Rex Kickass Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 There are now four GOP US Senators that have said "no confidence" or "he should resign" regarding our current Attorney General. John Sununu - NH Norm Coleman - MN Gordon Smith - OR Chuck Hagel - NE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Damen @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 11:12 PM) Did Janet Reno lie to Congress? No. Gonzalez did. That would probably be the more accurate bottom line. Hey so did Bill, and apparently that's totally cool. QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:43 AM) There are now four GOP US Senators that have said "no confidence" or "he should resign" regarding our current Attorney General. John Sununu - NH Norm Coleman - MN Gordon Smith - OR Chuck Hagel - NE Depending on how the lying to Congress stuff goes, I agree with them. Granted I am curious who is stealing personal emails and distributing them to the press, but lying to Congress is a crime, at least in my eyes, and deserves to be treated as such. QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 09:24 PM) The bottom line. Bill Clinton lies better then George Bush. /thread 100% yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) You're all being dense on purpose I know, but it is irksome. 2 months into an administration ≠ 6 years into an administration. Alberto Gonzales took over the AGs office on Februrary 3, 2005, while Reno served the whole eight years under Clinton. Does a new AG deserve to decide who he wants on his staff, or should he have been stuck with all of the DAs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damen Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:18 AM) Hey so did Bill, and apparently that's totally cool. Depending on how the lying to Congress stuff goes, I agree with them. Granted I am curious who is stealing personal emails and distributing them to the press, but lying to Congress is a crime, at least in my eyes, and deserves to be treated as such. 100% yes. Clinton didn't lie to Congress actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 01:51 PM) the Bush team just did an amateur job here at something the Clinton's were masters at.... #1 problem in the history of the Republican party right there. Republican politicians can't cover their tracks doing this kind of stuff, whereas Democrats do it and we never hear a word. The lefties are FAR better liars, and in politics that's a huge advantage to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:43 AM) There are now four GOP US Senators that have said "no confidence" or "he should resign" regarding our current Attorney General. John Sununu - NH Norm Coleman - MN Gordon Smith - OR Chuck Hagel - NE But I thought Hagel always agreed with the President outside of the Iraq War!!! Sorry, couldn't help myself. Seriously though, this AG was garbage from the start, so I tend to agree on his resignation. But there are a LOT of things he's done that are a LOT worse than this particular fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:06 AM) Alberto Gonzales took over the AGs office on Februrary 3, 2005, while Reno served the whole eight years under Clinton. Does a new AG deserve to decide who he wants on his staff, or should he have been stuck with all of the DAs? IMHO AG AG would have been able to survive the blowback on this much better had he not acted with such contempt for Congressional oversight from the very beginning. If the AG office hadn't been so adversarial with Congress since 2005, this kinda thing would likely have disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:09 PM) IMHO AG AG would have been able to survive the blowback on this much better had he not acted with such contempt for Congressional oversight from the very beginning. If the AG office hadn't been so adversarial with Congress since 2005, this kinda thing would likely have disappeared. No it wouldn't have. And this is exactly the type of s*** that Mrs. Bill Clinton's adminstration will get away with all day long should she take office. Republicans are transparent at the crooked s***, and the Democrats are not (they lie and cover up better). Again, /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 There are lots of stupid cover ups that get exposed every single week in Washington. Most are swept away because they don't matter and the person involved is liked enough to not be a big deal. But every so often, something like this comes up and the relationship is poor enough to cost someone their job. If you think this is about who covers up better, you need to take your blinders off. The Dems are no better at covering s*** up than the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 04:53 PM) There are lots of stupid cover ups that get exposed every single week in Washington. Most are swept away because they don't matter and the person involved is liked enough to not be a big deal. But every so often, something like this comes up and the relationship is poor enough to cost someone their job. If you think this is about who covers up better, you need to take your blinders off. The Dems are no better at covering s*** up than the GOP. ok, then I'll rephrase. The Democrats (or those associated with them) get more of a free pass, largely. Hello Sandy TurdBurgler! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 So, to switch the topic of this thread in a different direction, I'd say it's become quite clear from this whole mess that there is a serious problem in the way U.S. attorneys are chosen and seated, and it's not just due to the clause they inserted in the Patriot Act. It certainly seems inappropriate at this point to allow any administration the ability to fire any U.S. Attorney they want without cause, particularly when they're choosing to use that power to fire U.S. attorneys for the offense of investigating their own party. So, anyone else have any suggestions about how we could fix this system and try to build in some insulation? My suggestions would be thus: 1. Extend the term of U.S. attorneys to 10 years from the date they start serving. This pushes many of the seats beyond the length of any single administration, and would therefore keep any administration from stuffing the entire box full of political appointees. 2. Require all U.S. attorneys to receive Senate approval, regardless of how an opening appears, as was the case before the Patriot Act revision. 3. Require firings of U.S. attorneys by the Executive branch to receive approval by the Senate, thus giving a minority party the chance to publicize inappropriate firings or even filibuster a firing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 11:24 AM) No it wouldn't have. And this is exactly the type of s*** that Mrs. Bill Clinton's adminstration will get away with all day long should she take office. Republicans are transparent at the crooked s***, and the Democrats are not (they lie and cover up better). Again, /thread Dems suck, the poor victim GOP always gets the shaft, the media loves all Democrats, GOP are just too honest, etc., etc., /thread. This is the kind of garbage that made the Gore thread such a mess (well that and my blowing my top). Ignore the factual material at hand, claim the victim's ground for your side, point out that someone else is scuzzy too, and then your opinion is the end of the discussion. How about we point out that Clinton's questionable choices were bad, Bush's were similar and maybe even worse, and none of them are OK nore are any of them the damn victims? And how about the fact that, regardless of party, Gonzalez has stepped all over the Constitution waaaaaaaaaay more than Reno or any other AG I can recall has done (in my adult life, at least). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Dems suck, the poor victim GOP always gets the shaft, the media loves all Democrats, GOP are just too honest, etc., etc., /thread. This is the kind of garbage that made the Gore thread such a mess (well that and my blowing my top). Ignore the factual material at hand, claim the victim's ground for your side, point out that someone else is scuzzy too, and then your opinion is the end of the discussion. How about we point out that Clinton's questionable choices were bad, Bush's were similar and maybe even worse, and none of them are OK nore are any of them the damn victims? And how about the fact that, regardless of party, Gonzalez has stepped all over the Constitution waaaaaaaaaay more than Reno or any other AG I can recall has done (in my adult life, at least). Ok, for once I'll be serious and try to not "fan the flames" with rhetoric. I think I try that in about 1 out of 100 posts in the filibuster. (OOPS, DAMN! My secret's out!!!). I agree with your general sentiment, and you're one of the posters who I do see that at least tries to see both sides of an argument. I've said before (although sometimes hard to see because of the "rhetoric") that THEY ALL DO hazy, shady, bulls*** things, depending on what their interests are. Most of the time, if you're a "liberal", you want to talk about how bad the Bush administration is and how bad his s*** stinks, and if you're a "conservative", you want to talk about how bad the Democrats are (the Clintons, today's Congress, etc). I get so sick and tired of seeing nothing but "SCANDALLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" about the Bush administration, and I also get sick of hearing about how it's always different when Democrats walk up to or break the line of the law. The defense of Clinton lying under oath cracks me up (he just told a little lie to save his marriage, it didn't REALLY matter!!!!). The defense of Sandy TurdBurgler also cracks me up (well, no one KNOWS what documents he destroyed or took!!!). It is just depending on your point of view. Our government is as corrupt as it can be, just about (thank you lobby $$$). I think what scares me is what we do NOT know that is happening. If you can't look at our government today and scream ROME!, then you've got your head in the sand. And ulitimately our country is going to face the same historical fate. We are ALL so egotisical in our country, system, spoils, riches, etc. and argue about such petty crap. In the end, we all leave this earth with the same thing. NOTHING. Yet, people spend more time trying to find reasons why George W. Bush and his adminstration sucks, and this is killing people, and and and... when the truth is the entire government is a part of the "plot", if you will. They all swing off the teat of the cameras and $$$$ being handed to them, and NOTHING else matters to them but staying in power. Anyway, I'm done. It doesn't matter, because no one changes their minds about anything here anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 That's bulls*** and you know it, and nothing you say will make me change my mind! oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 03:01 PM) That's bulls*** and you know it, and nothing you say will make me change my mind! oh wait... I just did an honest to goodness spit-take. Luckily it was soda and not beer or I'd be nonplussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:01 PM) That's bulls*** and you know it, and nothing you say will make me change my mind! oh wait... Where's that :fyou smilie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 02:16 PM) Where's that :fyou smilie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 (door slams in background) If this weren't a public forum, I'd close this thread just to get the last word. (sorry, inside joke). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Yeah well, your mother icehole! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 01:21 PM) Ok, for once I'll be serious and try to not "fan the flames" with rhetoric. I think I try that in about 1 out of 100 posts in the filibuster. (OOPS, DAMN! My secret's out!!!). I agree with your general sentiment, and you're one of the posters who I do see that at least tries to see both sides of an argument. I've said before (although sometimes hard to see because of the "rhetoric") that THEY ALL DO hazy, shady, bulls*** things, depending on what their interests are. Most of the time, if you're a "liberal", you want to talk about how bad the Bush administration is and how bad his s*** stinks, and if you're a "conservative", you want to talk about how bad the Democrats are (the Clintons, today's Congress, etc). I get so sick and tired of seeing nothing but "SCANDALLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" about the Bush administration, and I also get sick of hearing about how it's always different when Democrats walk up to or break the line of the law. The defense of Clinton lying under oath cracks me up (he just told a little lie to save his marriage, it didn't REALLY matter!!!!). The defense of Sandy TurdBurgler also cracks me up (well, no one KNOWS what documents he destroyed or took!!!). It is just depending on your point of view. Our government is as corrupt as it can be, just about (thank you lobby $$$). I think what scares me is what we do NOT know that is happening. If you can't look at our government today and scream ROME!, then you've got your head in the sand. And ulitimately our country is going to face the same historical fate. We are ALL so egotisical in our country, system, spoils, riches, etc. and argue about such petty crap. In the end, we all leave this earth with the same thing. NOTHING. Yet, people spend more time trying to find reasons why George W. Bush and his adminstration sucks, and this is killing people, and and and... when the truth is the entire government is a part of the "plot", if you will. They all swing off the teat of the cameras and $$$$ being handed to them, and NOTHING else matters to them but staying in power. Anyway, I'm done. It doesn't matter, because no one changes their minds about anything here anyway. Oh yeah?! Well... Fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 10:29 PM) Oh yeah?! Well... Fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Both CBS and CNN have run reports tonight saying basically this: Republicans close to the White House tell CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod that President Bush is in "his usual posture: pugnacious, that no one is going to tell him who to fire." But sources also said Gonzales' firing is just a matter of time. The White House is bracing for a weekend of criticism and more calls for Gonzales to go. One source tells CBS News he's never seen the administration in such deep denial, and Republicans are growing increasingly restless for the president to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 If AG goes, Karl Rove will too. And then, even Cheney... and I'm almost serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 07:50 PM) If AG goes, Karl Rove will too. And then, even Cheney... and I'm almost serious. Honestly, in this case, I disagree. Rove and Cheney and even Bush 2 did absolutely nothing illegal. Even with everything that has leaked so far...no matter how bad it looks to remove people because they're investigating Republicans or because they're not "True Bushies" (to use an actual Rove quote I believe) the Administration did nothing that is outside the law. The only things that are actually "Wrong" in a legal sense that were done were the Republicans in Congress who tried to pressure the Attorneys into acting on more Dems and AG Gonzalez and any of his underlings who lied to Congress in Feb. I think there's really few options other than having the AG resign. Otherwise, the Dems have plenty right now to say he perjured himself before the Congress. But no one else has testified under oath, and even though it seems pretty bad on the surface, there is nothing illegal about having the President remove a U.S. attorney for any reason he wants, even insufficient partisanship. It suggests something Congress should fix (gave my suggestions a few posts ago), but no one above the AG seems to have broken the law. If anything was going to take down Rove or Cheney, I think their behavior in the Plame matter was more deserving of scorn than in this case. Or in anything they did dealing with Iraq of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Well, to be honest, the "SOTD" club is getting very old. And the Republicans are acting like it IS a scandal of the day. If they act like it, then it must be!!! /rolly Seriously, I think that the poopy creek is really stinky on this, because it sounds like there's lots of memos, etc. of some senator involvement on certain cases, when they were supposed to maintain independence themselves (from both parties). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts