AG Gonzales

[BENZ-LGB]

I have been following, with more than just a passing interest, the so-called crisis at the Justice Department regarding the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. I have watched the procession of usual suspects, aka hand-wringing, hypocritical Dem "leaders," call for the firing (or resignation) of AG Gonzales.

Most galling, to me at least, is to watch that most hypocritical duet (Billary and the always bloated Teddy Kennedy) call for Gonzales' head. Teddy, who by all that is true and just in the world should have drowned when he drove his car off that narrow bridge, has no moral standing to criticize anyone's conduct. Compared to Teddy, even Scott Peterson comes off as a boy Scout.

Billary, well, she would sell her soul (if she had one) to the Devil to get elected. She too has no moral standing to criticize anyone. Even "cucarachas" have a higher sense of morality than Billary does.

What is really interesting is that the same usual suspects who are now lining up to drag and lynch the only Hispanic AG in this country's history, were strangely silent when their man, Billy-Cohibas-Clinton, and his puppet AG (Janet-no-estrogen-reno) caused the wholesale firing of ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys in the U.S.

The following is from a story that was published wayyyyyyyyy back in what some people here think was America's economic golden age:

She (Reno) 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.

National Review
September 1, 1998

[Emmerich]

The Dem play book is simple:

1) If Bush or a Republican did it, its wrong and we are against it (don't care what IT is or that we were for it before...).

Example: some Dem congressman several months ago call for more troops in Baghdad, he suggested 20,000. This was long before "the surge". Then Bush decides to send 21,500, and all of a sudden this congressman is condemning the surge as a bad idea....

Its sad the Dems have no idealogy, unless you consider hating Bush an idealogy...

[Honus]

If Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge is among your lead arguments for keeping Gonzales in office, then maybe he really does need to go.

Your memory is better than mine because I don't recall Gonzales's critics being "strangely silent" in 1993. Maybe there was a strange silence back then, I just don't remember it. Or maybe their silence wasn't so strange since Clinton's changing all of the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his administration is not the same as the recent firings by Gonzales.

Gonzales, it appears to me, has no clue about how to be an Attorney General. He seems to think that he is still Bush's lawyer. And he isn't even doing a good job at that. His strained arguments in favor of a number of issues - warrantless wiretapping, torture, Guantanamo, etc. - wouldn't be worthy of a mediocre first-year law student. His greatest accomplishment since coming to Washington is to make John Ashcroft look like the voice of reason. Like several of George Bush's favorite people, he doesn't seem to have a well developed sense of right and wrong.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

The Dem play book is simple:

1) If Bush or a Republican did it, its wrong and we are against it (don't care what IT is or that we were for it before...).

It's been a long time since I've seen anyone trot out that worn out old argument. It was a weak argument to begin with, and it's not getting any better with age.

Example: some Dem congressman several months ago call for more troops in Baghdad, he suggested 20,000. This was long before "the surge". Then Bush decides to send 21,500, and all of a sudden this congressman is condemning the surge as a bad idea....

Since you don't name the Congressman or give us any context for either of his alleged statements, it's hard to know what to think about that. My guess, however, is that sending in more troops did make sense at one point, but things have changed in Iraq.

Its sad the Dems have no idealogy, unless you consider hating Bush an idealogy...

I love that one. It's a Sean Hannity favorite. He will have a Democrat on this show and will accuse them of having no solutions to offer. The Democrat will offer a solution and then, without missing a beat, Hannity will say that they have no solutions. It's an effective technique that Sean executes almost to perfection. It is also a bunch of baloney.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Teddy, who by all that is true and just in the world should have drowned when he drove his car off that narrow bridge, has no moral standing to criticize anyone's conduct. Compared to Teddy, even Scott Peterson comes off as a boy Scout.

I'm not wild about Teddy but what he did doesn't come close to Scott Peterson's crimes.

I think it's a shame that the first Latino AG had to be such a weasel. Firing the attorneys wouldn't be so bad by itself but it's coming out that he lied to Congress about it. Oops.

It's one thing to appoint attorneys that the pres. thinks will move his ball forward. But this business of calling up federal attorneys to try to get them to expedite cases in such a way as to benefit Repos, and then firing them when they don't play the right type of ball on that account could end up being more than a small thing.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Its sad the Dems have no ideology, unless you consider hating Bush an ideology...

Hey! Original material!!

Remember how Repos far and wide were incensed that Clinton would have lied under oath and now they're beating the bushes for a pardon for Libby for doing about the same, only on a far more serious matter?

Partisanry cuts both ways.

