AG Gonzales - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #16 03-15-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Beside the point.

Why? Because you say so?

I think it is very much on point.

Most, if not all, of these guys and gals are political animals and will land very nice and lucrative jobs.

So don't anyone weep for them....

BENZ-LGB · #17 03-15-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

... it's coming out that he lied to Congress about it. Oops.

What is your evidence Carlos?

BENZ-LGB · #18 03-15-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B.

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

Putas todas y todos!

At least a whore gives something in return for the money that she gets paid!

Did you see Dana in Jeopardy last night?

Honus · #19 03-15-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Why? Because you say so?...

No, not because I say so, but because prosecutors should execute their functions free of political pressure.

Jim B. · #20 03-15-2007, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Putas todas y todos!

At least a whore gives something in return for the money that she gets paid!

Did you see Dana in Jeopardy last night?

Whaaaaat????

A day late and a dollar short???

Again!!!!!
Someone said on the radio a couple of days ago it was her cumpleanos!! 51!!

Honus · #21 03-15-2007, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

...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...

I didn't say that. All I did was ask a question in response to the following comment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

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

Having a favorable court ruling does not mean that the winning party was right, but it's a rare case indeed where a party will win a court case using arguments that strain all legal credulity.

Honus · #22 03-15-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

...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...

Classic.

LaRondo · #23 03-15-2007, 11:55 AM

Sustained arrogance turns out to be pretty ridiculous as well ...

GermanStar · #24 03-15-2007, 12:07 PM

Game, set, and match.

Old300D · #25 03-15-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

What is your evidence Carlos?

Quote:

In testimony on Jan. 18, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had no intention of avoiding Senate input on the hiring of U.S. attorneys.

Just a month earlier, D. Kyle Sampson, who was then Gonzales's chief of staff, laid out a plan to do just that. In an e-mail, he detailed a strategy for evading Arkansas Democrats in installing Tim Griffin, a former GOP operative and protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400519.html

Old300D · #26 03-15-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

...

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.

You've forgotten Reagan did this in 1981?

raymr · #27 03-15-2007, 01:03 PM

It's all starting to look and smell like a huge non-issue. The people involved, including the AG, are appointees meaning in Washington one day they are in, the next they are out. But what are the mistakes that Gonzales is referring to?

cmac2012 · #28 03-15-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

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.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to put Libby in jail for more than a few weeks. Cheney is far more culpable and he all but admitted it, with that line of his about not putting into a meat grinder the guy who was asked to stick his neck out to cover for the incompetence of others. And who would be in the position to asks such a thing other than his (Libby's) boss?

I have seriously mixed feelings about the Clintons. His wife is making a fool of herself on the campaign trail. The pardon of Marc Rich was just a little suspect.

On Gonzales, one wonders if his low, low level of support on Capital hill from both sides indicates something.

cmac2012 · #29 03-15-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

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.

That Castro is diabolical. I mean his keeping all those prisoners, most on flimsy, uncorroborated charges, on his sovereign territory and somehow making it look like Uncle Sam is responsible, well, that is a master-stroke in the propaganda arena.

cmac2012 · #30 03-15-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

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.

At no point did congress vote to wage the kind of war W wanted to wage and has waged.

The vote was to amp up the pressure and to try to get alllies on board. We got one major ally to committ semi-serious material and a bunch of token support bought at great expense.

Once "W" bullied his way into getting the vote he wanted, he (I'm sorry, I meant Cheney) crammed the war down everyone's throat.