Skip navigation

General Gonzales

or Register to post new content in the forum

10 RepliesJump to last post



  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jul 27, 2007 9:52 pm

A) Outstanding in his field?

B) Swimming with the fishes?

C) Typical BS but nothing will come of it.

D) Other

Jul 27, 2007 10:01 pm

When you hear ‘W’ say, “Alby (or whatever he calls him), you are doing a heckufa job!” Then you know that he will be fired the next week.

This is presumed from the previous examples…Brownie, Rumy, etc.

‘W’ is digging himself into his preferred place - a hole - but there will be the many “holier-than-thous” espousing how his pooh doesn’t stink! Ha, ha, ha!!!

Jul 27, 2007 10:10 pm

You mean the ongoing investigation about political appointees that, horror of horrors, might at the very worst, have been fired for political reasons?


Jul 27, 2007 10:38 pm

Mike - if this such a yawner, why does the Bush Administration continue to obscure & obfuscate? Why not just come clean - fired 'em, bastards didn’t want to do what I wanted them to do. I put 'em in, I can send 'em to pasture.

Here’s what Arlen Specter said:

“The question is whether or not the Department of Justice is functioning as it must.”

“Now we have a very remarkable turn of events: we now have the announcement that the administration will preclude the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia from bringing a contempt citation,” he said. “The president in that manner can stymie Congressional oversight…if that is to happen, the president can run the government as he chooses.”


Two issues:

1 - Is the arm of the gov’t whose role is to enforce the laws able to effectively and efficiently do so?

2 - Is there a blurring of the separation of powers? Do you want this to happen? When Hillary or Obambi win, do you want them to ignore the Congress and the courts?

Still yawning?

Jul 27, 2007 11:34 pm

Clinton fired 92 US Attorneys, when he took office. A few of those were working on "White Water" stuff.

No media circus then.

US Attorneys work at the pleasure of the President. That means the President can fire you for being ugly...and it's perfectly legal. Bush's problem was that he didn't fire all the Clinton-hired attorneys (and agency heads, for that matter), when he first took office.

Jul 28, 2007 12:16 am

93 actually, doberman…

Now, what are your thoughts on Gonzales?

Jul 28, 2007 1:15 am

He doesn't know.

Point is that the bastard lied to Congress. Judicial oversight committe has a Constitutional duty to oversee the judiciary. If they corruption (like, people lying to congress under oath) they are duty bound to excise that corruption.

His name is gonna start with Ex-

And then, who knows what other stone walls will come tumblin down.

Jul 28, 2007 1:16 am

Gone before the end of the year. The GOP doesn't want to lose more marketshare in 2008.

FD: still a Republican but not "that kind" of Republican.

Jul 28, 2007 11:50 pm

If they can prove he lied, out he should go. But like the Valerie Plame issue, there's no crime here. It's perfectly legal for the President to fire a US Attorney.  

Jul 29, 2007 1:30 am

The actual problem is that yes they serve at the pleasure of the pres, but Al lied about his involvement and conversations.....

sounds like Scooter to me...or the whole Iraq thing...or the Katrina thing...or the WMD thing...yadda yadda yadda

Pinn   ....the only Texan that has a problem with our Pres.

"If somebody in my administration has broken the law,  I want to know about it and they will be dealt with"