I don't know how many of you are following this but this is getting more sickening each and every minute. Finally a few people are having a conscience and standing up for the truth. This handjob Gonzales should be hung with the rest of them. How anyone is still supporting these liars I think you could possible make a case for insanity. When will the lying stop?
Gonzales
- Thread starter The Sponge
- Start date
- Mar 2, 2006
- 4,794
- 120
- 0
Never. Once you start lying you have to come up with more and more lies to cover your original lies, and soon it just becomes standard operating procedure. Our political system is more like a corporation nowadays, and when money and power is the central goal, it becomes a lot easier to justify lies. Honesty and big business don't really work too well together.
Well what about that slogan they use to say about Superman. Jeez i can't even remember it. Smuph prolly knows it.
- Mar 2, 2006
- 4,794
- 120
- 0
"Truth, Justice, and the American Way"
Is that what you were thinking?
No, you were probably thinking of this one...it rings a bit more truthful.
"It's a bird, it's a plane, no... it's Superman"
Is that what you were thinking?
No, you were probably thinking of this one...it rings a bit more truthful.
"It's a bird, it's a plane, no... it's Superman"
Ehhh, somthing about not necessarily changing the world, but changing the world in yourself ....or maybe that was U2. I can't keep track anymore. Bono or Clark Kent or Buddy ...it's all a blur.
I think it was ....look up in the sky..
Its Bush, and he don't want to fire no one else until his term is finished, no matter what.
Its Bush, and he don't want to fire no one else until his term is finished, no matter what.
Stop it --your killing me:142smilie
--but you have no prob with someone actually convicted --:nono: --pergury-obstruction of justice pleading the 5th-disbarrment ect--
do you ever feel just "a little bit" ridiculous?
--but you have no prob with someone actually convicted --:nono: --pergury-obstruction of justice pleading the 5th-disbarrment ect--
do you ever feel just "a little bit" ridiculous?
Way to go, Wayne. I was thinking it had been quite a while since we got a Bill reference. So, does that mean you also think Gonzales has some issues at this point, since you are asking for a comparison?
someone still obesessed with bubba's bj 10 years later is asking about feeling a bit ridiculous. :142smilie
Thought i was on record as saying what Clinton did was dispicable. that is just Clinton and not 800 of his cabinet members. Now that Bush's people one by one are showing what a disgrace they are what Clinton did now al the sudden to me doesn't look to dispicable.
That is it Hippo. I thought you might be to young of a puppy to know that. I did know that but i just wasnt positive.
Yes it was 10 years ago--are you trying to tell us you have all upgraded your perspective--of honesty and integrity morality ect since then 
i haven't been following this closely at all....
but how come there wasn't an outcry when janet reno replaced something like 95 out of 96 attorneys when she was the attorney general ?
the only one she kept is the guy who is now the head of homeland security.
i'm asking honestly because i don't have an idea.....what is the difference between what reno did & what gonzalez has done ?
but how come there wasn't an outcry when janet reno replaced something like 95 out of 96 attorneys when she was the attorney general ?
the only one she kept is the guy who is now the head of homeland security.
i'm asking honestly because i don't have an idea.....what is the difference between what reno did & what gonzalez has done ?
Did you miss my question, Wayne, while you are jabbing at others?
AR, my take on this is that what Reno did was in fact status quo and acceptable political replacements that have been done in most administrations as a part of starting out with a new administration. Those attorneys are appointed and can come and go and be fired. Nothing odd or insidious about it, then or before.
As for Gonzales, and now we find out his assistant, undertook to get rid of attorneys much later in the game, specifically those that were not willing to work cases fast enough to create voting outcomes (not specific, but general situation) favoring republican candidates, and firing democratic attorneys who were undertaking fraud and corruption cases that would hurt republicans. Not general situations, but very targeted, specific cases to head off illegal findings AFTER they became aware of the situations. Very different in my mind, and most objective people.
And we further find out that in the hiring process of permanent attorneys (not the appointed ones) his assistant (I would assume under direction of her boss, Gonzales) did use political affiliations as a hiring requirement (or major factor) for those positions - which IS illegal, unlike the political appointments, which is not illegal.
It's not just business as usual, as Wayne and Weasel would ask you to believe. It is corrupt and more of the same from Bush appointees.
AR, my take on this is that what Reno did was in fact status quo and acceptable political replacements that have been done in most administrations as a part of starting out with a new administration. Those attorneys are appointed and can come and go and be fired. Nothing odd or insidious about it, then or before.
As for Gonzales, and now we find out his assistant, undertook to get rid of attorneys much later in the game, specifically those that were not willing to work cases fast enough to create voting outcomes (not specific, but general situation) favoring republican candidates, and firing democratic attorneys who were undertaking fraud and corruption cases that would hurt republicans. Not general situations, but very targeted, specific cases to head off illegal findings AFTER they became aware of the situations. Very different in my mind, and most objective people.
And we further find out that in the hiring process of permanent attorneys (not the appointed ones) his assistant (I would assume under direction of her boss, Gonzales) did use political affiliations as a hiring requirement (or major factor) for those positions - which IS illegal, unlike the political appointments, which is not illegal.
It's not just business as usual, as Wayne and Weasel would ask you to believe. It is corrupt and more of the same from Bush appointees.
thanks chad...
did reno replace those attorneys all at one time at the beginning of the clinton administration.....or were they replaced over the 8 years ?
did reno replace those attorneys all at one time at the beginning of the clinton administration.....or were they replaced over the 8 years ?
I am just winging this from a feeble memory, AR, so my "facts" could be wrong. Would welcome discussion and clarification when wrong.
I believe it happened right out of the gate, in the Clinton administration. A complete whitewash. I seem to remember that more were replaced than ever before, I think Wayne posted on that once. Again...my memory is not that strong.
I believe it happened right out of the gate, in the Clinton administration. A complete whitewash. I seem to remember that more were replaced than ever before, I think Wayne posted on that once. Again...my memory is not that strong.
Chad if im understanding you correctly these were republicans that got fired not Democrats. Also like AR said this is status quo and all presidents do it but this president did it the 2nd term. These are guys he hired and not the otherway around. These guys who all should be totally partisan were not playing the Rove game and that is why they got rid of them. They stood their ground and were doing what they are hired to do and it wasn't good enough for Rove. Kinda sounds like a General i remember saying we need about 300 to 400 thousand troops and then got his walking papers. Well im glad you are watching this abortion. There are so many things with this administration it is hard to keep up. I kinda felt bad for the new Monica but i have to praise her for telling the truth. I wonder if she will ever be able to get a job again?
Here's a middle of the road overview of the matter:
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the unprecedented dismissal of seven United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration in December 2006, and their replacement by interim appointees under provisions of the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization. Other attorneys were similarly dismissed in 2005-2006; at least 26 U.S. Attorneys were under consideration for dismissal.[1][2] The controversy began to receive nationwide attention in March 2007. Because the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."[3][4] Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political gain. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[5] [6] Clear explanations for the dismissals remain elusive, however, with several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents subpoened by Congress. Critics argue that the scandal has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the non-partisan tradition of U.S. Attorneys.[7][8] Many Members of Congress from both parties have called for the Attorney General's resignation.[9] Several senior staff of the Department of Justice have resigned.
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.
Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The dismissal of U.S. Attorneys controversy is an ongoing political dispute initiated by the unprecedented dismissal of seven United States Attorneys by the George W. Bush administration in December 2006, and their replacement by interim appointees under provisions of the 2005 Patriot Act reauthorization. Other attorneys were similarly dismissed in 2005-2006; at least 26 U.S. Attorneys were under consideration for dismissal.[1][2] The controversy began to receive nationwide attention in March 2007. Because the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has described the affair as "an overblown personnel matter."[3][4] Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Department of Justice and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political gain. Allegations are that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.[5] [6] Clear explanations for the dismissals remain elusive, however, with several administration officials providing contradictory testimony or testimony contradicted by documents subpoened by Congress. Critics argue that the scandal has undermined both the integrity of the Department of Justice and the non-partisan tradition of U.S. Attorneys.[7][8] Many Members of Congress from both parties have called for the Attorney General's resignation.[9] Several senior staff of the Department of Justice have resigned.
The dismissed U.S. Attorneys had all been appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate, more than four years earlier.
Hi Wayne,
As a friend, I feel obligated to tell you that your crazy obsession about Bubba lying about a blowjob just can't be healthy. I do commend you on refraining from any Willy references for 11 days, 4 hours.
Do you have an opinion on this Gonzalez thing? It's actually going on right now!
Whatever the case, it would be great if you threw out a few 'cute' comments about Nixon lying, everytime you're overcome with Clintons high crimes.
And for every Somalia reference, how about a Ronnie Raygun Runnin' right out of Lebanon reference. It only seems fair.
Deal or No Deal?
Ok, ok. I know it's NO DEAL, but what a clusterf*ck this board would be if every time something came up about someone from whatever party, everybody started referencing crap from many years ago without actually giving an opinion on the subject at hand.
