If you could grill Gonzales ... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 10:25 AM

...what would you ask? As I've been listening to the Judiciary Committee questioning Attorney General/Torture Fiend Alberto Gonzales, I've been imagining questions that I would pose if I were on the Judiciary Committee.

"Mr. Gonzales, it seems, based on your testimony, that Mr. Sampson had the ability to overrule your authority and make decisions for you. Could you speak to the that fact, despite the fact that you had seniority over Mr. Sampson, who was the Chief of your staff?"

"Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Sampson gave the following testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee: 'I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate.' Can you speak, without using the word 'recall', to this?"

"Mr. Gonzales, how can you run a department that relies on facts when you seem to lack the ability, after being given 25 days to gather your facts and think about what happened, to remember only a few important conversations?"

"Mr. Gonzales, should each of the new attorneys have to go before the Congress for their conformation?"

"Mr. Gonzales, can you speak to the justifications for allowing torture?"

"Mr. Gonzales, which, to you, is more important: loyalty or the ability to do one's job?"

"Mr. Gonzales, what do you think happened to all of those emails?"

"Mr. Gonzales, when you resign later this week, who will you be covering for?"

host · 04-19-2007, 11:41 AM

General Gonzales.....why is it not reasonable to suspect that you and Scooter Libby, and Randy Cunningham have abetted treason or committed treaosnous acts, yourselves......during a "time of war", in view of Libby's convictions, and in view of this, today?:

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003055.php
WATCH the VIDEO

Schumer Tears into Gonzales
By Paul Kiel - April 19, 2007, 1:05 PM

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Alberto Gonzales went back and forth in the most heated exchange of the hearing so far.

Schumer began on the question of whether U.S. Attorney for San Diego Carol Lam had been told that there was a problem with her immigration enforcement numbers. That supposedly was the main reason for her firing.

Gonzales hedged the question, saying that Lam must have known that there was “interest” in and “concern” with her immigration performance. Members of Congress, Gonzales said, had complained about Lam’s performance. Gonzales allowed that she “may not have been told that if there is no change in policy, there will be a change,” but seemed to think that was an unimportant distinction.

Schumer pressed, citing the testimony of both Carol Lam and Kyle Sampson that Lam had never been told that she should change her office’s approach to immigration enforcement. And he took issue with the idea that the department would let members of Congress be representatives of the Justice Department.

The second half of Schumer’s testimony was even more contentious.......

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 11:48 AM

I was hoping you'd chime in, Host.

So far, I have to say that I'm impressed with many of the questions of the slime ball Gonzales. Right now, he's being asked who wrote the list, and Gonzales is giving his, "I don't recall" BS.

He'll resign this week.

aceventura3 · 04-19-2007, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I was hoping you'd chime in, Host.

So far, I have to say that I'm impressed with many of the questions of the slime ball Gonzales. Right now, he's being asked who wrote the list, and Gonzales is giving his, "I don't recall" BS.

He'll resign this week.

I wrote the list. I did it for political reasons. I wanted to send a message to those who did not get fired that I want them to go after Democrats. Now what?

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 01:19 PM

Ace = Gonzales? If that's the case, this thread could be construed a personal attack on a fellow member and should be shut down.

aceventura3 · 04-19-2007, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Ace = Gonzales? If that's the case, this thread could be construed a personal attack on a fellow member and should be shut down.

I am not Gonzales.

There are a few points hidden (too well) in my post.

One - Gonzales should stop dancing around the issue and take responsibility.

Two - Even in the worst case, he fired the attorneys for all the wrong reasons, did he actually violate the law in doing so? I not aware of any violation of the law.

Three - The hearings are waste of time and resources. Even if Gonzales resigns, what is gained? Nothing in my opinion. Bush is going to replace him with the same kind of guy, there will be hearings, more grandstanding wasting more time and resources, etc.

Four - Democrats only have two more years of Bush, why not focus on the future.

Willravel · 04-19-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One - Gonzales should stop dancing around the issue and take responsibility.

I think we can all agree on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Two - Even in the worst case, he fired the attorneys for all the wrong reasons, did he actually violate the law in doing so? I not aware of any violation of the law.

He didn't violate the law, but he did act in the interest of politics over his responsibilities, and thus should no longer be Attorney General. At the end of the day this is about Gonzales ruining the reputation and ability of the office of US Attorney's. The meaning of the hearing is to determine whether Gonzales should continue as Attorney General. It's looking like they're going to ask for his resignation any second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Three - The hearings are waste of time and resources. Even if Gonzales resigns, what is gained? Nothing in my opinion. Bush is going to replace him with the same kind of guy, there will be hearings, more grandstanding wasting more time and resources, etc.

This is the man who stated that there was no right of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution. This is the man that allowed torture. This is the man that didn't persue the wire taps. This is the man that is responsible for US Attorneys being fired in the middle of important investigations. He is a danger every hour he is in office. This is also about sending a message to the next guy that he or she can't get away with anything they want. There are rules and standards of practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Four - Democrats only have two more years of Bush, why not focus on the future.

Bush can do a lot more damage through people like Gonzales in the next 2 years. Along with trying to stop the war, the Dems have a lot to try and fix today.

pig · 04-19-2007, 02:41 PM

i just like it when smarmy little fucks like gonzales get put through the reamer. fuck him. if it sends a message that you will get blasted sooner or later for being an asshole on my dollar, then i'm all for it. bush, that beady-eyed little bastard, likely would replace him with some other crap of his ilk. before that, it was what? harriette meyers? but in asfar as it goes, let him squirm.

aceventura3 · 04-19-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

i just like it when smarmy little fucks like gonzales get put through the reamer. fuck him. if it sends a message that you will get blasted sooner or later for being an asshole on my dollar, then i'm all for it. bush, that beady-eyed little bastard, likely would replace him with some other crap of his ilk. before that, it was what? harriette meyers? but in asfar as it goes, let him squirm.

I can appreciate your honesty.

Just like Gonzales should be forthcoming so should Congress and everyone else. I think we know they are really doing this for the cameras and to get votes from the folks back home. Even Republicans have joined in, to show that they are "tough" "independent" and willing to take a stand against the Bush Administration - after a good reading of several opinion polls of course.

I would just love for Gonzales to simply say, "yea- I fired them, so f-ing what! But I have no sense of drama. We going to have to hear them go on and on about the integrity of our judicial system, and how the trust of the American people has been lost, blah, blah, blah.

Elphaba · 04-19-2007, 04:11 PM

If I could grill Gonzales...
...like salmon with alder wood chips.

filtherton · 04-19-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

If I could grill Gonzales...
...like salmon with alder wood chips.

I was thinking the same thing, though i was going to say medium with barbecue sauce.

pig · 04-19-2007, 05:21 PM

ace,

the moons must be in some odd fucking alignment, because i've found myself agreeing with more than one of your more recent posts. this whole thing revolves, in an indirect fashion, on the disenfranchisement of 99% of american citizen's say in the government. how do you do that? exactly like they do it at publix. you have a name brand. you have a generic. guess what? same company makes 'em both.

so these dicks that are in power will stay in power. its just a question of whose face will be on the tv. i'd like to say that will change. it could change. but it will take a hell of lot more americans getting pissed off for it to happen.

or a coup d'etat. you know, whatever. if 95% of americans don't give a shit that they are selling their rights out hardcore right now; would they give a shit if a revolution cleanly snipped the admin out of place and replaced it? highly unlikely.

host · 04-20-2007, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I can appreciate your honesty.

Just like Gonzales should be forthcoming so should Congress and everyone else. I think we know they are really doing this for the cameras and to get votes from the folks back home. Even Republicans have joined in, to show that they are "tough" "independent" and willing to take a stand against the Bush Administration - after a good reading of several opinion polls of course.

I would just love for Gonzales to simply say, "yea- I fired them, so f-ing what! But I have no sense of drama. We going to have to hear them go on and on about the integrity of our judicial system, and how the trust of the American people has been lost, blah, blah, blah.

ace....your cynicism, whether motivated by partisanship or by a more sincere rationale steeped in the experiences of your life, is IMO, seriously off the mark.

This is an example of what passed for "checks and balances"....for "accountability", for the past six years.....until January, 2007:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020600931.html
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority
Part I of IV
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/gonzales-under-oath/">(Watch the Video)</a>

CQ Transcriptions
Monday, February 6, 2006; 3:05 PM

......FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a quick clarification?

SPECTER: Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: Heard your judgment about whether the witness should be sworn. What would be the distinction between this occasion and the confirmation hearing where he was sworn?

