"I would fire Gonzales"

[OBIWAN]

I read # 31...and I read the previous link

The gun just ain't smoking enough for this skeptic

But actually reading the emails makes it hard to swallow what the bush haters are touting as fact

The inquiry was handled badly....and the people probably should have been replaced as they were identified rather than saving them up

But that does not a scandal make



Think they were all just good people that we "victimized"

Then let's look at Carol Lam

the L.A, Times...champion of truth and justice is making a big deal out of her being fired

Despite the fact that illegal immigration prosecutions declined by 38% under her watch

All the bush haters rave about him not being tough enough on the borders and yet he fires someone that is weak on prosecution and she suddenly becomes a saint

 

[SecDef]

But that does not a scandal make

I agree with you. But it does merit an investigation. Hey, maybe it will come to nothing. That's cool. Many investigations end up that way.

Despite the fact that illegal immigration prosecutions declined by 38% under her watch

All the bush haters rave about him not being tough enough on the borders and yet he fires someone that is weak on prosecution and she suddenly becomes a saint

And an administration that was working openly and honestly would have expressed to her their desire for more illegal immigration prosecutions, be able to produce evidence (email, letter, phone call logs, internal memo, something) supporting that. 5 minutes later the investigation is over.

 

[OBIWAN]

Sorry but I am with Stage 2 on this one....I would say that they were fired for cause and be done with it

Any other information just leads to more whining

The only reason they need to make a case now is because of the smear campaigns being launched by those determined to undermine this administration

Ms. Lam's term was up in November ...their only mistake was not axing her immediately

Being Government...nothing happens fast enough

 

[STAGE 2]

You are confident in your position, great! Why do you spend any time at all debating it on the Internet?

Because too many people with www.ihaveaninternetlawdegree.com feel that they are competent to weigh in on the matter. The very fact that people here were originally complaining that Bush fired USA's for political reasons is proof positive.

This entire thing started NOT when Gonzales testified, but when Bush canned these prosecutors. That right there is proof positive that this is simply political. These same people that are hunting for a fall guy are the same that you didn't hear a peep out of when the previous adminstration fired every single attorney for blatantly political reasons.

And an administration that was working openly and honestly would have expressed to her their desire for more illegal immigration prosecutions, be able to produce evidence (email, letter, phone call logs, internal memo, something) supporting that. 5 minutes later the investigation is over.

And this is the problem. The administration doesn't have to work open and honestly in this matter. They can be as cloak and dagger as they want to be where the employees are concerned. If one day you find a pink slip in your locker with no explanation then thats it. You have no recourse because the constitution doesn't grant you one.

You asked me why I debate about this. Well, people who share your viewpoints are the reason. Argue all you want. We can go round and round just like the legality of the war, and after pages and pages of useless banter, the result will be the same. There is no lie, and no illegal action here.

 

[sasquatch]

So what should be the final resolution of this charade?

Fire Gonzales? OK.

Then what?

If President Bush had any cajones, he'd say "OK, Democrats. We'll do it your way. AG Gonzales is gone. I am appointing a new AG and his name is Karl Rove. You happy now"?

 

[Playboypenguin]

They both are either a use...or a misuse of power

That is like saying jaywalking is like murder. They are both violations of the law.

 

[SecDef]

You asked me why I debate about this. Well, people who share your viewpoints are the reason. Argue all you want.

I already stated my position on this. This isn't a legal issue, it is a political one, with the endgame being that certain people will be put under oath (or not, depending on how it plays out) I note you ignore the more interesting issues such as the NSA wiretap issue (not allowing an investigation) and the Presidential Records Act.

This is a political issue. Not a legal one. You are confusing the two. The issue is tying Gonzales to lying to congress. Whether he ACTUALLY lied makes not one whit of difference. This is a power play by the Dems.

Stage 2:Lets first get one thing straight. In this case, congress should NOT be asking questions about this firing.

This kind of attitude is hilarious to me. Then you go on to make comparisons to Clinton firing all 93 (as if W didn't do that, too, when he came into office). This is interesting PRECISELY because it is not normal. In the last 30 years, no other President has removed USA's when their 4 year appointment has expired. It isn't whether it is legal or not, it is whether it is normal. This is just the congress paying attention, making sure things are kosher.

POLITICALLY, Gonzales should never have said under oath "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons". That's just a mistake. What it does though, is give his opponents a handhold in which to view all his

POLITICALLY, it is a mistake by the AG and the WH to duck this one. Hiding behind Harriet, changing their story, etc.

Dems are as mad at Bush for his "stay the course, stay the course, I never said stay the course" as the Repubs are at Bubba waggling his finger at the American people and saying he "did not have sexual relations"

Stage2: You do tend to only look at the legal aspect of things, overriding the political. That's why I enjoy coming here, it is an interesting perspective. Sometimes it is enough just to have the APPEARANCE of impropriety to lose political capital. Polls show 60% of Americans just want this presidency to be over...

 

[SecDef]

So what should be the final resolution of this charade?

Fire Gonzales? OK.

Gonzales isn't the target. Rove is. Investigations will continue with the goal of getting him under oath.

But yeah, fire Gonzales to buy time might be a good strategy. Gonzales does seem easily replaceable.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Dems are as mad at Bush for his "stay the course, stay the course, I never said stay the course" as the Repubs are at Bubba waggling his finger at the American people and saying he "did not have sexual relations"

I am not a big fan of Clinton personally. he was too far right for me on some things and too far left on others. That is the problem with moderate politicians like Clinton...they seldom ever please anyone fully.

