How Long Can Gonzo Survive?
Soon-to-be-ex Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is just about cooked. Lying to Congress is a big no-no. He has done this on at least two occasions. This week come the revelations that Gonzales actually made John Ashcroft seem like a sympathetic character. Let that sink in.
So here is an idea that I saw someone float at one of the big liberal blogs (TPM or Kos). Let’s get Gonzo in front of one of the committees and ask him the tough questions. If he says “I don’t know” or takes too long to answer, we waterboard his ass. Or perhaps we can hook car battery terminals to various body parts. This is our democracy we are talking about here. I have it on good authority that our democracy is worth torturing for.
Tags: Bush, National Republicans
In other words, “go all Mitt Romney on his ass”.
Gonzo can theoretically stay as long as Bush stays. Bush can keep Gonzo as long as he likes, unless Congress impeaches him (Gonzo).
Gonzo can also lie as much as he wants, because his pardon is already sitting on the printer waiting to be signed.
In fact, Gonzo is already burned so it is in Bush’s interest to keep Gonzo on and send him up to lie to Congress as much as possible.
Nice.
The GOP must be proud.
Where’s Chris? Where’s Hube with his “Sandy Berger” defense of Bush and Gonzo?
*crickets*
Here you go anon: González can say he was “just sloppy” and pay and fine!
BTW, is it a “defense” of Gonzo if I point out Berger — or a demonstration of how hypocritically hyper-partisan you drones are?
defense.
Gee. Surprise.
you asked
“Where’s Chris?…”
Been busy adding some much needed support to the Delaware GOP. Unfortunately, Comcast screwed up the service my new DELAWARE home.
The fact is the whole premise of this entry is absurd since there is a huge difference between an elected official being accused of wrong doing (which apparently only requires you to breath before ticking off angry power-hungry libs) and terrorists KNOWN to have maimed and killed, with future plans to do so.
Now correct me if I am wrong (and if I am I will admit ignorance), this controversy with Attn. General Gonzales has to do with Deputy Attny Generals being let go..correct? The allegation is that they were let go because their political positions did not align with the President’s? Correct? Well, if so, it is disappointing. However, far from illegal. When Bill Clinton took office he fired most of them because they were R’s not D’s. They serve at the pleasure of the President.
Should a Dem get elected in 2008, I am sure that there will be wholesale layoffs in the justice department. My guess it YOU will be CHEERING the move, and not demanding impeachment. So, forgive me if I find your opinions in this case irrelevant.
Now correct me if I am wrong (and if I am I will admit ignorance), this controversy with Attn. General Gonzales has to do with Deputy Attny Generals being let go..correct? The allegation is that they were let go because their political positions did not align with the President’s? Correct?
All wrong. Your admission of ignorance is accepted.
The DOJ scandal has to do with political meddling in pending cases. That is provably illegal. The scandal is also surrounded by a whole penumbra of issues which have not yet been proven to be illegal, but which smell badly.
The “Clinton did it” defense is rather tattered. All USAs resign at the beginning of a new presidential term – that’s normal. The new element is the abuse of the Patriot Act, which enables Bush to replace the USAs w/o Senate confirmation. Clinton never did that.
The pattern of DOJ firings and replacements seems to be following the swing states where close votes are expected. There seems to be a partisan focus on “voter fraud” cases which devotes DOJ resources to using any pissy claims of “voter fraud” to launch a wholesale disenfranchisement targeting likely Dem voters. And of course there is the usual corruption of pursuing bogus or dubious cases against Dem pols, while suppressing cases against GOP pols.
Oh, what the hell, you’ll never believe me.