Actually moron it happened right before Slick Willy handed over the office moron.Originally Posted by Spyder Jerusalem
Juggalo
................
Actually moron it happened right before Slick Willy handed over the office moron.
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Being A Bastard Works
Bullshit.It's Slick Willy's fault 9/11 happened.
More bullshit.We had Bin Laden in 1998. The CIA could have had him or killed him but Slick Willy was to much of a coward and had them hold off.
Still more bullshit.He is a bitch that never did a damn thing for our country except helped put in motion the biggest terrorist attack ever on US Soil.
With as much bullshit as you spew, yer breath must STINK!
A man once said to me "you can get used to anything when money is involved".
He used to stuff weasels up his ass for twenty bucks a throw.
-Spyder Jerusalem
Being A Bastard Works
Are you insane?
Is that yer problem?
Or just fuckin' stupid?
A man once said to me "you can get used to anything when money is involved".
He used to stuff weasels up his ass for twenty bucks a throw.
-Spyder Jerusalem
Juggalo
................
Bullshit, when President Bush took office he signed an Executive Order telling our people to take out Bin Laden by ANY means necissary. Slick Willy was to much of a coward too. That should have been done when our first Embassy was hit, then after the second then after the USS Cole, are you to stupid to see a pattern here? We kept getting attacked by AQ and American's were dying and Slick Willy did nothing about it. He was letting them get away with this stupid shit because he was a coward. If we would have gone after him and taken the Taliban out of power in the 90's 9/11 would NEVER have happened period. You keep being blinded by your partisan bullshit and don't realize reality. That's the problem with you Liberals.
You better go and worship on your Slick Willy shrine and don't forget to put on your Monica wig as I know you wish it was you with your head between his legs.
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Juggalo
...................
If that isn't calling the kettle black...............
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Senior Member
Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys,
Fret Over Bush's 8
The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the "controversy," fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would "look at all the angles tonight," but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: "New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign."
CBS's Katie Couric declared that "the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department" and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: "The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?" Brown soon asserted that "it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today" -- an explosion fueled by the news media.
ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained, see #2 below) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.
[This item was posted Tuesday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]
Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how "the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House." The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.
(Tuesday's Good Morning America ran a full story from Pierre Thomas framed around the Democratic attacks on Bush and Gonzales, with analysis from George Stephanopoulos. For a details, including a transcript of the story by Thomas, check Scott Whitlock's NewsBusters posting: newsbusters.org )
Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings: "Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans."
Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:
Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberal...20070314.asp#1
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Today the New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As we discussed in detail here and here, Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the "terrorist surveillance program" that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.
This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. "Do you expect us to believe that?" Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. One thing I could never understand was why anyone cares: what difference would it make if Gonzales's hospital visit related to the "terrorist surveillance program," or to some other intelligence activity? And what reason would Gonzales have to lie about that fact?
Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA's "data mining" project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells:
A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
What's comical about the Times' reporting is that the paper can't bring itself to acknowledge that this means Gonzales has been vindicated:
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
First, this paragraph of "analysis" is contradicted by the reporting contained in the same article, which doesn't say that the dispute was "chiefly" about data mining. It says it was about data mining, period. Further, there is nothing "narrowly crafted," "legalistic" or "technically correct" about Gonzales's testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.
The Times adds to the anti-Gonzales tone of its article by mixing in a little false reporting. The paper says:
Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”
Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery.
In fact, James Comey's testimony did not contradict Gonzales's. As we have pointed out repeatedly, Comey refused to identify the program over which there was a legal disagreement that led to the hospital visit. He did not, contrary to the Times's assertion, challenge or contradict Gonzales's testimony that "[t]here has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.”
The fact is that the Senators who ridiculed Gonzales, questioned his credibility and called for a perjury investigation were wrong. They owe the Attorney General an apology.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../07/018058.php
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
The liberal media no longer reports what happened - they report what they want to happen
ABC’s Cuomo Feverishly Speculates on Gonzales Firing by ‘End of Business Today’
By Scott Whitlock | July 30, 2007 - 17:03 ET
On Friday’s "Good Morning America," and again on Sunday, ABC anchors eagerly touted the idea that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales could be fired at any second. On July 27, GMA host Chris Cuomo discussed sworn Senate testimony given by Gonzales and wondered if the Attorney General had been "caught in a lie with the whole nation watching?" (An ABC graphic helpfully asked, "Is Atty General lying?")