SPECTER: The distinction is that it is the practice to swear nominees for attorney general or nominees for the Supreme Court, or nominees for other Cabinet positions, but the attorneys general have appeared here on many occasions in the 25 years that I have been here and their might be a showing, Senator Feingold, to warrant swearing.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I'd just say that the reason that anyone would want him sworn has to do with the fact that certain statements were made under oath at the confirmation hearing.<b> So it seems to me logical that, since we're going to be asking about similar things, that he should be sworn in this occasion, as well.</b>

LEAHY: And, Mr. Chairman, if I might on that point -- if I might on that point, of course, the attorney general was sworn in on another occasion other than his confirmation, when he and Director Mueller appeared before this committee for oversight.

And I had asked the chairman, as he knows, earlier that he should be sworn on this. And I made that request right after the press had pointed out where an answer to Senator Feingold appeared not to have been truthful. And I felt that that is an issue that's going to be brought up during this hearing, and we should go into it.

LEAHY: I also recall the chairman and other Republicans insisting that former Attorney General Reno be sworn, which she came up here on occasions other than her confirmation.

I think, especially because of the article about the questions of the senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, I believe he should have been sworn. That is, obviously, the prerogative of the chairman.

But I would state again, and state strongly for the record, what I've told the chairman privately. I think in this instance, similar to what you did in April with Attorney General Gonzales and Director Mueller, both of whom were sworn, and as the chairman did on -- insisted with then-Attorney General Reno, I believe he should be sworn.

SPECTER: Well, Senator Leahy and I have not disagreed on very much in the more than a year since we've worked together as the ranking and chairman, and I think it's strengthened the committee.

And I did receive your request. And I went back and I dug out the transcript and reviewed Senator Feingold's vigorous cross- examination of the attorney general at the confirmation hearings.

And I know the issues as to torture, which Senator Feingold raised, and the issues which Senator Feingold raised as to searches without warrants.

And I have reviewed the provisions of 18 USC 1001 in the case involving Admiral Poindexter, who was convicted under that provision; and have reviewed the provisions of 18 United States Code 1505, where Oliver North was convicted. And there are penalties provided there commensurate with perjury.

<b>And it is my judgment that it is unnecessary to swear the witness.</b>

LEAHY: But, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, if the witness has no objection to being sworn, why not just do it and then not have this question raised here? I realize only the chairman can do the swearing in.

LEAHY: Otherwise, I'd offer to give him the oath myself, insofar as he said he was willing to be sworn in. But if he's willing to be, why not just do it?

SESSIONS (?): Mr. Chairman...

SPECTER: Well, the answer to why I'm not going to do it is that I've examined all the facts and I've examined the law and I have asked the attorney general whether he would object or mind and he said he wouldn't. And I have put that on the record.

<h3>But the reason I'm not going to swear him in is not up to him. Attorney General Gonzales is not the chairman; I am. And I'm going to make the ruling.</h3>

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: I would point out that he's been here before this committee three times. The other two times he was sworn. It seems unusual not to swear him in this time.

FEINGOLD (?): Chairman, I move the witness be sworn.

SPECTER: The chairman has ruled. If there is an appeal from the ruling of the chair, I have a pretty good idea how it's going to come out.

FEINGOLD (?): Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the chair.

SPECTER: All in favor of the ruling of the chair, say "aye."

(UNKNOWN): Roll call.

SPECTER: Opposed?

FEINGOLD (?): Ask for a roll call vote.

SPECTER: The clerk will call the roll.

I'll call the roll.

(LAUGHTER)

SESSIONS: Out of the question.

(LAUGHTER)

SPECTER: Senator Hatch?

HATCH: No.

SPECTER: Senator Grassley?

GRASSLEY: No.

SPECTER: Senator Kyl?

KYL: Mr. Chairman, is the question to uphold or to reject the ruling?

SPECTER: The question is to uphold the ruling of the chair, so we're looking for ayes, Senator.

(LAUGHTER)

LEAHY: But we're very happy with the noes that have started on the Republican side, they being the better position.

HATCH (?): I'm glad somebody clarified that.

SPECTER: So the question is, "Should the ruling of the chair be upheld that Attorney General Gonzales not be sworn?"

(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: By proxy for Senator Brownback, aye.

Senator Coburn?

(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: We've got enough votes already.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Emphatically, no.

(CROSSTALK)

SPECTER: Aye.

The ayes have it.

FEINGOLD: Mr. Chairman, I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

SPECTER: Would you repeat that, Senator Feingold?

FEINGOLD: I request to see the proxies given by the Republican senators.

SPECTER: The practice is to rely upon the staffers. But without counting that vote -- well, we can rephrase the question if there's any serious challenge of the proxies.

This is really not a very good way to begin this hearing.

SPECTER: But I've found that patience is a good practice here.

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman (OFF-MIKE) very disappointed that we went through this process.

This attorney general, in my view, is a man of integrity. And having read the questions, as you have, that Senator Feingold put forward, and his answers, I believe he'll have a perfect answer to those questions when they come up at this hearing.

And I do not believe they're going to show he perjured himself in any way or was inaccurate in what he said.

And I remember having a conversation with General Myers and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and one of the saddest days in their career was having to come in here and stand before a Senate committee and raise their hand as if they are not trustworthy in matters relating to the defense of this country.

And I think it's not necessary that a duly confirmed Cabinet member have to routinely stand up and just give an oath when they are, in effect, under oath and subject to prosecution if they don't tell the truth.

I think it's just a question of propriety and good taste and due respect from one branch to the other.

And that's why I would support the chair.

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I don't...

SPECTER: Let's not engage in protracted debate on this subject. We're not going to swear this witness, and we have the votes to stop it.

Senator Leahy?

LEAHY: Mr. Chairman, I have stated my position why I believe he should be sworn in. But I understand that you have the majority of votes.

Now, the question for this hearing goes into the illegality of the government's domestic spying on ordinary Americans without a warrant......

......and the American voters grew impatient with the lack of accountability, and they voted for change, last november.

This is an example of that "change", manifesting itself, in the US Senate, yesterday:

Quote:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/ci_5706839
<center><img src="http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site525/2007/0419/20070419_065350_0419gonzaLES_200.jpg">
<h3>Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is sworn in prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee</h3> in the U.S. Capitol in Washington Thursday, April 19, 2007 about the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys....</center>

....click on the "watch the video" link, in the first quote box, ace. You can watch the republican majority abdicate their constitutional responsibilities and vote away their own political power.......

tecoyah · 04-20-2007, 05:24 AM

Would You be comfortable, hiring someone to represent you who "couldnt Recall" your case at all?

aceventura3 · 04-20-2007, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....your cynicism, whether motivated by partisanship or by a more sincere rationale steeped in the experiences of your life, is IMO, seriously off the mark.

Each moment as I listened to the hearings yesterday my cynicism grew. As I get older my tolerance for b.s. get lower. The b.s. coming from that hearing was thick from both parties and from Gonzales. One of the reasons I like Bush and Chaney is they say what they mean and mean what they say, even if what they say is not tactful or smooth.

pig · 04-20-2007, 06:23 AM

ace, i'd just like to point out that i don't think there's much factual basis for that last sentence. they may not speak in complex sentence structures, but that's entirely different from "meaning what you say."

tecoyah · 04-20-2007, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

-snip- One of the reasons I like Bush and Chaney is they say what they mean and mean what they say, even if what they say is not tactful or smooth.

Or.....True

Unfortunately, it seems a large portion of the citizenry of this country, find reason to question the majority of what the POTUS, and VP say in public. Much of this "doubt" is a direct result of experience from past....indescretions.

Mr . Gonzalez is a victim of his position, and the distrust the administration garners in everything it says. It's likely none of this would even be on the table if people were comfortable believing what they were told.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2007, 07:06 AM

Folks, can we please keep to the topic at hand? The last few posts haven't had a single commonality with the question posed.

Mr. Gonzales, you've obviously had trouble remembering meetings that have proven to be very important in hindsight. Would you please share with the committee exactly what you do recall being the reasons for these firings and exactly what was asked of you by both the White House and members of the Senate?

host · 04-20-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

......One of the reasons I like Bush and Chaney is they say what they mean and mean what they say, even if what they say is not tactful or smooth.

To All readers, forgive me for doing this.....it seemed to achieve the result, after posting the facts over and over and over.....of stopping the ludicrous statements that "Saddam had WMD but......",

ace......I read what I've quoted from you, above, and my reaction is that it is as if I am not even here....as if I have not already posted the following:

Bush and Cheney are frequent liars, ace....on life and death matters concerning our national security:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011114.html
Interview of the Vice President
by CBS's 60 Minutes II
November 14, 2001

......<b>Gloria Borger: Well, you know that Muhammad Atta the ringleader of the hijackers actually met with Iraqi intelligence.