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by dculkin

If Ted Kennedy driving off a bridge is among your lead arguments for keeping Gonzales in office, then maybe he really does need to go.

I repeat myself, you really do need to brush u on your reading comprehension skills. Where do I write that Ted Kennedy being an amoral windbag was the reason for keeping Gonzales in?

Teddy does need to keep his big, fat, amoral trap shut. The man has no standing to criticize ANYONE. Mary Jo's assassin should have done the right thing, if he was a moral man, and resigned long time ago.

Why do YOU think that Gonzales needs to go, othern than there is a chorus of Dem hacks calling for his head?

Originally Posted by dculkin

Your memory is better than mine

I agree, there is no doubt about that.

Originally Posted by dculkin

... because I don't recall Gonzales's critics being "strangely silent" in 1993. Maybe there was a strange silence back then, I just don't remember it. Or maybe their silence wasn't so strange since Clinton's changing all of the U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his administration is not the same as the recent firings by Gonzales.

I am not surprised at your lapse in memory.

No President in recent history ever fired ALL U.S. Attorneys. His actions were intended to put his cronies in strategic places. Of all Presidents in recent history, Clinton, more than any other, used the Justice Department to advance his ideological agenda and to silence his critics.

Such wholsesale firings interfered with ongoing prosecutions. This was especially galling since Billy-Janet had no ready replacements for many of the fired U.S. Attorneys.

Originally Posted by dculkin

Gonzales, it appears to me, has no clue about how to be an Attorney General.

And Janet did? She was the biggest political hack ever to fill the position of AG. She had no prior qualifications to hold the position. Being a second-rate prosecutor in Miami does nto cut it. She only got the job because, nominally, she is a female.

Her performance as AG was abysmal. She was willing, based on faulty and incomplete intelligence, to kill, shoot and burn children in order to separate them from their parents. Yet, the same Janet was willing to drag a child, at gunpoint from the home of his relatives to return him to kastro and that "workers paradise." Her legal arguments in the Elian case (espeially in light of her past performance) strained all legal credulity. Everyone knows that she was acting on Billy's order. Return the boy to kastro and thus punish the Cuban-American community for their support of Republicans. Great job!

You know, all politicians are bad, some are worse than others.

I just want honesty. Admit that you are a hack and a whore (I don;t care if you are conservative or liberal) and just move on. Abandon all pretense to holding the high moral ground.

If billy-boy had said, "Yes janet is a hack doing my bidding and yes I screwed around with Monica" I would have a great deal more respect for him.

I just get tired of all of these sanctimonious whores calling for Gonzales' lynching when in the past they have supported other AG who were incompetent, crooked hacks.

Wrap your head, if you can, around that concept!

[aklim]

I was wondering about something I read as a comment in the papers. IIRC, the writer mentioned that Clinton summarily fired a huge bunch, if not most of the sitting US attorneys when he took office in 93. Any truth?

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by aklim

I was wondering about something I read as a comment in the papers. IIRC, the writer mentioned that Clinton summarily fired a huge bunch, if not most of the sitting US attorneys when he took office in 93. Any truth?

It is true.

janet, acting under orders from bill, executed the wholesale firing of ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys.

All U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Presidents have the right to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys. Usually, when a new President takes over, the U.S. Attorneys tender their resignation.

The President then can pick people he wants to reward. BUT, and this is a big BUT, the President does not fire the U.S. Attorneys when he takes office. He reviews each U.S. Attorney and either accepts or rejects the resignation. If he accepts a resignation, the President usually already has an appointee on the wings.

By executing the mass firing of ALL 93 attorneys, billy and janet threw ongoing prosecutions into chaos and spread fear among the staff of the U.S. Attorney Offices throughout the U.S.

Incidentally, lest anyone is thinking about weeping for the 8 fired U.S. Attorneys keep this in mind. These people will all land lucrative jobs in the biggest, most powerful lawfirms in the country. Their meal tickets are well secured!

[Honus]

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I repeat myself, you really do need to brush u on your reading comprehension skills. Where do I write that Ted Kennedy being an amoral windbag was the reason for keeping Gonzales in?

Excuse my ignorance. I am sorry that I cannot match your sophistication on these issues. The first part of your message said that you "have watched the procession of usual suspects, aka hand-wringing, hypocritical Dem "leaders," call for the firing (or resignation) of AG Gonzales," followed immediately with a reference to Ted Kennedy's causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne driving off that bridge. Since the two thoughts followed one after the other, I thought you intended to make a connection between the two. Sorry about that.

