Believing Gonzo or Your Lying Eyes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Sat Mar 24, 2007 at 06:43:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The NYTimes, in its inimitable style, seems to be asking the question do we believe Gonzo or our lying eyes? Check the phrasing on this lede:

An accumulating body of evidence is at odds with the statements of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that he played little role in the deliberations over the dismissal of eight United States attorneys.

We use the L word where I come from, but the NYTimes is quite genteel. So what next? Robert Kuttner says impeach:

THE HOUSE of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Welcome to the call:

Attorney General Gonzales has the audacity to state that the Judiciary should not enforce the Constitution and the laws of the land when the President chooses to ignore his responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the Constitution of the United States . . . He is unfit for the office of Attorney General. He should be removed from office.

< The Dems' "Plan" For Iraq | A First Hand Account of Receiving a National Security Letter >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Believing Gonzo or Your Lying Eyes | 9 comments (9 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm sputtering. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Compound F on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 01:41:54 AM EST

My early recognition system on these people went off in 2000. It is now 2007. Politics is extremely painful to watch, a great smokescreen to great concerns, e.g., do we just kill the over-populous brown folk now based on their "terrorizing us," or do we go through the painful process of acknowledging human rights, and at the same time our own Constitution? There are 30 something declared human rights at the UN, all of which are currently being broken, abstract things like freedom. Access to water is NOT a human right. It is rather a human NEED. Rights versus needs: Who comes up with this language? Talk amongst yourselves.

I'm not sure how incremental politics gets us from here to there, especially in dynamic, non-linear times. Things are happening faster than anyone knows in all realms of existence, and yet all we can talk about are "procedural issues," "getting the votes," or some "free market of ideas," pick a cliche.

Gonzo is such minutia. Never qualified. A non-starter. And yet, installed. Now we're fighting about the pimple. We don't have time for this BS. Stiff him, jack him, lance him, give him a blanket party, I don't care. Do it, and move on.

As usual, my impatience has little to do with your post.

Depends... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Edger on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 06:22:25 AM EST

Who is your hypothetical client? Would the advice you suggest be intended as advice to George Bush for his personal benefit? Or as advice to the 'President' for the benefit of the country?

: Ahhh (none / 0) (#8)
by Edger on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:31:49 AM EST

Now I follow your thinking. You were placing yourself in the shoes of someone close to Bush who has a similar or same worldview? Of course they would suggest he hang on.

So that is the, in his mind and circles, the best advice from the smartest people, who again in his mind, really care about the country and are, in their minds, sincerely trying to help...

Phew. This could be, and is, a problem.

Of course some of them also might say: Look, George, with Gonzo you are stand[ing] naked legally speaking with that sorry record of yours. Move him somewhere, make him Fieldings assistant, anything, but get someone in DOJ that will smell like fresh baked bread in this heat.

: Personally (none / 0) (#9)
by Edger on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:36:15 AM EST

I think he doesn't want to back down because he's got his ego wrapped up in this, and also because he probably feels that if he backs down the sharks will smell blood and the frenzy will start. And he'd be right. Because as usual he's missed the fact that it is his policies and methods and tactics that drew the sharks in the first place... not his blood.

From the link (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 08:55:34 AM EST

Rove narrowly escaped a perjury indictment in the Cheney/Libby/Wilson affair.

The above is why Bush should fight this.

The writer has no way of knowing that to be true. The bias just rots everything.

I couldn't agree more (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:17:37 AM EST

Absolutely. A lengthy public discussion of AG's performance in office couldn't possibly be a bad thing. Since Tony Snow said that President Bush was not aware of the decision to fire the US Attorneys, even though the statute says that he is the only person wth the authority to do so, we need to find out who fired them, and on what authority, and why AG didn't tell the president they were usurping HIS statutory authority.

Mr. Bush should also fight every day for the next however long to make sure that every American is aware that Karl Rove does not want to be placed under oath. It should be Karl Rove and the oath 24/7, just so Americans know that Mr. Bush is taking a principled stand, and that Mr. Rove has rights that the former president did not.

The harder Mr. Bush fights in public for these two, and the longer the fight goes on, the happier I will be.


: Ditto (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 25, 2007 at 11:24:55 AM EST

: What a reason. (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 10:34:17 AM EST

So you are basing all of this on something a press secretary said??
Wow.
That as weak as Baptist Tea.

Yes (none / 0) (#11)
by Repack Rider on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 12:05:03 PM EST

you are basing all of this on something a press secretary said??

Tony Snow claims to speak for the president. Are you saying that he doesn't, and that he lies every day about that?