Vice President Cheney: I know this. In Prague in April of this year as well as earlier. And that information has been made public. The Czechs made that public. Obviously that's an interesting piece of information.</b>

Gloria Borger: Sounds like you have your suspicions?

Vice President Cheney: I can't operate on suspicions. The President and the rest of us who are involved in this effort have to make what we think are the right decisions for the United States and the national security arena and that's what we're doing. And it doesn't do a lot of good for us to speculate. We'd rather operate based on facts and make announcements when we've got announcements to make. .........

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
December 9, 2001

The Vice President Appears on NBC's Meet the Press

.......RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. When you were last on this program, September 16, five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you said no.

<b>Since that time, a couple of articles have appeared which I want to get you to react to. The first: The Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the September 11 terrorists attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized hijackings and mass killings were carried out..
</b>
........RUSSERT: The plane on the ground in Iraq used to train non-Iraqi hijackers.

Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

<b>CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.</b>

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue...........

<b>Curiously, on June 17, 2004, VP Cheney seems to have denied his own Nov. and Dec., 2001, publicly televised, videotaped, and officially archived statements:</b>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10036925/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Nov. 11th
Updated: 10:08 a.m. ET Nov 14, 2005

......MATTHEWS: All this week we‘ve been examining the Bush administration‘s claims about Iraq that sold America on the war. We‘ve looked at claims that Saddam was a nuclear threat, that our troops would be greeted as liberators and that administration ally Ahmed Chalabi could be trusted.

All of those claims, of course, were false. Tonight, we offer you a closer look at another key White House argument. The alleged link between Iraq and 9/11. HARDBALL correspondent David Shuster reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DAVID SHUSTER, HARDBALL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just days after the 9/11 attack, Vice President Cheney on “Meet the Press” said the response should be aimed at Osama bin Laden‘s al Qaeda terror organization, not Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq.

DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Saddam Hussein is bottled up at this point, but clearly we continue to have fairly tough policy where the Iraqis are concerned.

TIM RUSSERT, NBC HOST: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?

CHENEY: No.

SHUSTER: But during that same time period, according to Bob Woodward‘s book, “Bush at War,” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for military strikes on Iraq. And during cabinet meetings, Cheney quote, expressed deep concern about Saddam and would not rule out going after Iraq at some point.

That point started to come 11 months later, just before 9/11‘s first anniversary. The president and vice president had decided to redirect their war on terror to Baghdad.

So, with the help of the newly-formed White House Iraq group, which consisted of top officials and strategists, the selling of a war on Iraq began and the administration‘s rhetoric about Saddam changed.

Not only did White House hawks tell The New York Times for a front-page Sunday exclusive that Saddam was building a nuclear weapon, and not only did five administration officials that day go on the Sunday television shows to repeat the charge.......

CHENEY: That he is in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

SHUSTER: But the White House started claiming that Iraq and the group responsible for 9/11 were one in the same.

BUSH: The war on terror—you can‘t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

We‘ve learned that Iraq has trained members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

He‘s a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda.

SHUSTER: In pushing the Saddam/Iraq/9/11 connection, both the president and the vice president made two crucial claims.

First, they alleged there had been a 1994 meeting in Sudan between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi intelligence official.

BUSH: We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

SHUSTER: After the Iraq war began, however, the 9/11 Commission was formed and reported that while Osama bin Laden may have requested Iraqi help, quote, Iraq apparently never responded.

<b>The other crucial pre-war White House claim was that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met in a senior Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech republic in April of 2001.

GLORIA BORGER, CNBC HOST: You have said in the past that it was quote, pretty well confirmed.

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK, I think that is...

CHENEY: ... I never said that. That‘s absolutely not...</b>

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
By Jim Miklaszewski
Chief Pentagon correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:14 p.m. ET March 2, 2004

......In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and <b>the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.</b>

....The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, >but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
MSNBC

SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

<h3>.....The territory of northern Iraq where the traces of ricin were detected is not under the control of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091806.shtml

.....As of August 21, Bush was still flatly asserting that Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi.” Raddatz asked him why he said it—and Bush engaged in standard blather. This has gone on, for year after year, because the press corps sits there and takes it—as they did last Friday, when Bush dissembled in their faces without challenge again.

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060821.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 21, 2006

Press Conference by the President
White House Conference Center Briefing Room

......Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- <h3>who had relations with Zarqawi.</h3>
(Watch him deliver the "Zarqawi" lie in a 2 minute video, here:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Bus...-08-21-062.wmv )

Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. .......

3 weeks later, last September, when some of the the determinations about Iraq of the Senate intel. committee were finally released, Mr. Cheney spoke to Tim Russert and said the opposite of what the Senate intel. report and the CIA had concluded. Cheney did the same thing this week, on April 5.....telling the same long disproved falsehoods that he told last September, and many times before that:

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17970427/
Saddam’s pre-war ties to al-Qaeda discounted
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET April 6, 2007

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.......

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070405-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
April 5, 2007

Interview of the Vice President by Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show
Via Telephone

1:07 P.M. EDT

Q It's always a great privilege to have the Vice President, Dick Cheney, with us. Mr. Vice President, welcome once again to our program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Rush. It's good to be back on......

.....Q It may not just be Iraq. Yesterday I read that Ike Skelton, who chairs -- I forget the name of the committee -- in the next defense appropriations bill for fiscal '08 is going to actually remove the phrase "global war on terror," because they don't think it's applicable. They want to refer to conflicts as individual skirmishes. But they're going to try to rid the defense appropriation bill -- and, thus, official government language -- of that term. Does that give you any indication of their motivation or what they think of the current plight in which the country finds itself?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sure -- well, it's just flawed thinking. I like Ike Skelton; I worked closely with Ike when I was Secretary of Defense. He's Chairman of the Armed Services Committee now. Ike is a good man. He's just dead wrong about this, though. Think about -- <b>just to give you one example, Rush, remember Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, al Qaeda affiliate; ran a training camp in Afghanistan for al Qaeda, then migrated -- after we went into Afghanistan and shut him down there, he went to Baghdad, took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq; organized the al Qaeda operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene,</b> and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June. He's the guy who arranged the bombing of the Samarra Mosque that precipitated the sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni. This is al Qaeda operating in Iraq. And as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq. ......

That was Cheney, this week, and this was Bush, himself, in 2002 and 2003:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20030208.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 8, 2003

President's Radio Address

......... One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. ........

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030206-17.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
February 6, 2003

President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment"

.......One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists, who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. The network runs a poison and explosive training center in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad. The head of this network traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment and stayed for months. Nearly two dozen associates joined him there and have been operating in Baghdad for more than eight months.

The same terrorist network operating out of Iraq is responsible for the murder, the recent murder, of an American citizen, an American diplomat, Laurence Foley. The same network has plotted terrorism against France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was caught producing poisons in London. The danger Saddam Hussein poses reaches across the world.

This is the situation as we find it. Twelve years after Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and 90 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, Saddam Hussein was required to make a full declaration of his weapons programs. He has not done so. Saddam Hussein was required to fully cooperate in the disarmament of his regime; he has not done so. Saddam Hussein was given a final chance; he is throwing that chance away. ......

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Hussein Link to 9/11 Lingers in Many Minds

By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 6, 2003; Page A01

...... Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." .......

....and Bush again, here:

Quote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html -

From my Sept. 12, 2006 post:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...24&postcount=3
We offer here, mostly what Bozell branded as, reporting of the "Liberal Media".
With a member of our family in the military, and now about to be deployed to the M.E., we wanted to know who to believe.

The "news" is, that it is not Mr. Cheney:
On sunday, he was saying this, during a prominent news program, telecast:
(From my last post, at the bottom)

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20060910.html
.....Q Then why in the lead-up to the war was there the constant linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's a different issue. Now, there's a question of whether or not al Qaeda -- whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11; separate and apart from that is the issue of whether or not there was a historic relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. The basis for that is probably best captured in George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in open session, where he said specifically that there was a pattern, a relationship that went back at least a decade between Iraq and al Qaeda......

........we know that Zarqawi, running a terrorist camp in Afghanistan prior to 9/11, after we went into 9/11 -- then fled and went to Baghdad and set up operations in Baghdad in the spring of '02......

.........Zarqawi was in Baghdad after we took Afghanistan and before we went into Iraq. You had the facility up at Kermal, a poisons facility run by an Ansar al-Islam, an affiliate of al Qaeda......

<b>Cheney was saying it, even though this was reported, just two days before:</b>

Quote:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2410591
By JIM ABRAMS, AP Writer Fri Sep 8, 12:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence
Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on
Iraq. Democrats said the report undercuts
President Bush's justification for going to war.....

.....It discloses for the first time an October 2005
CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."......

<b>The rest of this post consists of 17 news article excerpts that refute Mr. Cheney's assertions to Tim Russert last September, and to Rush Limbaugh, this week....</b>

Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=63
Posted May 2, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=64
Posted June 26, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=22
Posted Sept. 9, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...93&postcount=7
Posted Sept. 15, 2006:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=47
.....and this article:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/po...tel.ready.html
Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Doubts

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 — A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, “was intentionally misleading the debriefers’’ in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda’s work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi’s credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi’s information as “credible’’ evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.’’

click to read the rest... click to show

In outlining reasons for its skepticism, the D.I.A. report noted that Mr. Libi’s claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place...

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060320-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2006

President Discusses War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom

.....Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America.

Like you, I asked that very same question, where did we go wrong on intelligence. The truth of the matter is the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't just my administration, it was the previous administration. It wasn't just the previous administration; you might remember, sir, there was a Security Council vote of 15 to nothing that said to Saddam Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. The basic premise was, you've got weapons. That's what we thought.

When he didn't disclose, and when he didn't disarm, and when he deceived inspectors, it sent a very disconcerting <b>message to me, whose job it is to protect the American people and to take threats before they fully materialize.</b> My view is, he was given the choice of whether or not he would face reprisal. It was his decision to make. And so he chose to not disclose, not disarm, as far as everybody was concerned. ......

Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remans to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?

Note how the Bush administration reacted to Sen. Levn's damning September 8, 2006 statement:

Quote:

http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=262690
News from Senator Carl Levin of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 8, 2006

Contact: Press Office
Phone: 202.228.3685
Senate Floor Statement on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II Report

Today the Senate Intelligence Committee is releasing two of the five parts of Phase II of the Committee’s inquiry into prewar intelligence. One of the two reports released today looks at what we have learned after the attack on Iraq about the accuracy of prewar intelligence regarding links between Saddam Hussein and al Qa’ida. The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al Qa’ida, the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack.....

......The Administration statements also flew in the face of the CIA’s January 2003 assessment that al-Libi was not in position to know whether training had taken place.

So here’s what we’ve got.

<h3>The President says Saddam had a relationship with Zarqawi.</h3> The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA concluded in 2005 that “the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”

<h3>The President said Saddam and al Qa’ida were “allies.”</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that prewar intelligence shows that Saddam Hussein“viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime.” Indeed, the Committee found that postwar intelligence showed that he “refused all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support.”

The Vice President called the claim that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi intelligence officer “credible” and “pretty much confirmed.” The Intelligence Committee found the intelligence shows that “no such meeting occurred.”

<h3>The President said that Iraq provided training in poisons and gasses to al Qa’ida.</h3> The Intelligence Committee found that postwar intelligence supported the prewar intelligence assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at “anywhere” in Iraq and that the terrorist who made the claim of training was “likely intentionally misleading his debriefers” when he said Iraq had provided poisons and gasses training.

But the Administration’s efforts to create the false impression that Iraq and al Qa’ida were linked didn’t stop with just statements. One of the most significant disclosures in the Intelligence Committee’s report is the account of <h3>the Administration’s successful efforts to obtain the support of CIA Director George Tenet to help them make that false case.</h3>

These events were of major significance – going to the heart of the Administration’s case for war on the eve of a congressional vote on whether to authorize that war.

On October 7, 2002, at a speech in Cincinnati, the President represented that linkage existed between Saddam and terrorist groups. He said that “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorist.”

But that very day, October 7, 2002, <h3>in a letter to the Intelligence Committee the CIA declassified,</h3> at the request of the Committee, the CIA assessment that it would be an “extreme step” for Saddam Hussein to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons of mass destruction attack against the United States and that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction, if he did not feel threatened by an attack, was “low.”

When made public, the CIA assessment would undercut the President’s case. Something had to be done. So, on October 8, 2002, the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, issued a statement that “There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech.” The Tenet statement was aimed at damage control and undercut the CIA’s own crucial assessment at a critical time. The New York Times quoted Tenet prominently in a major story on October 9th.

<h3>We called Tenet before the Intelligence Committee on July 26, 2006.

In his testimony, quoted in the Intelligence Committee’s report, Mr. Tenet admitted that perhaps there was an inconsistency between the President's statement and the CIA's assessment.</h3>

Mr. Tenet said that he issued his statement denying an inconsistency after policymakers expressed concern about the CIA’s assessment as expressed in the declassified October 7th letter again, that it would be an extreme step for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack.<h3> Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to “say something about not being inconsistent with what the President had said.” Tenet complied.</h3>

Tenet acknowledged to the Committee in his July 26, 2006, testimony that issuing the statement was the “wrong thing to do.” Well, it was much more than that. It was a shocking abdication of a CIA Director’s duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policies. Director Tenet issued that statement at the behest of the Administration on the eve of the Congress’s debate on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The use of the Director of Central Intelligence by the Administration to contradict his own Agency’s assessment in order to support a policy goal of the Administration was reprehensible and seriously damaged the credibility of the CIA.

The following is a compilaton of their reaction to Levin and the senate committee report. it is more or less in chronological order. i detailed more of it in the OP of this thread......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213211,00.html
Transcript: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 'FOX News Sunday'

Sunday, September 10, 2006

WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the Sept. 10, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

.....WALLACE: I don't have to tell you that one of the criticisms of the Bush administration — we heard it again today from Sen. Jay Rockefeller — is that all of you manipulated intelligence to push the country into war.

I want to discuss just one area, the issue of whether Iraq helped Al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction.

Here's what the president said in October of 2002.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: And in March 2003, just before the invasion, you said, talking about Iraq, "and a very strong link to training Al Qaeda in chemical and biological techniques."

But, Secretary Rice, a Senate committee has just revealed that in February of 2002, months before the president spoke, more than a year, 13 months, before you spoke, that the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded this — and let's put it up on the screen.

"Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful CB" — that's chemical or biological — "knowledge or assistance."

Didn't you and the president ignore intelligence that contradicted your case?

RICE: What the president and I and other administration officials relied on — and you simply rely on the central intelligence. The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, gave that very testimony, that, in fact, there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back for a decade. Indeed, the 9/11 Commission talked about contacts between the two.

We know that Zarqawi was running a poisons network in Iraq. We know that Zarqawi ordered the killing of an American diplomat in Jordan from Iraq. There were ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Now, are we learning more now that we have access to people like Saddam Hussein's intelligence services? Of course we're going to learn more. But clearly ...

WALLACE: But, Secretary Rice, this report, if I may, this report wasn't now. This isn't after the fact. This was a Defense Intelligence Agency report in 2002.

Two questions: First of all, did you know about that report before you made your statement?

RICE: Chris, we relied on the reports of the National Intelligence Office, the NIO, and of the DCI. That's what the president and his central decision-makers rely on. There are ...

WALLACE: Did you know about this report?

RICE: ... intelligence reports and conflicting intelligence reports all the time. That's why we have an intelligence system that brings those together into a unified assessment by the intelligence community of what we're looking at.

That particular report I don't remember seeing. But there are often conflicting intelligence reports.

I just want to refer you, though, to the testimony of the DCI at the time about the activities. ...

WALLACE: That's the head of central intelligence.

RICE: Yes, head of central intelligence — that were going on between Al Qaeda and between Iraq.

But let me make a broader point. The notion, somehow — and I've heard this — the notion, somehow, that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power seems to me quite ludicrous.

Saddam Hussein had gone to war against his neighbors twice, causing more than a million deaths. He had dragged us into a war in 1991 because he invaded his neighbor Kuwait. We were still at war with him in 1998 when we used American forces to try and disable his weapons of mass destruction. We went to war again with him, day in and day out, as he shot at our aircraft trying to patrol no-fly zones. This was a mass murderer of more than 300,000 of his own people, using weapons of mass destruction.

The United States and a coalition of allies finally brought down one of the most brutal dictators in the Middle East and one of the most dangerous dictators in the Middle East, and we're better off for it.

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/20/cheney-lies/

...Cheney’s statement is a lie. Here’s precisely what the Senate Intelligence Committee found: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

<i>Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and…the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.</i> [p. 109]....

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060912-2.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 12, 2006

Press Briefing by Tony Snow

...Q Well, one more, Tony, just one more. Do you believe -- does the President still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to Zarqawi or al Qaeda before the invasion?