When I hear people compare Clinton's lies about sex and the Bush adminstrations lies about the war (and other things) I am reminded of the bumper sticker that puts it so perfectly into words....

NOBODY DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED

Wish we could say the same now about the mess the Bush administration has made. My cousin's son and my own cousin would both still be alive.

 

[STAGE 2]

I already stated my position on this. This isn't a legal issue, it is a political one, with the endgame being that certain people will be put under oath (or not, depending on how it plays out) I note you ignore the more interesting issues such as the NSA wiretap issue (not allowing an investigation) and the Presidential Records Act.

This is a political issue. Not a legal one. You are confusing the two. The issue is tying Gonzales to lying to congress. Whether he ACTUALLY lied makes not one whit of difference. This is a power play by the Dems.

Wiretapping has NOTHING to do with this case. I don't care if Gonzales was caught raping a 2 year old. That has nothing to do with the legality of the issue here, specifically the firing of these attorneys. Theres a reason that in court why prior bad acts aren't admissible. You don't make the inference that because he did something bad there, he must have done something bad here.

This kind of attitude is hilarious to me. Then you go on to make comparisons to Clinton firing all 93 (as if W didn't do that, too, when he came into office). This is interesting PRECISELY because it is not normal. In the last 30 years, no other President has removed USA's when their 4 year appointment has expired. It isn't whether it is legal or not, it is whether it is normal. This is just the congress paying attention, making sure things are kosher.

LOL. So now we are convicting people under the "normal" standard. Give me a break. I don't care what is constituted as normal. I don't care whether GW does 3 miles naked on a treadmill every morning. What I care about is whether or not the particular act is illegal.

POLITICALLY, Gonzales should never have said under oath "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons". That's just a mistake. What it does though, is give his opponents a handhold in which to view all his

POLITICALLY, it is a mistake by the AG and the WH to duck this one. Hiding behind Harriet, changing their story, etc.

Dems are as mad at Bush for his "stay the course, stay the course, I never said stay the course" as the Repubs are at Bubba waggling his finger at the American people and saying he "did not have sexual relations"

Stage2: You do tend to only look at the legal aspect of things, overriding the political. That's why I enjoy coming here, it is an interesting perspective. Sometimes it is enough just to have the APPEARANCE of impropriety to lose political capital. Polls show 60% of Americans just want this presidency to be over...

Again, politically I could care less. Legal is the standard. Thats it. You point out all of these little factoids that have nothing to do with this issue. What does it matter whether the dems are mad about Bush's war strategy. That is completely separate from appointments in the justice department.

I only look at the legal aspect because thats the only thing that matters. If it doesn't violate the law, then he's free to do it.

 

[SecDef]

I only look at the legal aspect because thats the only thing that matters. If it doesn't violate the law, then he's free to do it.

Is it against the law for congress to ask questions about it? Cause congress is asking questions to make the AG and the WH look bad. That's not illegal. They are free to do that.

Wiretapping has NOTHING to do with this case.

Wiretapping (or not recusing himself in the matter) does have to do with the character and ethics of the AG. This is politics. Of course it matters.

 

[STAGE 2]

Is it against the law for congress to ask questions about it? Cause congress is asking questions to make the AG and the WH look bad. That's not illegal. They are free to do that.

Not illegal, just a waste of time and blatant political grandstanding. Similarly it is not illegal for Gonzales to say that these people were fired for their "performance" and then defining "performance" as he sees fit.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I really wanted to jump into this but PlayboyPenguin (and his pearl handled pimp gun) beat me to it. Bravo and well said.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I really wanted to jump into this but PlayboyPenguin (and his pearl handled pimp gun) beat me to it

These "be-otches" need to learn their place and stop sassing me or the will get a backhand and the business end of my walking stick.

That's right...you know who I am talking to...now stop your bitching and get back out there and make me my money.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

PBP - Not quite as eloquent as your usual posts, but I am laughing my arse off while chugging down some coffee and nursing a small hangover.

 

[STAGE 2]

I really wanted to jump into this but PlayboyPenguin (and his pearl handled pimp gun) beat me to it. Bravo and well said.

Ah yes. Lets come to conclusions despite the total lack of evidence that anyone lied about this war.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Stage 2 - No evidence anyone lied about the war? I'm also guessing that the jury was "just" confused in the Scooter Libby trial too.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Ah yes. Lets come to conclusions despite the total lack of evidence that anyone lied about this war.

No evidence???? How about the fact that he was told repeatidly in person and via e-mail that the "yellow cake" information was false right up to the day he made the statement in his address? Repeating information that you know is false is lying. Trying to say it is not would be a very weak game of symantics.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2 - No evidence anyone lied about the war? I'm also guessing that the jury was "just" confused in the Scooter Libby trial too.

Yup. No evidence whatsoever. All anyone has is inference and innuendo. Bad intel is bad intel. Lying is a whole different ball game. When all of the intelligence communinities say the same thing about a particular country and you rely on this, its called a mistake. Blame him for bad decisions, but unless you have something that will hold up in court, ditch the lying rap.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

Yup. No evidence whatsoever. All anyone has is inference and innuendo. Bad intel is bad intel. Lying is a whole different ball game. When all of the intelligence communinities say the same thing about a particular country and you rely on this, its called a mistake.

When you know it's bad and you still use the information, that makes it a lie.

I'm not sure what your current translation of the word "lie" is, but what occurred in the lead up to the war certainly fits my understanding of the word as it does most people.

Spin it all you like but the facts speak for themselves.