He GAWN. Alberto Gonzales

[whitesoxfan101]

Bush's comments today which talked about how great Alberto is and basically blamed the media and anti-Gonzales people for this resignation were amazing. Even by Dubya's lofty standards, they were mind bogglingly stupid.

Edited August 27, 2007 by whitesoxfan101

[mr_genius]

Bush's comments today which talked about how great Alberto is and basically blamed the media and anti-Gonzales people for this resignation were amazing.

 

The whole episode just seemed like a political witch hunt to get a "kill" from the Bush admin to please the "Bush lied people died" conspiracy theorists of the Democrat party. Of course the media picked it up and went crazy. I can't blame the media for covering the whole thing,even though some of the editorial coverage of the hearings were over the top.

[Texsox]

The topic says it all. Flaxx, Rex, Balta, et. al are going to be in glory bliss today.

 

You forgot me

[kapkomet]

"Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," said the Nevada Democrat.

 

I f***ing HATE Harry Reid. What a f***tard.

[Balta1701]

"Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," said the Nevada Democrat.

 

I f***ing HATE Harry Reid. What a f***tard.

Because clearly...Alberto Gonzalez resigned to spend more time with his family.

 

You know, for something with "no underlying crime" or "no connection to the White House", the U.S. attorney's scandal has drawn an AWFUL lot of blood from the Justice Department. Pretty much the entire leadership of that department seems to have resigned since that investigation began.

1) Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, today.

 

2) Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty announced his resignation May 14th.

 

3) Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer (the Department's #3) announced that he was withdrawing his nomination for the position June 22nd.

 

4) Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff, resigned March 13th.

 

5) Department White House liaison Monica Goodling resigned April 6th.

 

6) Michael Elston, McNulty's chief of staff, resigned June 15th.

 

7) Executive Director of the Executive Office of United States Attorneys Michael Battle, announced his resignation in mid-February.

 

8) Bradley Schlozman, an attorney in the Counsel to the Director staff at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, formerly the U.S. attorney for Kansas City and a former acting assistant attorney for the Civil Rights Division, resigned mid August.

 

And, finally, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Wan Kim was another notable resignation (on August 23rd), although Kim's troubles were unrelated to the firings scandal.

[kapkomet]

THERE WAS NO "CRIME" COMMITTED.

 

But you all sure as hell want one to have been.

 

Was it shady? Yep. But we've been through this before. This is the blood in the water to get even for Clinton's impeachment hearings... so we're going to investigate the s*** out of it until there's SOMETHING to talk about here, aren't we?

 

 

[Balta1701]

THERE WAS NO "CRIME" COMMITTED.

 

But you all sure as hell want one to have been.

 

Was it shady? Yep. But we've been through this before. This is the blood in the water to get even for Clinton's impeachment hearings... so we're going to investigate the s*** out of it until there's SOMETHING to talk about here, aren't we?

Eh, I can still give you 3 possibles, at least 2 of which are still the subject of active investigations and which are being blocked at every possible level by the admin:

 

1. Hatch act violations

2. Violations of the Presidential Records Act

3. Violations of the Voting Rights Act

[kapkomet]

SINISTER! SCANDAL! THEY HATE AMERIKKKA! BUSH IS HITLER!!!!!

 

*sigh*

 

(had to throw in the last one for the point, because it's right at the same point)

[mr_genius]

You know, for something with "no underlying crime" or "no connection to the White House", the U.S. attorney's scandal has drawn an AWFUL lot of blood from the Justice Department. Pretty much the entire leadership of that department seems to have resigned since that investigation began.

 

 

Can you blame them? I wouldn't want to be the target of some political witch hunt, it's much easier to resign and move on with your life. It seems the dems are using 100% of their congressional resources on bipartisan investigations. This plan may backfire, as congressional approval ratings have dipped to 18%.

Edited August 27, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Can you blame them? I wouldn't want to be the target of some political witch hunt, it's much easier to resign and move on with your life. The dems are using 100% of their resources on bipartisan investigations. This plan may backfire, as congressional approval ratings have dipped to 18%.

The remarkable thing about those Congressional polls is...when you ask people "why are you unhappy with Congress", the answer inevitably comes out that the Dems are going way too easy on the administration. In general, Congress has a lower rating amongst the party out of power and a higher rating among the party in power...but right now, the Dems are basically just as unhappy with the Congress...because solid pluralities and majorities think the Dems haven't done enough investigation of the administration and have done no where near enough to get us out of the debacle in Iraq.

From Rasmussen Reports, July 2, 2007:

Have the Democrats in Congress done too much to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, not enough to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, or about the right amount?

 

Too much - 26%

Not enough - 53%

About right - 13%

 

CNN poll, August 30-September 2, 2006:

Do you think it would be good for the country or bad for the country if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Administration has done in the past six years?