MR. SNOW: The President has never said that there was a direct, operational relationship between the two, and this is important. Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Q There was a link --

MR. SNOW: Well, and there was a relationship -- there was a relationship in this sense: Zarqawi was in Iraq; al Qaeda members were in Iraq; they were operating, and in some cases, operating freely from Iraq. Zarqawi, for instance, directed the assassination of an American diplomat in Amman, Jordan. But they did they have a corner office at the Mukhabarat? No. Were they getting a line item in Saddam's budget? No. There was no direct operational relationship, but there was a relationship. They were in the country, and I think you understand that the Iraqis knew they were there. That's the relationship.

Q Saddam Hussein knew they were there; that's it for the relationship?

MR. SNOW: That's pretty much it.

Q The Senate report said they didn't turn a blind eye.

MR. SNOW: The Senate report -- rather than get -- you know what, I don't want to get into the vagaries of the Senate report, but it is pretty clear, among other things, again, that there were al Qaeda operators inside Iraq, and they included Zarqawi, they included a cleric who had been described as the best friend of bin Laden who was delivering sermons on TV. But we are simply not going to go to the point that the President is -- the President has never made the statement that there was an operational relationship, and that's the important thing, because I think there's a tendency to say, aha, he said that they were in cahoots and they were planning and doing stuff; there's no evidence of that. ....

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/15/bush-zarqawi-iraq/

Bush Rewrites History on Zarqawi Statements

During today’s press conference, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz asked Bush why he continues to say Saddam “had relations with Zarqawi,” despite the Senate Intelligence Report findings that Hussein “did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.” Bush replied: “I never said there was an operational relationship.” Watch it:

In fact, Bush has repeatedly asserted that Saddam “harbored” and “provided safe-haven” to Zarqawi:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040617-3.html
BUSH: [Saddam] was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi… [6/17/04]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040923-8.html
BUSH: [Saddam] is a man who harbored terrorists - Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Zarqawi. [9/23/04]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030306-8.html
BUSH: [Zarqawi’s] a man who was wounded in Afghanistan, received aid in Baghdad, ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, USAID employee, was harbored in Iraq. [3/6/03]

Transcript:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060915-2.html

MARTHA: Mr. President, you have said throughout the war in Iraq and building up to the war in Iraq that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi and al Qaeda. A Senate Intelligence Committee report a few weeks ago said there was no link, no relationship, and that the CIA knew this and issued a report last fall. And yet a month ago, you were still saying there was a relationship. Why did you keep saying that? Why do you continue to say that? And do you still believe that?

BUSH: The point I was making to Ken Herman’s question was that Saddam Hussein was a state sponsor of terror, and that Mr. Zarqawi was in Iraq. He had been wounded in Afghanistan, had come to Iraq for treatment. He had ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen in Jordan. <b>I never said there was an operational relationship.</b>

....and Cheney was "at it" again a month later:

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...061019-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
October 19, 2006

Satellite Interview of the Vice President by WSBT-TV, South Bend, Indiana
2nd Congressional District -
Representative Chris Chocola

........Q Are you saying that you believe fighting in Iraq has prevented terrorist attacks on American soil? And if so, why, since there has not been a direct connection between al Qaeda and Iraq established?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the fact of the matter is there are connections. Mr. Zarqawi, who was the lead terrorist in Iraq for three years, fled there after we went into Afghanistan. He was there before we ever went into Iraq. The sectarian violence that we see now, in part, has been stimulated by the fact of al Qaeda attacks intended to try to create conflict between Shia and Sunni......

....please, ace.....Bush and Cheney do not "say what they mean", they are well documented to be habitual liars........

The_Jazz · 04-20-2007, 07:57 AM

host, while you've post a lot of interesting information here, it is not on topic. This thread will not turn into another discussion of White House foreign policy success or failures - we are discussing the Department of Justice here and specifically Attorney General Gonzales.

Last chance to stay on topic, folks.

reconmike · 04-20-2007, 08:00 AM

I love my new high speed scroll wheel

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2007, 08:30 AM

I really like Cracker Jacks, y'know. But, it seems to me that the prizes aren't anywhere near as cool as they used to be. And you don't get as much in a box anymore. What's up with that?

Willravel · 04-20-2007, 08:49 AM

You'd ask Gonzales about cracker jacks?

Bill O'Rights · 04-20-2007, 09:27 AM

Why? Does he like Cracker Jacks, too?

Ooohh...you mean the original thread topic. Well...after wading through the thread, I'd forgotten that there even was a topic.

Aahhh...I'm old...my mind wanders. I wonder, for example, why does a Reese's Peanut Butter Egg taste so much different from a regular Peanut Butter Cup?

The_Jazz · 04-20-2007, 09:34 AM

Bill,

You are getting old. The question is: why are Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs only sold once a year? No one cares about the taste so much as getting more.

Mr. Gonzales, do you recall that answer?

Since we're all apparently so hungry, perhaps this thread should be moved to Tilted Cooking....

Willravel · 04-20-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ooohh...you mean the original thread topic. Well...after wading through the thread, I'd forgotten that there even was a topic.

So you're way of pointing out that the thread has been jacked is to threadjack? You'll forgive me, but that doesn't make any sense.

Getting back....

..."Mr. Gonzales, I cannot recall my question for you at this time. There may have been a question, but I cannot recall it as of this time. Recall, recall."

"Mr. Gonzales, you have repeatedly said that the prosecutors were fired because of their job performance. Out of the 93 prosecutors that were fired, can you name one reason for any of them to have been fired?"

ubertuber · 04-20-2007, 09:42 AM

I don't know how to phrase this exactly, but I've got a question about Gonzales.

I'd appreciate an explanation of what the job standard for US Attorneys which allowed them to be fired was relative to the job standard for the Attorney General which would allow him to keep his job and enjoy the full confidence of the President and Vice President, who evidently regard this incident to be no more than a communications error.

I'm aware that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President", but there's got to be some job description and evaluation that allows them to plan to do a good job. There has to be a way for them to know what to do if they want to keep their jobs. I'd like to know what their understanding of that something is, and how this is communicated to them.

Similarly, I'd like to know what Alberto Gonzales's understanding of that something is in relation to his own job - what he is expected to do in order to be understood as having done a good job and what he would to to keep or lose that position. Most of all, I'd like to know how these things were communicatedto him.

The_Jazz · 04-20-2007, 10:04 AM

Uber,

My understanding is that they have the same performance criteria as all political appointees. Basically they get to keep chugging along until they either find a better opportunity or piss someone off that's higher in the food chain than they are. For the US Attorneys that could include senators, congressmen, the AG, POTUS, VPOTUS, etc.

For the AG, the list is pretty much POTUS and VPOTUS. Implied is all the people directly for these folks who have the actual individual's ear. I'll be dc_dux can give us a more comprehensive and better explained list, but this what I've got.

The end result is that you can be absolutely incompetent but until either the press figures it out or you tick off the wrong person, you're fine. It's the magic of patronage.

Jinn · 04-20-2007, 10:22 AM

Mr. Gonzales - you seem to have difficulty remembering important things. Have you - I'm going to be quite frank, sir - have you been smoking the ganja? Do you habitually smoke marijuana cigarettes? Reefer? If you; that is to say.. if you doubt the relevancy of my question, I am asking in regards to your wretched memory. I've - to be quite honest - met adults who smoked enough marijuana to kill their entire brain.. and they seem to perceive past events in better clarity than you have, sir. How do you answer to the question of smoking the pot?

And did you, sir, in follow up.. inhale? Or did you not inhale?

ubertuber · 04-20-2007, 11:08 AM

The_Jazz:

I get that. I'm just thinking that supervisors typically indicate to their subordinates what it is that they ought to be doing. I'd like to know what indications the US Attorneys were given - explicitly and implicitly.

Elphaba · 04-20-2007, 04:03 PM

Mr. Gonzales, your testimony would appear to have given us two choices; as the Attorney General of the United States, you are either incompetent or corrupt. Is it possible that you are both?

Willravel · 04-20-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Mr. Gonzales, your testimony would appear to have given us two choices; as the Attorney General of the United States, you are either incompetent or corrupt. Is it possible that you are both?

I like this one. I'd like to ask Rummy, Cheney and even Bush that same thing. Evil or stupid?

Elphaba · 04-20-2007, 04:11 PM

Or worse, both.

seretogis · 04-20-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

I love my new high speed scroll wheel

I just wet myself.

reconmike · 04-20-2007, 07:45 PM

General Gonzales, were you following the same procedures when firing the US attorneys as Bell did in 1978 for Jimma Carter?

Where these attorneys investigating Republicans like the attorneys where investigating democrats in 1978 and where they fired for that reason?

And do you believe Carter and Bell were not grilled because the house and senate were controlled by democrats?

Willravel · 04-20-2007, 08:21 PM

Maybe we should compare the good Gonzales did with the good Bell did. I think you'll find that a one sided exercise.

