Hello
I'm not really big on politics or anything, and don't know much about it. But today I saw a comic that had Alberto Gonzales pointing at himself in the mirror and yelling "you're fired!" into the mirror. This confuses me. I know Bush is replacing him with Michael Mukasey, but why isn't Alberto Gonzales the attorney general anymore? I really have no clue, just wondering! Thanks!

Because anyone that is appointed by Bush is summarily pressured into resigning/quiting or brought up on false charges by the Dems/Libs. Anyone that has anything to do with Bush, has this as the result, much like Rumsfeld, Tom Delay, etc.

Anyone who is approved by Bush is disapproved by the dems/libs. All this, because they are still sore about the 2000 election, as well as an unyielding hatred of Bush. This is why, Shoegal. They want to do everything to destroy the Bush legacy so that the Bill Clinton legacy doesn't look so bad.

They are also doing it to convince people like you that all republicans are evil, bad and racist-sexist-homophobic people. Whatever it takes to force the masses to vote for them. I'm half-black/white, and I'll say for sure that the repubs are not racists. The rest is pure fabrication and baseless charges.

XenoSapien

Well, thanks for sort of answering my question, but not knowing much about politics, I can still say that I'm a proud republican as well, and an avid bush supporter. I am still confused about the comic though...

Comics tell jokes. That's all that was.

XenoSapien

But what did it mean?

I just don't get why he was yelling "you're fired!" in the mirror. I know it was a joke, but why? Why is it funny that he would say that to himself? I just want to know the background info, that's all.

Because he is / was the most incompetent man in Bush's administration and an embarrassment to the USA.

No, Shoegal, because he did just fine; but because he was a minority, it threatened the dems/libs view that they are they only ones who care about the minority.

XenoSapien

He was a disgrace. See Military Commissions Act for an example of his incompetency! He should have been fired or stepped down long ago.

He did just fine. But because Bush appointed him, he was a disgrace. Point to one bad thing he has done, Skell.

XenoSapien

XenoSapien, I think that you may be a bit on edge here because you yourself are a minority. It's not a bad thing at all, it's possible you could think this just because it's a sensitive issue for you, and you don't want to see another minority be embarrassed or insulted, and it's not just because he's a minority. People in minority groups like to play pity party because they think they're discrimiated against and hated. So they think they can get away with things that others couldn't and any insult to them isn't just an insult to THEM, but an insult to their race. So, that being said, I don't really know who's right here, as I said before, I don't know much about politics, what I do know is, that you are probably overreacting and not everyone is 'hating on' minorities.

What did the comic mean?

He was lampooning Donald Trump, and the reason it was a mirror is because he had let so many others get fired for political reasons (8 US Attorneys were on the Kyle Sampson memo... and that's why he got in trouble. EVEN GOP members admitted it was not good.

DEMS? CONSPIRACY?
Hardly: Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel and Kansas Senator Pat Roberts asked for AG's departure, as well as Darrel Issa, California Republican rep. asked him to step down too...

This dude came in supporting torture policies and went out with only a mild form of torture for obviously politically motivated firings of US attorneys... And that, shoegal is why he was "fired" - finally.

Shoegal, you are sounding more and more like 'not' a repub. Sorry I answered your post.


XenoSapien

He did just fine. But because Bush appointed him, he was a disgrace. Point to one bad thing he has done, Skell.

XenoSapien

As I said. See the Military Commissions Act. A law over which he presided. There was 2 adverse decision in the Supreme Court and various forced changes to this completely unjust law all while suspects are held for longer than 5 years without charge.

Sorry but he was in charge of that debacle to me he didn't do fine at all. He was a disgrace. Even the staunchest of republicans on this site will admit he was terrible.

While he was in office there was a controversy because the Justice Dept fired a number of District Attorneys . It was perfectly within the right of the administration to fire and replace any of them for any pretext . But Alberto Gonzales and his staff bungled and ineptly created the controversy when they claimed that the Attorneys were fired due to job performance related issues .

This was the red meat that the Democrats in Congress needed .They began to hold a series of investigations into the matter and unfortunately that made matters worse .Gonzales proved incapable to give credible testimony . Eventually he mercifully ended the comedy by resigning .