 

Good - 57%

Bad - 41%

Unsure - 2%

 

______________

 

From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:

 

Have there been too many investigations of the White House, not enough investigations, or about the right amount of investigations?

 

Too many - 32%

Not enough - 39%

About right - 19%

 

______________

 

From the USA Today poll, March 23-25, 2007:

 

14. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter [the U.S. attorneys firings]?

 

Yes, should - 72%;

No, should not - 21%

 

15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?

 

Invoke executive privilege - 26%;

Answer all questions - 68%

 

16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?

 

Yes, should - 68%;

No, should not - 24%

______________

From Rasmussen Reports, July 12, 2007:

 

Is Congress really seeking information about the firing of U.S. attorneys, or is Congress simply seeking to harass the White House?

 

Seeking information - 43%

Harass the White House - 32%

[mr_genius]

Many of those poll questions are misleading. For example "Do you think congress should investigate the firings". I would answer yes, they should. Now change the question to "Do you think congress should endlessly investigate the firings even after no criminal activity was found?" or how about "Do you think partisan investigations should trump congress passing legislation". My answer would then be "no", as would many other of the respondents.

 

also this question

 

Have the Democrats in Congress done too much to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, not enough to change President Bush's policies in Iraq, or about the right amount?

 

Too much - 26%

Not enough - 53%

About right - 13%

 

Of course they haven't changed the Iraq policy, they are too busy investigating for the purposes of political revenge. Thus not doing the job they were sent there to do.

Edited August 27, 2007 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

HANG THE f***ER! GO GET HIM!!! AMERIKKAAAA WANTS TO HANG GWB!!!

 

Please.

 

I'm so sick of this s***.

 

Why are the approval ratings so low for every governmental office in the land? Because none of these assholes are doing their job! NONE OF THEM. People don't want to see the bickering partisanship that goes on every waking minute, they want results. And since none of these bastards get that and are in it for nothing but power, the people are sick of it. It's not about "WE WANT DEMS TO GO AFTER THE WHITE HOUSE" (unless you get asked stupid questions like these), it's that they want results. Period.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Many of those poll questions are misleading. For example "Do you think congress should investigate the firings". I would answer yes, they should. Now change the question to "Do you think congress should endlessly investigate the firings even after no criminal activity was found?" or how about "Do you think partisan investigations should trump congress passing legislation". My answer would then be "no", as would many other of the respondents.

I have a real urge to make a snide remark here regarding the record number of filibusters employed by the Republicans, but I believe I'll point that out here as the single biggest reason legislation has not been passed, and leave it at that.

[mr_genius]

I have a real urge to make a snide remark here regarding the record number of filibusters employed by the Republicans, but I believe I'll point that out here as the single biggest reason legislation has not been passed, and leave it at that.

 

 

What filibuster? Who filibustered what? Are you talking about a threat of filibuster? If so, you are ignoring constant Democrat filibuster threats. For one thing, congress couldn't even pass a bill to extend health care to the countries children because the Dems insisted it be extended to all illegal immigrants 25 and under.

[kapkomet]

I have a real urge to make a snide remark here regarding the record number of filibusters employed by the Republicans, but I believe I'll point that out here as the single biggest reason legislation has not been passed, and leave it at that.

I know, Democrats are saints, Republicans are evil assholes who want to run America into the ground.

 

Gee, if it weren't so fashionable to "filibuster" everything... starting in about oh, 2004... but the Dems had grounds and justifiable reasons... and now, those Republicans, they just do it to obstruct any progress.

[Balta1701]

[mr_genius]

Nonsense. It all comes down to what someone considers a "threat". Look at the side note on the graphic, it gives a blaring sign of the amount of political bias put into this chart.

Edited August 27, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

I love it...taking a simple thing like "Number of cloture votes per term of Congress" and saying it's biased because the person who puts together the graphic thinks its noteworthy that the most legendary filibusters in Senate history were the ones related to civil rights, and therefore the data is useless.

 

You don't have to argue against any of the actual data presented, you don't have to present a counterpoint, you don't have to give anything else...you just say you don't like the source, and voila...you've proven me wrong again! What a way to win an argument.

 

I'm done with this thread.

[mr_genius]

I love it...taking a simple thing like "Number of cloture votes per term of Congress" and saying it's biased because the person who puts together the graphic thinks its noteworthy that the most legendary filibusters in Senate history were the ones related to civil rights, and therefore the data is useless.

 

You don't have to argue against any of the actual data presented, you don't have to present a counterpoint, you don't have to give anything else...you just say you don't like the source, and voila...you've proven me wrong again! What a way to win an argument.

 

I'm done with this thread.

 

 

cloture - The only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes.

 

Where are the dems getting 60 votes to stop a filibuster? there aren't 60 dems in the senate.

