"The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital . . . was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."Orin Kerr agrees with Marcus. And both dislike Gonzales and think he should resign.
The emphasis is mine, and it matters. We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague....
[T]he calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?
३१ जुलै, २००७
Gonzales "employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed."
"But I don't think he actually lied," says WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
What do they say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day."
Of course Gonzales should not resign. Maybe he is not the best at fending off political attacks by corrupt democrats in Congress, however, that was not his original job description. He is the AG. he is not the head of the office or responding to clueless and vitriol Democratic senators.
With 300+ "investigations" going on the Dems are wasting away all their time and the people's money looking for ghosts in the Bush Administration. It's pathetic. It is definately the worst Congress in the history of the United States.
Now the Dems are calling for more special prosecutors. They are hoping for more fitzmas - more perjury convictions like the one they got with Libby. Eventually, Democrat hearings will be just perjury traps. No one will want to testify. Everyone will take the 5th. Pathetic.
"Both dislike Gonzalez"
Who likes Gonzalez? They can't find anyone to defend him on Fox, fer cryin' out loud.
Why would you possibly reserve judgment on this, Ann? Do you think he's been telling the truth?
He should resign if he can't do his job. I'm not sure if he can or can't. I doubt Bush would accept the resignation if tendered, because it means a lame duck President choosing an AG to be confirmed by a hostile Senate.
My parsing skills have gotten rusty since Clinton finished his term.
So we're in agreement with Ruth Marcus, Gonzales should resign for reasons of artfulness? Shall we next move on to the artistic merit of Senator Shumer?
Who likes Gonzalez?
An exhaustive list of people who like Gonzales would be: Gonzales himself, and George Bush. Of course, that is also the exhaustive list of people whose opinions on Gonzales' fitness for the job actually matter.
Why would you possibly reserve judgment on this, Ann? Do you think he's been telling the truth?
I'm amused by your jump from "nobody likes Gonzales" to the presumption of his guilt. I don't like Gonzales either, but it is hardly far-fetched to think that his meeting concerned NSA data mining (which was not made public) rather than wiretapping (which was).
The fact that the Democratic senators have been reduced to calling him "deceptive" and "untrustworthy" is a pretty good indication that they know they haven't got a case here.
Isn't it just great? Watching democrats quagmire themselves on an issue that is nothing more than a human resources problem? These people are unbelievable political bottom feeders and specifically I mean Schumer and Leahy. Two do-nothing, empty suits.
This isn't about whether you like Gonzalez or not. I'm fairly ambivalent about him personally, but the democrats got what they wished for. Push Ashcroft aside and look what you have now. Political bottom feeding at it's finest and they still haven't produced a thing.
Pat Leahy has the esteemed job of making people from 49 states feel slighty better about their two senators. Imagine Gonzales and Meirs instead of Alito and Roberts.
Sloan wrote:
Of course Gonzales should not resign. Maybe he is not the best at fending off political attacks by corrupt democrats in Congress, however, that was not his original job description.
This is solid gold. Thanks for making my day.
Methadras wrote:
Isn't it just great? Watching democrats quagmire themselves on an issue that is nothing more than a human resources problem?
Ahahahahahaha!
Hey neo-GEO-p'ers when you circle the wagon around lil' Al, make sure he is inside your protective ring.
When he is outside and on his own there perhaps has never been a more inept bozo to hold that office since Mitchell who also went to jail.
Watching those little eyes roll around like BBs in a drum is hysterical. Hearing him grop through yet another lie to explain the unexplainable is rich. One more question and I think he would have pee'd his pants.
Defend him all you want you loosers. He'll be gone by sundown.
Revenant wrote:
The fact that the Democratic senators have been reduced to calling him "deceptive" and "untrustworthy" is a pretty good indication that they know they haven't got a case here.
Arlen Specter (R):
"I do not find your testimony credible."
"I've never seen this type of avoidance before ... I think we have to pursue this."
Chuck Hagel (R):
"The American people deserve an attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question... Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country."
Arlen Specter (R):
Chuck Hagel (R):
Oh, please.
Revenant wrote:
Oh, please.
I just post the facts, ma'am. I apologize if that disturbs your partisan world view.
I just post the facts, ma'am.
The only fact contained in your post is the fact that those two Senators said those two things.
I'm not disputing that one fact. It just doesn't undermine my point at all, which is why I scoffed at you. People who actually pay attention to politics already know that Hagel and Specter have been openly hostile to the Bush Administration -- and the Republican Party in general, for that matter -- for years. There was even a grassroots campaign to throw Specter out of the party a few years back.
I apologize if that disturbs your partisan world view.
The notion that Gonzales might be impeached doesn't "disturb" me. I noted above that I don't like him. Were he removed from office or forced to resign he'd be replaced with someone better -- and by "someone better" I mean "a recess appointment Democrats get no say in". Sounds good to me.
I don't understand why people fail to grasp what is going on here. Democrats in Congress are looking for a reason, any reason no matter how absurd or cooked-up, to force Gonzales to resign.
Then at the confirmation hearings for Gonzales' replacement they can force the new AG to appoint a special prosecutor as part of the condition of the confirmation. Then the real fishing expedition can begin.
This isn't about Gonzales, this is about the want, the need of Democrats to get a special prosecutor do dig up dirt for them for the 2008 election.
ahhh Steven....earth to Steven....Alberto apparently can't tell the truth when asked. I think that is something of a major problem with an AG. Just a hunch but "lying weasel" isn't high up on what my idea of a AG should have as an attribute.
cyrus pinkerton said...
Ahahahahahaha!
I hear that laughter is the best medicine for those that suffer from mental illness and delusions. It's good to see that you are at least taking your medicine, Cyrus. Oh, please. Don't hold back, just let it all out. I'm sure there is a cure in there somewhere for you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा