"I would fire Gonzales"

G

GoSlash27

New member
-Sen. John Sununu (R-NH)
http://www.heraldnewsdaily.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=75649&source=2

Well, yeah...but of course Sen. Sununu wouldn't have picked Gonzalez in the first place. :rolleyes:
Supposin' Dubya actually decided to fire Gonzales. Who would he replace him with? Probably Harriet Meyers! :eek: People need to keep in mind that Alberto fulfills a very well-defined role in the Bush administration; legal soothsayer. His job is to tell the president that it's legally defensible to do whatever the heck he wants to do. Fire him, and he will be replaced by another yes-man. Or maybe a no-man who's advice will be ignored.
And to think the dems were actually recommending this spineless (&*%^^ for the SC because he happens to be pro-choice :rolleyes:
 
Clinton fired all 93 attorneys when he took office

Including the one investigating Whitewater and the one investigating Rostenkowski...hmmmm...could be a clue I think

Janet Reno (ick) stood up at a press conference at the time and said it was normal to want to "clean house"

So the Bush Administration....after 6 years gets rid of 8 and it is a conspiracy....heads should roll

Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is hard at work again:D
 
Clinton fired all 93 attorneys when he took office...
Click to expand...

As have other presidents, IIRC. That's not the issue. It's not 2001, so this isn't relevant.

So the Bush Administration....after 6 years gets rid of 8 and it is a conspiracy....heads should roll

Vast Left Wing Conspiracy is hard at work again
Click to expand...

Depends on why he got rid of the 8. If the reasons were political and not performance related, that's an issue. If the administration lied originally about why they were fired, that's an issue. If Congressmen were contacting them, and interfering with ongoing investigations, that's an issue too.

I still think it's a drop in the bucket compared to some of the crap that's gone on in the last 7 years (and the 8 before that, and the 4 before that, and the 8 before that, and so on, and so forth)...but I wouldn't say it's "nothing."

Also, "Left Wing Conspiracy?" Is the right-wing still claiming Bush? I didn't think too many people on either end liked him much anymore. Maybe I'm wrong.
 
Like most things that happen this high in government we will probably never know enough as everyday citizens to make a real informed decision.
 
So the Bush Administration....after 6 years gets rid of 8 and it is a conspiracy....heads should roll
Click to expand...

Sigh.. it's not the act, it's saying it was performance related, when it wasn't.

Here, in the form of a limerick:

8 US Attorneys were fired
Even though they were largely admired
They'd put in their dues
gotten super reviews
All these cover-ups just make me tired.
 
Depends on why he got rid of the 8. If the reasons were political and not performance related, that's an issue. If the administration lied originally about why they were fired, that's an issue. If Congressmen were contacting them, and interfering with ongoing investigations, that's an issue too.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I swear

These guys are inferior executive officers, meaning they serve at the pleasure of the president.

In other words boys and girls, Bush can fire them for political reasons, personal reasons, work related reasons, because he doesn't like their tie, or the way they part their hair. As my old law professor used to say, any grounds or coffee grounds.

Why people don't understand this is way beyond me.
 
To heck with the prosecutors, when they fire everyone over at BATFE , and re hire the ones who are not either deadwood , or worse , then i will believe they want to clean up .
 
In other words boys and girls, Bush can fire them for political reasons, personal reasons, work related reasons, because he doesn't like their tie, or the way they part their hair. As my old law professor used to say, any grounds or coffee grounds.
Click to expand...
Noone can really question the legality of this action. I just think people see it as a testiment to the character and thinking of the current administration.

They made "loyalty lists" for goodness sake.

It is very clean that all the administration is interested in is having people that will not only do as told but refuse to pursue criminal investigations if things hit the fan.

They simply value someone doing as told over competence at their job.

The only illegal thing about it is the lying to congress part as to why they were fired.

And you must admit it looks very bad when they add a provision into the patriot act allowing the Attny general to appoint replacements without senate confirmations.
 
Last edited:
"Noone can really question the legality of this action. I just think people see it as a testiment to the character and thinking of the current administration."
Click to expand...

It's politics as usual. Will the whining ever end?

When the Democrats pull something like this, the Republicans whine about "politics".

When the Republicans pull similar shenanigns, the Democrats whine about "politics".

These clowns have real issues: Social Security, immigration, terrorism, budgets, and on and on to worry about. And all they can do is worry about getting their mug on television while complaining about nonsensical issues. The entire thing is ludicrous.

I called both of my mental midget Senators today (Murray and Cantwell) and told them to get back to work on real issues. Fat lotta good that'll do.
 
Flap de jour.

Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President. Congress has nothing to do with the dismissal. Bush wanted them gone so they go away. The reason is irrelevant as far as congress is concerned.

What makes this episode so pathetic is Bush's unwillingness to defend himself. There is some deep, dark pathologies at work here.
 
Politics as usual, This is the reason they want to take away our guns, because eventually we are all going to get so sick of this BS that we will want to clean house ourselves!
 
When the Democrats pull something like this, the Republicans whine about "politics".
Click to expand...
Fair enough...as long as you can point out to me when did a democratic administration compose a "loyalty list" of state attorneys, fire the unloyal ones or the ones prosecuting democratic officials, and then lie to congress about why?
 
As somebody said before, they can be let go for wearing the wrong color tie. That's life in the big city.

This whining about "politics" is a total effing waste of time and taxpayer's money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Sasquatch...you accused the "democrats" of doing the same thing.

I ask again...site an example.

It does become illegal when it is done covertly for political reason and then you lie to congress about it.
 
As somebody said before, they can be let go for wearing the wrong color tie. That's life in the big city.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And they could have said that. However, they couldn't. They try and tie it to Harriet like it was some big bad thing. It's so sad that they lie about who's idea it was. There was no reason to lie. It's just sad.

This whining about "politics" is a total effing waste of time and taxpayer's money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Republicans Gordon Smith and Dana Rohrabacher added their names today to those calling for Gonzales's resignation.
 
Noone can really question the legality of this action. I just think people see it as a testiment to the character and thinking of the current administration.

They made "loyalty lists" for goodness sake.

It is very clean that all the administration is interested in is having people that will not only do as told but refuse to pursue criminal investigations if things hit the fan.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you but this has been going on since the original W was elected president. Spend some time and read the facts behind marbury v. madison. You might be surprised.

At the end of the day, the only thing people should care about is whether its legal or not. Thats the standard we judge things by. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
 
Hate to break it to you but this has been going on since the original W was elected president
Click to expand...
When during the first Bush admin did they use a hastily passed and conveluted law (the Patriot Act) to give wide sweeping authority to the Attny general to appoint state attny's without oversite? Then when did they compile loyalty lists and punish those that did not behave themselves? Then when did they lie to congress about it?
At the end of the day, the only thing people should care about is whether its legal or not. Thats the standard we judge things by. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Click to expand...
That is my main concern. If they had no hidden agenda and felt they were just doing business as usual then why lie to congress?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top