Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

It takes more than courage and care; it requires integrity, something sorely missing in our government.

Janet Reno wasn't partisan, blatham?

Jesus, do you guys have anything to fall back on besides 'clinton did it?'

Cycloptichorn

Well, just trying to keep you guys honest. Corruption and politicizing something only seems to apply if it is Republicans with most of you.

No, she really wasn't partisan. You might think she was because she didn't do what you wanted her to but she followed the law rather well.

She certainly didn't oversee the breaking of the law in the way Gonzales did.

Cycloptichorn

Is this the same Janet Reno that allowed Kenneth Starr the latitude to go after Clinton for a BJ?

Wait a minute, maybe Okie can provide us with some pertinent examples of how Janet Reno subverted the Constitution in order to increase the power of the Administrative Branch.

You go boy.

Joe(I'm not going to hold my breath)Nation

Oh, but Reno put the law before the children, that makes her worse than Gonzales....

(Waco and Elian)


Gonzales put the "child" president ahead of the law.

This really belongs on the "smile" thread, but




link

I'm sure those Senators' remarks came as a surprise to the likes of persons such as Gonzo and Karl Rove and Okie. After all, what the former Attorney General did was attempt to have elections and, thereby, Congressional Seats tossed into the hands of the Republican Party, thus strengthening the position of the GOP, moving closer to the goal of one party rule for this nation, in other words, Karl Rove's dream.

What all of those who dreamed the same dream forgot was that there are still persons in the United States Government, people like Cronyn and Spector and even Grassley, who exist beyond the mere grasps of such petty things as political parties.

Persons who wear, and deserve, the titles of Citizen (capital C) and Statesman.

Joe(They are only rare, not extinct. If ever extinct, then so our nation)Nation

Give me a break, Parados.

P.S. I don't care for the stupid laughing icons, but they were deserved here. You are humorous, all you libs here.

Waiting for your examples of her abject partisan activities.

Joe(still not holding my breath)Nation

You would never agree with it if that was all dug up again. Old news, but none of her investigations of Clinton ever found any wrong doing, just one example. She could see broken glass in the front door of a bank and conclude nothing was amiss, write her report, and you would believe it.

okie, perhaps you need to check in with the real world.

Not only did Reno recuse herself from the Clinton investigations, it was a 3 judge panel that oversaw Starr. It was Starr that found nothing amiss with Whitewater, Travelgate, Foster's suicide etc, etc. I agree Reno could look a little manly at times but I would never confuse her for the toady look that Starr has.

You can't simplify it that easy, Parados. I remember all that stuff, shielding Clinton, plus including the torching of women and children in Waco, plus Elian Gonzales. The woman was a terrible AG, probably the worst in my memory which goes back a ways. And her assistant, Gorelick helped set up the wall, which hindered intelligence sharing in the government, which may have prevented 911 if she had not done that. On top of that, Gorelick was on the 911 Commission, but should have been the investigated and grilled instead. Clinton's whitehouse was pathetic. I don't want to relive that black decade, Parados, so that is why I am going to remind everybody of what you get if you vote for Clinton.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EFDD1631F934A35752C0A962958260

Parados, do you work for Hillary or some Democratic organization?

Reno didn't fire US Attorneys for being insufficiently partisan.

At Waco, Reno was only in office for a few weeks, and was endlessly pushed by the FBI to attack. She thought they knew something. We now know how bad the FBI is.

Okie, the crap about opening the door to terrorists is just that. It has been totally refuted.

But assuming she was bad, do two wrongs make a rightist?

Yeah, those were the good old days. 1994. The boys at the New York Times were pretty sure they had themselves a Pulitzer prize winning story with Whitewater. They were in a race with NBC News to find the pit of corruption they thought (THEY WERE SURE) they would uncover in Arkansas. The problem was they kept into the people Ann Coulter would later call "the little elves working away", the nutballs from the wild-eyed right, of which there are not a few in Arkansas, whose 'solid information' was always turning into something someone made a joke about in a beer bar one night. Richard Scaife's money was in full circulation producing the most amazing fictions.

Starr, I'm going to say something nice about him, so get ready, basically shut all that **** down. He told people he wanted prosecutions to proceed on facts in evidence and that persons offering lies would be perjurers. Suddenly, no one was showing up with 'evidence' from the Spectator That had to be confusing to people who thought Starr would wrap things up in the first three months.

Bringing down a President, and let's be honest, that was the object of the far right, is hard work. Earning a Pulitzer is different from winning one. And being Attorney General is about as hard a job as there is in this country, that's part of the reason that Senators were astounded and pissed off by Alberto's testimony, he made it sound as if he had phoned his job in on a daily basis. Janet Reno did the right, lawful, thing, by waiting until the three judge panel named Starr to be IP.

As for Gorelick, (see fiction producers above) and the wall. It seems pretty clear to me that John Ashcroft's Justice Department would have disassembled any Gorelick wall minutes after sitting down at their desks. They began engaging in burrowing under and around all other aspects of the FISA law immediately why not the Gorelick Wall which John so carefully testified about before the 9-11 Commission? Because, like so much of this administration's workings, it's a mis-direction play. The wall wasn't the problem and Ashcroft knew it.

Joe(when people who think government is the problem get elected they prove themselves right.)Nation

Joe, good post. Gorelick felt constrained to abide by the constitution, something that Alberto ignored to the country's detriment.

Nice try okie but nothing specific from you at all. What was political about Waco? The people holed up had killed federal agents. Are you saying Reno should have let them get away with it because they had kids as hostages? Yes, the final result was a tragedy but Reno didn't set the fires. The only politics is being played by people that claim we should let ATF officers serving warrants be killed and let those that did it get a pass.

Elian Gonzales was an illegal alien whose father wanted him back? What part of the law don't you get in that instance? Reno didn't play any politics in that case. She followed the law. The law states Cubans picked up at sea get sent home. The law states minor children go to a parent first. The family with Elian was given several opportunities to turn him over. They failed to meet the court ordered deadline. So now you are saying Reno was bad because she enforced a court order? I think it is pretty clear who is playing politics if they think it an AG should ignore court rulings.

Joe has already pointed out how Ashcroft was free to undo anything Gorelick did.