can differ, which is why so many conservatives are offended by Bush's attempt to justify the wiretaps. No one in legal circles is buying Woo's non-sensical argument.
This matter illustrates that no matter one's political orientation, everyone must agree to respect the Rule of Law. Society unravels without it, which is why not even the President is above the law.
He has admitted that the Republican controlled Congress would not have passed a law giving him the power to wiretap the way he wants to do it. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Woo, Ashcroft, Miers, and Gonzales should know better. Thirty minutes reviewing legal authorities would have resolved any questions they might have had regarding the legality of Bush's wiretaps. They just told him what he wanted to hear and now they're trying to protect his butt by selling this totally bogus argument politically. They certainly can't sell it to lawyers and judges. That they're willing to sacrifice their reputations by making this ludicrous legal argument says a lot about the kind of people that they are:
WHORES!
Posted by: mason on December 27, 2005 at 12:50pm
July 29th, 2007 at 11:25 amAs far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different†from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.
Here's a fourth possibility. All three are true; He lied, he used a bureaucratic dodge, and there was far more illegal activity, including strictly domestic spying, than they have admitted.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:28 amI'm feeling constant urges to surrender. I was told to come here for some relief.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:29 amIn December 2005, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau broke the story of the Terrorist Surveillance Program for the New York Times. Risen's resulting book, State of War, described a surveillance effort where the National Security Agency "monitor(s) and eavesdrop(s) on large volumes of telephone calls, e-mail messages, and other Internet traffic inside the United States to search for potential evidence of terrorist activity, without search warrants or any new laws that would permit such domestic intelligence collection." Previously, the NSA only eavesdropped on foreign communications. Although the scope of that effort remains unclear, Risen estimated that NSA eavesdrops on "as many as five hundred people in the United States at any given time and it has potentially has access to the phone calls and e-mails of millions more.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:31 amSpying; it's not just for foreigners!
Hatch continued to defend Alberto this morning and then he turned around and blamed the Democrats for creating a witch hunt. There's another clown who should just go away--Hatch.
How can anyone defend the indefensible?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:35 amPresident Bush wants Congress to modernize a law that governs how intelligence agencies monitor the communications of suspected terrorists.
"This law is badly out of date," Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800597.html
More from the same article:
"Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country," Bush said. "Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country."
What bull$hit. They want to do away with FISA. Bush uses the same intelligence he disputed, that al Qaeda is stronger and plotting, to justify his position:
He also cited a recently released intelligence estimate that concluded al-Qaida is using its growing strength in the Middle East to plot attacks on U.S. soil.
He's basically saying that since his policies have left us less safe, he needs to spy on everyone 24/7 to make sure they are not terrorists. What unbelievebale gall these people have.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:38 amHatch continued to defend Alberto this morning and then he turned around and blamed the Democrats for creating a witch hunt. There’s another clown who should just go away–Hatch.
How can anyone defend the indefensible?
Comment by tanglewood — July 29, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Orrin Hatch has always been out front when it comes to the insane policies of the Right winger programs. He is, as his name implies, a hatchet man for the right, and can ALWAYS be depended on to take a partisan political position. He's more predictable than LIEberman.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:41 amGonzales is protecting Bush. I doubt he is that incompetent. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he did if he was a bumbling idiot. He's basically sacrificing his public image for Bush. Like Libby, he feels he's being a good soldier and falling on his sword for some greater good. What motivates these guys? Who knows. I suppose they feel they are part of some moral elite club that has a clear vision of what needs to happen in the country and the world, and that vision takes precedence over law and the opinions of the unwashed masses.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:44 amSorry, Del, but Gonzales wouldn't ahve gotten aas fa as he did if he weren't abumbling idiot. he is just another tool in the fascist, anti-American rightwing toolbox, used to take the country apart and steal everything theu can. Gonzo is good at one thing: getting away with lies and treason.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:50 amGonzales is protecting Bush. I doubt he is that incompetent. He wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did if he was a bumbling idiot.
Although I do agree, I think it is more than incompetence, yet he is a crony appointment, and the only reason he has risen as far as he has is due to the patronage of GW. Now, he has to stay to keep a lid on the truth; he literally knows too much!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:51 am"I doubt he is that incompetent. He wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did if he was a bumbling idiot. "
Yes he would. He has spent the last 13 years as the right hand to the the biggest bumbling idiot on the face of the planet, George Bush.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 amBasically they don't know what to do about Gonzales. He's obviously a loyal apparatchik so getting rid of him his hard but he's clearly lying on tv so at some point there will be a trade off. Is he doing us more harm than good. Overall every time he appears he just erodes their cred another inch . As far as I'm concerned it can go on for the next 18 months death by a thousand cuts.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:52 am#7 I predict that Gonzalez will quit during the August recess and that Bush makes a recess appointment for his position.
Comment by bilbobaggins
I so agree! This is a setup.... BIG TIME!!
As I have said on other threads recently, my prediction is that Rove/Darth will appoint John Yoo, who is even worse than Gonzo; he is much smarter and MUCH moere evil and hates the Constitution, which puts him in good graces with Darh and the rest of the NeoCons.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:54 amRemember the Repubs and neocons all lambasting the Clintonesque "what the definition of 'is' is"?
Now all the defenders of neocon Cheneystan have created such twisted rhetoric that not even they understand it.
They can't even rise to the low level of a Rove slogan to jeer on the Fox fascists. How about "Law? Bushit is the law!"?
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 amCongress is just as much to blame for this disaster of an AG.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:56 amThey voted to confirm Gonzo and they fail to impeach.
I knew the guy isn't qualified to tie his shoes, but congress gave Bush
everyone he wanted. And don't get me going about how inept and unqualified C Rice is for sec of state.
I just had a thought, perhaps not an original one, but I wonder if the records will show that the spying on Americans pre-dates 9/11. That would be powerful incentive to stonewall any investigation, as it totally undermines their tiny bit of remaining credibility.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:00 pmWell, there you have all the cover a normally reticent Democratic Congress might need: a New York Times editorial, no less, ending with the words, "Congress should Impeach Mr. Gonzales".
Your ball, boys and girls!
So you might be thinking, boy, that's pretty much the end of ol' Abu! You'd be wrong. Consider:
At the height of this scandal over inappropriate surveillance programs (in which a goodly chunk of the Jusitice Department threatened to quit), does President Bush come before the public and offer his sincere apologies? Nope. He gets on his radio address, and boldly (!) asks for MORE POWERS TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE ("terra!").
How utterly Rovian. In your FACE, Constitutional wimps!
Now, knowing this is how the bastards operate, picture this scenario:
Congress impeaches Gonzales.
Bush PARDONS Gonzales. But Bush DOES NOT FIRE Gonzales (I'm pretty sure this is all legally possible... if I'm wrong, and we have a legal scholar out there, feel free to shoot me down... but I do think this is more than doable!).
Pure Bush. Pure Rove. IN YOUR FACE.
This is a nightmare.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pmGonzalez should be thrown in prison without trial..
The Constitutional protections guaranteed the Attorney General seem to be little more than "quaint notions"
Probably should water board him too.. For good measure.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:10 pmThe impeachment should start immediately. Right now the Republicans won't defend Fredo on the Sunday Morning Blabber Shows. So force them to defend him during his impeachment and conviction trials. Show the whole country that he rubberstamp Republicans will still carry water for BUsh. Or not. If not, then Gonzo is gone. And if we don't succeed the first time, well double jeopardy doesn't apply for impeachment. Nor does executive privilege. Nor does pardon or veto.
For the good of the country, it is time for the Democrats to stop keeping their powder dry and confront Bush head on. Gonzo MUST GO.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAlberto Gonzales is not stupid at all. Appearing so just helps his cause and that of the President. Plyaing dumb has been a fairly successful strategy for him, too.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pmThis talk about Gonzalez is the bad boy by Republicans is nothing but to suck people's anger; it is nothing but a'pressure relief valve'.
Will Republican Senator Orrin Hatch vote to get vote to impeach Gonzalez,after he said that Gonzalez has a 'credibility problem'?!.The answer is 'no'.
Their hope now is that Gonzalez might resign,because impeaching him will open doors to criticise Bush. Something Republicans in the Senate are not willing to do. As long as Bush keeps him and he is not resigning...all remains just talk.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pmFredo's getting ready to sneak a peek under the bus. Can ya smell the diesel yet, bro?
July 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pm"Alberto Gonzales is not stupid at all. Appearing so just helps his cause and that of the President. Plyaing dumb has been a fairly successful strategy for him, too."
You think that Bush is just playing dumb? He's not that good of an actor.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:22 pmAlberto Gonzales is the one "playing dumb", not Bush.
AG got into Harvard the right way, hard work and brains, not family connections and money. He was one of 8 kids whose Dad was a construction worker in Texas. An intellectually lazy person could never have done this.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pmGonzales, like Rove, is described as a trusted advisor to the President. They come from the Austin Gang - Miers, Hughes, Gonzales, Rove. These are all people who have served a particular function meant to protect the boy genius. Gonzales began with the duty to keep Bush off a jury, where his DUI would have become public knowledge. Harriet Miers was in charge of protecting Bush's finances. Rove knows where all the bodies are buried - he put them there on the president's behalf.
Gang is absolutely the right term for this group. Their job is not to serve the president, not to advise the president, but ultimately, to protect the president. And charged with that high duty, they are willing to break any law to make sure he's safe and secure. They come from a different perspective than most of us. There are no John Deans in the president's inner circle - conscience has no place in their world. Nor does truth, or duty to America. I've never seen anything like it.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWill Republican Senator Orrin Hatch vote to get vote to impeach Gonzalez,after he said that Gonzalez has a ‘credibility problem’?!.The answer is ‘no’.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pmNeither will Specter, despite his tough talk during the last committee hearing. I can't figure that guy out.
Why do reichwing repubs go after Clinton for perjury but defend Gonzo? Double-standards? Hypocrasy?
July 29th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
We are in a fascist dictatorship and the Constitution has been suspended. The Religious Right runs our foreign policy, inspiring the most immoderate elements toward some kind of Armageddon that they fancy will bring the return of Jesus and the destruction of Islam and Judaism in some kind of fiery explosion brighter than nucler weapons.
We have got to get rid of Bush and Cheney but we also have got to get Gonzales away from whatever rights we have left. If he is willing to personally visit a heavily-drugged and sedated man on Bush's instructions, he is willing to do anything. Impeach Gonzales, pray that Cheney's new defibrillator is made by a Halliburton subsidiary and wait for Bush to appear in public in an advanced state of drunken chaos so the 25th amendment can be imposed and Bush removed from office.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhy do reichwing repubs go after Clinton for perjury but defend Gonzo?
Comment by Uncle Ho — July 29, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Because they view the world through partisan-colored glasses. They are Right Wing Authoritarians, and G.W. is their daddy. You got to defend your daddy, or else you're just a lost little boy.
And Oliver North, who got immunity to provide testimony, seemed to come out O.K., as did the other Iran contra criminals, many of whom serve in the current administration!
July 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pmThe rats are jumping from the Ship!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yDDqG1j80
July 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pmGonzales will not be prosecuted, or impeached, although he might quit.
Given Pres Bush's track record, he will never take is support for Gonzales. It was the same situation with Rumsfeld. Pres Bush's is reportedly very loyal to people he considers his friends. Gonzales is one of them.
The only comfort (however small) I can take from this mess, is that Pres Bush's obtuse refusal to ever change course, or even admit a mistake has him in a pickle, his faithful followers can plainly see that, and they are squirming in their seats, afraid of what impact the Gonzales issue might have in the next election cycle.
The personality trait the Bush loyalists so much admire in their Glorious (mis)Leader has them fretting. Someone pass the popcorn.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pmThe Dems should make it very clear to W that if he's arrogant enough to try a recess appointment to replace Abu Ghraib Gonzales, there will be NO funding of the AG or his immediate staff
Funding for the DoJ continues, just not for the AG or AG's personal staff
July 29th, 2007 at 12:52 pmIt says everything about Gingrich that he feels Gonzales is a liability because he lacks "competence." What about his demonstrated lack of honesty? Somehow Newt never mentions that. But hey, he's a Republican so he couldn't care less. For them, lying is par for the course; the only sin is getting caught.
The highest justice official in land is a crooked political hack who obstructs justice by claiming he can't remember (he would have to have advanced Alzheimer's to remember as little as he pretends) and lying repeatedly under oath. The Republicans may be distancing themselves from him like rats deserting a sinking ship, but we all know that -- except for Arlen Specter, whom the see as a traitor -- they'll all close ranks to block any attempt to appoint a special counsel or impeach.
Gonzales is all that stands between the Bush-Cheney regime and consequences for their monstrous crimes. If Gonzo falls, they're dead ducks. That's why Bush won't let the idiot resign.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:00 pmFor all the latest news, key reports, document releases and other essential materials surrounding Gonzales, the U.S. attorneys purge and NSA illegal domestic surveillance, visit:
July 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm- The U.S. Attorneys Scandal Document Center
- The NSA Domestic Surveillance Scandal Center
...
just getting here... it may be this has been asked...
can anyone explain WHY leahy has given gonzo a week
to "think about" his testimony, giving him a chance
to change his story???
seriously... i don get it...