...Why do YOU think that Gonzales needs to go, othern than there is a chorus of Dem hacks calling for his head?...

Did I say that he needs to go?

...His actions were intended to put his cronies in strategic places...

Exactly. Which makes him essentially the same as every other president. While the better practice would have been for Clinton/Reno to keep some of the incumbent U.S. Attorneys, their actions do not have the specific ethical taint of these recent firings.

Of all Presidents in recent history, Clinton, more than any other, used the Justice Department to advance his ideological agenda and to silence his critics.

I'm going to take a wild guess and suggest that you have no evidence to support that claim.

Such wholsesale firings interfered with ongoing prosecutions. This was especially galling since Billy-Janet had no ready replacements for many of the fired U.S. Attorneys.

Agreed. That was a screw up.

And Janet did? She was the biggest political hack ever to fill the position of AG.

That is the opposite impression that I get based on speaking with attorneys who worked under her at the Justice Department. She was not up to the job, but she did what she thought was best. She was one of the least political AGs.

She had no prior qualifications to hold the position. Being a second-rate prosecutor in Miami does nto cut it. She only got the job because, nominally, she is a female.

Her performance as AG was abysmal.

She was bad, just not as bad as the two that have followed her.

...Her legal arguments in the Elian case (espeially in light of her past performance) strained all legal credulity...

Didn't her side win in court?

...Wrap your head, if you can, around that concept!

Gosh. I'm trying to, but I think it's just too far over my head. I'll keep trying.

[Honus]

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

...Incidentally, lest anyone is thinking about weeping for the 8 fired U.S. Attorneys keep this in mind. These people will all land lucrative jobs in the biggest, most powerful lawfirms in the country. Their meal tickets are well secured!

Beside the point.

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Hey! Original material!!

Remember how Repos far and wide were incensed that Clinton would have lied under oath and now they're beating the bushes for a pardon for Libby for doing about the same, only on a far more serious matter?

Partisanry cuts both ways.

Carlos, Libby was the lawyer who helped get a pardon for billy's bagman, er I mean Marc Rich.

If it was ok for billy to pardon Marc, it should be OK for Bush to pardon Libby, don't you think?

I agree with you on one thing, there are whores on both sides of the aisle.

[BENZ-LGB]

Originally Posted by dculkin

Excuse my ignorance.

Your apology is accepted and you are forgiven.

The reference to the bloated amoral pig and to Billary were simply introductory material. They were intended, as it were, to prime the pump for what was to follow.

If you paid close attention, you would notice that I was expressing outrage that two people, whose morals are below those of a fecund ferret, would have the unmitigated gall to criticize AG Gonzales.

I was not making an argument on behalf of Conzales qualifications. That would be the subject of a different thread.

So please, pay attention and stay focused.

Originally Posted by dculkin

I am sorry that I cannot match your sophistication on these issues.

Well, you are trying and you should get some points for at least trying. BTW, did you ever hear the one about sarcasm being the lowest form of humor? No, I guess not.

Originally Posted by dculkin

She was not up to the job,

Something that we can both agree on.

Originally Posted by dculkin

but she did what she thought was best....

For billy, et al.

Originally Posted by dculkin

She was one of the least political AGs.

Are you serious????

Originally Posted by dculkin

Didn't her side win in court?

Oh, so that is the criteria then? Well, then tell carl about that, because he, and a few others, are all up in arms because two appellate justices ruled that Cuba, not the US, has sovereignty over Guantanamo and so the terrorists held there have no right to HC. Tell carl that a win by the Administration means that they were right and so to stop complaining.

Originally Posted by dculkin

... I think it's just too far over my head. I'll keep trying.

Well, you keep trying and someday you may get it right. Don't give up....

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I agree with you on one thing, there are whores on both sides of the aisle.

Yo soy de acuerdo, X 2,000,000,000 !!!

[Dee8go]

Originally Posted by Emmerich

The Dem play book is simple:

1) If Bush or a Republican did it, its wrong and we are against it (don't care what IT is or that we were for it before...).

Example: some Dem congressman several months ago call for more troops in Baghdad, he suggested 20,000. This was long before "the surge". Then Bush decides to send 21,500, and all of a sudden this congressman is condemning the surge as a bad idea....

Its sad the Dems have no idealogy, unless you consider hating Bush an idealogy...

Yeah, didn't they also vote in favor of the war to begin with?! Now, they're all against it. None of them have a lot of credibility with me. Which way is the wind blowing today?

I will also say that even though I voted twice for Bush, I am not too crazy about him now, either. I hope I haven't completely lost all of my objectivity, though.