As Michael B. Mukasey awaits confirmation as the new U.S. Attorney General, his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, is being investigated by the Office of Inspector General for his involvement in the controversial firings of several U.S. Attorneys earlier this year, as well as whether or not he lied to or misled Congress during their investigation of the U.S. surveillance program.
One of the fired attorneys, John McKay, who recently spent eight hours being questioned by the OIG, contends that he and seven other U.S. Attorneys were fired for politically motivated reasons. Just prior to being fired, McKay had refused to investigate and prosecute alleged voter fraud in the Gregoire/Rossi election in Washington state. Regardless of the fact that other high-level prosecutors, as well as the FBI, had determined that there was no basis for it, McKay was pressured by the U.S. Attorney General's office to move forward with an investigation.
The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance although he had received an exemplary performance review just three months prior to being fired.
McKay has accused Gonzales of lying under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee during their investigation of the attorney firings in June of this year. Gonzales has been called by the OIG to discuss the matter but has refused to answer any questions. He has now hired his own attorney, George Terwilliger, to "assist [him] in connection with his continued cooperation with the Justice Department." Terwilliger was called upon as an expert to assist George W. Bush during the contentious 2000 election recount in Florida and is considered one of Washington's top white-collar crime defense attorneys.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 102
Diana, this is an excellent synopsis of what's happening with Gonzales.
Sheryl, Your comments are always right on...Thanks.
Susan - I wrote quite some time ago that the Gonzales story was not over. Too much has happened that is suspect.
Really? Jail time for a civil case? That would be unprecedented!
However, if he can be proven to have committed a crime - then he would be doing time. To my mind, of course those firings were political. And, the person who believes that he had a hand in getting Libby's sentence commuted might be right. In the end, he was a sleaze bag and we are better off without him in such an important office.
In the cases I witnessed, a Republican majority leader pulled committee assignments (thus political power) from any Republican office holder who challenged specific party positions or goals, in the media or in the statehouse.
I found this to be troubling political behavior as office holders are supposed to be elected to represent the people of their district, not just their party. To my mind, it seems to subvert the will of the people when a party leader can reduce the power of an elected official because that official is pursuing the goals they are charged with by those who elected them. The Will of the People should not becomes irrelevant once an official attains office.
I award kudos to the attorneys that were fired, especially since they seem to have been fired for refusing to do work that they deemed inappropriate, and work that may have been illegal. Just as I sadly award kudos to the many Bush staffers that have left their offices because they refused to be dictated into doing work that was not in the best interest of the county; and was anti the purpose of their offices.
A criminal case would have to be completed after Bush leaves office if prosecutors expected Gonzales to do any time because Bush would likely pardon him.
What is unprecedented is the cumulative corruption that has occurred under the current administration. The culture has become acceptable to those who say things like "It's just politics as usual."
As Bill's Spirit points out, it's not politics as usual. Citizens, courts and congress ought to be pushing back against the corruption.
Like most of the empty accusations coming from the liberal elite in Washington, there is little to PROVE their allegations, and the ONLY reason such empty accusations are made, is to promote the politics of personal destruction.
Of course it IS, "politics as usual."
Anyone that knows anything about our great nation's political history, knows none of this type of behavior is anything new.
"Like most of the empty accusations coming from the liberal elite in Washington, there is little to PROVE their allegations, and the ONLY reason such empty accusations are made, is to promote the politics of personal destruction."
Investigations based on the politics of personal destruction? Do you mean like the way the conservatives put a special investigator on to the Clintons to PROVE allegations that they were involved in the Whitewater scandal?
Oh wait, that is different isn't it. I mean the Whitewater thing happened before Bill Clinton took office and had nothing to do with anything he did while in office. I guess the only similarity would be that the investigation failed to prove any connection or substantiate any of the accusations, while providing lots of baseless mud to be slung at him throughout his presidency.
Now that's politics as usual.
On the other hand, this administration has given lots of cause to make accusations while they've been in office. If for no other reason than the fact that they have been secretive, caustic, tight-lipped and deaf in their dealings with those across the aisle.
Do we call that Neo politics?
One of their better attributes.
No, I don't--- there was AMPLE reason to investigate Whitewater, and the number of people that went to jail (including a sitting governor) because of it, testifies to that FACT.
this administration has given lots of cause to make accusations while they've been in office.
That of course is YOUR opinion, though there have been NO CONVICTIONS to prove a word of it.
David B. - "...and deaf in their dealings with those across the aisle."
"One of their better attributes."
So you think a proper form of political discourse is to not listen?
Hmmm...
".... the innocence of the crime is NOWHERE near as important as the seriousness of the charge ... "
.... just like with Clinton, eh?
Not exactly, Billie Boy. He was disbarred for his ethical transgressions - perjury. The fact he skated in the Senate's political trial doesn't negate the fact he was found to have committed perjury by a judge. He's lucky he wasn't tried in a criminal court.