July 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pmis it still perjury? ... how can this be?
?
Bush’s obtuse refusal to ever change course, or even admit a mistake has him in a pickle, his faithful followers can plainly see that, and they are squirming in their seats, afraid of what impact the Gonzales issue might have in the next election cycle.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — July 29, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Unfortunately, it is this thinking that has Dems dragging their feet on taking any real action against the abuses. They prefer to let the Republics twist and burn, so they can sweep in '08, but the law demands impeachment, which they fear may create an electoral backlash. Pussies, it's all politics and we need action!
July 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pmThis administration is rotten to the core!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7yDDqG1j80
July 29th, 2007 at 1:10 pmNo blame there!
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
July 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmPussies, it’s all politics and we need action!
Comment by funky p — July 29, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
I wholeheartedly agree. If there ever was a moment to act, it's this. Gonzales has absolutely no credibility, not even with the Bush loyalists.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pmBush can't afford to have anyone other than Gonzales as Attorney General and he can't afford to allow the facts that would come out during an impeachment of Gonzales. The job security of Bush Republicans has more to do with the liabilities of the truth coming out than it does about their competence, honesty or criminality. It's all about covering up the crimes of George W. Bush and the Republicans who enabled and now protect him. Clearly, the best thing for the country would be the ouster of Gonzales, but equally clearly is the fact that George W. Bush cares more about covering his ass than he does about protecting our country. It's not "loyalty" to Gonzales when keeping Gonzales is the only way Bush can maintain a cover-up of his crimes.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:24 pm.
Who is watching whom now ?
It might not be too much of a stretch to conclude that the reason FOX NEWS can't find A.G. A.G. defenders is because they know we'll be watching.
And listening.
And recording.
And checking.
And reporting.
How's it feel, guys?
.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pmIf I didn't dislike Gonzo so much, I'd feel pity for him. He epitomizes incompetence and even stupidity. I think this lying loser should be impeached and thrown in jail.
Make your opinion known about Gonzo; vote on it: http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=240
July 29th, 2007 at 1:29 pmImpeach Gonzales now!!! Make the GOP pay for their corruption by forcing them to block impeachment and show their truest colors to voters of every political persuasion. Let them be the instrument of their own party's demsie. They are truly impotent when all they can do is destroy the GOP by "delaying" the exposure of their leadership's crimes. When a Democrat is sitting in the White House in 2009, how will they defend themselves let alone prevent Bush administration members from being prosecuted for their crimes? All they can do is postpone justice. They can do nothing to stop the inevitability of justice pervailing over those guility of criminal actions.........Gonzales, Rove, Miers et al.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pmI don't understand how these people can be dumb enough to hire him in the first place... but then not be able to defend him.
Did they REALLY think they could get away with the things the AG did? I would think so. I mean... they can't be THAT dumb, they found a way to get into power. But I think he got in in the first place because at that time, they had no one watching over them.
THINK ABOUT THIS...
If we impeach both Bush and Cheney - something I think can be done, almost at the same time... who's next in line? PELOSI! Get on it, people! Time for a revolution!
"I'd lead the way, but I just bought a hammock." - Z.G.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pmYou know, this is very interesting. Because at this point, Bush and Gonzales are pretty much Siamese-twins, politically. The real shock among Repubs is that Bush hasn't fired him yet. Which must mean to them that Bush needs Gonzo to continue covering up Bush's crimes. Some of which we aren't even yet aware.
So, it would seem that in giving up Gonzo, they're really giving up Bush. And can do so, without being called on it from Bush supporters. Not really. This could be a safe way for them to bale.
Of course, talk is cheap (especially for Gingrich), so we'll see how many votes we get when the impeachment happens.........
July 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm“I’d lead the way, but I just bought a hammock.†- Z.G.
Comment by Anonymous By Choice — July 29, 2007 @ 1:40 pm That reminds me of a Phil Ochs song (from the 60s for you kids) A Small Circle of Friends.
Look outside my window there's a woman being grabbed
They've dragged her to the Bushes and now she's being stabbed
Maybe we should call the cops and help to stop the pain
But monopoly is so much fun I'd hate to spoil the game
And it really wouldn't interest anybody
Outside of a small circle of friends.
As for Gonzales, they knew he was tainted but the Dems voted to confirm him so, now they have to take responsibility, same with Supreme Court justices. They helped get us into this mess, now they just want to step back and watch the fur fly. They should be shearing the fur themselves.
July 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pmNobodys going to do squat....Harry "butt" Reid and Nancy "imasittinonacucumber" Screwloosie could not care less as they play bigshot and travel around the world on taxpayers dimes. W, Karl, Gonzo and big Dick run the show here and thats the way its going to stay........GET OVER IT BEOTCHES!
July 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm“I think Gonzales has long, long, long outserved whatever usefulness he might once have had,†wrote Goldberg.
Not true.
The only real usefulness he's ever had as AG is to protect the pocket for GWB. He's still serving that purpose. He never was intended to actually follow or execute the laws of the United States. So he's really not compromised at all by his perjury.
The damage is to BushCo's pass protection. And they've got no running game. Their special teams is an embarrassment. So they're pretty much screwed.
Their defense is still pretty tight, though. At least as long as no one can recall under oath anything they ever did or said.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:12 pmW, Karl, Gonzo and big Dick run the show here and thats the way its going to stay……..GET OVER IT BEOTCHES!
Comment by Zed Lefflin — July 29, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Another patriotic American, ecstatic that fascism has taken hold, just like Prescott Bush wanted!
July 29th, 2007 at 2:20 pmAnd so it begins....
Gonzales is being thrown under the bus to keep from having a special prosecutor appointed by Congress and given latitude to investigate a wide range of issues. Once this kind of Independent Prosecutor gets going then most of the Bush Gang's actions are in danger of being exposed. Republicans are now willing to dump Gonzales to save their own re-election hides.
However, the really interesting question is whether this action of throwing Gonzales under the bus is being directed from the Whitehouse. Bush has insisted that he will "tough it out", but I don't think he has any more support from Republicans in Congress.
The Democrats are playing it exactly right. They are splitting Bush from his Republican support in Congress. All they have to do is keep putting forward bills to withdraw the troops and, depending on the timing, they may get enough Republican votes (to protect their own re-election) to break the filibuster.
July 29th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThe Bush Administration Can Not Afford To Lose Gonzales, because as like Chenny is The Sole Gate Keeper Of The Administrations Crimes And Corruptions, Gonzales Is The Administrations Sole Protector, No Matter How Many Laws He Has To Deface or Misinterpret For Political Gain. The Same Is Unfortunately True For Both Roberts and Alito's Appointments To Their Seats On The Supreme Courts and that is to Change, Misinterpret Or Derail Any Law Or Case In Direct Relation To The Bush Administration Political Needs. This Administration Is Beyond Control, And Democrats No Republicans Stand A Chance In Hell Of Stoping Them. The Bush Administration Not Only Considers Themselves Above The Law, But The Law It's self.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNinbus
I was curious about that too since Gonzo testified that he would not answer as to WHO sent him to the hospital that night, he would only say he went on the President's behalf.
I guess we have to ask the reporter from the NYT where that comes from and who his source on that is.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:15 pmVERY interesting indeed if true and shows Cheney again at the helm when evil deeds are being carried out.
I totally agree Rick ! Bush and his army of corruption is beyond anyones control that is why i say we flood every senators office with e-mail, phone calls and Faxes demanding they Impeach.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pmI'm sure that Herr Bush would want to paraphrase Hitler, "Dann muss man immer erinnen, MEINE Vereinigten Staadten muss leben!"
Herr Bush has surrounded himself with the same types of mindless underlings that Hitler did. Loyalty to "Der Fuhrer" supercedes any loyalty to the nation.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:22 pmtroqua
The world HAS seen something like this happen before, they saw it when Hitler and the Nazi's that supported him with their blind loyalty.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmSame thing, place idealogical young people into positions of power to infiltrate the govt. apparatus to press your agenda.
We need help from other countries, like the Germans did to stop Hitler back then. He too got his people into an unwinnable war and would not stop sending soldiers to their death in a war he knew he could not win. Americans freed the Germans from their Dictator, we could use some help freeing ourselves from our own Hitler and his jack booted minions.
yes, well, since the NYT editorial on IMPEACHMENT is gone,
i'll ask my questions here:
Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.
This is the first time I’ve seen that in print. Of course, it’s understood that The Decider doesn’t have the wattage to initiate anything, but I’ve never seen this bit memorialized before.
Did I miss something?
Comment by Ninbus — July 29, 2007 @ 11:16 am
my question(s), to anyone:
"Cheney sent Mr. Gonzolas"...
who would KNOW this?
July 29th, 2007 at 3:24 pmwho wrote this editorial?
?
W, Karl, Gonzo and big Dick run the show here and thats the way its going to stay……..GET OVER IT BEOTCHES!
Comment by Zed Lefflin — July 29, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
ROFL, this is what I love about authoritarian numbnutzes, who see literally every issue as "OUR team!" vs. "THEIR team!":
If they weren't such low-information types, they would know that the Bush cabal is never going to do a goddamned thing for the likes of them. This is even true if they are paid trolls, because the record is clear that even if you are a staunch conservative Bush-appointed US attorney, or an ex-Bush administration personage-turned-critic, they will throw you under that oft-mentioned bus, as soon as look at you, the microsecond that you are in any way inconvenient to them. Loyalty for them flows one way only. And it never flows to lowly, clueless "Republican voters".
But there they sit in cyberspace, imagining in their rich fantasy life that they are somehow part of the new fascist Ruling Class. As if! It's simply comical to read this stuff. They give the term "loser" a whole new depth.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:29 pmGremlin = liberals who post at Thinkprogress
July 29th, 2007 at 3:44 pmIt's really telling that not even the idiot trolls are trying to defend this man.
They must have gotten word with their last paycheck from Karl Rove that Gonzo was going to be the sacrificial lamb.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm“By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales,†said Wallace. “We had no takers.â€
Yeah, but did you bother to invite any trolls? C'mon, ask them. They'll defend anything, if it's a Rethug that did it.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm#19 SOME DOUCHEBAG
I’m feeling constant urges to surrender. I was told to come here for some relief.
No, this is the place where bush-league rightie trolls come to try out their weak-ass talking points. So, you're in the right place anyway.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWhat happened to the
"it's just the democrats playing politics"
explanation for it.
Are those brilliant pundits going to admit how
July 29th, 2007 at 4:10 pmtotally wrong they are and what vapid defenders of
the constitution and democracy they are.
Asking Newt Gingrich about Gonzale's integrity in office is a sad joke. Have we already forgotten who Gingrich is? He's the man who admitted to having a sexual affair during the same time he was trying to impeach Clinton for his sexual affair, he gave his dying wife a divorce decree at her hospital bed, and he pushed a worthless medical device as an example of why the FDA is too restrictive at approving such devices. Couple this with the horrible performance of his congressional pact with america and he's definitely the last person who should be judging the democrats actions against an obviously ethically and morally challenged white house.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:11 pm#62 Zed Lefflin
W, Karl, Gonzo and big Dick run the show here and thats the way its going to stay……..GET OVER IT BEOTCHES!
Really? Well they're doing a horseshit job of it. Wasn't Karl running the show when the Republicans lost the majority in both houses of Congress last year? Way to go, Karl! You kicked your own party's ass!
July 29th, 2007 at 4:13 pmCHIMPEACH!!! CHIMPEACH!!! CHIMPEACH!!!
Pelosi, Reid, Leahy, and Conyers!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 4:14 pmIf this new batch of trolls is the result of Bush's powwow with the right-wing blogmeisters, they're in worse shape than I thought.
Just pitiful.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:16 pmIt seems that the Dems plan was to allow all of Bush's obviously inept choices for top positions knowing they would crash and burn thus paving the way for an 'easy' victory in '08. The same goes for their foot-dragging on ending the war.
The only problem is that when they released the pitt bulls from the leash, and at the same time released themselves of any responsibilities towards decency, and justice for the American public, they underestimated the damage this would cause. They figured that there would be some carnage wrought by the fascist dogs, but I think even they couldn't have foreseen the vile destruction of the constitution that we see going on today.
But it seems now they feel they can't go back on the plan, or admit their strategy, so its now all about umpteenth letters of request and toothless threats including what katy brought up - That is Leahy's bending over to allow Gonzo a week to alter his story to save himself perjury charges.
They want Gonzo to hang on as long as his and his boss's arrogance will let him. The same reason they that impeachment is 'off the table'.
But the Dems need to WAKE UP. They have to start putting the future of the country ahead of their perceived political calculations. Who knows, just maybe all the dirt that will come out of impeachment proceedings will NOT lead to a backlash and instead be perceived as the right thing to do by a majority of the voting public. Get a pair and let's get on with it!
July 29th, 2007 at 4:19 pmOrrin Hatch did defend Gonzales on Stephanopolis' show, though. He did it, as usual, by simply lying.
'Attorneygate' is really about protecting corrupt politicians and stealing elections. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNR7EDgWnL4
July 29th, 2007 at 4:45 pmWhat digby says:
July 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Congress impeaches Gonzales.
Bush PARDONS Gonzales.
Comment by Barry Champlain
Wikipedia -
"The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment."
