(no subject)

[thatcrazycajun]

Junior Bush, in a speech yesterday, complained that his now-resigned former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has had "his good name dragged through the mud." Not to put too fine a point on it...meadow muffins! Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress, as NPR News points out, have expressed frustration with Gonzales' actions and doubt as to the veracity of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (So inconsistent were his under-oath statements regarding the mass firings of U.S. Attorneys, he was actually offered a chance to amend his testimony by the committee, and members thereof publicly considered charging him with perjury.)

One person, and only one, is responsible for "dragging Gonzales' name through the mud": Gonzales himself. (Two, if he did so, as I and many others suspect, on orders from the President himself.)

Comments

The attraction of like minds

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/

One stop shopping for just such opinions, and 'as explicitly stated in their signup rules', no rebuttals or dissent allowed. (Apparently no factual evidentiary basis for accusations required either) A libs paradise. If you haven't found it yet, they're waiting for you.

Happy surfing.

PS How many US Attornies did Mr. Clinton fire? 89.. 92.. something like that. They serve at the pleasure of the president and they are supposed to support the administration, no matter which flavor it is.

Partisan witch-hunters. Hoch tooee.


PSS Have you looked into The Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom yet?
http://thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com/140791.html?thread=426487#t426487


Keep stokin' man. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave, and keep on thinking free.

Re: The attraction of like minds

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

The Clinton dismissals are not even remotely comparable, as they occurred at the very beginning of his term and were not for conduct; I concede a case-by-case review would have been better, but it can't be undone now. The Bush firings were midway through his second term and were for explicit refusal to prosecute -- or rather, persecute -- Democratic members of Congress running for re-election, in direct violation of DoJ regulations stating such prosecutions may not be launched so close to an election. I can cite you chapter and verse of relevant press clips if you like.

The attorneys are supposed to serve the president in enforcing the law, not a partisan political agenda in defiance of the law. THAT is what makes this set of firings wrong and the Clinton housecleaning different. I am sick to death of you right-wingers offering up this specious comparison in defense of Bush's blatant tyranny, as if yelling "But Clinton did it too!" makes it any more right; it does not, in this or any other matter.

Re: The attraction of like minds

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

-The Clinton dismissals are not even remotely comparable, as they occurred at the very beginning of his term and were not for conduct;

It is always the libs who think that comparisons are the point. My only point is that if you bash the one you have to bash rather than excuse the other. My preference is to excuse both, not indict Mr. Clinton, or to make Mr. Clinton an excuse for Mr. Bush
-------------------------------------------

I concede a case-by-case review would have been better, but it can't be undone now.
-But at the time your argument would have been the same as mine if you were being honest; namely that Mr. Clinton was well within his rights. BTW, you're right about one thing. Ninety by Mr. Clinton vs eight by Mr. Bush is hardly comparable
-------------------------------------------

-The Bush firings were midway through his second term and were for explicit refusal to prosecute -- or rather, persecute -- Democratic members of Congress running for re-election,...

This is so far beside the point as to be a non-sequitur. Day first or day last, the rights, privileges, and powers are the same, not to mention that the motivations you ascribe are pure personal conjecture, and likely pulled directly from the headlines on MSNBC quoting their favorite Democrats.
-------------------------------------------

-...in direct violation of DoJ regulations stating such prosecutions may not be launched so close to an election. I can cite you chapter and verse of relevant press clips if you like.

Please do cite chapter and verse of the LAWS which you are paraphrasing, because I really am open to learning the truth. I just don't take people's word for it. Save the citation of the lib-leaning press headlines until after you've read all there is to read in the mainstream media about the Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
http://thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com/140791.html?thread=426487#t426487

My guess would be that you already have looked in to their conspicuous absence, but haven't figured out a good spin on it yet. If I'm wrong I humbly apologize. Anyway, I don't believe AP's 'take' on anything, and I always check their 'facts' against two alternative and unrelated sources before accepting them. My grandmother used to say, "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see". Good advice in these matters.
-------------------------------------------

-The attorneys are supposed to serve the president in enforcing the law,...

Correct
-------------------------------------------

-...not a partisan political agenda...

It's ALL a partisan political agenda,
on both sides,
all the time.

That's why there are parties and dissenting discourse like what we're having here. If you don't believe that then I don't know what common ground there is for this discussion. You're partisan. I'm partisan. But the trick is to do research for yourself, and not just regurgitate the headlines from the paper that expresses your favorite emotional viewpoint with the slickest spin on it.
-------------------------------------------

-...in defiance of the law.

Once again, chap n vs of the specific laws would be a real foundation for debate.
-------------------------------------------

-THAT is what makes this set of firings wrong and the Clinton housecleaning different. I am sick to death of you right-wingers offering up this specious comparison in defense of Bush's blatant tyranny, as if yelling "But Clinton did it too!" makes it any more right; it does not, in this or any other matter.

The decisions made by neither are right or wrong, except in the context of every single one individually. Pick a firing. Ask the specifics of the case, and then debate those specifics. Everything else is ill-informed conjecture and personal bias.

As I pointed out above, I'm not excusing Mr. Bush, nor am I trashing Mr. Clinton(although I reserve the right to do so on factual grounds at a later time ;-}). I'm simply calling for the same standard to be applied to both equally. Try to read what I'm actually writing and not just see what you think you've seen before.

Peace bro'

PS I really would like to hear your take on the murder reportage.

Re: The attraction of like minds

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"My only point is that if you bash the one you have to bash rather than excuse the other."

Nonsense. Clinton simply asserted his prerogative to replace the incumbent US Attorneys with his own people. Bush covered his butt with a bogus claim that the purged attorneys had been fired for cause (thus defaming them with a false stigma of incompetence, ruining their career prospects).

Re: The attraction of like minds

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

That bit of circular logic has already been detected, inspected, and rejected.

Dismissed.

[darrenzieger.livejournal.com]

You guys are standing in the middle of the forest, arguing about the tree.

==============

"Like [Al] Capone [the infamous mobster who served six years for tax evasion when the Feds couldn't nail him for all of that, y'know, murder], Alberto Gonzales has gone down for a mere misdemeanor: firing U.S. attorneys for investigating Republican politicians. What led to his resignation as attorney general was his smearing them as incompetent. Hell hath no fury as a man fired without a positive recommendation. (Gonzales, a buffoon on his best day, perjured himself in spectacularly inept style in testimony about domestic wiretapping before Congress--an outfit that has forgotten more about lying than lesser lights will ever know.)

Gonzales' crime was a doozy: He created the legal framework for American fascism. No punishment could suffice for America's Eichmann, author of infamous pseudolegal rationales for torture and the end of habeas corpus. And none will he face."

---Ted Rall (full article at http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20070828)