Should Gonzales step down?

Satsfakshun

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2004
Posts
843
Media
0
Likes
57
Points
248
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, it's time for Gonzales to go. Anyone who thinks torture is fine, even when the tortured doesn't have much to say, should never have been approved AG. How are we superior to the terrorists if we do the things terrorists do?
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
It's not the attorneys themselves that are the problem here. It's the fact that they were fired for political reasons. At least three were fired in the middle of investigating Republican corruption, others were fired for not pursuing cases against Democrats.

Riiiight, but like everything else that gets brought up about why this particular administration is simply being exposed, there are those who try to look at it any other way.

If the Clinton administration, the first Bush administration, or even the Kennedy administration had done the same thing, I would also be outraged.

I have also voted repub, and I would also be just as outraged if Clinton had done these things. I was NOT outraged about a blowjob, or even the lies about it. Sheesh. It had nothing to do with the functioning of our government.

We are not discussing the routine replacing of US Attorneys that takes place with pretty much every incoming administration, we're discussing second term political firings, which is unprecedented, we're also discussing a provision that was slipped into a bill that allowed the AG to bypass congress in appointing new US Attorneys (which power has now been suspended).

I am glad to hear that it has been suspended, I hope a lot of other monarchial powers follow suit. But yes, this IS the crux of the problem, no way to sugear-coat it.

To try and say "Do any of you really give a shit about the US attorney in any state?" is to miss the point entirely. It's the circumstances of why they were fired (especially after they had previously received positive performance reviews).

I agree with DC here, I DO care about the judges, as well as the process. If a judge can be fired at will for not producing the desired ruling, that undermines the entire legal system. If they were not following the law, that should have been noted in their reviews. Since it was not, the political motivations are obvious.

Gonzales should step down.
 

B_JQblonde

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
416
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Because we don't . Only in the LW blogosphere.

It'd be so much better if people like you would just step aside and let the military do their job.

Turn your head , look away, war gets real ugly . It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. And when they do it, they don't need nervous nellies like you looking over their shoulder.
 

swordfishME

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2006
Posts
960
Media
0
Likes
131
Points
263
Location
DFW Texas
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I agree that it is probably time for Gonzalez to go but am I the only one who is scared at the names being branded about for replacements? Gonzales cannot be in any way, shape or form worse than his immediate predecessor. And when names like Ted Olsen and the idiotic assmonkey Chertoff are being suggested as replacements, I rather have Gonzales stay.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,265
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
Today's problem is that Bush's War on Terror has lasted too long - longer than WWII. Even if you believe that he was justified in going into Iraq, even if you believe that the Gitmo interrogations were necessary, Bush's war has had no clearly defined goal or end. He's abused his authority, discredited the nation, and squandered the US reputation abroad. Bush may appear "tough" on war, but he fucked up royally. It's time for it to change.

As for Gonzales, I appears as a very personable person. His problem is that he forgot to put his political inclinations aside when he entered the Dept. of Justice. He's taken the phrase, "serve at the discretion of the President", a little too seriously; the result is his managerial oversight.



Because we don't . Only in the LW blogosphere.

It'd be so much better if people like you would just step aside and let the military do their job.

Turn your head , look away, war gets real ugly . It's a dirty job but somebody has to do it. And when they do it, they don't need nervous nellies like you looking over their shoulder.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
<...>
I agree with DC here, I DO care about the judges, as well as the process. If a judge can be fired at will for not producing the desired ruling, that undermines the entire legal system. If they were not following the law, that should have been noted in their reviews. Since it was not, the political motivations are obvious.

Gonzales should step down.
Attorneys, dear, attorneys. But the sentiment is still the same. The district judges are Title III - presidential appointees, whose appointment lasts until retirement or death. They cannot be fired, but can be impeached.

But your assessment that presidents playing political games with the judicial system is intolerable, is right on target. The fact that any previous president may have done it makes it neither right nor acceptable nor insignificant. Those are in the past, we need to concentrate on the present and the future.

I'm anxiously awaiting to see what happens; why george was willing to let AG AG testify, but not Karl or Harriet or their aides; what george plans to do if the subpoenas are issued (one of his statements sounded like a (very) thinly veiled threat).
 

ETA123

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I agree with DC here, I DO care about the judges, as well as the process.


Don't get me wrong, it's not that I don't care about them, but whether I care about them or not is not pertinent to whether or not Gonzales should be fired or step down.

They may have a very good cause of action for wrongful termination lined up as this plays out further.

It's not that I don't care about them, it's just that I don't think my feelings for them as inviduals are relevant to the primary issue here which is the political maneuvering that resulted in their terminations.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
I think if you want Gonzalez to go you are racist. (some truth :)

He did nothing wrong by the law. Who passed the law that he used?

You'd fire the wrong incompetent.

You are either incompetent not to know that fact or politically brilliant in your desire to cut Bush from his herd in order to bring him down. Or the patsies of the politically brilliant.
 

B_JQblonde

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
416
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Today's problem is that Bush's War on Terror has lasted too long - longer than WWII.
uhh not quite . check your history books.

He's abused his authority, discredited the nation, and squandered the US reputation abroad. Bush may appear "tough" on war, but he fucked up royally. It's time for it to change.

Yeah sure. That represents the great victory by the American left. The war against Bush.

How do you think it plays to the foreign audience to read the consatnt slander from the left about Bush lying to get us into Iraq? Total bullshit.

And could the left wing press have devoted MORE attention to Abu Gharib ???

Read some clippings from WW 2 . And you just might get an idea of why the US was so successful then.
 

B_spiker067

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Posts
2,163
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
183
uhh not quite . check your history books.

And could the left wing press have devoted MORE attention to Abu Gharib ???
Your every post ends up being a reoccurring blond joke. I love it.:biggrin1:

Abu Gharib was evil. It was endorsed by the higher ups (Bush/Rummy) and carried out by sexual deviants who'd watch and make more pr0n than their spiritual life could compensate for. That is if they had one. I wonder what LP would have done?

We now have no credibility with the world concerning torture and humans rights. That vs. the 'intelligence' we gathered? I'd choose the ongoing credibility.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Today's problem is that Bush's War on Terror has lasted too long - longer than WWII.

uhh not quite . check your history books.



Yeah sure. That represents the great victory by the American left. The war against Bush.

How do you think it plays to the foreign audience to read the consatnt slander from the left about Bush lying to get us into Iraq? Total bullshit.

And could the left wing press have devoted MORE attention to Abu Gharib ???

Read some clippings from WW 2 . And you just might get an idea of why the US was so successful then.
Please learn to use the quote tags; it's so easy even a liberal can do it.

The foreign audience is most likely quite happy to see that American citizens oppose bush's imperialistic colonial attitude. He's not worshipped world-wide like he is in your living room, he's one of the reasons that teh terrorists have so much anti-american sentiment.

Are you telling us you think there should have been no press at all regarding Abu Ghraib? Did the right-wing press devote any time at all to it? I, for one, am not too happy about the US having secret torture chambers here and there around the world. I don't give a flying fuck if other countries torture their prisoners. It is not too bright a policy to say "it's wrong, but they did it, so we should too."
 

B_JQblonde

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
416
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Interesting. FDR was viewed as a great liberator for freeing Europe.

Bush ? He's an imperial colonist, even though he removed a despotic dictator and allowed Iraqis and Afgahanis to elect their own government .

No where do you suppose all those countries around he world got the notion that Bush was an imperial colonist?

All the those articles in moonbat places like truthout about Bush lying to get us into Iraq to steal their oil ???

The endless , massively disproportionate coverage of Abu Ghraib??? < can you say lw tring to emabarass Bush for political gain? >

NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Interesting. FDR was viewed as a great liberator for freeing Europe.
If you say so. FDR, in my view, was like any other president, he did some good and some bad. Just curious (I will look it up later, but I am honestly curious, and also want to hear your take on it) how long did FDR leave occupying troops in any European country after that country's leader was deposed or the foreign occupying forces were evicted?
Bush ? He's an imperial colonist, even though he removed a despotic dictator and allowed Iraqis and Afgahanis to elect their own government .
Uh, yeah, I would call it that; our troops liberated France from occupying German forces, right? So, deposing another country's leader and occupying that country for, oh, another 4 or 5 or 8 years after, that does smack a bit of empire-building. Besides, the French asked for help. Did the Iraqis?
No[w] where do you suppose all those countries around he world got the notion that Bush was an imperial colonist?
From the fact that he invades countries, occupies them, and vows to institute a form of government that the people do not want.
All the those articles in moonbat places like truthout about Bush lying to get us into Iraq to steal their oil ???
If you believe for one moment that money and oil had nothing to do with it, and bush invaded Iraq simply out of the goodness of his altruistic little heart, you are more deluded than the left-bat moon-wing blogs you love to rant about.

P. S. By the way, how do you explain the illegal no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton, and their continued poor performance? I'm sure that had nothing to do with george doing a favor for his ole buddy dick, right?
 

B_JQblonde

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
416
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
If you say so. FDR, in my view, was like any other president, he did some good and some bad. Just curious (I will look it up later, but I am honestly curious, and also want to hear your take on it) how long did FDR leave occupying troops in any European country after that country's leader was deposed or the foreign occupying forces were evicted?

Lets' see , so far we've had forces in Japan and Germany for 50 years...and counting.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Oh yeah , you can tell they didn't want it from that vote turnout huh?
Yeah ,sher babe. Good call.
Oh, yeah, you can tell they did want it by the uncontrollable waves of insurgents huh?
If they wanted it, we would not still have servicemembers dying over there, would we? Oh, right, it's not Iraqi insurgents killing our guys, they are dying of natural causes.

Yeah, sher babe. Good call.
 

B_JQblonde

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Posts
416
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Wait, the Iraqis didn't want Democracy , yet they turned out in massive , historic numbers to vote. Weird,huh?

The insurgent violence means they don't want Democracy????
HUH!??WHAT??

Did the Civil war mean the U.S. didn't want Democracy???
Does the violence in New Orleans and Phila and LA mean the US doesn't want Democracy??
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Lets' see , so far we've had forces in Japan and Germany for 50 years...and counting.
Do you understand the difference between maintaining a military base, and maintaining an occupying force?

Wait, the Iraqis didn't want Democracy , yet they turned out in massive , historic numbers to vote. Weird,huh?
yes.
The insurgent violence means they don't want Democracy????
Yes.
Did the Civil war mean the U.S. didn't want Democracy???
No. It meant that the state leaders wanted states' rights. little bit o difference there. Do you even know what the US War Between the States was about? If you say "slavery," I will point at you and laugh.
 

SpeedoGuy

Sexy Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
4,166
Media
7
Likes
41
Points
258
Age
60
Location
Pacific Northwest, USA
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Are you telling us you think there should have been no press at all regarding Abu Ghraib? Did the right-wing press devote any time at all to it?

Well, the wingnut press did mention it a time or two. For example: I remember overhearing Michael Savage pooh pooh the abuses at Abu Ghraib as no worse than "...pulling women's panties over the prisoners' heads..." Faux News said something equally inane.

Some of the recent posts around here might confuse a reader into believing recent events are not the most shameful and embarrassing American blunders in generations. They aren't at all. They are actually Kodak Moments of triumph for the neocons and their plan for the world.

In fact, Conservative Boy Jones sums it up pretty well.