Meanwhile, do you have any further information on the Bell dismissals besides "Bell fired some US attorneys in 1978".

reconmike · 04-21-2007, 08:19 AM

Sure Will here ya go,

Quote:

http://www.progressivehistorians.com...o?diaryId=1265 CANDIDATE JIMMY CARTER made a promise that no Presidential candidate will say in 2008, no matter what. And a promise that no candidate had made before. But strange as it was, it seemed to make sense in the wake of Watergate and the Nixon resignation. "If I ever tell a lie," Carter said. "If I ever mislead you, if I ever betray a trust or a confidence, I want you to come and take me out of the White House."

The obvious problem with such a neat promise, as Carter would find out is that its too hard for a Modern President to live up to. But this was 1976.

my history can beat up your politics :: Presidents Firing Prosecutors
Nixon had abused Presidential Power and snubbed both the judicial branch and the congress when he refused a request from Archibald Cox, the special prosector investigating Watergate, for the tapes Nixon had made of white house proceedings. It was not only a snub to the prosecutor but to the Congress, as the Congress had been promised that there would be a through investigation by an impartial investigator and the investigation would cover all evidence.

Nixon though he was in no position to do so, refused Cox's request and offered a compromise: a respected U.S. Senator John Stennis would review the evidence and summarize for the prosecutor. Cox understandably refused to compromise with the subect of an investigation and declined the offer. On Friday 19, 1973 he left his office and assumed that since most government offices were closed, there would be no resolution until the following Monday.

He was wrong. On Saturday October 20th, 1973, Nixon telephoned Attorney General Elliot Richardson and instructed him to fire Cox. As a special prosecutor, Cox worked for the justice department, and so technically Richardson was his boss. Richardson refused and his boss, President Nixon, fired him. Nixon then contacted Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, informed him he was now Acting Attorney General and asked him to fire Cox. Ruckelshaus also refused. Both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had made committments to congress not to interfere with the investigation. Nixon then contacted the next highest ranking official in the Justice department Solicitor General Robert Bork. Bork, later a Supreme Court candidate, had made no such promise to Congress and promptly fired Cox.

While Saturday news items normally don't get as much press in this case the very fact that it had occured on teh weekend reeked of a cover-up. It was dubbed the "Saturday Night Massacre." Far from relieving Nixon of Watergate, it destroyed Nixon's public standing. Soon after Nixon would have his 'I am not a crook' press conference. A new special prosecutor was appointed and the investigation continued. The Supreme Court would eventually argue that Nixon needed to hand over the tapes. It could be said that his firing of Cox and the two highest ranking officials of the Justice Department -- even more than the break in -- was the event that made Watergate an unbeatable scandal.

And so the new candidate that would take the country by storm and the Democratic Party by surprise in 1976 wanted to establish himself as the ultimate anti-Nixon, an up-front President not capable of a Saturday Night Massacre. He told the party's convention in 1976" The Democratic Party must commit itself to steps to prevent many of the abuses of recent years. All federal judges and prosecutors should be appointed strictly on the basis of merit, without any consideration of political aspects or influence. But Jimmy Carter's Presidency would hit one of many snags when he, through his Attorney General, fired a U.S. Prosecutor prior to his term being completed. It was 1978, and U.S. Attorney David Marston, a Republican, had been investigating corruption in the Philadelphia area, which involved some Democratic politicians.

Carter recieved a phone call from Joshua Eilberg, a Philadelphia area congressman who was one of Marston's targets. Eilberg was accused of raking in a half million in legal fees in compensation for obtaining federal financing for a development project. Two days after the phone call with the congressman, Carter called his attorney General Griffin Bell and asked him to 'hurry up' with his replacement of Marston, which Bell did.

As US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and Marston was a previous President's appointment that was about to expire, there appeared nothing wrong. Except that when asked about it in an televsion press confrence, Carter was less than truthful. In reply to the first question on thesubject, he said that replacing Marston was Bell's concern, "and I've not interfered in it at all." Later he said. "I've not discussed the case with the Attorney General." After that Carter acknowledged that, yes, Congressman Eilberg had been in touch with him, but only after the President had jogged Bell into action on Marston-but wait a second, THAT contradicted Carter's claims that he had not interfered at all or talked with Bell. Carter would go on to say that he had heard of the Eilberg inquiry "a few minutes before the press conference" from his congressional liaison which was not credible as it had been in newspapers 2 days before the conference.

As TIME Magazine pointed out, the candidate who had promised never to lie had lied about four times about this matter.. Republicans had a field day, Carter had a rough summer and his one prized political possession, his credibility, was eroded. But that was all there was too it. To the extent people were outraged about the Marston firing, the outrage was more about Carter's mistruths s than about the practice.

It was, and is, fairly accepted that a New President could put in new Attorney Generals. Of the first 65 U.S. Attorneys named by the new Administration, 64 were Democrats.

As then Speaker Tip O'Neill put it, "That's the way the System works." O'Neill fumed that Marston was "a Republican political animal" who took office "with viciousness in his heart and for only one reason-to get Democrats." That may not have been fair as Marston pursed the former Republican chairman of Chester County as well as Democratic Representatives Eilberg and Daniel Flood and two powerful Democratic legislators. But the firing didn't work out too bad for him. He became a kind of martyr, and in the end Marston's investigation continued without him and Eilberg was prosecuted and forced to resign. Marston would later run unssucessful for mayor of Philadelphia as a Republican.

To this day the Marston firing is being compared to the actions of Attorney General Gonzales in firing eight US Attorneys for what appear to be political reasons. Some consdervative outlets such as Human Events and Rush Limbaugh are using the Marston case as an example that Democrats do this too.

David Marston, for his part, thinks it was far worse, saying in a recent interview that there is nothing in the Gonzales story like the call from EiIberg to Carter. That may or may not be true. The event itself was bad, and Carter paid for it, but the Carter Admin seems to have been void of systemic malice. It is true that Carter fired a U.S. Attorney for political reasons. And it is true that there is little justification for Carter's actions other than a blatant attempt to help a political ally who would then presumbably be around to vote for Carter's programs. but its hard to find a lot of other such activities in Carter's Presidency. The Boss Carter rap isn't going to fly.

Truman Fires Milligan

Before we get into the Gonzales matter, let's look at one more case: The firing of Maurice Milligan, US Attorney for Missouri, in 1945, a few days after Truman became President. This is another case being pointed especially by conservatives but also a lot of run of the mill reporters as an example of a Democrat firing a Republican US Attorney for political reasons. Maurice Milligan prosecuted Tom Pendergast, the boss who was responsible for Truman having a U.S. Senate Seat and in 1939 Pendergast was convicted for tax evasion by Milligan. Two years before, Senator Truman had filibustered Milligan's appointment unsuccessfully. Truman became Vice President, and President. Sure enough, as soon as Harry Truman became President Truman, he had Milligan fired.

It seems, at first, a cut and dry case of our beloved President Truman engaging in politics in the Judiciary. Getting rid of the guy who prosecuted his political boss. And indeed that is how it is now being presented on many websites. And to a certain extent it was. But maybe not the kind of politics folks are thinking. There is another aspect to this story. Jack Milligan, brother of Maurice, had been Truman's opponent in the 1934 Senate Race. And in 1940, Maurice Milligan would run and narrowly lose to Truman. In fact had it not been that the anti-Truman vote split, Truman never would have had a chance to get to the Vice Presidency or the Presidency. The Milligans were not only prosecutors but political opponents of Truman. And the firing occured nearly six years after Truman's boss Pendergast was convicted. In fact, at the time of the firing, Pendergast was dead. So it certianly wasn't "orders from the boss" that pressured Truman to fire Milligan. The relationship between Pendergast and Truman was complicated anyway, while Truman helped Pendergast with patronage matters, on issues Truman decided on his own. Firing Milligan could not have been to avoid an investigation as the investigation already happened. It may have been a long-harbored revenge for what Milligan did to Pendergast. But it seems far more likely that Truman was besting his own political opponents than avenging his old boss. While that wouldn't seem a proper use of Presidential power, it seems more explainable than using such power to block an investigation. Do we think that had a person run against George W. Bush in Texas they would be permitted to hold a U.S. Attorney's job?

As Carter's AG, Griffin Bell said, the posts were long considered patronage plums. "In the old days, when you changed political parties ...everyone in the U.S. attorney's office immediately resigned. Bell reflected that when President Harry S. Truman left office and Eisenhower was to take over, he remembered going to the U.S. attorney's office in Atlanta and everyone had cleared out. " It was dark," Bell said. " Every light was out. No one was there. ... That's just the way it was."

Even the man Bell fired on Carter's order, David Marston said he agreed with Law Professor John Yoo. agreed with an article by law professor John Yoo in the Wall Street Journal that said "Presidents need to have their own people in place in order to promote a consistent national agenda" and that U.S. Attorneys should serve at the pleasure of the President. However, Marston said he held Carter to a hire standard than other Presidents because he had made a promise to be fair about the judiciary.

Gonzales

So given this little history, let's look at the current scandal.

On December 7 2006, eight United States Attorneys were notified by the United States Department of Justice that they were being dismissed, after the Bush administration made the determination to seek their resignations. Critics claimed the dismissals were either motivated by desire to install attorneys more loyal to the Republican party or as retribution for actions or inactions damaging to the Republican party.

Performance was cited as the reason for the firing, which raised suspicion because six of the eight U.S. attorneys fired by the Justice Department ranked in the top third among their peers for the number of prosecutions filed last year, according to an analysis of federal records. In addition, five of the eight were among the government's top performers in winning convictions. The release of emails by Gonzales' chief of staff Kyle Sampson, showed that a number of statements from the Dept of Justice, including statements made by Gonzales himself, were inaccurate. Now even Newt Gingrich says Gonzales should resign.

If you've lost New, you've lost Republican America, it would seem.

American government is designed to be a day to day conflict of interest as the Founding Fathers felt that would best preserve the government. The President is the enforcer of the laws he makes, and thus the Judicary Act of 1789 gives the President a fairly free hand in appointing the Attorney General and appoint his people to the US Attorney's jobs, which throughout history have indeed been the key patronage office for supporters of the President with legal experience, requiring only consent of the Senate which is normally granted. Indeed, the history of Attorney Generals finds that many are supporters of the President, many are friends of the President, and of course JFK appointed his own brother. For the most part the American people seem to accept that a President appoints his own people to these type of jobs, and thus when Clinton took office, the firings of all 93 US attorneys caused outrage only among partisan Republicans, and only seems to resonate now with the most partisan of Republicans as a historical comparison to today's events.

But the Constituion also provides an independent judiciary, and It does seem to be another matter if one picks out justices after the've seen them at work and makes a call to remove them. That seems to go from the Executive hiring power to the interfering with those people once hired. Nixon didn't take that bruising well, we could also say that Franklin Roosevelt's one great misstep is when he tried to bully the Supreme Court. Appoint them, sayeth the popular consensus, but once working, don't interfere.

But most important of all, don't cover it up. It seems pretty clear that in firing David Marston, Carter may have done well to explain the firing the way Tip O' Neil did, that it was the American system at work. A Demcoratic President was putting in a Democratic U.S. attorney. But It was Carters untruthfulness in seeking to avoid the question that made it a scandal. The examples of Marston and Milligan are somewhat instructive in at least that political firings have happened in the past. But they don't account for the systematic plan to fire of this amount of attorneys at one time. And they certianly don't excuse misleading statements made to the Congress. Because Bush has shown a don't admit defeat philosphy' with Rumsfeld the only exception so far, the normal Washington story of resignation may or may not happen here (though Newt is a pretty heavy loss for Gonzales), but either way the scandal will do much to damage his Presidency.

But it won't truly be for the firing that Carter and Truman and of course Nixon shared in doing to varying extents, but for the attempt to cover it up.

Quote:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...703220312/1008 The Detroit News

Departing U.S. attorneys

U.S. attorneys who left office between 1981 and 2006, excluding those removed because of a change in presidential administration:

Total leaving prior to the expiration of their four-year term: 54

Appointed to U.S. judgeships: 18

Appointed to other federal jobs: 6

Ran for office: 4

Accepted state appointments: 2

Left for private practice: 15

Death: 1

Other: 8
Source: Congressional Research Service

The flap about the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys is overblown. Subpoenas issued by the injudicious House Judiciary Committee for administration figures are an abuse of congressional authority. U.S. attorneys are executive branch appointees and serve at the pleasure of the president.

They are not federal judges and do not have lifetime tenure. It appears that most of the firings are based on policy differences between the Bush administration and the federal prosecutors involved. When critics complain that "politics" is involved in the firings, the appropriate answer is "yes -- so what?"

The firings appear to be over the federal district attorneys' lack of enthusiasm for prosecuting immigration, vote fraud and pornography cases or seeking the death penalty. We don't necessarily agree with the priorities in all of these areas. But presidents are entitled to set agendas and have their appointees adhere to them.

That said, some of the firings do appear to be shabby. Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have given shifting and inconsistent reasons for the firings. This has emboldened congressional Democrats to try to inflate the issue into a major scandal.

At first, Justice Department officials said some of the attorneys were removed for performance reasons. But many of them received excellent performance ratings. The release of internal administration e-mails has revealed such unappealing details as the fact that the federal prosecutor in Arkansas was apparently removed to make way for an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Two federal attorneys -- one in New Mexico and one in Washington state -- contend they were pressured by congressmen or administration officials to bring vote fraud prosecutions. Members of Congress should not pressure federal prosecutors or the Justice Department in any particular case. A general complaint from the administration that areas of the law aren't being pursued vigorously is supervision. A demand to launch a particular case against a particular individual is interference.

It's reasonable for members of Congress to try to find out which was which in these firings. But the huffing and puffing by Democrats in Congress is hypocritical and shows a lack of perspective.

Federal prosecutors in Philadelphia and Detroit, appointed by Gerald Ford, were removed before their four-year terms were up by the Jimmy Carter administration because they annoyed local Democratic politicians. Neither Carter nor his attorney general, Griffin Bell, had to face charges of obstruction of justice or prolonged harangues in Congress. Perhaps this is because Congress was controlled by the Democrats at the time.

The president has a political problem because Justice Department officials bungled the firings. But it should be seen as just that -- a political problem, not a major crisis.

These cut and pastes to prove my point with facts ala Host should do the trick.

And Will would you like to show me what good Bell did?

The_Jazz · 04-21-2007, 08:24 AM

And now I have a reason to love my high speed scroll wheel.

Just kidding. Interesting stuff Mike, but I still think that it's apples and oranges. For one thing, Carter was still breathing the fumes of Watergate.

dc_dux · 04-21-2007, 08:37 AM

Two important facts left out of your links, mike.

Griffin Bell did testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the firing of Marston.

And of those US attorneys who left office between 1981 and 2006, most left volutarily. Only 10 left office involunarily (ie fired)....three were fired for improper or criminal,behavior. So seven were fired for questionable reasons in 25 years...and Bush fires 8 in one day. That difference, in and of itself, would raise reasonable questions....and add the conflicting and changing reasons given by both DOJ and the WH for the firing, and you have more justification for hearings.

Again, it was not the firing...it was the lying after the fact, including impugning the reputations of those attorneys by saying the firings were performance related.

reconmike · 04-21-2007, 12:05 PM

DC, Slick Willie fired ALL the US attorneys when he took office,

Quote:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...50/ai_21123146 In the history of the Republic, the names of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno will be forever linked, a prospect that ought to appall Miss Reno. That is entirely due to her efforts to preserve the President from his own follies, to use a polite word. Bill Clinton heads what is probably the most corrupt Administration ever, while Miss Reno has been called the worst of all Clinton's Cabinet appointments. From his point of view, of course, she may be the best, which comes to much the same thing.

Miss Reno's only visible qualifications for the post of attorney general were two: she is a woman and she had been a prosecutor. The first characteristic was indisputable, although, in any non-feminized era, it would have been irrelevant. The second seemed heartening, but it did not prepare her for Washington. Coming from obscurity, she must have been caught off guard by the rampant corruption into which she was thrust. So varied and unceasing have been this Administration's infractions of law that Miss Reno resembles a desperate tennis player, running from side to side of the court and from net to baseline in a frantic effort to hold down the score. Unfortunately for her White House coach, she is becoming winded and wobbly-legged.

She was not in charge from the beginning. Upon taking office, in an unexplained departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it. Just as the best place to hide a body is on a battlefield, the best way to be rid of one potentially troublesome attorney is to fire all of them. The U.S. attorney in Little Rock was replaced by a Clinton protege. The long-running Waco emergency that culminated in the deaths of eighty Branch Davidian men, women, and children again proved that Janet Reno was not in charge in the Justice Department. Webster Hubbell, Hillary's former law partner in Little Rock and Bill's man at Justice, coordinated tactics with the White House. The President did not even talk to his attorney general throughout the crisis.

