Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2007, 04:17 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Alberto GONEzales?

In the wake of the firing of US Attorneys scandal and the patriot act misuse/abuse scandal do you feel that Alberto Gonzales will be fired or step down as attorney general soon? Do you feel he should? Could congress impeach him? How do you feel about his actions as of late?


*I will add my own comments and feelings later.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-14-2007, 04:50 PM   #2 (permalink)
Addict
 
politicophile's Avatar
 
two characters
__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Last edited by politicophile; 02-09-2008 at 08:15 PM..
politicophile is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 07:47 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
It looks to me like the outcry is gaining momentum and Gonzalas will be out of a job soon. In addition I think Rove might be at danger too because of the latest emails that were released.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-15-2007, 07:56 PM   #4 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
If my magic lamp works, he'll be fired. Other than that, I doubt it. Someone lower will get the blame for the BS they've been pulling and Alberto "The Mexican Dubyuh" Gonzales will stay.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-16-2007, 03:48 PM   #5 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
It doesnt matter if he's fired or if he leaves. He would just be immediately replaced by someone who is willing to do the exact same stuff. This administration is like a starfish. You can cut off one of the points and it will just grow back. It's not until you take a sledgehammer to the entire thing over and over and over until it is reduced to a pulp that you know it is dead.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 03-16-2007, 06:36 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Correct me if i'm wrong but wouldn't any replacement have to be confirmed by the house and senate?
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-17-2007, 01:03 PM   #7 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
Gonzales went through the same process, so its not going to protect us from anything. This administration will only pick people that are 110% loyal and willing to do anything they're asked. Our only solution to stop this kind of stuff is to completely remove this entire administration.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 03-17-2007, 02:12 PM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObieX
Gonzales went through the same process, so its not going to protect us from anything. This administration will only pick people that are 110% loyal and willing to do anything they're asked. Our only solution to stop this kind of stuff is to completely remove this entire administration.
Gonzales went through the process when the house and senate were controlled and held hostage by the republicans. There is a different environment today.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-17-2007, 03:51 PM   #9 (permalink)
Apocalypse Nerd
 
Astrocloud's Avatar
 
I think some of us are missing the point. The Attorney general's job is supposed to provide counsel to the president and his lackeys. Gonezales is a stereotype of a "Yes Man". His counsel consists of telling Bush what wonderful ideas he has and that he is the greatest president ever.

He should have never made it into the office of Attorney General but given that Bush's first choice was the inarticulate dim bulb "Myers"... the Senate just gave in before Bush's next nomination was his personal trainer or some guy who plays a lawyer on tv.
Astrocloud is offline  
Old 03-17-2007, 05:14 PM   #10 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I think that Gonzales should be required to meet with every family that has been negatively effected by the BS he has shoveled. Instead of being sheltered with all his buddies, it might be beneficial if someone in government were to actually understand the consequences for their actions. The same can be said of anyone in the Bush administration, frankly.
Willravel is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 01:40 PM   #11 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
I'm going to coin a term - "The Libby Defense". The definition is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/...ed_prosecutors

I find it very interesting that the administration is resorting to this. It's almost an admission of guilt, at least in the mind of the great unwashed who's experience with the 5th is most likely limited to Hollywood mobsters and the like (think Dick Wolf). I'll certainly conceed that there's more to it than my over-simplification, but I think this is a mistake for everyone outside The Beltway.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 03:45 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Is the reason they are pleading the fifth because they know they did something wrong or they are afraid they will commit perjury?

Pleading the 5th should only apply when asked a question that would implicate you in a crime. I don't think liying under oath would be one of these reasons.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 03:53 PM   #13 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
From the article:

Quote:
John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client.
It seems silly to me since she's going to get crucified in the non-rightwing media. The leftwing media already has done so, but the center hasn't rendered a verdict (as is typical). Not smart, IMO.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 04:19 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
I just don't know if it is legal to plead the fifth in this case.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 04:36 PM   #15 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
If I were a Senate staffer, I'd offer immunity for inadvertent perjury. However, I tend to agree with you. This might end up being an interesting test of the 5th.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 05:06 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Pleading the 5th is completely legal and it's exactly what I'd recommend anyone do after whats happened to martha stewart and lewis libby. If you keep your mouth shut, they can't get you for anything you've said.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 05:17 PM   #17 (permalink)
Adequate
 
cyrnel's Avatar
 
Location: In my angry-dome.
As for the potential negative appearance of pleading the 5th: Isn't it better to be assumed guilty than proven guilty with inevitable consequences? It's not like it'll make them look less honest. Without a jury or stock price to prop up, I do not believe appearances are of much concern to these folks.
__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195
cyrnel is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 06:51 PM   #18 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Pleading the 5th is completely legal and it's exactly what I'd recommend anyone do after whats happened to martha stewart and lewis libby. If you keep your mouth shut, they can't get you for anything you've said.
DK...I am suprised to hear this from you.. knowing how you feel about "original intent". The 5th amendment as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution was to protect citizens from self-incimination in criminal matters in a court of law.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I believe it was as a result of the McCarthy hearings in the 50s that the Supreme Court "interpreted" the 5th Amendment to apply to Congressional investigations as well, which are not criminal investigations.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-26-2007, 07:07 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
The dangers of this precedence is anyone can avoid testifying in any case in order to avoid "self incrimination" of perjury though they themselves have not committed nor are being investigated for a crime. This could potentially bring our entire justice system to a standstill and that is why I'm questioning the legality of it.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 10:32 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I would plead the 5th at least until it was clear what crime is being investigated. I would not hold it against someone for pleading the 5th in this circumstance. Like in the Libby case, all it takes is a lapse in memory and then you face jail time. In the end I guess the Libby case did send a message - Don't cooperate.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 11:05 AM   #21 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I would plead the 5th at least until it was clear what crime is being investigated. I would not hold it against someone for pleading the 5th in this circumstance. Like in the Libby case, all it takes is a lapse in memory and then you face jail time. In the end I guess the Libby case did send a message - Don't cooperate.
Gee, I thought that the Libby case said "don't lie to the FBI and the grand jury." To each his own, I guess.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 11:32 AM   #22 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Gee, I thought that the Libby case said "don't lie to the FBI and the grand jury." To each his own, I guess.
it's long been a law that lying to a federal agent is a criminal act, therefore it would be a wise decision by anyone to take the 5th.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 11:34 AM   #23 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Congressional investigations are generally "fact-finding"..they are not grand juries to determine if there is sufficent evidence that a crime may have been committed.

The best solution here may be for Congress to immunize the DoJ official, protecting her from criminal prosecution and compelling her to testify in order to determine if Gonzales and the WH conspired to fire the attorney for political reasons (not necessarily a crime, unless it was willfully to block an ongoing criminal investigation) OR if Gonzales or any WH official lied in their own testimony to Congress.

Some may recall Iran-Contra hearings in Congress. Ollie North got immunity to testify before Congress and as a result several higher ranking Reagan officials were convicted of crimes. Was it worth it to let North off?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 11:36 AM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Gee, I thought that the Libby case said "don't lie to the FBI and the grand jury." To each his own, I guess.
If you make a mistake, as Libby did, while under oath, even on issues not related to a crime or to the primary issue being investigated you risk being charged with perjury. It would be foolish to testify under oath with an specificity until you know your testimony won't incriminate you later. If Libby said he did not recall or plead the 5th, he would not face jail time. I am sure many will say he simply should have told the truth. But those who know what it is like to give or take depositions, know how easy it is to set or be set up for "prior inconsistent statement" traps.

In this case, we already know there are inconsistencies between performance reviews and public statments on performance. I worked in a Human Resources department for a few years, and that type of inconsistency was a major problem when supervisors wanted to terminate, demote, deny increases or promotions. Everyone knows this should not happen, but it happens all the time.

We also know there are mountains of emails and other documents. We know there were meetings and discussions. Unless you have perfect recall, you will be at risk for perjury given what happened in the Libby case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
The best solution here may be for Congress to immunize the DoJ official, protecting her from criminal prosecution and compelling her to testify in order to determine if Gonzales and the WH conspired to fire the attorney for political reasons (not necessarily a crime, unless it was willfully to block an ongoing criminal investigation) OR if Gonzales or any WH official lied in their own testimony to Congress.
I am sure different people define "political reason" in different ways, but to me it is clear the terminations were for "political reasons".

Also, it seems to me that Gonzales as the right to set the agenda and pressure AG's to do what he wants.

If Gonzales lied to Congress. In my opinion that is a crime. Congress should be more focused on that issue in my opinion.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 03-28-2007 at 11:53 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 12:32 PM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
If you grant the person immunity from perjury in order to get them to testify what is to stop them from lying?
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 12:36 PM   #26 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
If you grant the person immunity from perjury in order to get them to testify what is to stop them from lying?
My thoughts exactly. I was wondering about something I was calling "inadvertant perjury", but I don't know if it's that's too fine a hair to split. It's most likely an impossible test for the real world.