Mentioning claims that Gonzales testimony has been contradicted by FBI Director Robert Mueller, Cuomo, whose brother is the Democratic Attorney General of New York, asked "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos, "...Bottom line, is Alberto Gonzales out of a job at end of business today?"
On Sunday’s GMA, the headhunting continued. Guest host Bill Weir also talked to Stephanopoulos, and while he showed more restraint than Cuomo, no questions about whether Gonzales would be fired by 11:59pm that day, he did continue the resignation drumbeat:
Bill Weir: "Let's switch gears and turn to a domestic issue of the week. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the hot seat yet again. Even more calls for his resignation. How, how much support has eroded in just the last few days?"
George Stephanopoulos: "It's hard to imagine it could get any worse for the Attorney General. He has precious little support, zero among Democrats on Capitol Hill, almost none among Republicans, but the President continues to stand by him even though he is now facing these questions of whether or not he lied to the Congress in his testimony last week about this domestic surveillance program. His testimony appeared to be contradicted by the FBI Director, Robert Mueller, certainly no partisan there, but right now the White House is holding on. Attorney General Gonzales is holding on. They're not going to back down."
Curiously not mentioned on Sunday’s GMA was a July 29 report by the New York Times that supports Gonzales’s claims of truthfulness in regard to his Senate testimony on the Terrorist Surveillance Program: [Emphasis added]
The confrontation in 2004 led to a showdown in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, where Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, tried to get the ailing Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the N.S.A. program.
Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program "confirmed" by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct.
Unlike "Good Morning America" anchor Bill Weir, Stephanopoulos actually managed to mention this fact while interviewing Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer on his own program, ABC's "This Week":
Stephanopoulos: "On this question of the Attorney General, there is a story in "The New York Times" this morning that says that this dispute over whether or not there was dissent and whether or not the Attorney General lied there may be an answer for it. They say the controversy could be about a separate data mining program that was also being discussed at the time and discontinued. So is it possible, do you accept that it's possible that the Attorney General gave technically correct testimony?"
Senator Charles Schumer: "No, I don't believe so, and here's why, first, I'm not on the intelligence committee, so I don't have access to the documents. But many on the intelligence committee, the three who called for the special prosecutor with me, Senators Feingold and Whitehouse and Feinstein are all on the intelligence committee, and it is regarded as one in the same program, and furthermore, at his hearing, this week, I asked Attorney General Gonzales was there just one program that the president confirmed in December which is what one of the issues about him and there are many is all about and he said just one. I said not two. No, he said, just one. So it's just one program. They have other separate parts."
A transcript of the July 27 "Good Morning America" segment follows:
7:12am
Chris Cuomo: "Now, we turn to the nation's top attorney, Alberto Gonzales, under fire this morning by none other than the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, who is challenging Gonzales' sworn testimony to Congress and raising the question, has the Attorney General been caught in a lie with the whole nation watching? For the bottom line on this, we're joined by Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos. George, thank you very much for joining us."
George Stephanopoulos: "Hey, Chris."
Cuomo: "So, politicians avoiding answering a question. That’s not unusual, but giving false testimony under oath, that’s something different. So with the heads of the FBI, The CIA, the National Intelligence Director all lined up against him, bottom line, is Alberto Gonzales out of a job at end of business today?"
Stephanopoulos: "No, because the most important person in Washington still supports him and that's the President. I just spoke to a White House official who says the President continues to stand behind Alberto Gonzales despite these contradictions that have turned up in the last couple of days. And, you know, most of the Senate Judiciary Committee believes that Alberto Gonzales has not been straight with them in his testimony. The White House hopes he goes farther to clear it up, but, bottom line, right now President Bush still supports him, he's not going anywhere."
Cuomo: "Okay, so President Bush backing his man. But the Democrats now have even more ammunition. They're going to the Solicitor General. They’re asking for a perjury investigation. So, bottom line, can, politically, the administration afford to keep Gonzales in there?"
Stephanopoulos: "I think they've already taken a hit for this. Also, there’s another problem, Chris, if they decide to let Attorney General Gonzales go. Then there would have to be confirmation hearings for a new Attorney General, and the price that Democrats would demand for confirming a new Attorney General would be very, very high. They would say that the White House would have to cave on whether or not people like Karl Rove, the President’s political advisor, will come and testify on the firings. They would have to cave on sending over documents on this domestic surveillance program that has been highly secret and controversial in the Congress. So I think that there is a real risk if Attorney General Gonzales goes from the White House that the confirmation hearings for his successor would be problematic for the White House."
Cuomo: "Strong point. Strong point, so let's look at it just from this political perspective. If Karl Rove, the advisor, is in the same boat, being subpoenaed to testify before Congress on the issue of the U.S. attorney firings and you have the chief of staff also being summoned, how worried is the administration that its legacy gets clouded by these legalities?"
Stephanopoulos: "Right now, they're saying it's just politics, they're saying, the Congress is simply pursuing all these investigations and not doing the business of the people. And they may feel that's their best political ground right now, because the Congress is even more unpopular than the President right now, so they're going to continue to resist. They are not going to back down on this executive privilege fight. They are not going to send the White House Chief of staff and Karl Rove up to testify."
Stephanopoulos: "George, appreciate the bottom line, as always. Look forward to more about this on your show on Sunday. Thank you very much."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-w...firing-end-day
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Juggalo
...................
Oh well............
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Senior Member
Dont you love the libs double standards?
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
July 30, 2007
FISA and the Power to Defend from Terror
By Al Johnson
Uncovering terror cells is going to require us to maximize our technological advantages. One obstacle is FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The New York Times recently revealed that a data mining program was the subject of the legal dispute that led to Albert Gonzales' famous hospital visit to then-AG John Ashcroft. It was not the Terrorist Surveillance Program; rather, it had to do with the Able Danger data mining operation being conducted by the NSA. It may have run afoul of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and thus led to a dispute between DoJ and NSA (which comes under DoD) over which of the two entities of the Executive Branch should have jurisdiction over it.
Of course, this jurisdictional dispute would also have serious legal repercussions affecting what information could be collected, by what means, to whom it could be disseminated and for what purposes it could be used. Captain's Quarters had a fascinating post yesterday, "Able Danger, Alberto Gonzales, and the Senate," that echoed in the blogosphere.
We need to tread carefully here; no one except the actual participants in the hospital discussion can be sure of what the issues were. However, Orin Kerr and Marty Lederman make educated guesses that are probably not far off the mark.
First Kerr:
(3) Presumably the authorization that Card & Gonzales wanted Ashcroft to sign was a 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(b) certification that the phone companies would have demanded before proceeding, which is "a certification in writing by . . . the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required." But we still don't know exactly what the legal issues were that were in dispute. I can come up with about 10 different theories, but I just don't know which one is particularly likely to be right.
(4) I'm puzzled by the newspaper's claim that searching a database of non-content call records disclosed by the phone companies requires a court order. It doesn't in the criminal law context: the Wiretap Act only applies for contemporaneous acquisition, and once there is a proper disclosure under the Stored Communications Act the data can be searched without any legal restrictions. But I wonder, does FISA require a court order in that setting? Or maybe the government wasn't relying on a voluntary disclosure theory? Or is the Times just getting this detail wrong? I'm not sure.
Toward the end of a lengthy analysis Lederman writes:
I think what happened is that the data mining revealed something that the NSA, with DOJ's blessing, followed up on, perhaps using quite long and attenuated "connections" (e.g., phone calls and e-mails three degrees of separation removed) -- what Risen and Lichtblau's original story referred to as "an expanding chain" -- and this follow-up surveillance involved purely domestic communications, as well as communications of persons for whom there was no probable cause to believe they were Al Qaeda agents. Further speculation, with links to plenty of other bloggers, here.) If this is correct, then it was the follow-up surveillance, not the data mining, that was the legal problem -- it didn't satisfy FISA because whatever it was NSA learned from the data mining, it was something far short of probable cause that all the subsequent targets were agents of Al Qaeda. And OLC concluded that Article II did not justify disregarding FISA.
Goldsmith reportedly insisted that the surveillance be justified based on the AUMF, which imposed two limitations:
a. First, on the view of the Court in Hamdi (later explained in much greater detail by Jack Goldmsith and Curt Bradley in their Harvard Law Review article on the AUMF), the AUMF only authorizes conduct that had historically been undertaken by the President in wartime. Roosevelt and other Presidents had intercepted overseas telegrams and other international communications; but there was no precedent for interception of wholly domestic communications without court approval.
b. Second, the AUMF itself requires a nexus to those responsible for 9/11 -- which is where the OLC [DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel, headed by Goldsmith] requirement came from that the communications involve at least one person in, or associated with, Al Qaede or related groups.
So OLC insisted these two criteria be satisfied in order to avoid FISA's strictures.
Please note: when all is said and done, we are once again dealing with restrictions placed by Congress, through its enactment of FISA, on the President's authorities and responsibilities as Commander in Chief. Note, too, that no court that has considered this issue has been willing to rule that Congress can statutorily limit the President's Constitutional powers and duties.
Finally, however, note that the Supreme Court does enter into this picture via the Hamdi decision and that, in Goldsmith's view, Hamdi limits the president's constitutional powers through by its interpretation of congress' Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Nevertheless, none of these issues with regard to the AUMF would probably have been in play at all but for the enactment of FISA. This entire imbroglio ultimately comes back to FISA and resulted in the inter-agency jurisdictional squabbles that appear to have been behind the hospital visit.
Without minimizing the need to safeguard civil liberties, I doubt that I'm alone in questioning whether these behind the scenes constitutional and legal disputes have done any good as far as protecting the United States and its inhabitants from the terrorist threats that we face. Restricting the President's actions in defense of this republic to those actions undertaken by previous presidents would appear to be a grossly wrongheaded and unreasonable approach. By some accounts the NSA is collecting only a third of the information that it should ideally be collecting, due to legal issues.
It seems that the Democrats are, belatedly, becoming concerned with their image: they are concerned that they may be portrayed as unreasonably hampering legitimate requirements of the national defense and are seeking a face-saving, cover-their-behind patch of FISA, while at the same time continuing to bluster and threaten and obstruct almost all the President's national security initiatives.
Isn't it time that this nation had an open and freewheeling debate on FISA and Congressional and Judicial attempts to micromanage even the tactical aspects of the President's national security powers and duties? Isn't the defense and security of this nation too important to be left to the lawyers?
If FISA is unconstitutional as it restricts the President's Constitutional powers and duties, let's have it out. And if Congress, through FISA or an AUMF, can constitutionally restrict the President's powers and duties, we'll at least know who is to blame if we suffer another 9/11 type of attack. It will be the Party of Defeat, which has consistently politicized national security.
Update: This morning David Rivkin and Lee Casey offer an important analysis of this entire situation, stressing, as I have, the centrality of FISA to the continuing problem of providing an adequate defense against terror attacks on the United States. One point they make is worth elucidating:
The TSP was not implemented pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits a special federal court to issue surveillance orders when Americans and others are targeted for intelligence gathering inside the U.S. Rather than utilizing FISA's cumbersome and restrictive procedures, the administration relied on the president's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime, as presidents have done since Lincoln's day.
In addition, the administration correctly relied on Congress's Sept. 18, 2001, authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute authorized the president to employ all the "fundamental incident\[s\] of waging war." This, by any reasonable standard, would include secretly listening in on the enemy's phone calls, and reading their faxes, emails and text messages.
