I love this

[blacbird]

Who, exactly, does Alberto Gonzales think he's fooling, at this stage?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19962962/

And why, exactly, does he think he's an asset to his boss?

caw

[SpookyWriter]

I'm telling you George, they know the truth!

http://www.mactechnews.de/user_images/galery/sputnik123_20070410085422_IMG_D_149699-12.jpg

[whistlelock]

Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe. Well, that's pretty true. I woudn't describe illegal activities either.

[Magdalen]

How many times can a man turn his head
and pretend that he just doesn't see?

The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin in the wind.


May the winds of change blow swift and fierce -- it is hurricane season, after all.

[blacbird]

The beat goes on . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19975387/

caw

[maestrowork]

How deep does that hole go?

[Roger J Carlson]

How many times can a man turn his head
and pretend that he just doesn't see?

The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind
The answer is blowin in the wind.


May the winds of change blow swift and fierce -- it is hurricane season, after all.
We are the folk song army,
Every one of us cares.
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares.

There are innocuous folk songs, yeah,
But we regard 'em with scorn.
The folks who sing 'em have no social conscience,
Why, they don't even care if Jimmy Cracks Corn.

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

The tune don't have to be clever,
And it don't matter if you put a couple extra syllables into a line.
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme... (excuse me: rhyne!)

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind where each of us belongs.
Though he may have won all the battles,
We had all the good songs!

So join in the folk song army!
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready, aim, sing!--Tom Lehrer

[blacbird]

How deep does that hole go?

Define "hole"? Is it a suffix?

caw

[talkwrite]

:hooray: A fine way to be heard!
We are the folk song army,
Every one of us cares.
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares.

There are innocuous folk songs, yeah,
But we regard 'em with scorn.
The folks who sing 'em have no social conscience,
Why, they don't even care if Jimmy Cracks Corn.

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

The tune don't have to be clever,
And it don't matter if you put a couple extra syllables into a line.
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English
And it don't even gotta rhyme... (excuse me: rhyne!)

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind where each of us belongs.
Though he may have won all the battles,
We had all the good songs!

So join in the folk song army!
Guitars are the weapons we bring
To the fight against poverty, war, and injustice.
Ready, aim, sing!--Tom Lehrer

[blacbird]

"If you want to end the war and stuff, you gotta sing loud."

-- Arlo Guthrie

caw

[Bird of Prey]

No. I think you have to impeach. Unfortunately. I don't wish that anxiety and upset for the nation or George Bush, but impeachment may be the beginning of the end to the war and the erosion of our rights. My fear is that we still have well over a year to go of, you know. . . . .

[William Haskins]

.
http://www.gambling911.com/George-Bush-Large-10.jpg

[Bird of Prey]

.
http://www.gambling911.com/George-Bush-Large-10.jpg

OMG! The baby I could take, but not this! Please, not this!

[Bird of Prey]

Democrats hit White House with double legal blow2007-07-26 14:56:06.0


A US Senate committee Thursday slapped a subpoena on President George W. Bush's political guru Karl Rove, as Democrats demanded a perjury probe against under-fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.


The double-pronged attack ratcheted up a fierce legal showdown, with one Senator warning the White House was engaging in Nixon-style obstruction, while Bush aides complained the Democratic-led Congress was careening out of control.

The Senate Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas against Rove and Scott Jennings, deputy White House political director, to compel testimony in a row over federal prosecutors who Bush critics say were fired for political reasons.

A group of Democratic senators meanwhile asked Solicitor General Paul Clement to open a perjury probe into Gonzales, focusing on statements he made in a grilling from a Senate panel on Tuesday.

"The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," said Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer.

"Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth -- and he does it not once, not twice, but over and over and over again."

The Democrats want a probe into what they say are conflicting statements made by Gonzales in several different congressional hearings, and accusations his sworn testimony contradicted an account from a top intelligence official.

The Rove subpoena landed a day after the House Judiciary Committee issued contempt of Congress citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and ex-legal counsel Harriet Miers, after they ignored subpoenas arising from the prosecutors row.