By the way, Libby's problem wasn't that he made a mistake but that he tried to pass off a lie as a mistake. That's what the jury believed. He was never on trial for a mistake. He was on trial for a premeditated crime. The fact that his defense was my mythical "inadvertant perjury" theory and that the jury convicted him anyway speaks volumes about the facts of the case. Sorry guys, I know you want him to be not guilty, but he was convicted.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 12:59 PM   #27 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Ace - what are you talking about? Libby said he didn't remember plenty of times. That was the thrust of his defense, and it's part of what got him in trouble.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 02:02 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
If you grant the person immunity from perjury in order to get them to testify what is to stop them from lying?
Normally you would expect there to be evidence of a specific crime, and immunity is granted based on the testimony related to that crime. When the prosecution actually has evidence of a crime and may have other sources to help prove that a crime was committed - a person asked to testify often has limited choice but to testify honestly or be convicted. When Congress is "going fishing" for something I would hope they are doing it for the good of the nation rather than for political gain. If I were asked to testify in an investigation for the good of the nation with immunity, I would share any information I had honestly. I think most people would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz

By the way, Libby's problem wasn't that he made a mistake but that he tried to pass off a lie as a mistake. That's what the jury believed. He was never on trial for a mistake. He was on trial for a premeditated crime. The fact that his defense was my mythical "inadvertant perjury" theory and that the jury convicted him anyway speaks volumes about the facts of the case. Sorry guys, I know you want him to be not guilty, but he was convicted.
You may be correct. I never understood or saw an explanation of what his motivation was. He did not "out" Plame, nor was he directly involved. So why lie about it?
But the point as it relates here is - materiality. Libby was convicted on an issue not material to an issue were there was no crime. That is why people should avoid the Libby trap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ubertuber
Ace - what are you talking about? Libby said he didn't remember plenty of times. That was the thrust of his defense, and it's part of what got him in trouble.
Didn't say it enough, did he? He clearly should have said he did not recall the details he was convicted on.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that is in part what got him into trouble.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 03-28-2007 at 02:09 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 02:13 PM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Granting immunity in that situation make sense ace but in the situation here this person is not accused of any crime and congress could give immunity for any crimes she may have committed in exchange for her testimony. The problem is she is pleading the 5th not because she has committed a crime and doesn't want to incriminate her self but because she claims the very act of testifying would potentially incriminate her by her perjuring herself. I don't think the 5th should be allowed in this situation. Because the witness is not refusing to testify in order to protect themselves from incriminating themselves in a crime that has happened but instead saying if they testify they will commit a crime.

This would set a dangerous precedence where anyone anywhere can refuse to testify under a fear of perjuring themselves. Thus in any case everyone could take the 5th despite them not being involved in any crime and no one would testify any longer.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 02:26 PM   #30 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
When Congress is "going fishing" for something I would hope they are doing it for the good of the nation rather than for political gain.
I would suggest it is not a "fishing" expedition and it is for the good of the nation for Congress to inquire why Bush politicized the Justice Dept and US attorneys in a way that hadnt been done in 25 years.

Of the more than 400 US attorneys who have served between 1981 and 2006, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration(dismissed for serious issues of personal or professional conduct). In one fell swoop, Bush dismissed eight for no apparent reason, based on their positive performance evaluations.

As former conservative congressman Bob Barr, who served as a U.S. Attorney under President Reagan, said:
...“the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who’s the toughest hombre in all this.”

.... “the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush 1 administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.”
There are also potential ethical violations by members of Congress (particularly a senator and congresswoman from New Mex, a congressman from Cali and a congressman from Wash) who are alleged to have contacted the US attorneys about ongoing investigations and then contacted DOJ officials (Gonzales and others) to discuss their dismissal.. These are clear violations of Congressional ethics rules, if true... and a proper reason for Congressional inquiry.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Last edited by dc_dux; 03-28-2007 at 03:14 PM..
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 02:36 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
It should also be pointed out that in the last four years the US attorneys investigated some 250+ cases involving democrats and around 30 involving republicans. The justice system NEEDs to be politically independent.
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 03:12 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
I would suggest it is for the good of the nation to find out why Bush politicized the Justice Dept and US attorneys in a way that hadnt been done in 25 years.
I respect tradition, but...If he has the authority to terminate them at will, he has the authority political or not. The problem may be in the way Gonzales tried to tap dance around his authority.

Quote:
Of the more than 400 US attorneys who have served between 1981 and 2006, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration. (dismissed for serious issues of personal or professional conduct) In one fell swoop, Bush dismissed eight for no apparent reason, based on their positive performance evaluations.
I think the reason was political.

Quote:
As former conservative congressman Bob Barr, who served as a U.S. Attorney under President Reagan, said:
...“the integrity of the Department of Justice is being used as a political football by the administration to prove who’s the toughest hombre in all this.”

.... “the administration really ought to be going out of its way to do what prior administrations have done, such as the Bush 1 administration and Reagan administrations, and that is take whatever steps are necessary to assure the American people that the integrity of our justice system has not been compromised.”
There are also potential ethical violations by members of Congress (particularly a senator and congresswoman from New Mex, a congressman from Cali and a congressman from Wash) who are alleged to have contacted the US attorneys about ongoing investigations and then contacted DOJ officials (Gonzales and others) to discuss their dismissal.. These are clear violations of Congressional ethics rules, if true... and a proper reason for Congressional inquiry.
I thought Barr became Libertarian. I am not sure how to seperate substance from politics on this issue. I think all sides are guilty or will be of playing political games. I think Pelosy said a few days ago that "elections have consequences", that is true with Congressional elections as well as Presedential elections. If Bush want to fire people he has a right to fire, he can do it. I agree that Congress also has a right to investigate and make law. In the end I think this will go no where.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 03:16 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
I think the reason was political.
Bush, Gonzales, Rove et al....all keep insisting it was not political.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 03:42 PM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Bush, Gonzales, Rove et al....all keep insisting it was not political.

Not anymore....

"The former top aide to embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that eight federal prosecutors were fired last year because they did not sufficiently support President George W. Bush's priorities"   click to show 
Rekna is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 04:21 PM   #35 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
The problem for the WH and DOJ is that their stories keep changing and they have no evidence to back up their claims that the attorneys "did not sufficiently support Bush's priorities".

First, the claim was that Carol Lam, the US attorney in Cali was not aggressive enough in investigating and prosecuting immigration violation cases. Then it turns out the Assistant Attorney General's Office had praised her work on immigration cases as recently as August.

So then, last week, Bush says, "We did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys. Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases.”

And in testimony this weeK by the FBI director:
Have you ever heard from your agents (who would be involved by the nature of the FBI's role in such investigations) about any election fraud case where there were no indictments when they thought that there should have been?

MUELLER: I have not.
They just keep tripping over their own lies and misrepresentations...which seems to becoming common occurences with this White House now that there is a Congress actually meeting its oversight responsibilities.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 04:27 PM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Bush, Gonzales, Rove et al....all keep insisting it was not political.
My mom used to insist Santa Clause came down our chiminey every Christmas. I stopped beliving that when I was about 6, I never believed the line that the firing were not political.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-28-2007, 04:31 PM   #37 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Another old saying is that it is the lies and coverups, rather than the initial action, that often gets you in trouble.

The Bush crowd doesnt seem to have learned that lesson.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 05:55 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
I know when the Bush team is playing political games and I will call them on it. In this situation it is also clear that Democratic leaders in Congress are playing political games. These hearings are a waste of time and our resources.

Calling the statment that the terminations were for performance, a lie, when those terminated had good performance reviews - is a stretch. In high level positions performance is not simply doing a good job, it is also a function of doing what the boss wants the way the boss wants it done. Also, activities, results, and the right results, are very different. I am sure the people terminated were active and got results. My gut tells me that when Gonzales testifies he is not going to be able to clearly articulate the differences and why they are important, and Democrats are going to pretend that they are clueless on this point.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 06:04 AM   #39 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I know when the Bush team is playing political games and I will call them on it. In this situation it is also clear that Democratic leaders in Congress are playing political games. These hearings are a waste of time and our resources.

Calling the statment that the terminations were for performance, a lie, when those terminated had good performance reviews - is a stretch. In high level positions performance is not simply doing a good job, it is also a function of doing what the boss wants the way the boss wants it done. Also, activities, results, and the right results, are very different. I am sure the people terminated were active and got results. My gut tells me that when Gonzales testifies he is not going to be able to clearly articulate the differences and why they are important, and Democrats are going to pretend that they are clueless on this point.
See, that doesn't work with Peter Fitzgerald. He's pretty much acknowledged as the most effective US Attorney in the country, yet he received the middle of the 3 possible evaluations. This is a guy that's gone after corruption, the Mob and some really tough cases in an area legendary for its problems. He's even played well with others (Daley), but he hasn't gone after Blagoevich the way that Bush wanted, so he got a poor evaluation. His job is NOT to be Bush's political hatchman, which is the description above.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 07:14 AM   #40 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
See, that doesn't work with Peter Fitzgerald. He's pretty much acknowledged as the most effective US Attorney in the country, yet he received the middle of the 3 possible evaluations. This is a guy that's gone after corruption, the Mob and some really tough cases in an area legendary for its problems. He's even played well with others (Daley), but he hasn't gone after Blagoevich the way that Bush wanted, so he got a poor evaluation. His job is NOT to be Bush's political hatchman, which is the description above.
The President has the responsibility to enforce laws. US Attorneys' are the "hatchetmen" of the President. Given limited resources the President sets the priorities.

Fitgerald wasted millions on the Plame investigation and the Libby trial. He would not get my vote for most effective US Attorney.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
 

Tags
alberto, gonezales


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:29 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360