Bush could try it. It'd be interesting to see waht would happen, though...
July 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pmIf this new batch of trolls is the result of Bush’s powwow with the right-wing blogmeisters, they’re in worse shape than I thought.
Just pitiful.
Comment by chimpeach — July 29, 2007
It was probably cheaper to outsource this too. These "trolls" are probably sitting in India following scripts they don't understand.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWikipedia -
“The President may not in any case use his power of pardon in a case of impeachment.â€
Bush could try it. It’d be interesting to see waht would happen, though…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
Sounds like he would be violating the Wikipedia if he did. ;)
July 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pmThese “trolls†are probably sitting in India following scripts they don’t understand.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
That would explain a great deal.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmUnderestimating the power of India would be unwise. Stupidity, arrogance, and lack of motivation along with relevent skill sets within should be the concern.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pmGreg Palast says that the Bush regime is letting Gonzales hang out to dry as a whipping boy to draw attention away from the major players behind these scandals: Bush, Cheney and Rove.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:12 pmGreg Palast says that the Bush regime is letting Gonzales hang out to dry as a whipping boy to draw attention away from the major players behind these scandals: Bush, Cheney and Rove.
Comment by Snowball — July 29, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
It would appear to be working.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:22 pmUnderestimating the power of India would be unwise. Stupidity, arrogance, and lack of motivation along with relevent skill sets within should be the concern.
Comment by dbadass — July 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Ah, it's called "sarcasm'?
July 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pmWhat really evades me is that Gonzo cannot remember events that have occured over the past five or six years, but I can recall the thread of my life for the last sixty-three years. These include images of events - wife hugging tree as first child was on the way, taking the triplets (younger sibs) to Austin's drug store for a Sunday treat, those browntone images of nature's miracles that would fade in about one day unless enclosed in black construction paper, the Truman inaugaration on a flickering B&W TV in a 3rd grade classroom, and on and on.
July 29th, 2007 at 5:33 pmBush needs Gonzo to continue taking the heat off of himself. I am reminded of Watts, the hated Secretary of the Interior in Reagen's term, who took the blame for everything.
And Bush is afraid the weasel will talk and that the truth will out if he lets him get out of his sight. Gonzo has too much on Bush to be let go. So right now, Gonzo is taking a bullet for Bush. God knows what monetary reward he was promised - maybe a sheikdom?
July 29th, 2007 at 5:56 pmBush and Cheney might throw Gonzales under the bus to save themselves.
July 29th, 2007 at 6:19 pmBush and Cheney might throw Gonzales under the bus to save themselves.
Comment by Jay Randal — July 29, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Or Gonzales might throw Bush and Cheney under the bus to save himself.
July 29th, 2007 at 6:26 pmIMPEACH THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATION...NOW!
July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pmOr Gonzales might throw Bush and Cheney under the bus to save himself.
Comment by WaltTheMan — July 29, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Man, that would make Gonzo my hero!
My head hurts.
July 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm“It’s very damaging…we badly need an attorney general who is above any question,†said Gingrich.
and what he DOES mean is that he (they) seek someone who is outside/above the law and is NOT susceptible to questioning!
fasist/police state usa... dog bless that #1 terrorist state!
July 29th, 2007 at 7:01 pmThank you to Mr. Gingerich for speaking up about Alberto Gonzales. I applaud Republicans who address issues in their own party and clean their own house. It is better than relying on the Democrats to do their housekeeping for them.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pmGingrich is a Specter/Hagel clone.
July 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pmI think Congress should not have a summer break. That would show the President up as he is in Crawford and it would prevent interim appointments. And it probably would help the Dems' credibility.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmGonzo isn't going to throw the prez under the bus, but neither is the prez going to fire him.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmQuote from Guido, Lover, OBGYN:
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis is this week’s FOX Democrat. Shame on him.
Shame on you for calling him Russ a "Fox Democrat". Get a clue, genius.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pmAs an ex-Georgian, I am floored. You're telling me that Newtie has lost the powers of speech ?
July 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pmCando - dude, how long did it take you to cut & paste that post? And you think anybody's gonna read it? Even your mother did an eye-roll and a snicker when I asked her about this. Get yourself a life!!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pmBush cannot pardon some liar who is convicted after being impeached. Axxording to the constitution Article 2 Section 2. The president is prohibited from pardoning in cases of impeachment. Then of course this fool pays no attention to the constitution.
July 29th, 2007 at 9:55 pmIt was probably cheaper to outsource this too. These “trolls†are probably sitting in India following scripts they don’t understand.
