Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

Excellent post xingu.

One can't govern and believe that government is the problem.

Joe(what a shock)Nation

0 Replies

Was Carol Lam Targeting The White House Prior To Her Firing?

As in... Cheney?

0 Replies

Joe

Joe Nation wrote:

Excellent post xingu.
One can't govern and believe that government is the problem.
Joe(what a shock)Nation

The basis of conservative Republicanism is that everything but the military should be done by the Private Sector because government is incompetent and cannot govern properly and perform cheaper.

Given this mindset, it is interesting that George W. Bush loaded up all Executive Branch departments with political appointees who had no experience or previously worked for private sector corporations apposed to government intrusion into their businesses. The result is that Bush proved the "government is incompetent" theory, at least when Republicans control the three branches of government.

Bush and his minions did a heck of a job.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: Joe

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

The basis of conservative Republicanism is that everything but the military should be done by the Private Sector because government is incompetent and cannot govern properly and perform cheaper.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that they exclude they military.

0 Replies

Re: Joe

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Excellent post xingu.
One can't govern and believe that government is the problem.
Joe(what a shock)Nation

The basis of conservative Republicanism is that everything but the military should be done by the Private Sector because government is incompetent and cannot govern properly and perform cheaper.

Given this mindset, it is interesting that George W. Bush loaded up all Executive Branch departments with political appointees who had no experience or previously worked for private sector corporations apposed to government intrusion into their businesses. The result is that Bush proved the "government is incompetent" theory, at least when Republicans control the three branches of government.

Bush and his minions did a heck of a job.

BBB

And therein lies your problem.

You are equating Republican and conservative to mean the same thing.
They dont.
While the majority of conservatives might be Republican,that does not mean that all republicans are conservative.

I do not now,nor have I ever,believed that Bush is a conservative.

Republican is a political party,conservative is a political idealogy.
There is a difference.

0 Replies

There is no difference, functionally, because Conservatives will not cease their support for non-Conservative Republicans. When you vote for and support people that you KNOW aren't conservative, then there is no point in differentiating yourself.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Re: Joe

FreeDuck wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

The basis of conservative Republicanism is that everything but the military should be done by the Private Sector because government is incompetent and cannot govern properly and perform cheaper.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that they exclude they military.

Klein and Scahill are giving a talk tomorrow night on Blackwater. I think I can get there and if I can I'll write up some notes for you folks.
http://www.buzzflash.com/store/items/524

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is no difference, functionally, because Conservatives will not cease their support for non-Conservative Republicans. When you vote for and support people that you KNOW aren't conservative, then there is no point in differentiating yourself.

Cycloptichorn

I dont believe that.
If a truely conservative democrat were to come along,I think that most true conservatives would vote for him.
As it is,the repub party does (at least in theory) more closely align itself with conservative values then the dem party.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
There is no difference, functionally, because Conservatives will not cease their support for non-Conservative Republicans. When you vote for and support people that you KNOW aren't conservative, then there is no point in differentiating yourself.

Cycloptichorn

I dont believe that.
If a truely conservative democrat were to come along,I think that most true conservatives would vote for him.
As it is,the repub party does (at least in theory) more closely align itself with conservative values then the dem party.

Theoreticals are useless. Actual experience has told us that Conservatives will vote for Republicans time after time after time, no matter how non-conservative the Republican is.

Therefore it is ridiculous for you to even draw the distinction, and ridiculous to pretend as if Conservatives aren't responsible for the messes that have been made.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I have met many conservatives who call themselves Democrats. They never vote for a Democrat, and are not, in my opinion, real Democrats. Much of the division relates to states rights.

0 Replies

Internal email appears to confirm prosecutor who helped convict congressman was fired for personal and policy reasons RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday March 20, 2007

"A sarcastic internal e-mail message from one top Justice department official to another appears to confirm that personal and policy differences drove the termination of Carol C. Lam, the San Diego prosecutor who initiated investigations of Randy Cunningham when he was a Republican representative from California and Representative Jerry Lewis, as well as some defense department officials," the New York Times reports Tuesday. Excerpts.

#
After a colleague said in a July 8 e-mail message that he was "sad" about something, Bill Mercer, a top Justice Department official, jokingly suggested some reasons.

"That Carol Lam can't meet a deadline," he wrote, "or that you'll need to interact with her in the coming weeks or that she won't just say, 'O.K. You got me. You're right, I've ignored national priorities and obvious local needs. Shoot, my production is more hideous than I realized.'"

The e-mail messages show Justice Department officials, who themselves had only an incomplete account of events, scrambling to prepare Mr. Gonzales and other senior officials for Congressional testimony that turned out to be inaccurate.

FULL RESTRICTED TIMES ARTICLE HERE.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Internal_email_appears_to_confirm_prosecutor_0320.html

0 Replies

Uh oh, he's maaaaad: :wink:

Excerpt:

Bush Says He'll Fight Subpoenas for His Advisers (Update1)

By Holly Rosenkrantz and James Rowley

March 20 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush said he will fight any attempt by Congress to subpoena his aides in the investigation into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

``We will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants,'' Bush said in brief remarks at the White House today.

Bush's statement sets up a confrontation with the Democratic-controlled Congress over whether White House political strategist Karl Rove and former Counsel Harriet Miers will be forced to testify in public and under oath in a probe into the firings of the federal prosecutors last year.

The president is trying to fend off calls from Democrats and some Republicans for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over his handling of the firings.

Bush said the Justice Department's initial explanations of the dismissals were ``confusing and in some cases incomplete.'' He repeated his promise that Gonzales will go before lawmakers to answer questions.

He drew the line at his advisers, saying he couldn't get candid advice if his staff was in ``constant fear of being hauled before various committees to discuss internal deliberations.''

Minutes before Bush spoke, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, rejected an administration offer to let Rove and Miers submit to limited, private interviews about the dismissals.

`Under Oath'

``Testimony should be on the record and under oath,'' Leahy said in a statement. ``That's the formula for true accountability.''

Source

0 Replies

"..honorable public servants,.." Laughing

When did political strategists become honorable public servants?

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

"..honorable public servants,.."

When did political strategists become honorable public servants?

Good question.

I'm sure you agree that Donna Brazile, James Carville, Paul Begalla, and Terry McAuliffe (pardon my spelling) are not honorable public servants either.

0 Replies

I don't remember all the details, and certainly don't intend to research it, but I do believe Clinton as well as several of his administration were subpoenad, appeared, and testified UNDER OATH.

Bush and his minions should have to do the same.

0 Replies

at this point bush merely destroys more and more of his credibility and legacy with about every damn thing he does. Take your pleasures where you can.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

squinney wrote:
"..honorable public servants,.."

When did political strategists become honorable public servants?

Good question.

I'm sure you agree that Donna Brazile, James Carville, Paul Begalla, and Terry McAuliffe (pardon my spelling) are not honorable public servants either.

By definition, public servant will be someone who draws their paycheck from the government budget. One would expect, under any reasonable understanding of democratic representative government, that once someone moves over to getting paychecks from the taxpayer rather than from a party's money trough or a corporate source or an NGO etc, that what describes or defines "honorable" behavior will change in accordance. They now have a new employer - those taxpayers.

Carville or Rove, as soon as they arrive in such a position, must accept a different set of ethical standards.

0 Replies

The way I see it, the line has been drawn and it is now time to see who blinks first. I hope its the administration. The way I see, the democrats got all advantages in this showdown because the longer the Bush administration holds out the more they will look they are hiding something. If it ends up in the supreme court, it will all come out anyway. I hope the democrats stick to their guns.

Quote:

For all their vivid detail, the e-mails and other records shed little light on the Bush administration's motives for carrying out the firings in the way it did. The new documents also provide little evidence that Justice officials sought to interfere with public corruption probes, as many Democrats and some of the prosecutors have alleged.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/20/AR2007032001943.html

Quote:

In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary panel, noted that six of the eight fired prosecutors were involved in corruption investigations focusing on GOP lawmakers or officials, and she questioned whether the firings were an effort by Republicans to protect their own.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3227.html

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I guess those fired prosecutors made the mistake of thinking that Lady Justice should be blind. Keep in mind that all the taxpayers pay for the U. S. Attorneys, and have a right to insist they carry out their jobs without political favor.

That is where you are wrong. They serve at the pleasure of the President. When the President hires these people he gives them their priorities and tells them what he wants them to focus on. If they don't focus on what has been instructed then they can be fired.

Clinton made his AG's focus on gun laws. If they didn't make cases based on gun laws then they would have been fired. Its like any other job. If you don't do what your boss tells you then you can be fired.

The people who serve as AG's are nothing but political jobs. Sure they have laws they have to prosecute people on but over all they get their marching orders from the President.

0 Replies

Quote:

links to back up statements at the source

0 Replies

Gonzales must resign now. "Mistakes were made."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know