Ignore them unless they actually have something useful to add to the conversation.
As always, it's the EVIL democrats who have the agenda and the poor persecuted Republicans would never involve themselves in partisanship.
I'm sure Gonzales had no intentions of moving the balance of power just like I'm sure Halliburton ran an ethical business and Iraq had WMD's and nobody was ever tortured at Abu Grahib and the Clear Skies Initiative was really meant to limit pollution and those 4 NASA scientists really do believe that man has no effect on Global Warming and no Americans had a vested interest in 9/11 and last but not least......conservatives do care about ALL Americans.
Yeah, good try babe. Do you even know what he was convicted of???
And look at Dougie drool.
".... the innocence of the crime is NOWHERE near as important as the seriousness of the charge ... "
".... just like with Clinton, eh?"
"Not exactly, Billie Boy. He was disbarred for his ethical transgressions - perjury. The fact he skated in the Senate's political trial doesn't negate the fact he was found to have committed perjury by a judge. He's lucky he wasn't tried in a criminal court."
"Billie Boy"? - Aww, you went all high school on my a**.
Well, Dave-The-Knave, the point is that Clinton was not guilty of involvement in Whitewater, despite all the accusations and investigations, and the alleged perjury also had nothing to do with Whitewater.
We all know what he supposedly perjured himself over; and the courts let him off easy because even the judges viewed the whole proceedings as the scummy workings of the politics of personal destruction and character assassination.
With Gonzales (and perhaps others too eventually) the accusations are not about PRE-office activities, nor are they about possible sexual indiscretions that might have taken place while he served in office. The accusations in these cases are a bit more serious, with some witnesses who back up the accusations (including some Republicans), and there is a ghost of a trail which may be ferreted out and turned concrete.
Having said all that, I have come to the realization that this is nothing like what was done to Clinton.
Oops, my bad.
Bill's Spirit, Oct 24, 2007, 2:40am EDT
According to who? You? Leahy? The Congressional Democrats?
By what standard?
I'm no fan of Gonzales and won't miss him a bit. But, this whole issue is a New York steak -- all sizzle and no meat.
Kay K., Oct 24, 2007, 8:13am EDT
There's actually some debate about that, Kay. He was convicted of not remembering a conversation the same way someone else did. The key point here is that if you want to call that lying (and I'll accept that premise for the moment, only for discussion's sake), there was no underlying crime for which the FBI was investigating. It's not a crime to simply tell a FBI agent a lie. It's a crime to tell a FBI agent a lie that "impedes the investigation" of a crime.
I will grant you that IF Libby had lied to them in an effort to hinder their investigation of a crime that he should have been tried and convicted. This is not the case, however, with the circumstances we're faced with in the Libby case. The releasing of Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novack and others, was not and is not a crime. Even Fitzgerald admits that.
Given that Libby wasn't the one who released the name and the person who actually did wasn't even investigated and that the whole charge was based on a faulty memory, it does seem a bit excessive to me to have this man a convicted criminal. As I recall, a certain First Lady claimed she couldn't recall in excess of 300 times during two federal investigations (or was it three? Doesn't matter.) in the 1990s, and no one charged HER with anything.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"... he needs to squirm and be held accountable for the firings and for bringing politics into an arena that was to be immune from politics."
Cheri Cabot, Oct 24, 2007, 8:45am EDT
Gonzales didn't bring politics into the U.S Attorney situation, the Constitution does that. Those position are political appointments and they serve at the pleasure of the Presdient (and by extension, the Attorney General). How do you remove politics from an inherently political position?
It should be noted, also, that these U.S. Attornies were fired because they weren't doing what they were directed to do by their boss, not for "political resons". If I ignore my boss' directives, I'm not long for my job, and I bet the same is true for you.
"The accusations in these cases are a bit more serious..."
Bill's Spirit, Oct 24, 2007, 2:40am EDT
"According to who? You? Leahy? The Congressional Democrats?
By what standard?"
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 6:46am EDT
According to me? Yes. For example, I do find that charges against an AG for firing political appointees because they refused to investigate someone when there was no legal justification for investigating that someone, to be MUCH more serious.
Wielding governmental power to unjustifiably investigate one's political opposition is an abuse of the power that the American people have vested in their elected (or appointed) officials.
Such investigations cost the taxpayers untold amounts of money and occupies legal department resources with petty partisan politics. The Ken Starr investigation cost the American taxpayers some $40 million, and all that it added up to was that President Clinton had had what some would deem an inappropriate liaison with a consenting adult woman.
Legal Department resources are supposed to serve the American people by focusing on nationally important investigations. It is an abuse of official power to use them as the President's, or any ONE party's personal attack dogs.
As for Leahy and/or the Congressional Democrats, I can't really speak for them or about them. Their own words and actions will speak for them, just as the Republican's words and actions speak of themselves.
When you ask "By what standard?" I can only reply; By the standards by which the Constitution, the legislations and regulations that have been enacted, and by which the will of the American people defines.
I can't be 100% sure, but I think the majority of Americans would feel that sexual indiscretion is not as serious an offense as abuse, or inappropriate use of office holder power and resources; especially when the use and abuse of power is solely vested in partisan politicking.
Opinions may vary.
"..more a victim of his own incompetency than an outright malevolent intent.."
I'm inclined to agree with you on this. So many of this administration's underlings seem to be hapless but loyal servants; something I don't fully understand because I have a renegade spirit and not a follower's spirit.
I admire the actions of those who have left this administration because they felt that the directions given and taken by these leaders was wrong. It takes a lot of guts to stand-up to authority figures and defend what is right and point out what is wrong; especially when it can, or does, cost you you're job.
Kudos to those who don't just go along with the dominant dictations.
Bill's Spirit, Oct 24, 2007, 1:00pm EDT
Who's talking about a sexual indiscreation? I wasn't.
There was nothing partisan about this affair before it got to the Judiciary Committee. You can pass that stuff around here if you'd like. But, I'm not buying that load of bovine scatology.
Bottom line, do your job the way the boss tells you, or you're gone.
"Who's talking about a sexual indiscreation? I wasn't."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 3:05pm EDT
No, I guess you weren't. You were talking about Clinton's perjury to a judge, in a case, which WAS about a sexual indiscretion that took place while Clinton was in office; whereas the current Gonzales accusations are regarding some alleged perjury to Congress over possible partisan manipulation and perhaps some misuse of power while HE was in office.
"There was nothing partisan about this affair before it got to the Judiciary Committee."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 3:05pm EDT
The partisanship in the Clinton situation was in the reenactment of the Independent Counsel law and the subsequent placing of an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton for possible involvement in Whitewater; an investigation that LED UP TO the disclosure of Clinton's "affair" which turned out to be the only piece of dirt that could be smeared on Clinton for the $40 million taxpayer dollars spent on investigating him.
"Bottom line, do your job the way the boss tells you, or you're gone."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 3:05pm EDT
So, if a boss tells you to break the law, you should not be angry, upset, or feel unjustifiably fired for not adhering to the order?
Joe T. - You come to a very important point... Who is the boss of an elected official; and through them, the people they appoint to offices which they are charged to manage and oversee?
For certain politicians (meaning Republicans, lately) the view seems to be that "the boss" is the party or party leaders, and that THEIR orders are sacrosanct; whereas most Americans feel that the boss of government is the American People.
"The partisanship in the Clinton situation was in the reenactment of the Independent Counsel law and the subsequent placing of an Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton for possible involvement in Whitewater; an investigation that LED UP TO the disclosure of Clinton's "affair" which turned out to be the only piece of dirt that could be smeared on Clinton for the $40 million taxpayer dollars spent on investigating him.
Bill's Spirit, Oct 24, 2007, 4:20pm EDT
Wrong on both accounts, William.
No, I was talking about the perjury he committed before a judge in a sexual harassment lawsuit. That's not just some run-of-the-mill "sexual indescreation". I'm sure that many of our Gather colleagues of the female persuasion would readily agree that sexual harassment is not a "sexual indescreation", but is, indeed, an abuse of power. I guess you Clinton-lovers can't just be adults and get past the titillating fellatio thing. Clinton's troubles weren't about fellatio. It was about lying to save his reputation (such as it was) and his wallet. There was no noble cause. This wasn't standing defiantly strong against the partisan hordes. Deep down inside I think you know that.
Whitewater, was a serious fraud case that both Clintons were involved in up to their eyeballs. It was real. It was a criminal conspiracy as evidenced by the conviction and jail sentences of Jim Guy Tucker and Susan McDougal. The fact that their loyalty to the Clintons went so far as to take the fall for them in the Whitewater case doesn't change the fact that Bill and Hill were dirty in that whole conspiracy and simply skated because their friends refused to roll on them. Any view to the contrary is simply denial, pure and simple.
As to Mr. Gonzales, you make a major leap of logic (and faith), Bill, going from, "accusations are regarding some alleged perjury" to judging him guilty. Accusations and alledged are worlds apart from guilt "proven through adjudication". It seems you are very content to treat Gonzales in the very same way you decry that Clinton was treated. The difference is, Gonzales hasn't been adjudicated to be quilty of anything. Clinton was.
I watched those hearings. Live. Rewatched them twice after all this dust-up arose. Gonzales didn't lie. There's not an attorney alive that's going to be able to prove that he did. Anyone that claims they can is simply blowing the same partisan smoke Leahy and Schumer are.
But, hey; you guys shoot your best shot and we'll see what happens. I'll eat your hat if Gonzales is even tried, much less convicted of anything.
"So, if a boss tells you to break the law, you should not be angry, upset, or feel unjustifiably fired for not adhering to the order?"
No one was asked to break the law.
If my boss tells me to break the law, I'm turning him in to authorities immediately. Particularly if I'm a U.S. Attorney. I don't want even the appearance I was involved in any way with something of that nature. I'm not even an attorney and I know that's the proper course of action. If this whole scenerio came down the way the way you claim, they would have been hot-footing it to the IG so fast they'd leave skid marks.
No, what happened is they were told to focus on border violations and voter fraud cases and they didn't. The didn't like Bush. They didn't like Gonzales. They knew that when their hands were called, they'd make this bogus "partisan politics" charge and their Democrat compadres would come riding on horseback to save the day.
And, you're following the script to a tee, Bill. My hats off to you.
Nice try, but it ain't happening.
Nowhere in this discussion have I said that Gonzales is, was, or has been found guilty. I used the words "accusation" and "alleged" for their precise meanings. YOU, on the other hand, ARE stating that the Clintons were guilty of crimes in Whitewater, even though they were NOT adjudicated as being so.
On another note, I can't figure out how you could possibly "know" that Gonzales wasn't lying without making leaps of faith of your own; unless you have actually been his shadow for the past number of years and been witness to everything he has done and said.
Also, you really miss the mark when you refer to me as part of "those guys". I am not, nor have I ever been a member of any political party; Democratic or Republican. I did vote for Bill Clinton (twice) just as I voted FOR Ronald Reagan (his second term) just as I voted FOR G.H.W Bush (helping to elect him to his one and only term).
So, if I sound like I am following a script to a tee, let me assure you that I am not.
Lastly, you said:
"I guess you Clinton-lovers can't just be adults and get past the titillating fellatio thing."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 5:48pm EDT
Thank you for reminding me why I don't like discussing things with YOU. I am trying to have a civil and decent conversation, and you can't seem to restrain yourself from making unwarranted comments that imply I have immature and immoral leanings.
It has NOT been nice talking with you; so, here's hoping your wife serves you cold cuts for dinner, again.
I WAS trying to have a civil and decent conversation with you. You brought up the "sexual indiscreation" of Mr. Clinton, not I. I was refering to Mrs. Clinton not recalling. There was nothing uncivil in what I said, nor indecent, nor in light of your comments, unwarranted. I said nothing in my comments where I can see where you should take offense.
If you choose to get into s snit when someone challenges your assertions and misdirections, that is your choice, sir. But, be adult enough to accept the responsibility for not controlling your own emotions and don't blame me for your failing.
"Also, you really miss the mark when you refer to me as part of "those guys".
So you "alledge". I'll stand by my "accusation" and use your own words as my evidence.
"I guess you Clinton-lovers can't just be adults and get past the titillating fellatio thing."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 5:48pm EDT
Your words and implications are pretty clear.
"Clinton-lovers" -- name calling
"can't just be adults" -- condescension and ridicule
"get past the titillating fellatio thing" - implication of lasciviousness
People who want to have decent and civil conversations do not resort to this type of talk. For example; I do not, nor have I ever, called anyone a "Bush-lover".
I'm not interested in stirring up someone's emotions by calling them names, because stirring up emotions with name calling only leads to heated breakdowns in conversation. Resorting to this to try and "win" a conversation only angers people and drives them away; which works to the benefit of the opposition.
He lied to all of us. Wagged that finger in our faces and bald-faced lied. Then he lied under oath. I really don;t think anyone who sticks up for him after that really cares about being called a Clinton-lover.
It's those very same people who always excuse the impetus of that whole debacle as, "It's only about sex." And, we all know what kind of sex we're talking about.
In THIS article, again, it was YOU that brought that up. I addressed your point using very mature, technical language. I wasn't implying anything. I was responding to YOUR invitation to lasciviousness in what I consider to be the most appropriate manner possible, given the circumstances; i.e. you bringing sex into the conversation.
"People who want to have decent and civil conversations do not resort to this type of talk.
So, why did you?
"Resorting to this to try and "win" a conversation only angers people and drives them away; which works to the benefit of the opposition."
I'm not trying to "win" anything or anyone over to any point of view. I was expressing MY opinion. I've been around Gather long enough to know the camps, and generally who's in each. I just try to keep the conversations honest, lest someone be led astray by some of this revisionist history.
I do know, which is why Clinton was impeached, and was forced to give up his license to practice law.
One conviction during Bush's tenure, compared to a dozen or so during Clinton's tenure. WOW, you've got me *chuckle* Actual CABINENT members went down during Clinton's reign of terror, and you guys convict one man's aide. Yes, very convincing.
Nor under the Bush admin. If you'd care to lay out the so called FACTS that lead you to believe it is an "illegal" war, by all means, please do so, and I'll then set you straight.
you get the picture
Yes I do, you're just another democrat aping the party line and engaging in the politics of personal destruction. My my, how silly of you.
I am getting depressed!
Getting depressed ??? I would venture to say your entire life you've been depressed, and that is precisely what led you to become a democrat honey.
I will settle for junior and his henchman being in America's hall of shame for the rest of their lives.
I believe you'll have to settle for much less, when there IS a "McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner" in Iraq before your worthless life has come to an end.
As for the weeping, yet another sign of chronic depression. You know, don't you, you can have a better life through drugs from your shrink.
I just took apart our friend Jackie's argument
*ROFL* yeah, right, sure you did sister woman *ROFL*
I am confidant that if history teaches us anything, the catastrophe that occurred with the Bush administration will never happen again
It is rather naive to suggest war will never happen again. Apparently you don't know much about the history of mankind. It is littered with wars.
when no one got convicted for revealing a covert operative
Plame was anything but "covert" and the democrats don't have the stomach to convict anyone, much less convict them.
Kay K., Oct 25, 2007, 6:57am EDT
And, our country is not engaged in an illegal war now, under Bush.
"... the deficit was eliminated under Clinton."
Ummm, no. It was eliminated under a Republican House of Representatives. The President doesn't do the budget. Check your Constitution.
"... our country is an embarrassment."
An embarassment to whom? I'm not embarrassed. Jack? Are you embarrassed? No, Kay, it's only the unpatriotic, left-wing, politically-partisan zealots more interested "feelings" than security, that are "embarrassed." Sucks to be them.
"...oh Jackie I could go on, but quite frankly I am getting depressed!
I'm sure there's a vial of Prozac in the medicine cabinet, perhaps you should go and see.
"Oh David you did not answer my question regarding Martha Stewart, what do you think of the Stewart-Libby comparison--not quite the same when a right winger gets caught, now is it David."
Oh Kay, Kay Kay. You silly, little, woman. I was going to let your inane comparison pass, so not to cause you any more embarrassment. But, since you insist.
There is no comparison between Martha and Scooter.
With Scooter, there was no underlying crime. Therefore, any lie he could tell; even if he indeed did lie, could not have prevented the investigation and successful prosecution of it. It's not a crime to lie (and again, I'm not saying he did) to the FBI. It is only a crime to lie to the FBI with the intent to impede an investigation and prosecution of an underlying crime.
On the other hand, there was most definitely an underlying crime with Martha; insider trading and securities fraud, that was being investigated. She was indicted for securities fraud and obstruction of justice as well as conspiracy and making false statements in an effort to cover-up the underlying crime.
See Kay, no comparison. But, nice try sweetie. Oh, and LOVE the jacket. It's soooo you!
"While I do not understand the obsession the right has with Bill Clinton ..."
I'm not obessed with him. Bill is the one who brought him up -- and you're following his lead.
This is a proven statement, given the fact you refuse to lay out the LEGAL BASIS for calling the Iraqi war "illegal."
If it is proven that the invasion was based on lies, how does that speak to its legality? (just asking)
Of course I do--- Iraq DID in fact, seek yellowcake in Niger. This in fact has been PROVEN to be true, based on IIS documents found in Iraq after the fall of sad damn and Iraq's liberation.
If it is proven that the invasion was based on lies, how does that speak to its legality?
I'm not sure it does, as mere Congressional investigations are prone to partisan interpretation. The democrats would actually have to have the cajones to IMPEACH Bush, and find a LEGAL basis to be "proven."
jJack Midknight, Oct 25, 2007, 10:16am EDT
They can't lay that basis out, Jack. When Congress authorized military action, THEY made it legal.
"If it is proven that the invasion was based on lies, how does that speak to its legality? (just asking)"
Diana Raabe, Oct 25, 2007, 10:25am EDT
Not really, Congress had a responsibility to determine the veracity of the information they had before voting the authroization. If the information is "proved" to be unreliable, it says more about their negligence in meeting their responsibilities than anything else. They had access to all the documents and analytical reports, they had supeona power to get to the bottom of it.
"prove /pruv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[proov] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, proved, proved or prov·en, prov·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim."
But please feel free to correct me anytime.
Diana Raabe, Oct 25, 2007, 10:57am EDT
It's true under every administration. Any member of Congress, worth their salt, will not make a decision to send troops into hard way without having all the information necessary to justify that vote. If this Administration, or any administration, refuses to provide that information to satisfy that member of the propriety of his vote, then don't vote for the authorization.
"I was responding to YOUR invitation to lasciviousness in what I consider to be the most appropriate manner possible, given the circumstances; i.e. you bringing sex into the conversation."
David B., Oct 24, 2007, 9:24pm EDT
I find it very interesting that you interpreted my reference to the legal charges that had been leveled at Clinton as an "invitation to lasciviousness" and that you think I brought "sex" into the conversation simply by referring to those charges.
It would seem that the word "sex", in any context, distracts and obscures your thinking. That must be hard to cope with.
"However, you say they had access to all the documents and analytical reports, but that is never true under the current administration."
Diana Raabe, Oct 25, 2007, 10:57am EDT
"It's true under every administration. Any member of Congress, worth their salt, will not make a decision to send troops into hard way without having all the information necessary to justify that vote. If this Administration, or any administration, refuses to provide that information to satisfy that member of the propriety of his vote, then don't vote for the authorization."
David B., Oct 25, 2007, 11:27am EDT
David, this administration has always withheld information. There are numerous copies of video footage of this administration's folks (Bush, Rhumsfeld and Cheney specifically) stating that they will not and would not share all of their information with anyone.
In the run-up to the Iraq War the administration only released and willingly shared information that bolstered their goal, and they took the stance that the Executive Branch had the power and authority to order troops to wherever they wanted, and that congress could either rubber stamp it, or create a constitutional crisis by not going along. Again, plenty of video footage and archived documents exist to prove this.
Yet another empty accusation she certainly cannot prove.
I'm afraid I have gone a bit too far with our Jackie
Sweetie pie, you haven't gone far ENOUGH, and cannot go far enough because YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER A DIRECT QUESTION.
What is your LEGAL BASIS for claiming the war in Iraq is ILLEGAL ???
Since you refuse to answer a DIRECT QUESTION, one is forced to assume you have no answer. Until you GO THE DISTANCE, your empty allegations mean NOTHING dear heart, and demonstrate quite clearly, you are in fact, a loudmouthed bimbo that doesn't have a clue.
I think you would do well to take the flag off, as well as the blinders.
In late-1971, the United States Attorney for the Central District of California (a jurisdiction including Los Angeles and surrounding counties) was fired by Richard Kliendienst. This firing took place after a long series of differences between that US Attorney and both the Attorney General and the White House. The final straw became a refusal by the US Attorney (Republican appointee Robert L. Meyer) to indict Daniel Ellsberg earlier that year. The firing then was delayed by that administration for over 5 months so as to minimize political blow back. Thus, any scholar, journalist or pundit who fancies her or himself an expert on the Department of Justice, and suggests that the recent series of events are unprecedented, is either very poorly informed or being deeply disingenuous.
Yet another empty claim she is unable to substantiate.
In the Iraq war, the Georgie presented a case to congress which he knew to be false, or should have known to be false.
Yet another empty claim she certainly can't substantiate.
His actions gave him away after finding out that surprise, surprise there wasn't WMD
Just because no WMD were found, in no way proves the WMD did not exist. Witness:
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
Witness: OVER 20 SOURCES indicating WMD from Iraq went to Syria before the liberation of Iraq.
He did not fire his CIA man
Tenant was a Clinton "man," not Bush's
he did not explain to the american people that we made a mistake about WMD
Yes, Bush and Cheney both admitted he made a mistake, and that WMD were not found in Iraq. SOURCE
we had to change the mission
Wrong again, The AUMF listed 23 reasons for the liberation of Iraq, not just WMD. If you'd like to read that document CLICK HERE.
No, junior denied that WMD was a major factor all, brazenly stating that it was just one factor
Maybe because it was just ONE FACTOR. The AUMF listed 23 reasons for the liberation of Iraq, not just WMD. If you'd like to read that document CLICK HERE.
his misrepresentation of the facts to congress made this war illegal
Sorry sweetie, as I have just proven, YOU are the one misrepresenting the FACTS.
the vote was made on the basis of misrepresentations from this president.
No, it wasn't, which is why YOU, nor anyone else can prove that wild and empty accusation.
Kay K., Oct 25, 2007, 2:25pm EDT
Martha Stewart Indictment
Interesting reading to address your lame comparison. You CAN read, can't you Kaytee-kins?
"Take care Davie and Jackie, play nice with your other little friends on the short yellow bus to moronville!"
Being called a moron by an idiot. I'm crushed.
The only thing that you have managed to blow a hole through or rip apart is the appearance that you are intelligent. You may have an ego the size of Texas but you are severly lacking in anything of merit.
The only thing that you have managed to blow a hole through or rip apart is the appearance that you are intelligent. You may have an ego the size of Texas but you are severly lacking in anything of merit.
ZOWIE *ROFL* zing zing zing *ROFL*
Shhhhhhhh, the idiots in Washington might hear you and create another cabinent level boondogle to replace them and make things even worse *G*
And who's to say if that wasn't number 11 on the list of yet-to-be-proved reasons for going to war.
But let's get with it Dems. Rising to the bait of true believers like jJack and Dave is a pointless exercise, especially since as a party we don't have much to show for ourselves, either in Congressional competence or in recent Presidential campaigning. They get together over the most bizarre intellectual constructs, without embarassment. We keep thinking it all has to be logical. But in a country which almost half believe was founded as Christian, and deny evolution, it's basically over for us unless somehow we get politically smarter and more evil.
That almost borders on intelligible.
For the record, it wasn't either I or jack that brought Mr C's defalcations into this conversation. That was the folks on your team.
As for your alleged pachyderm (nice allegory, though), I think the jury is still out on that question. The trend is running counter to your assertion. If that continues, and it will, what could be more efficacious than having a small US contingent to add to our existing trip wire forces to contain our buddy Mahmoud and his black-robed puppeteers.
You see, Iraq wasn't a tactical concern. It was a strategic one. That's why you contemporary Democrats lag so far behind the grown-ups when it comes to protecting our national security. You folks have a hard time with the Big Picture, the Long Range. Franklin and Harry and John must be hanging their heads in shame.
But, we can still work together and we'll show you the way. You've made one small step yourself in that direction -- admitting the incompetence of your party's current leadership.
As one, lone Republican, I appreciate the gesture and pledge my help to you in spreading that word. It'll be tough, but in times like these, we have to pull together and work for the common good.
So, count me in, john.
I didn't say Iraq was intended as a tactical move. It may have been based in a strategic intent but tactically has turned into an error due to mind numbing ineptitude. Ever hear of consequences? Your boys seem not to recognize that massive screwups in the moment may end up creating massive tactical and strategic disadvantages.
But to include , by implication, W with Jack, Harry and Franklin, is the presumptive edge of ludicrous. W had his chance to join the big boys had he stayed with al Qaeda and Afghanistan as his task. Enough of a job, as it has turned out, and he might have been seen as the sharp edge of modern western real-politick. He would have been the leader of a free world commited to destroying or disarming terrorism and, probably (your favorite word?) 'Islamofascism'.
No, couldn't do it. Had to try something based on instinct and gut feelings, did he? Well if you go into a fight unarmed, without any understanding of the region, without being honest with your people, without the force majeure, guessing, 'cause knowledge requires one to think, you get your head handed to you. Witness one head being so transported. But strategically, when Hilary has to pull W's (and now our) coals out of the fire, which Republican will be standing there to disparage her conduct? Who will be there in the crowd of those who will accuse the Democrats of having 'lost Iraq'?
My! Coming from the Poster Boy of Pompus Asses, I should be honored! And, the phrase Achroyd used was "ignorant slut". I could come up with an allegory of my own for that one, but I'll resist.
"He would have been the leader of a free world commited to destroying or disarming terrorism and, probably (your favorite word?) 'Islamofascism'."
I believe we are in the midst of that endeavor as I type, john. Unless you're advocating we not come out after halftime and simply cede the field to the opposition. Oh, and to correct you on another point. Islamofacism isn't my favorite word. But, have aquainted myself with its meaning and implication. I'd suggest you do the same. If you do, you won't so easily cast aside that movement and its adherents as you appear to want to do.
"But strategically, when Hilary has to pull W's (and now our) coals out of the fire, which Republican will be standing there to disparage her conduct?"
I'm sorry you've lost all touch with reality, john. When those men come with that stylish white jacket, just slip your arms in peacefully and don't resist. It'll go easier for you that way.
I'll be President of the United States before the junior senator from New York will. So, I recommend you not hold your breath waiting for Hillary to be raising her hand on the western steps of the Capitol anytime soon.
No, as you and Anne Coulter, can't but see only two sides of any problem, I'm not where you want me to be. The War In Iraq (unfortunately like Ike and Dulles did to Iran in '53) proves you only buy problems long term if you can't think beyond next week. Maybe a mantra against the soon-to-be war on Iran?
Iraq was probably undertaken as we thought Saudi would eventually go Islamist and we needed another proxy in the region,(on behalf of G-7) which was both oil rich and controllable. (But why was it W and Condi were preaching democracy to the Saudis? Rove couldn't read the demographics?).
I believe in the judicious use of force, but not the inane kind like LBJ's ramping up of our military involvement in 'Nam or the utter blundering kind like your boy insists is necessary to achieve in Iraq, wait a minute, is it the eleventh or twelfth objective?
And I believe that despite my disagreement with the war (and having been arrested years ago in Damascus, I have no love for the Arabs), we broke it so we'd better fix it, whatever it costs, however long it takes. But considering how it's being attended to, and the track record of the attended-toers, there's a part of me that feels I've lost touch with reality. No that doesn't mean I'll vote Republican real soon, thank you.
Well, on that we DO agree. The mistakes that have been made are made and done. The trend is upward for thr Iraqis and us. If the "tenders-to" start screwing up again, I'll be right with you nailing them.
As to losing touch with reality, I don't know about that. Just come back from the dark side of it Obe Wan. ;)
Aren't you tired of hearing these conservatives (David and Stuttering Jack) self-righteously condemn ALL Democrat decision making and indignantly claim that only their party has all the answers?
Aren't you tired of conservatives spreading "fear" about liberalism.
How many times just in this thread have David and Stuttering Jack defiantly pronounced their accuracy on EVERY point. They don't even pretend to challenge you. They instead would rather belittle opposition points EVEN if they may have merit.
You see, I may not have the answers, but I understand the thought process.
Conservative means "reluctant to change". Or in other words "fear of change".
Conservative thinking inhibits free thought.
Conservatives are more likely men.
Conservatives are more likely religious.
Conservatives are more likely to be in the majority.
HELLO?
You see, conservative thinking is only a reaction to a threat.
Threat of terror? Start war.
Threat of immorality? Legislate prohibition, segregation, or isolation.
Threat of superiority? Proscribe or condemn equality.
Threat of liberal change? Persecution and trivialization.
I don't, "condemn ALL Democrat decision making and indignantly claim that only their party has all the answers."
Just that of the last eight to ten years. For all his many faults, and they were legion, Bill Clinton did have the good judgement to adopt some conservative prinicples during his presidency, and that was the main reason the country had the success it had under his watch. In my opinion, the Republicans don't have all the right answers either. This has been particularly true since 2002, when they used 9/11 and the growing ease in the Majority to go on a spending spree that I don't think LBJ and FDR combined could have matched.
You see I'm like many Conservative ... conservative first, Republican is they behave. And, that's not to say that I wouldn't consider supporting a Democrat in a national or state level election. Where are the Harry Trumans, Henry 'Scoop' Jacksons, Sam Nunns or even Bill Bradleys the Democrats used to have? They're not around because the DNC and the national organizational leadership has gone so far off to the left, Democrat means "Liberal" and conservatives aren't going to buy into that.
"How many times just in this thread have David and Stuttering Jack defiantly pronounced their accuracy on EVERY point.''
When the facts are on your side, its really quite easy to be defiant in the face of socialist propaganda put forward in the disguise of "liberalism".
The icons of Classic Liberalism wouldn't recognize the philosophy of contemporary "Liberals". The views and policy positions of "Liberals" today bear no resemblence to those of The Classic Liberals John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and the Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Classic Liberals believe in individual sovereignty and private property more than government control. Classic Liberals believe in a free market, with no, to minimal, government regulation.
Arthur Schesinger, Jr. aptly described the transformation this way in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans:
... when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."
That's the contemporary Democrat Party Douglas. It has it roots in "Social Liberalism", the Liberalism of the centralized Socialist-State school of Marx, Engel, Keynes and Roosevelt. It is based on the tenet that holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.
That's socialism, Douglas. The fact that the Socialists of the late-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth centuries hijacks the name "Liberal"to mask their socialist roots, doesn't change the fact that Jefferson and Roosevelt were on opposite sides of the fence on almost every issue, philosophically speaking. If Jefferson was alive today, he's be a considered a Conservative, because contemporary conservative thought is nearly identical to that of the Classic Liberal of Jefferson's day.
Finally,
"How many times just in this thread have David and Stuttering Jack defiantly pronounced their accuracy on EVERY point."
You think I'm wrong on any point, prove it. Don't whine that you don't have a good response. I'm not threatened by you Douglas. I'm not intimidated by you or your ability to intellectually debate any of these issues -- you haven't shown any.
But you failed to notice your own thought process.
The only time you credited Clinton was when he made - in your opinion - conservative choices.("and that was the main reason the country had the success it had under his watch").
The only time you discredited the conservative Republicans was when they made- in your opinion - liberal choices("to go on a spending spree")
You can't help it. You even do it when you're trying to find common ground.
You can't find common ground. It's not in your nature.
"You think I'm wrong on any point, prove it."
The burden doesn't lie within me to prove you are wrong.
You are the one who needs to reevaluate your position and learn humility.
More like same responses, to the same, tired generalizations.
But, I worked with what you gave me. And you talk about Conservatives being old and stale?
But you failed to notice your own thought process.
I noticed it. I couldn't help but. It's been the only one evident in this exchange.
The only time you credited Clinton was when he made - in your opinion - conservative choices.("and that was the main reason the country had the success it had under his watch").
The only time you discredited the conservative Republicans was when they made- in your opinion - liberal choices("to go on a spending spree")
Maybe that's because I'm a conservative? I thought you were sharper than this, Douglas. Please refer to the answer above.
You can't help it. You even do it when you're trying to find common ground.
I was trying to find common ground? No, you had already made it clear there was none to be had.
You can't find common ground. It's not in your nature.
I find common ground all the time with those who are willing to meet halfway. However, people who rely on generalizations and lame stereotypes to try and prove an inane point are incapable of meeting halfway.
"You think I'm wrong on any point, prove it."
The burden doesn't lie within me to prove you are wrong.
It does when you make the positive assertion.
You are the one who needs to reevaluate your position and learn humility.
That's good advice, given with just the right amount of pompus santimony. Perhaps you should follow it first. Show me how its done.
Only if you ask a liberal.
As long as YOU sir, continue to use nothing but name calling to support your positions, I will return the favor in kind.
As long as YOU sir, continue to put yourself on a pedastal, and attempt to keep me in chains, I will continue to return the favor in kind.
I find you int