#85 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — July 29, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
LOL, Too good to be true!
July 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pmLink please (snark)
Finally read the 4 part report on Dick Chainy that came out a month ago. All this talk about Bush being the "big man" and "top dog" that is running things through his subordinates, is pure hooey, in my view. He is not the focus here. Chainy is the power behind the throne. It is he that is setting up the protection, for himself, although Bush goes down with him. Bush is merely a puppet that fronts for other interests and people, while they let him pursue his little boy delusions of grandeur and fantasy of the rapture. His interest is Good vs Evil, not the neocon agenda, and as long as they let him pursue that he is a happy camper. That his evangelical position on Israel and the ME coincides with the war mongering neocons and empire builders, is one of the major advantages that the sock puppet provides.
No, it isn't Bush that is being protected, its Chainy. Gonzalez fronts for Chainy, not Bush, even though he "works" for Bush.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:32 pmHere’s a fourth possibility. All three are true; He lied, he used a bureaucratic dodge, and there was far more illegal activity, including strictly domestic spying, than they have admitted.
This gets my vote.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amBush will pardon anyone. He's an elitist a-hole with no regard to what your lowly opinion is people. Seig Heil King George!
July 30th, 2007 at 1:37 amClement is a "Loyal Bushie" (butt boy). So congress will have to impeach. Both Goldberg and Cannon should be shot from one, preferably over the Grand Canyon.
Stuff Gonzo in there too.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:58 amI bet there are neocons still defending Gonzales even though he lied under oath to Congress. Of course they think it's okay to lie under oath if you are a Bushie. Of course they kept yelling "but he lied under oath" when it came to Clinton and his affair.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:22 amFOX NEWS...getting in front of the story. GONZO is in big trouble when the Bush "spin machine" takes a public stance of no support.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:25 amIt is obligatory to mention the School of the Americas whenever you speak of AG AG. He was a good student and a good instructor.
It would be like speaking of VP Cheney and not mentioning his moving from TX to where-ever to avoid constitutional limitations on home state.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pmHow very interesting that Gingrich could suggest the dems are going overboard in their investigations. As another person said, if Bill Clinton had done half of the illegal activities as this president, he would have been drug out of the White House and if Bill would have been gone, they would have taken Hillary. Remember Newt when you were having the affair while you were impeaching Clinton for a similar behavior. Should he have lied about it? No. Should you continue to be self-righteous. I don't think so...you make me ill.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pmI'm still unconvinced. All of these Republicans - from Gingrich to the Senate Judiciary Cmte to the newsies at Fox - are so lukewarm to cold to Gonzalez. But he still has the steadfast, strong support of the only Republican that matters - Bush. And he has shown absolutely no sign of changing his mind. Despite the loss of ALL that support, ALL that GOP anger, Gonzalez will remain in office until January 2009, simply because Bush likes him and wants him to stay there. Remember, this is the same president who refused to accept Rummy's resignation twice before he ultimately let him go after the November elections. I doubt he thinks Gonzalez is as critical, even if all the other Republicans got so fed up that they wanted to run him out of town on a rail.
July 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm(See "The Lies of George W. Bush" for details on the following)
Bush won't fire Gone-zo. The reason? It's simple. Gone-zo knows where ALL of Bush's skeletons are buried, all the way back to his PERJURY when he left a jury questionnare question blank--"Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" Gone-zo marched in to the DA and argued that having a sitting governor--who might some day be called upon to pardon the defendant--on the jury was not in the best interest of justice. Meanwhile Chimpy was out front giving a speech on civic duty. The DA agreed with Gone-zo and Chimpy was dismissed from the jury pool--without his perjury having to see the light of day (Bush had previously pleaded no contest to a charge of DUI in Maine and had his driving privelege suspended).
Gone-zo has been cleaning up Chimpy's messes for ten years. The AG post was his reward for loyal Bushie service. My guess is that Chimpy did not want Gone-zo in that office but Gone-zo insisted on the appointment as payment for services rendered. Now that he's there, Chimpy can't fire him, because the kiss-and-tell book that would follow from Gone-zo would wreck Chimpy's "character" that he wishes to maintain as his legacy--a president more moral than the whoring Clinton.
So unless Gone-zo resigns himself, expect him to remain until January 2009, since Congress to too gutless to impeach him. But like some other commenters have said, the "death by 10,000 paper cuts" will be fun to watch.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThe man is a virus. The Rep-thug-licans are looking to distance themselves as best they can. They won't succeed.
July 31st, 2007 at 3:02 am