04-19-2007, 10:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If you could grill Gonzales ... ...what would you ask? As I've been listening to the Judiciary Committee questioning Attorney General/Torture Fiend Alberto Gonzales, I've been imagining questions that I would pose if I were on the Judiciary Committee. "Mr. Gonzales, it seems, based on your testimony, that Mr. Sampson had the ability to overrule your authority and make decisions for you. Could you speak to the that fact, despite the fact that you had seniority over Mr. Sampson, who was the Chief of your staff?" "Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Sampson gave the following testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee: 'I don't think the attorney general's statement that he was not involved in any discussions of U.S. attorney removals was accurate.' Can you speak, without using the word 'recall', to this?" "Mr. Gonzales, how can you run a department that relies on facts when you seem to lack the ability, after being given 25 days to gather your facts and think about what happened, to remember only a few important conversations?" "Mr. Gonzales, should each of the new attorneys have to go before the Congress for their conformation?" "Mr. Gonzales, can you speak to the justifications for allowing torture?" "Mr. Gonzales, which, to you, is more important: loyalty or the ability to do one's job?" "Mr. Gonzales, what do you think happened to all of those emails?" "Mr. Gonzales, when you resign later this week, who will you be covering for?"

04-19-2007, 02:41 PM	#8 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i just like it when smarmy little fucks like gonzales get put through the reamer. fuck him. if it sends a message that you will get blasted sooner or later for being an asshole on my dollar, then i'm all for it. bush, that beady-eyed little bastard, likely would replace him with some other crap of his ilk. before that, it was what? harriette meyers? but in asfar as it goes, let him squirm. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

04-19-2007, 04:11 PM	#10 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	If I could grill Gonzales... ...like salmon with alder wood chips. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-19-2007, 05:21 PM	#12 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	ace, the moons must be in some odd fucking alignment, because i've found myself agreeing with more than one of your more recent posts. this whole thing revolves, in an indirect fashion, on the disenfranchisement of 99% of american citizen's say in the government. how do you do that? exactly like they do it at publix. you have a name brand. you have a generic. guess what? same company makes 'em both. so these dicks that are in power will stay in power. its just a question of whose face will be on the tv. i'd like to say that will change. it could change. but it will take a hell of lot more americans getting pissed off for it to happen. or a coup d'etat. you know, whatever. if 95% of americans don't give a shit that they are selling their rights out hardcore right now; would they give a shit if a revolution cleanly snipped the admin out of place and replaced it? highly unlikely. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

04-20-2007, 06:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	ace, i'd just like to point out that i don't think there's much factual basis for that last sentence. they may not speak in complex sentence structures, but that's entirely different from "meaning what you say." __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

04-19-2007, 11:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I was hoping you'd chime in, Host. So far, I have to say that I'm impressed with many of the questions of the slime ball Gonzales. Right now, he's being asked who wrote the list, and Gonzales is giving his, "I don't recall" BS. He'll resign this week.

04-19-2007, 01:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Ace = Gonzales? If that's the case, this thread could be construed a personal attack on a fellow member and should be shut down.

04-20-2007, 05:24 AM	#14 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Would You be comfortable, hiring someone to represent you who "couldnt Recall" your case at all?

04-20-2007, 07:06 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Folks, can we please keep to the topic at hand? The last few posts haven't had a single commonality with the question posed. Mr. Gonzales, you've obviously had trouble remembering meetings that have proven to be very important in hindsight. Would you please share with the committee exactly what you do recall being the reasons for these firings and exactly what was asked of you by both the White House and members of the Senate? __________________ "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 Last edited by The_Jazz; 04-20-2007 at 07:11 AM..

04-20-2007, 07:57 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, while you've post a lot of interesting information here, it is not on topic. This thread will not turn into another discussion of White House foreign policy success or failures - we are discussing the Department of Justice here and specifically Attorney General Gonzales. Last chance to stay on topic, folks. __________________ "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

04-20-2007, 08:00 AM	#21 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	I love my new high speed scroll wheel __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

04-20-2007, 08:30 AM	#22 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I really like Cracker Jacks, y'know. But, it seems to me that the prizes aren't anywhere near as cool as they used to be. And you don't get as much in a box anymore. What's up with that? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-20-2007, 08:49 AM	#23 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You'd ask Gonzales about cracker jacks?

04-20-2007, 09:27 AM	#24 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Why? Does he like Cracker Jacks, too? Ooohh...you mean the original thread topic. Well...after wading through the thread, I'd forgotten that there even was a topic. Aahhh...I'm old...my mind wanders. I wonder, for example, why does a Reese's Peanut Butter Egg taste so much different from a regular Peanut Butter Cup? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-20-2007, 09:34 AM	#25 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Bill, You are getting old. The question is: why are Reese's Peanut Butter Eggs only sold once a year? No one cares about the taste so much as getting more. Mr. Gonzales, do you recall that answer? Since we're all apparently so hungry, perhaps this thread should be moved to Tilted Cooking.... __________________ "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

04-20-2007, 09:42 AM	#27 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I don't know how to phrase this exactly, but I've got a question about Gonzales. I'd appreciate an explanation of what the job standard for US Attorneys which allowed them to be fired was relative to the job standard for the Attorney General which would allow him to keep his job and enjoy the full confidence of the President and Vice President, who evidently regard this incident to be no more than a communications error. I'm aware that US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President", but there's got to be some job description and evaluation that allows them to plan to do a good job. There has to be a way for them to know what to do if they want to keep their jobs. I'd like to know what their understanding of that something is, and how this is communicated to them. Similarly, I'd like to know what Alberto Gonzales's understanding of that something is in relation to his own job - what he is expected to do in order to be understood as having done a good job and what he would to to keep or lose that position. Most of all, I'd like to know how these things were communicatedto him. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 04-20-2007 at 09:45 AM..

04-20-2007, 10:04 AM	#28 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Uber, My understanding is that they have the same performance criteria as all political appointees. Basically they get to keep chugging along until they either find a better opportunity or piss someone off that's higher in the food chain than they are. For the US Attorneys that could include senators, congressmen, the AG, POTUS, VPOTUS, etc. For the AG, the list is pretty much POTUS and VPOTUS. Implied is all the people directly for these folks who have the actual individual's ear. I'll be dc_dux can give us a more comprehensive and better explained list, but this what I've got. The end result is that you can be absolutely incompetent but until either the press figures it out or you tick off the wrong person, you're fine. It's the magic of patronage. __________________ "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

04-20-2007, 10:22 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Mr. Gonzales - you seem to have difficulty remembering important things. Have you - I'm going to be quite frank, sir - have you been smoking the ganja? Do you habitually smoke marijuana cigarettes? Reefer? If you; that is to say.. if you doubt the relevancy of my question, I am asking in regards to your wretched memory. I've - to be quite honest - met adults who smoked enough marijuana to kill their entire brain.. and they seem to perceive past events in better clarity than you have, sir. How do you answer to the question of smoking the pot? And did you, sir, in follow up.. inhale? Or did you not inhale? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 04-20-2007 at 10:25 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

04-20-2007, 11:08 AM	#30 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	The_Jazz: I get that. I'm just thinking that supervisors typically indicate to their subordinates what it is that they ought to be doing. I'd like to know what indications the US Attorneys were given - explicitly and implicitly. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-20-2007, 04:03 PM	#31 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Mr. Gonzales, your testimony would appear to have given us two choices; as the Attorney General of the United States, you are either incompetent or corrupt. Is it possible that you are both? __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-20-2007, 04:11 PM	#33 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Or worse, both. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

04-20-2007, 07:45 PM	#35 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	General Gonzales, were you following the same procedures when firing the US attorneys as Bell did in 1978 for Jimma Carter? Where these attorneys investigating Republicans like the attorneys where investigating democrats in 1978 and where they fired for that reason? And do you believe Carter and Bell were not grilled because the house and senate were controlled by democrats? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

04-20-2007, 08:21 PM	#36 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Maybe we should compare the good Gonzales did with the good Bell did. I think you'll find that a one sided exercise. Meanwhile, do you have any further information on the Bell dismissals besides "Bell fired some US attorneys in 1978".

04-21-2007, 08:24 AM	#38 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	And now I have a reason to love my high speed scroll wheel. Just kidding. Interesting stuff Mike, but I still think that it's apples and oranges. For one thing, Carter was still breathing the fumes of Watergate. __________________ "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

04-21-2007, 08:37 AM	#39 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Two important facts left out of your links, mike. Griffin Bell did testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the firing of Marston. And of those US attorneys who left office between 1981 and 2006, most left volutarily. Only 10 left office involunarily (ie fired)....three were fired for improper or criminal,behavior. So seven were fired for questionable reasons in 25 years...and Bush fires 8 in one day. That difference, in and of itself, would raise reasonable questions....and add the conflicting and changing reasons given by both DOJ and the WH for the firing, and you have more justification for hearings. Again, it was not the firing...it was the lying after the fact, including impugning the reputations of those attorneys by saying the firings were performance related. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-21-2007 at 08:56 AM..