Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them. That 8 US attorneys have been replaced because Bush didn't like their politics is no big whoop-dee-doo. Unless you are a liberal and doesn't like Bush in which case it's some sort of federal crime... (which it isn't.)

This remains a tempest in a teapot.

There was, for example, the decision by United States Attorney Chris Christie of New Jersey to open an investigation of Senator Bob Menendez just before his hotly contested re-election last November. Republicans, who would have held the Senate if Mr. Menendez had lost, used the news for attack ads. Then there was the career United States attorney in Guam who was removed by Mr. Bush in 2002 after he started investigating the superlobbyist Jack Abramoff. The prosecutor was replaced. The investigation was dropped.

In mid-December 2006, Mr. Gonzales's aide, Mr. Sampson, wrote to a White House counterpart that using the Patriot Act to fire the Arkansas prosecutor and replace him with Mr. Rove's man was risky ?- Congress could revoke the authority. But, he wrote, "if we don't ever exercise it, then what's the point of having it?"

If that sounds cynical, it is. It is also an accurate summary of the governing philosophy of this administration: What's the point of having power if you don't use it to get more power?

The odd thing is, contrary to what Okie thinks, I like Republicans. Real Republicans that is, the kind who provide balance in this democracy on the other end of the seesaw from my wacko liberal pinkos friends, but Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld are NOT Republicans, they are power hungry freaks of nature.

Joe(i am not sure they know what America is )Nation

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?

The problem is the words 'for any reason.'

The president cannot replace attorneys for 'any reason' he likes, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?

The problem is the words 'for any reason.'

The president cannot replace attorneys for 'any reason' he likes, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn

In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "He doesn't need a reason to fire any of them ?- he can ax them ... because it's Thursday and his horoscope says the stars are aligned for pink slips."

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?

The problem is the words 'for any reason.'

The president cannot replace attorneys for 'any reason' he likes, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn

In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "He doesn't need a reason to fire any of them ?- he can ax them ... because it's Thursday and his horoscope says the stars are aligned for pink slips."

I don't care how many of you are wrong; the president cannot fire his own employees for 'any reason he chooses.'

I outlined two reasons in the Bush Supporters thread that should be easy for anyone to find.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

If Bush doesn't like the way a US attorney combs his hair, he can get rid of them.

You are 100% incorrect. Foolish thing to say.

Cycloptichorn

Instead of being a d***, how about explaining what "can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason." means to you?

The problem is the words 'for any reason.'

The president cannot replace attorneys for 'any reason' he likes, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn

In the words of Andrew McCarthy, "He doesn't need a reason to fire any of them ?- he can ax them ... because it's Thursday and his horoscope says the stars are aligned for pink slips."

I don't care how many of you are wrong; the president cannot fire his own employees for 'any reason he chooses.'

I outlined two reasons in the Bush Supporters thread that should be easy for anyone to find.

Cycloptichorn

Right ... can't fire for discrimination under suspect classifications ... gotcha.

You got anything else, or is that the only little point you were trying to make?

You sound a little pissed off, Tico. Must be because your boys are getting f*cking shellacked these days.

I think of you every time I read about something bad happening to the GOP. Puts a smile on my face.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You sound a little pissed off, Tico. Must be because your boys are getting f*cking shellacked these days.

I think of you every time I read about something bad happening to the GOP. Puts a smile on my face.

Cycloptichorn

I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.

I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.

Ticomaya wrote:

I just found out timberlandko died March 3rd.

Sad to hear that. Welcome back Ticomaya. You are sorely needed here to defend against the insanity.

I have no clue about Timber, his age, or circumstance, but my sincere condolence to family if they read this.

Fellow Republicans warned House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay more than a year ago that the government would come up short ?- by at least $750 million ?- for veterans' health care. The leaders' response: Fire the messengers.

Now that the Bush administration has acknowledged a shortfall of at least $1.2 billion, embarrassed Republicans are scrambling to fill the gap. Meanwhile, Democrats portray the problem as another example of the GOP and the White House taking a shortsighted approach to the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticize their commitment to the troops.

New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, had told the House GOP leadership that the Veterans Affairs Department needed at least $2.5 billion more in its budget. The Senate passed a bill with that increase; the House's bill was $750 million short.

Smith and 30 other Republicans wrote to their leaders in March 2004 to make the point that lawmakers who were not the usual outspoken advocates for veterans were troubled by the move. Failure to come up with the additional $2.5 billion, they contended, could mean higher co-payments and "rationing of health care services, leading to long waiting times or other equally unacceptable reductions in services to veterans."

Still, the House ignored them.

Smith was rebuked by several Republicans for sounding the spending alarm, and House leaders yanked his chairmanship in January. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., lost his chairmanship of the VA health subcommittee, and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is no longer on the committee. They too had signed the letters to Hastert, R-Ill., and DeLay, R-Texas.

This issue isn't about hiring and firing Attorneys General, it's about this administration's attempt to expand the powers of the President.

I'm sure Karl Rove is pissed. I know I would be if I had this great plan for a permanent Republican majority and have it screwed up by the likes of George Bush, Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, to say nothing of thickheads like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. "Jesus!", he must be saying to himself, "can't these people secure an ever enlarging grip on power without leaving any fingerprints like me?"

From the very beginning, Rove's, and, to be fair, Cheney's idea of creating an American Presidency without limited powers has been at the core of every action they have taken. Before you reject that notion out of hand, look back at the way this administration interacted with Congress in first five years :loyalty to the President's views and strict obedience in voting (enforced by Tom DeLay) were the litmus tests applied to Republican Members of Congress. Democrats were seldom, if ever, spoken to or of. When Republican Congressmen tried to take initiatives into their own hands, they were punished. See this from Off the Kuff 2005:

Quote:

Fellow Republicans warned House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom DeLay more than a year ago that the government would come up short ?- by at least $750 million ?- for veterans' health care. The leaders' response: Fire the messengers.

Now that the Bush administration has acknowledged a shortfall of at least $1.2 billion, embarrassed Republicans are scrambling to fill the gap. Meanwhile, Democrats portray the problem as another example of the GOP and the White House taking a shortsighted approach to the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and criticize their commitment to the troops.

New Jersey Rep. Chris Smith, as chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, had told the House GOP leadership that the Veterans Affairs Department needed at least $2.5 billion more in its budget. The Senate passed a bill with that increase; the House's bill was $750 million short.

Smith and 30 other Republicans wrote to their leaders in March 2004 to make the point that lawmakers who were not the usual outspoken advocates for veterans were troubled by the move. Failure to come up with the additional $2.5 billion, they contended, could mean higher co-payments and "rationing of health care services, leading to long waiting times or other equally unacceptable reductions in services to veterans."

Still, the House ignored them.

Smith was rebuked by several Republicans for sounding the spending alarm, and House leaders yanked his chairmanship in January. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., lost his chairmanship of the VA health subcommittee, and Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., is no longer on the committee. They too had signed the letters to Hastert, R-Ill., and DeLay, R-Texas.

<sigh>


It was probably a mistake to make Gonzales the US Attorney General, but I know it must have seemed right to Bush. This was the same guy who came up with ways to get suspend the Geneva Conventions...