Bush barred their testimony by invoking executive privilege, a doctrine allowing him to keep documents and testimony secret if he deems it necessary to the functioning of the presidency, but Democrats say that smacks of a cover-up.

The White House accused Democrats in Congress of using the row to score political points.

"Every day this Congress gets a little more out of control -- a new call for a special prosecutor, a new investigation launched, a new subpoena issued, an unprecedented contempt vote, and an old score somehow settled," said deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

The White House has made various offers for officials to speak to the committee, but not under oath, but Democrats say they don't trust them to tell the truth about the firing of nine prosecutors.

"It is obvious that the reasons given for the firings of these prosecutors were contrived as part of a cover-up and that the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort," said Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy.

"Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability," he said, referring to Richard Nixon, the president who stepped down over the Watergate scandal in 1974.

"There is a cloud over this White House and a gathering storm."

But the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, who concurred with the subpoenas to Rove and Jennings, said that the call for a special prosecutor to examine Gonzales was going too far.

"I think that Senator Schumer has made a practice of politicizing this matter," Specter told reporters.

"Senator Schumer's not interested in looking at the record, he's interested in throwing down the gauntlet and making a story in tomorrow's newspapers."

At the center of the latest Gonzales storm is a March 2004 meeting between the White House and lawmakers.

Then director of US intelligence John Negroponte said the meeting was a briefing on a controversial domestic spying program involving warrantless surveillance, the Washington Post reported.

But Gonzales maintains the meeting addressed "intelligence activities" that were under legal dispute and has denied it focused on warrantless wiretaps.

AFP 261948 GMT 07 07

COPYRIGHT 2002 Agence France-Presse. All rights reserved.

[blacbird]

It must really suck right now to be Arlen Specter.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

I can't think of anything clever, bb. All I can say is that the events are numbing.

[benbradley]

"If you want to end the war and stuff, you gotta sing loud."

-- Arlo Guthrie
"This Machine Kills Fascists"
note on dad's guitar

[robeiae]

"The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth -- and he does it not once, not twice, but over and over and over again."

:roll:

[SpookyWriter]

You people expect way too much from government.

[Magdalen]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's all we expect.

[blacbird]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's all we expect.

Correction: that's what we should expect. What we do expect any more is the kind of schidt we've been hearing from the Attorney General of the United States. It's even funnier if you get a chance to see him on TV or hear him on the radio. He might be the least competent and least qualified major cabinet appointee any President has made in my lifetime. And that's atop a mighty pile of competition.

Every day Albie stays in office is a good day for Democrats. That's why I simply can't understand how any Republican can continue to support the guy. It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal political philosophy. He's killing all of them, by a thousand cuts.

Arlen Specter recognizes it. I'd bet over half the Republican voters in the country do, too, though that's a guess; I haven't seen any polls. But if a Dem Pres had somebody so egregiously stupid embarrassing him/her in such a visible position, I'd be furious.

caw

[SpookyWriter]

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's all we expect.And when was the last time that happened?

[TheGaffer]

"The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth -- and he does it not once, not twice, but over and over and over again."

:roll:


Yeah, I come away from that quote thinking Schumer needs new writers also. Is Bruce Vilanch busy?

[TheGaffer]

You people expect way too much from government.


I don't expect it to work for me all the time. It doesn't.

I don't expect it not to be infuriating, confusing and endlessly bureaucratic. It is.

But I do expect that our leaders won't actively work against the American people, which they are doing.

This defeatist "well, it always has sucked" attitude is dumb.

[blacbird]

"The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth -- and he does it not once, not twice, but over and over and over again."

:roll:

A lame politically-motivated statement, to be sure, but you'd have more credibility if you cited some of the statements from Gonzales that led Schumer to say this (and pissed off Arlen Specter, too). Compared to those jaw-droppers, this is just clumsy rhetoric.

caw

[TheGaffer]

Well, it is goofy-sounding, bb.

But Alberto? Right now, he has less credibility than Jon Lovitz's "liar" character from SNL.

[Magdalen]

I think Schumer said the right thing. The average joe gets it, I get it. What do you want from the guy? It's not funny. It seems to me to be the kind of statement the middle class will rally around. You guys are as cynical as a three-legged dog, and I'm not going to help you piss on Schumer!!!:Hug2:

[blacbird]

You guys are as cynical as a three-legged dog,

I saw a three-legged dog just the other day, being walked (. . . hopped) along with two other dogs, by its owner. I had no idea it was a cynical dog. Seemed pretty canine, much like the other dogs. If I see it again, I'll watch more closely, and maybe ask it a question about the President, see if it barks.

I'll also make note that I think the wrong Senator from New York is running for President. I like Chuck Schumer a lot.

caw

[robeiae]

Sometimes, I like him, too. Other times, not so much.

But I listened to his questioning of Gonzales. Not much there, imo. And I think all these gum-flapping Senators know this. They know that there really is no "crime" here, and they know that they will lose a showdown about whose authority extends where. So, they're playing these controversies for all they are worth and hoping to catch someone--like Gonzales.

Now, since we are talking about New York officials, let switch to Eliot Spitzer (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401999.html)...

[Magdalen]

You're interested in Eliot's ethics but not Al's or Karl's or Dick's or GW's?

My High School Civics teacher was quite clear on the matter: Perjury is a crime.

[Roger J Carlson]

Perjury is a crime.It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[robeiae]

You're interested in Eliot's ethics but not Al's or Karl's or Dick's or GW's?

My High School Civics teacher was quite clear on the matter: Perjury is a crime.
I'm interested in everyone's ethics. And perjury is a crime.


PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

The testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the testimony was false. There must be additional evidence, either the testimony of another person or other evidence, which tends to support the testimony of falsity. The other evidence, standing alone, need not convince that the testimony was false, but all the evidence on the subject must do so.
Now, what I see going on is an attempt by Schumer and others to find a way to stick a charge of perjury on someone--Gonzales being the preferred someone--to create a sense that their other allegations are correct and true. It's not all that removed from what was done to Clinton. And Libby. Of course, if they can prove perjury, I'm good with pressing charges. But so far, Schumer is talking around perjury, because he can't prove it and he knows it. And that is a reflection of Schumer's ethics, or lack thereof.

Now tell me, did you feel it was justified to go after Clinton for perjury, or was that not a crime?

[Magdalen]

Of course. When asked, Billy J should've fessed up. And I was particularly outraged when he tried to weasle out of the situation by declaring oral sex "not sexual relations"! Thousands of teenagers are still under that impression and it only adds to teen angst. If my highly sensitive probiscus can detect the aroma of lust and if there is ejaculate, then somebodies have been having sex.
Recap FYI: The two-party system sucks.

The Dems may like to fuck each other's wives but the Republicans specialize in fucking over the American people. I can smell it!

[Bird of Prey]

Recap FYI: The two-party system sucks.




Oh my. Apparently, literally.

[robeiae]

The Dems may like to fuck each other's wives but the Republicans specialize in fucking over the American people. I can smell it!Blanket statement? ;)

Both parties have people sticking it to the American people.

Did you see this (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/07/18/more-earmark-foolishness/)? Both parties, more or less, agreeing to give an unknown entity that may not even exist a million of our dollars. And the one guy that complains out loud gets tossed off of his committee assignment. Now, he happens to be a Republican and the earmark happened to have been added by a Democrat, but it could have been the other way. Right?

[Roger J Carlson]

Both parties have people sticking it to the American people.Campaign finance reform. Both parties are for it as long as it hurts the other party more. So nothing ever happens.

[blacbird]

Now, what I see going on is an attempt by Schumer and others to find a way to stick a charge of perjury on someone--Gonzales being the preferred someone--to create a sense that their other allegations are correct and true.

But . . . I think there's a pretty general sense around that their allegations are correct and true, and exhibit A is Alberto Gonzales who seems to have quite a string of former colleagues testifying, under oath, that what he testified, under oath, isn't true.