That is what the cartoonist is portraying . By resigning Gonzales in effect fired himself.

The matter will not go away. Personally I do not know why the President bothered submitting a replacement . The Michael Mukasey hearings promises to dredge up the whole incident again. No doubt a quid pro quo of an independent prosecutor appointed by Judge Mukasey will be required as a prerequisite for his confirmation. Since there are only 16 months left to the Bush Presidency ,if I were him ,I would've just let the Justice Dept. be run by interim AG Paul Clement.

Because anyone that is appointed by Bush is summarily pressured into resigning/quiting or brought up on false charges by the Dems/Libs. Anyone that has anything to do with Bush, has this as the result, much like Rumsfeld, Tom Delay, etc.

Curious...

Exactly who in the current administration has had false charges leveled against them?

Elaborate [.. . ]

BTW, Tom DeLay is not and was not ever an appointed member of the Bush administration.



Anyone who is approved by Bush is disapproved by the dems/libs.

And yet somehow a new Supreme Court Justice and a new Supreme Court Chief Justice have been nominated and elevated to the court during Bush Jr's reign.



All this, because they are still sore about the 2000 election, as well as an unyielding hatred of Bush. This is why, Shoegal. They want to do everything to destroy the Bush legacy so that the Bill Clinton legacy doesn't look so bad.

Amazing how you can't see how one follows the other, Xeno.

Isn't it possible that much of the hatred is the result of Bush destroying Bubba's legacy?


They are also doing it to convince people like you that all republicans are evil, bad and racist-sexist-homophobic people. Whatever it takes to force the masses to vote for them. I'm half-black/white, and I'll say for sure that the repubs are not racists. The rest is pure fabrication and baseless charges.

How can you be so sure of your assertion when much of the GOP's platform is centered on Xenophobia, paternalistic laws that disallow a woman control over her own body and homophobic laws that ban same sex couples the right to marry?

Shoegal,

Here is the story.

About a year ago, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez fired 8 US attorneys from their federal jobs for not doing their jobs. For whatever reason, those attorneys were not doing their jobs to President Bush's or Roberto Gonzales' satisfaction (I believe that they were failing to prosecute cases that they should have pursued), and so they were summarily fired. The Dems in Congress started crying "foul" and claiming that Bush and Gonzales fired these prosecutors for purely partisan reasons... they weren't towing the Republican line on some issue or other. What resulted was a scandal in which Bush and Gonzales were accused of petty partisan politics, and as a result, Gonzalez was forced first to "testify" before Congress (as if the firings were some sort of crime) and eventually to resign.

What the press has failed to let the public know is that the firings were perfectly legal, moral ands ethical. The AG or the President have the right to fire anyone working for the executive branch of government for any cause, even if it is only because of political disagreement. The term is "at the will of the President", and it works that way in private businesses too. Private employers can fire non-contract employees at any time for any reason, because employment is "at the will of the employer".

Furthermore, the press also failed to inform the public that President Clinton fired not one, not 8, but a total of 98 conservative prosecutors during his time in office, for no other reason than the fact that he wanted to give those jobs to Democrats. Nobody questioned Clinton's right to do so. Nobody demanded that Janet Reno testify as to why those firings took place, and nobody demanded that Reno resign (at least not over that incident... the Branch Davidian and Elian Gonzalez things were another matter). Nobody questioned the Presidential right to hire and fire federal prosecutors at will.

The cartoon of which you speak was a reference to Gonzales "firing himself" in the mirror as he had fired the 8 federal attorneys. It wasn't particularly funny, and frankly it misses the point that Gonzales didn't do anything wrong in the first place, but was forced out of office by the Dems simply for being a Bush cronie. I was no Gonzales fan, but he did not deserve to be forced out of office for doing what was within his legal, moral and ethical authority to do.

Elliot

Hello shoe:

He was fired for several reasons, not the least of which was his incompetence. It was his Incompetence, after all, that lead to his lying to cover up his incompetence.

Plus, I think he was an embarrassment to the president when he testified before congress. If you have an opportunity to see any of his testimony, please do so. He couldn't put two coherent sentences together. He acted like a little boy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He got caught in lie after lie - CAUGHT - red handed. I was embarrassed for him.

Please understand that the Attorney General is the top federal cop in the country. He is America's lawyer. He represents YOU. IF you had a chance to see him, you wouldn't want him representing the dog catching department. His incompetence was on full view, and he didn't hold back one bit. He is a dufus. There is no other way to describe him.

Now, I don't like his policies - not even close. I agree wholeheartedly with the guys that pointed that stuff out. But, as long as he has the job, and as long as Bush is pres, he has the RIGHT to make those policies. And he certainly wasn't fired for those policies. Plus, I didn't like his predecessor's policies either, but at lease he was a competent Attorney General.

No, Gonzales was fired because he's a dufus. What the Wolverine said is true, he has the right to fire every single one of his prosecutors for ANY reason whatsoever. But, he can't lie about why he did it, and Gonzales lied about it when he could have just said, no comment. That dufusness lead to his eventual demise.

It wasn't just his dufusness either. Nooooo, it was MUCH more than that. The fallout from his dufusness, PARALIZED the Justice Department, just when we needed them the most. Since this scandal, virtually ALL the senior Justice Department officials have resigned. It was an agency without leadership for the past year or so. That's dangerous. That's not GOOD for you or your neighbors.

By the way, I love Mexicans. I wish he had done a better job representing them. I think he put the plight of Mexicans back several decades.

excon

Curious....

Exactly who in the current administration has had false charges leveled against them?

Elaborate [ . . . .]

BTW, Tom DeLay is not and was not ever an appointed member of the Bush administration.




And yet somehow a new Supreme Court Justice and a new Supreme Court Chief Justice have been nominated and elevated to the court during Bush Jr's reign.




Amazing how you can't see how one follows the other, Xeno.

Isn't it possible that much of the hatred is the result of Bush destroying Bubba's legacy?



How can you be so sure of your assertion when much of the GOP's platform is centered on Xenophobia, paternalistic laws that disallow a woman control over her own body and homophobic laws that ban same sex couples the right to marry?Bush himself had false charges leveled against him (military service).

Correct. I should have been more clear; people who were pivitol in making the Bush presidency strong were attacked until they simply stepped down, or had bogus charges sent against them. Specify what Delay did wrong. Same with Trent Lott.

Supreme court justice; that's because they had nothing on him, and there was no way to fabricate and exaggerate enough dirt to hurt him. And I do remember a lady who had to withdrawl from being nominated because of excessive pressure.

Yet, Senator Byrd--former clansman; Ted Kennedy--accessory to MURDER; Bill Clinton--blatant TREASON; Hitlery Clinton--fraud and a hand in MURDER; William Jefferson--Who the hell puts that kind of money in their freezer?

Yet all these losers somehow don't get removed... I wonder why...

In respects to Bubba's legacy, it is as bad as it is because he caused that all by himself. A BJ was more important than protecting the American people. Giving a cocaine-kingpin who owes millions in back taxes a presidential pardon was more important to him than being a righteous man. The fore-fathers would've had Clinton swinging by a rope the minute it was found out that he gave laser-guided missile technology to an enemy.

Yet, nothing gets done to him or any of the other listed folks. Nope, JUST republicans.

XenoSapien

Bush himself had false charges leveled against him (military service).

Do you even understand the difference between an accusation and the leveling of charges, Xeno?

There is a huge difference betwixt the two.

As for 'accusations' leveled against Bush vis-à-vis his military service -- Exactly which do you believe to be false -- And more importantly, which of those accusations led to Bush being "brought up on false charges by the Dems/Libs" as you alluded to in your first post?


Correct. I should have been more clear; people who were pivitol in making the Bush presidency strong were attacked until they simply stepped down, or had bogus charges sent against them. Specify what Delay did wrong. Same with Trent Lott.

Tom DeLay has figured prominently in a money laundering scheme that has led to the criminal convictions of at least two of his aids and is still under investigation to this very day.

As for Trent Lott -- Exactly what charges is he facing?


Supreme court justice; that's because they had nothing on him, and there was no way to fabricate and exaggerate enough dirt to hurt him. And I do remember a lady who had to withdrawl from being nominated because of excessive pressure.

Y'know, this is SO very typical of Rightard cognitive dissonance.

You said "Anyone who is approved by Bush is disapproved by the dems/libs", I point out two instances where you are very wrong -- And your response is to ignore the incongruity of your earlier statement altogether.

>shakes head<

Figgers.


Yet, Senator Byrd--former clansman; Ted Kennedy--accessory to MURDER; Bill Clinton--blatant TREASON; Hitlery Clinton--fraud and a hand in MURDER; William Jefferson--Who the hell puts that kind of money in their freezer?

Yet all these losers somehow don't get removed... I wonder why...

Well, first things first, Herr DittoHead -- Either unplug your fax machine or set it up to block the Limbaugh talking points newsletter.

Stop allowing Talk Radio and NewsMax to shape your political views.

And lastly, learn how to have a political discussion without deflecting when your back is up against a wall.


In respects to Bubba's legacy.. .

>Long winded deflective rambling snipped<

I find it very interesting that you chose to ignore my response to your statement about how "all republicans are evil, bad and racist-sexist-homophobic people", Xeno.

Y'know, Xeno, it's folks like you who lost us the mid-term elections, and it will be folks like you who lose us the White House in '08.

The anger that is masking as reason for GOP troubles is troubling.

We have killed more civilians in Iraq than at HIROSHIMA in an experimental pre-emptive war. (All on conjective fancy... sort of like Spielberg's Pre-Crime in Minority Report)

Alberto was already known to support our political policies and went beyond that to allow the courts to be "sanitized" of any justices that were deemed politically inexpedient.
I think Bush's next nominee will not be condoning torture in front of congress as did his predecessor.

I am not sure why there is so much vitriol here towards getting things straight among elected and nominated officials.
Plenty of GOP have agreed with this aspiration.
I do not draw a black line between a right and a wrong party.

That is far too simplistic.

The GOP brought us welfare reform and Clinton got it into action.
The Dems got civil rights into legislation and Nixon carried it on.

The current White House has not been so good at joining forces and gathering allies at home and abroad. I think it is an indication of many flaws in policy. Gonzales was yet another example I'm afraid...

Alberto was already known to support our political policies and went beyond that to allow the courts to be "sanitized" of any justices that were deemed politically inexpedient.


The Justice Dept. has zero role in judicial selection beyond pure advisory to the President about nominees . The AG cannot sanitize ;purge{ or any other buzz word you choose } judges . My guess is you mean "sanitize" the Dept. of Justice. That is a legitimate role of the AG if the President deems it necessary . I wish the same "sanitizing " had been done in State and CIA among other entrenced bureaucracies. Clinton ,in comparison to the few that Bush purged, fired all District Attorneys when he assumed control . Patronage is the chief spoil of electoral war. One can wish that law enforcement would be non-political ;but reality sings a different tune.

Do you even understand the difference between an accusation and the leveling of charges, Xeno?

There is a huge difference betwixt the two.

As for 'accusations' leveled against Bush vis-a-vis his military service -- Exactly which do you believe to be false -- And more importantly, which of those accusations led to Bush being "brought up on false charges by the Dems/Libs" as you alluded to in your first post?



Tom DeLay has figured prominently in a money laundering scheme that has led to the criminal convictions of at least two of his aids and is still under investigation to this very day.

As for Trent Lott -- Exactly what charges is he facing?



Y'know, this is SO very typical of Rightard cognitive dissonance.

You said "Anyone who is approved by Bush is disapproved by the dems/libs", I point out two instances where you are very wrong -- And your response is to ignore the incongruity of your earlier statement altogether.

>shakes head<

Figgers.



Well, first things first, Herr DittoHead -- Either unplug your fax machine or set it up to block the Limbaugh talking points newsletter.

Stop allowing Talk Radio and NewsMax to shape your political views.

And lastly, learn how to have a political discussion without deflecting when your back is up against a wall.



>Long winded deflective rambling snipped<

I find it very interesting that you chose to ignore my response to your statement about how "all republicans are evil, bad and racist-sexist-homophobic people", Xeno.

Y'know, Xeno, it's folks like you who lost us the mid-term elections, and it will be folks like you who lose us the White House in '08.
Yes I do, and that is an example of bogus charges/baseless attacks on Bush's military service. All that I have been mentioning are either bogus charges or baseless attacks; I'm mentioning all of this in a conglomerate form. What is a charge and what is a baseless attack should be easily figured out by who reads what I've listed.

Tom Delay did not do anything. Those were people under him. Yet he is attacked and forced out; they don't care about those who may have committed the crime, they are strictly after him and you know it. Trent Lott was essentially forced out because he 'mis-spoke', and was attacked and pressured out.

People who are approved by Bush are attacked. The U.N. director... whats his name? He was mercillously assaulted and pressured. And Gonzales didn't deserve the reprimand of the dems/libs and be attacked and pressured out.

Those that I've mentioned that are not under the approval of Bush are the victims of baseless attacks and bogus charges; hence, an all-out assault on Bush defenders and people who are attempting to preserve the Bush administration; in short, an attack on repubs.

As for the racist sexist homophobic statements, that has been going on in dem circles for decades; this you know is true.

It has been an all-out assault on repubs for a long time, because the dems cannot compete with ideas, so they can only attack those that do. Additionally, I am shocked how a mishandled process is more important for prosecution of law than accessory to murder; or removing documents from national archives; or removing likely critical documents in the murder of a US admiral; or giving military secrets to an enemy; or failing take someone into custody three times who slaughtered 3000 American people. You find mishandling more critical? Softee...

It is sympathizers such as yourself that lose us the elections, not people who are not afraid to fight the 'pity party' of the dems/libs who have the media in their back-pocket.

XenoSapien

In Xeno's defense, Growler, there's the Scooter Libby case: trumped up chages leveled at Scooter Libby, a Bush supporter, simply because he would implicate Bush or Cheney in a conspiracy to out Valerie Plame. Since neither Bush nor Cheney actually outed Valerie Plame, there was no such conspiracy. But Fitzgerald leveled the false charge that Libby "lied" to cover up this non-existant conspiracy, and a jury fell for it. Perfect example of false charges being filed against Bush Administration officials.

Then there are the non-ending attacks (not filing of charges but attacks nonetheless) against Rumsfeld of incompentence in running the war. This despite the fact that it was the rules of engagement set forth by Congress that created the environment for said "incompetence".

Then there's the unending claims and attacks against the Bush administration over the mistreatment of POWs at Gitmo... despite overwhelming evidence that no such mistreatment has taken place. Even if the charges were true (which they were not) what does that have to do with Bush and the Administration? Does Bush directly control every military prison out of his own office? Has the job of President devolved into micromanaging every operation and agency run by the military? Of course not.

How about the unending attacks against Bush and company over completely legal activities of the NSA with regards to wiretapping of international terrorist communications with people inside the USA. And the attacks over the NSA's terrorist money-tracking activities. These are completely legal programs that past presidents have used during wartime to protect the USA. Why id Bush being attacked for doing his job?

Then there's the attacks over the very existence of the Patriot Act. Claims (never based in reality or actual activities, of course) that claim that the Patriot Act is an "invasion of privacy" and an "abrogation of our rights"... despite the fact that there has never been a proven case of any invasion of privacy or elimination of any rights of any citizen as a result of activities undertaken due to the existence of the Patriot Act.

And there's the ever-present "Bush lied" claims... Bush lied about WMDs (which have been found), Bush lied about the connection between Saddam and al Qaeda (the connections between the two have been proven based on Saddam's own documents), Bush lied about Saddam trying to obtain WMDs (despite having 500 TONS of yellowcake uranium, samples of chemical and biological agents, and long-range missiles to make use of them), etc.

And there's the claim that Bush "stole" the 2000 election, despite the fact that numerous recounts by news agencies that are definitely not friendly to Bush that have shown that Bush won the popular vote, won Florida by an even larger margin that officially noted, and won the election fair-and-square. And of course, despite the fact that it was GORE not Bush who took the case to the Supreme Court, and therefore he has to live with the consequences of the decision of the Supreme Court. If Bush was "selected" rather than elected, it is because Gore created the environment in which the Supreme Court was given the responsibility to make that selection.

All of these examples are attempts to discredit Bush and members of his administration in order to force resignations of those administration officials and replace them with those more amenable to the Democrats' policies. There has been a clear pattern of the Dems attempting to discredit Bush by leveling false accusations and charges against him and his administration. Xeno is right about that much.

Elliot

Hello again, shoe:

It should be noted, that amongst the "poor Republicans" rant above, not once did the Wolverine disavow MY attack against Gonzales. That's because, as much as it pains him (along with the other loyal Bushies here), he agrees with me. You'll never hear him say it, cause it'll get caught in his throat - but he does.

excon

Lets see if I can address the dufus charge

He was elected to the American Law Institute in 1999. He was a board trustee of the Texas Bar Foundation from 1996 to 1999, a board director for the State Bar of Texas from 1991 to 1994, and President of the Houston Hispanic Bar Association from 1990 to 1991. He was a board director of the United Way of the Texas Gulf Coast from 1993 to 1994, and President of Leadership Houston during this same period. In 1994, Gonzales served as Chair of the Commission for District Decentralization of the Houston Independent School District, and as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions for Rice University. Gonzales was Special Legal Counsel to the Houston Host Committee for the 1990 Summit of Industrialized Nations, and a member of delegations sent by the American Council of Young Political Leaders to Mexico in 1996 and to the People's Republic of China in 1995.

Prior to his stint as AG he was legal council to the President . Prior to serving in the White House, he served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Before his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, he served as Texas' 100th Secretary of State from December 2, 1997 to January 10, 1999.He was also General Council to Governor Bush and a partner in the law firm of Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. . While in private practice, Gonzales also taught law as an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

Now I do not deny the label of incompetence in the position as AG but he was hardly a dufus. He was the Peter Principle personified . His testimony sounded worse than it was. He was trying to walk on egg shells testifying to a hostile Congress that would have liked nothing more than to slap a phony pergury charge on him .

Seems myopic to hate dems categorically, but if that is what works for you - so be it.

Hello again, shoe:

It should be noted, that amongst the "poor Republicans" rant above, not once did the Wolverine disavow MY attack against Gonzales. That's because, as much as it pains him (along with the other loyal Bushies here), he agrees with me. You'll never hear him say it, cause it'll get caught in his throat - but he does.

excon

I don't disagree. I think that Gonzales was a poor AG. I think he was incompetent in defending his position and that of the Administration in his testimony to Congress. I think he laked backbone to help the Executive Branch run a war. And for all those reasons, I think he was a poor choice by Bush.

But none of that matters. It WAS Bush's choice, and nobody but Bush has the right to make that choice. Not Congress, not the Supreme Court and not you or me. Nor do you or I or Congress or the Supreme Court have the right to either force Bush to retain or force him to fire members of the US Attorney's office. That is Bush's exclusive authority as President, and that of the AG that he chooses to give that authority to.

I'm not defending Gonzalez. I don't have much nice to say about the guy. But I AM defending Bush's authority to choose sombody that I don't like and dismiss someone that I do like because that authority is his and his alone, per the Constitution. So THAT AUTHORITY is what I am defending, and that is ALL that I am defending.

Elliot

Hello
I'm not really big on politics or anything, and don't know much about it. But today I saw a comic that had Alberto Gonzales pointing at himself in the mirror and yelling "you're fired!" into the mirror. This confuses me. I know Bush is replacing him with Michael Mukasey, but why isn't Alberto Gonzales the attorney general anymore? I really have no clue, just wondering! Thanks!
What’s happened, has been the near complete political and moral collapse of the Bush administration, but that doesn’t mean the movement behind him is going away. Look in the Justice Department under Attorney General Gonzales—all those born-again Christian lawyers coming from fundamentalist Christian law schools that have no history of excellence. We must be aware that there’s something much deeper than the Bush administration and a particular wing of the Republican Party at work here; it’s the “City on a Hill” mentality of one faction of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

It was Bush's decision.
BUT if "The Decider" makes an error that is revealed, the action should be swift.
To hold ground for pride is not good leadership. He chose a good new nominee.
I just took valuable time/hours and time that were not necessary for government progress
To admit he was in a no-confidence position (AG).

As usual, the lines are drawn us and them and doesn't need to be...