Alberto and Karl, you naughty poppets.Follow

So, Alberto Gonzalez was all like "The buck stops here but I can't know everything blah blah I serve at the pleasure of the President blah" when it came to the attorneys being fired, but it turns out he and Rovey were doing some architectural work before he got la amnesia.

Now, as silly as this all seems, and as glad as I am to see a traitorous coconut (brown on the outside, milky white on the inside) shamed in public, I have to say I'm a little meh about the whole issue, because Rove is made out of some teflon-admantium hybrid, and the bastage just won't die.

Isn't it exhausting? The thought of all the flagrant abuse of power by this Administration is so extensive and varied that frankly, it just makes me sleepy now. Someone needs to do something about it, but I'll probably be napping so I'll miss it.

And as long as they continue to purge anyone who shows any interest in examining his conduct, chances are slim to none that any misconduct will be found.

He's a smart guy, no doubt about it. Slimy, but smart.

Well there's the kiss of death. So long, Alberto.

Did I miss a memo somewhere?

When did it become illegal for a president to fire people who work for him? When did it become "wrong" for those firings to be politically based?


Isn't this kinda ridiculous (and a giant double standard)? I'm pretty sure that every person insisting that some legal action be taken against Gonzalez and Rove over this would not only defend a similar action if taken by a Democrat White House, but would insist on it. It's not unusual in any way for Federal Attorneys to be hired and fired based on their political positions on issues (in addition to any of a list of other reasons as well).

I guess I just don't understand why this matters...

Ah. Kinda like how no one was charged with a crime in the whole Plame case. But we'll conduct hearings and get people under oath...

Seeing a pattern here yet Joph? Raise the public indignation over something that isn't illegal or even unusual. Use that to create an investigation who's sole purpose is to get members of the White House under oath so you can try to get them for perjury.

It's a very old trick. What's scary is how often the Dems seem to be able to pull it off and how willing the public is to fall for it.




First off, how do you know that's a lie? Aren't you just assuming that because it's a convenient "scandal"?

Also, when did Rove or Gonzales say it was "all" about their performance? Also, what definition of "performance" are you using? Like when an Attorney refuses to investigate allegations of voter fraud by Democrats? That kind of performance?

Heck. For that matter, who said that they were fired purely for their political positions? I'm defending the point that there's nothing wrong with doing it for that reason, but that doesn't mean that any or all of these firings were politically motivated or not.




Strange. When folks call for the resignation of Gonzales or Rove, aren't they *also* basing their position on politics? They want them removed because they are republicans doing things that democrats don't like. In exactly the same way that any of these attorneys may have been removed because they were liberals and did things that conservatives didn't like.


Again. The only difference is the "side" you are on. While I'm perfectly ok with people saying "Gee. I really don't like that the Republican controlled White House dismissed a bunch of Federal Attorneys that weren't following the Republican political agenda", it's wrong to place some kind of moral absolute on the action itself. There's a difference between saying you disagree with someting and saying that the something is "wrong", and should be investigated. The former just means that you disagree. The latter implies some sort of rules violation.


And I for one am getting really tired of Liberals equating anything they don't like or agree with as "evil", or some sort of violation of the law which requires some sort of investigation to "get to the bottom of this". The rhetoric is getting pretty freaking thick is all...

Edited, Mar 16th 2007 4:04pm by gbaji

It must be coincidence that oversight of new appointments is gone now.

Sure. And they determined that no crime had been commited, yet somehow the investigation succeeded in snaring a White House official in a perjury charge...

In exactly the way the only reason for any sort of investigation in this case isn't to see if it's actually illegal for the President to fire these guys, but to get senior administration officials under oath and see if they can catch them in perjury (or just convince a jury that a lie occured).

Seeing the connection yet? It's an investigation in search of a crime. Again...




Questions about what exactly?

You are aware that the only "change" to the story occured when a leaked email was found, right? That email was not written by either Rove nor Gonzales. The fact that someone else at the DoJ felt that these attorneys (and we don't know exactly which ones he was referring to) should be let go because of their political views should not be assumed to be "the reason" they were actually fired.

And "performance" is measured in different ways. For example, in a couple cases, there were attorneys who were dragging their feet on investigations with political ramifications. One could argue they did so deliberately because those investigations would hurt Democrats. Isn't *that* partisan? I think so. Yet apparently fireing them for it is wrong, but what they were doing was perfectly ok.

Double standard? I think so. Those attorneys may have recieved good reviews, but that's not the only thing that determines if they're doing their job adequately.



Two Republicans from very liberal states. Gee... I wonder why they're jumping on the bandwagon?

They are exactly doing this for the reasons I outlined. Gonzales and Rove are "Republicans who are doing thing that Democrats don't like". Certainly, Republican senators in states with strong Democrat votership are going to feel that and feel that they have to play to the mob to protect their jobs.




/shrug

It's just annoying to me. It seems like most liberals have replaced morality and ethics with "what is right for my side". I find that disturbing for many reasons.

And yeah. Making a huge issue and demanding an investigation into something for which there is no crime and *cant* be a crime is a bit curious, don't you think?

You argue that no ones saying any law has been broken, but then you insist on an investigation to "let the truth come out". Um... Why? How can you not see that your position is 100% politically oriented. It serves no real legal or ethical purpose. What it does is create the perception of some wrongdoing.

Which is the true political motive here. Sadly, you and most liberals are more then happy to be used in this manner.

Edited, Mar 16th 2007 8:02pm by gbaji

Kind of like how Clinton wasn't impeached because he got a ******** but rather because he lied about getting a ********? Except Libby wasn't getting blown by a chubby intern he was just destroying the career of the woman married to the man who happened to upset Cheney and Bush by exposing one of many false claims they used to push the War in Iraq. And he wasnt charged with releasing the classified information that he released but rather for the fact that he lied to a grand jury about exactly what he said.

Edited, Mar 17th 2007 5:15am by bodhisattva

Waiting for gbaji to come in and try to represent Orange County as some sort of bastion of liberality.

I swear to God, Bush could be launching kittens out of a cannon at a brick wall and Shadowrelm's tortured, ill-formed ramblings on the subject would make me not care.

Who, exactly, are you addressing this to? Most people here do not apply. Having a little one-off with gbaji perhaps?

Like the homeless couple in Doonesbury?