You're shooting at the messenger here, Robs. Pay more attention to the message.

caw

[Roger J Carlson]

there's a pretty general sense around that their allegations are correctthat's pretty generally vague.

[blacbird]

that's pretty generally vague.

I was trying to give the poor schlemiel some benefit of doubt.

caw

[robeiae]

I was trying to give the poor schlemiel some benefit of doubt.

caw
Be nice. Chuck Schumer is a U.S. Senator, after all.

[blacbird]

I knew you'd say that after I posted, but decided to leave the straight line open, figuring on the issue of Alberto you needed it. The guy's killing your boys, Robs, and it has nothing to do with political philosophy or programs or goals. He's just a completely incompetent hack who got his job via being a good sycophant, and, as in the case of good ol' "Helluva Job There Brownie", the Pres is paying the price for misjudgment in an appointment.

It's revealing to think back to his predecessor, Ashcroft. There were all kinds of things wrong with John Ashcroft as Attorney General; he barely got confirmed by the Senate, his recent colleagues, where he apparently was not exactly Joe Popular. And that, of course, came after he got pooted out of office by his own Missouri electorate, not exactly the most flamingly left-wing mass of voters.

But, as far as I know, he never got accused of lying under oath and he never did anything as stupid as scheming to fire these eight Federal attorneys. AND he was resistant to the idea of re-authorizing the blatangly illegal warrantless surveillance program that Albie accosted him about in his hospital bed.

Gonzales got confirmed easily because there was this great sigh of relief at the exit of Ashcroft, and there seemed to be no obvious reason to oppose the mild-mannered, soft-voiced baby-faced White House counsel. Clearly that was a mistake, both on the part of Senate Democrats, but more deeply on the part of the President who proposed his appointment, and who keeps getting the knife twisted deeper and deeper into him every time Alberto opens his mouth.

I love it.

caw

[Magdalen]

Rob;) If I'd only picked on the Reps it would've qualified as blanket, and I did use "may" for Dems and I should've said "seem to" so I guess ya got me there! As a blanket statement re: both major political parties and their verisimilitudes.

I did go check out that link you provided, thanks, and I also found there a nice little article which became the OP of a new thread. Thank you!

Based on the title, I'd think we should maintain this thread as a place for comments regarding Alberto's malfeasance, et al. Or the :roll: defense thereof!!

[robeiae]

Gonzales doesn't impress me, at all. There are many things about Ashcroft that I liked, which probably mesh here and there with things about him that you didn't like.

Of course, there is almost nothing about Janet Reno that I liked, and I defy anyone to point to her justice department with pride for what it did, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, but even without it.

Why does it matter? Well, it doesn't, insofar as incompetence now is it's own thing and the incomptence of the past matters not. However, it does matter when Schumer utters some of the nonsense he has uttered:

"Not since the darkest days of the Nixon administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability."

And I am ****ing sick of people that say "partisan politics" or any of its variants. "Political" things are partisan by definition.

[TheGaffer]

And I am ****ing sick of people that say "partisan politics" or any of its variants. "Political" things are partisan by definition.

Well, I'm sick of it too. Thing is, he isn't incorrect in his statement on that, and in this case, it's not just a reductive argument -- it points to specific political motives (i.e., gin up more lawsuits/charges against Democrats right before an election to swing votes) -- that those in power undertook here. It's not the same as someone opposing your position and you saying, "You're being partisan." That's a reductive, useless argument. In Schumer's case, this is not true. It may be hyperbole, but if we outlaw hyperbole among politicos, they'd all be silent. Hmmm...I may have an idea here.

[Magdalen]

Alberto lied to cover up the fact that the nine were disposed of, some for failure to bring cases against Dems and others for bringing cases against Reps What part of those actions do you sanction? Don't even go to a convenient, cynical "everybody does it" type of rationale. This is serious stuff and if you aren't offended by these types of transgression, it's probably because you are wasting brain cells worrying about fetal stem cells (at various stages of development) and stroking your ego as you thoughtfully contemplate the superiority of your own (and the beta dogs in your pack) moral deportment. :rant: done.