 

Who is holding these filibuster cloture votes and why? Has anyone even attempted to filibustered anything?

 

That chart is misleading to say the least.

 

The only filibuster going on here is me and my refusal to stop posting in this thread

Edited August 27, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Rove was a witch hunt. They never had anything material on him - he just represented the most appetizing target for Dems. So I agree there.

 

But Gonzalez was a slimey, useless AG, who scoffed at the law as if it were something holding him back from his job. He never lived up to that job, and was rightly shown the door.

 

 

[Gregory Pratt]

The newly elected President would be able to assign their own Attorney General, and Chertoff would likely just be keeping the seat warm, right?

 

I didn't read through EVERYTHING, but I didn't see this replied to.

 

Yes, the next President replaces everyone in the Cabinet unless he wishes to ask them to stay, and even that's unlikely as people don't like to work like that. So Chertoff is gone after Bush is gone for sure.

 

SINISTER! SCANDAL! THEY HATE AMERIKKKA! BUSH IS HITLER!!!!!

 

*sigh*

 

(had to throw in the last one for the point, because it's right at the same point)

 

Wow. You have to be joking to say Aldimbulb isn't (wasn't) a political hack. She was just about the worst one in Mrs. Clinton's cabinent.

 

"Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," said the Nevada Democrat.

 

I f***ing HATE Harry Reid. What a f***tard.

 

I'm glad you're being thorough and insightful with your analysis. With all the bombs being thrown by the Democrats here, you truly had to "go there" to make sure your points weren't drowned out by Josef Stalin's Gestapo Kremlin Gang.

 

Seriously. I don't think I've ever read a political post of yours that didn't make me think of someone like, say, Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. Politics sure bring out the worst in people, IMO, where they take these super hostile stances and shout things out instead of ever conceding anything. I know that the political strategists -- the good ones -- say, Hold no weapon back and Concede Nothing (Ted Williams mantra), but this is crazy. "Albidumb" and "f***tard" and "Mrs. Clinton" and "Hitler" -- oh my!

[kapkomet]

I didn't read through EVERYTHING, but I didn't see this replied to.

 

Yes, the next President replaces everyone in the Cabinet unless he wishes to ask them to stay, and even that's unlikely as people don't like to work like that. So Chertoff is gone after Bush is gone for sure.

I'm glad you're being thorough and insightful with your analysis. With all the bombs being thrown by the Democrats here, you truly had to "go there" to make sure your points weren't drowned out by Josef Stalin's Gestapo Kremlin Gang.

 

Seriously. I don't think I've ever read a political post of yours that didn't make me think of someone like, say, Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. Politics sure bring out the worst in people, IMO, where they take these super hostile stances and shout things out instead of ever conceding anything. I know that the political strategists -- the good ones -- say, Hold no weapon back and Concede Nothing (Ted Williams mantra), but this is crazy. "Albidumb" and "f***tard" and "Mrs. Clinton" and "Hitler" -- oh my!

FWIW, I don't have time to listen to the right wing media. I simply don't. But, the rhetoric that is hidden in every quote having to do with anything BushCo is pure hyperbole and bulls***. It's just veiled better then my obvious in-your-face-ultra-crap machine. That's why I counter the crap that's here as "fact" with such "hostility".

 

If you really read things when I don't throw the crap out there, I usually say (truthfully) that the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. However, I don't line up 85 liberal links or 85 conservative links to back up my thoughts, because I don't have hours on end to surf the net.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

FWIW, I don't have time to listen to the right wing media. I simply don't. But, the rhetoric that is hidden in every quote having to do with anything BushCo is pure hyperbole and bulls***. It's just veiled better then my obvious in-your-face-ultra-crap machine. That's why I counter the crap that's here as "fact" with such "hostility".

 

 

I know you frequently do that, kap, and that you're not 100% serious with it, but what good does it do? Does it actually open up people's eyes and raise the level of discourse? Or does it still keep it at "lowest common denominator?"

Edited August 28, 2007 by StrangeSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

Rove was a witch hunt. They never had anything material on him

 

Do you really believe that? Don't you think that carrying out WH communications on his RNC Blackberry in blatant violation of the Presidential Records act is material? Don't you think that Scott Jennings', Lurita Doans', et al. showing of Rove's political Powerpoint presentations to more than 20 non-partisan government offices in apparent violation of the Hatch Act is material? Don't you think that Novak and Russert both fingering Rove in the Plame leak is material? Don't you think that McNulty's testimony confirming Rove wanted Tim Griffin in as Arkansas USA and that in fact Bud Cummins had been fired to make that happen (thus contradicting the official line that the firings were entirely performance based) is material?

 

Yes, Karl was obviously a complete innocent in this and it was all a partisan witch hunt.

 

[kapkomet]

On the other extreme, everything the White House does is a grand conspiracy...