Based on Rivkin and Casey's analysis it would appear that Professor Goldsmith and Acting AG James Comey were maintaining precisely that, in a time of war, FISA trumps the President's war powers when it comes to intelligence gathering within the US that is aimed at identifying enemy activity--even when that enemy is headquartered outside the US. Significantly, Goldsmith and Comey maintained this position even though 1) the bi-partisan Congressional "Gang of Eight" Senators and Representatives had urged continuation of all NSA programs and 2) several Federal courts had suggested that FISA could not be interpreted as trumping the President's "inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief." That Comey and Goldsmith should dig their heels in in face of the united Executive and Legislative branches as well as very pointed language in several Federal court opinions was quite extraordinary--and with barely a day's notice provided!. It was especially so given that the technology in question--by which enemy communications that are are intended to occur outside the US are now often routed through the US--was one that the 1978 FISA framework could not possibly have envisioned.
In the face of such unreasonable legal dogmatism, Rivkin and Casey's closing paragraphs are a breath of fresh air. Read the whole thing. Their conclusion:
The question Judiciary Committee members should have been asking Mr. Gonzales was not whether he had misled them--he clearly did not--but whether the TSP is still functioning well. The question the public should be asking those senators--and with not much more civility than the senators showed Mr. Gonzales--is what are they going to do about it if the answer is no.
Al Johnson is a retired attorney.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/..._defend_f.html
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Member
I think I understand why the Bush administration has long protected the stooge of an attorney general! Bushes refusel to fire the incompetent, prevaricating Alberto Gonzales serves him by drawing attention away from his own short commings! At least Gonzales has successfully redefined the role of the U.S attorney general: No longer is it a postion of the nations highest law enforcement officer....but rather...a position where a political flunky is only concerned with shielding his patron! I don't think this guy is capable of telling the truth! Did someone say purjury???
Juggalo
...................
I guess your conviently forgetting that Slick Willy's appointed Attorney General was a lot worse and did many more horrible things, including helping stop an investigation of the suspicious death of Hillary's long term lover, suspected by many law enforcement officers as suspicious circumstances, several seasoned investigatiors said it could never be suicide. Then who would have guessed, they senior law enforcement agent for our country (the AG appointed by Slick Willy) stepped in and all investigations into the death stopped immediatly.
Not to mention that her first course of action was to fire every Republican she could, making our current firings look like nothing............
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Being A Bastard Works
So, do you often quote republifascist blogs and act like its news?
The biased meanderings of conservatard opinionists is not news, nor should it be treated as such.
Therefore, your commentary is meaningless.
Here's some REAL news:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.co..._gonzales.html
Inslee to push impeach of AG Gonzales
Posted by David Postman at 04:25 PM
Congressman Jay Inslee will introduce tomorrow a resolution calling for impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, according to a statement from his office. Inslee, a former prosecutor in Selah, has lined up other former prosecutors in Congress to join as co-sponsors. As of this afternoon he had five co-sponsors.
The resolution is brief. It says in full:
Directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall
investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist for the
House of Representatives to impeach Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
ThinkProgress has MSNBC's "breaking news" report.
The New York Times editorial page this weekend raised the possibility of impeaching Gonzales.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.
If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.
Some local liberals have been unhappy with Inslee for not supporting impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush. But as soon as the news broke today of Inslee's move against Gonzales, he was hailed by the director of Washington For Impeachment. Linda Boyd wrote to supporters:
Dear Friends of Democracy,
Great news today, Rep. Jay Inslee will sponsor legislation that would require the House Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation of Atty. General Alberto Gonzales!
.... Thank you to all who have worked so hard to educate Jay Inslee!
We will impeach to restore the rule of law!
A man once said to me "you can get used to anything when money is involved".
He used to stuff weasels up his ass for twenty bucks a throw.
-Spyder Jerusalem
Juggalo
.............
He won't get impeached. The process is to long by then President Bush will be out of office and a new Attorney General appointed. This is another reason for bloody Liberals to waste tax payers money. If by some chance he does get impeached who do you think President Bush will select to replace him? Someone exactly like him. Just face it you guys wont win.
This AG has done more for our country in the time he's been in this position then the past AG's...............
If you attack the Clintons publically make sure all your friends know your not planning on commiting suicide ~ McCain 2008
Happiness is Obama's picture on the back of a milk carton.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote