[Ash123]

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...

[tomder55]

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.

[XenoSapien]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[Ash123]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[Dark_crow]

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.

[Ash123]

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...