Isn't is cool we can get down to the nitty gritty and never have to worry about inflicting bodily harm? Here's an olive branch. If you don't know what to do with it, I've got some ideas I'd be happy to share with you!!!:kiss:

[robeiae]

Alberto lied to cover up the fact that the nine were disposed of, some for failure to bring cases against Dems and others for bringing cases against Reps What part of those actions do you sanction? Don't even go to a convenient, cynical "everybody does it" type of rationale. This is serious stuff and if you aren't offended by these types of transgression, it's probably because you are wasting brain cells worrying about fetal stem cells (at various stages of development) and stroking your ego as you thoughtfully contemplate the superiority of your own (and the beta dogs in your pack) moral deportment.
Well, Schumer's deal here is unrelated to that investigation. But with regard to those U.S. Attorneys, it remains a presidential power to appoint and dismiss people from that office--with Senate approval for replacements of course, that bogus bit in the Patriot Act not withstanding. So, it doesn't really matter a whit, with regard to this "why." The Senate knows that. Again, it's why they're looking for perjury charges or something similar on Gonzales. And all of their blathering plays well to their base, quite obviously. Elections are just around the corner.

And I waste brain cells watching network television, which is why I try to avoid doing so. I'm not sure what stem cells have to do with this discussion.

[blacbird]

Schumer no doubt is playing partisan politics here. But "partisan politics" isn't always a zero-sum game, with each major party having equal sway, or equal guilt. In this instance, Democrats have the high ground and a lot more ammunition than Republicans do. And Republicans know it. I think even the White Housies, as Luddite as they can be on a lot of things, know it. The only strategy they have is to circle the wagons and hope the Indians get tired.

Let's face it: If Alberto Gonzales had run the Justice Department the way he was supposed to, the way he swore to do, none of this brouha would have arisen, and the White House and Republican Party would be just fine, at least as far as the Justice Department is concerned. But they chose to engage in some egregiously stupid and self-destructive measures, for little conceivable benefit, and they thought they had the right lackey in place to take care of them.

They were wrong.

I love it.

caw

[Magdalen]

Doesn't the fact that there are so many, many things to investigate tell you something?

I am sure I am too passionate and not logical enuf to really "win" any debates, especially when the topics are so convoluted. So, if nothing comes of the Alberto thing (by Xmas, say) I will give you a rep a day for a month. If, however, charges of perjury are brought up against him, I hope you will have a good word to say about old Mags, and her passionate (perhaps misguided) beliefs, K?

[blacbird]

Again, it's why they're looking for perjury charges or something similar on Gonzales.

Uhhh . . . Robs . . . nobody even thought of pursuing perjury charges for Gonzales until he lied under oath in Congressional testimony. Just a minor detail, you understand.

caw

[robeiae]

Uhhh . . . Robs . . . nobody even thought of pursuing perjury charges for Gonzales until he lied under oath in Congressional testimony. Just a minor detail, you understand.

cawUhhh...no. That's not true. Not, yet, anyway.

[robeiae]

Doesn't the fact that there are so many, many things to investigate tell you something?That Congress isn't doing any of the things they are supposed to be doing?

I am sure I am too passionate and not logical enuf to really "win" any debates, especially when the topics are so convoluted. So, if nothing comes of the Alberto thing (by Xmas, say) I will give you a rep a day for a month. If, however, charges of perjury are brought up against him, I hope you will have a good word to say about old Mags, and her passionate (perhaps misguided) beliefs, K?I already said (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1504037&postcount=32) that I have no problem with him getting prosecuted, if he committed perjury.

[Magdalen]

Of course, if they can prove perjury, I'm good with pressing charges. But so far, Schumer is talking around perjury, because he can't prove it and he knows it. And that is a reflection of Schumer's ethics, or lack thereof.

Oh ye of little faith!!