Gonzales Heckled at Harvard Law School Reunion

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:34:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made an unannounced trip to Harvard Saturday for his 25th law school reunion.

He was heckled by protestors.

"When the photographer was getting everybody set up and having people say 'cheese,' the protesters yelled: 'say torture, instead,' 'resign' and 'I don't recall,'" said Nate Ela, a protester and third-year student.

....the protesters followed Gonzales into the law school's library, chanting "shame" and "resign," before the attorney general's security detail took him to his motorcade.

From one of the protesters:

"The departure was clearly undignified," said Thomas Becker, a second-year law student who wore the black hood and orange jumpsuit during the protest. "He looked really annoyed."

The protesters were not large in number. But I bet that had the trip been announced ahead of time, more would have shown up.

Raw Story reports Gonzales had to leave through the back door.

< 9 More Soldiers Killed in Iraq, Tally for April Almost 100 | Gary Hart Slams Rudy Giuliani Over His Terrorism Record >

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.

Gonzales Heckled at Harvard Law School Reunion | 59 comments (59 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If that's the worst that ever happens (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:43:30 AM EST

he'll have gotten off easy.

Gonzo is uneasy? GOOD! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Dusty on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:59:01 AM EST

Hopefully Goodling will finish him off. One can only hope.

The last thing that man should feel is warm and fuzzy anytime he appears in public.

Thank you protesters!

Nice suck up. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by jondee on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:31:21 PM EST

When you cant back up your "social liberalism" make sure you grease the right people.

: jondee (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 04:05:35 PM EST

I'll give you the same deal. One proof for every $20. you contribute.

et al (2.33 / 3) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:43:38 PM EST

The fact that a school that supposedly graduates people to be leaders in society, law and government has people enrolled who act like this is sad.

That you are incapable of understanding that is even sadder.

: I agree (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 01:58:19 PM EST

The way Gonzales has been acting is a disgrace to the human race.

: Values (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:01:01 PM EST

Seems like you emulate leaders and countries that see dissent as an intolerable threat, rather than a fundamental principal that has been cherished by some of the greatest American leaders from the founding fathers on down the line.
Your sentiments match Stalin, Hitler, Franco and other dictators that believe public or private dissent should be eliminated.
The Saudi's would love a Monarchist like you that believes in Authoritarian rule. Americian values are way to liberal for someone like you. Rather than try to change 300 years of one of the most cherished American values, why don't you consider moving to a more simpatico country where dissent is not tolerated.

et al (1.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:07:25 AM EST

"The departure was clearly undignified," said Thomas Becker,

Speaking of undignified..

a second-year law student who wore the black hood and orange jumpsuit during the protest.

And this is Hrvard??

Wow

: YES that is Harvard. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by lilybart on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:18:15 AM EST

Gonzales is a war criminal and he should be protested everywhere he goes.
I am proud of Harvard and proud of the students of Brigham Young who held an alternate commmencement to protest Cheney.

: You think that's bad? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:59:26 AM EST

They admitted Gonzo.

: Reacting (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by manys on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM EST

And this is Hrvard??
Pretty awesome, eh?

: Once you've lost Harvard (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Repack Rider on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 12:01:59 PM EST

You are perilously close to losing Yale.
Signs and costumes, $25.
The mental image of Gone-zales having to scurry out the back door like the vermin that he is.
Priceless.

: Boo hoo (none / 0) (#6)
by scarshapedstar on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:45:58 AM EST

How dare people actually use their freedom?

edger and squeaky (1.00 / 2) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:40:54 PM EST

No, actually I was pointing out the lack of ability to debate displayed.

It takes no talent to do what these students did.

I mean, really..... They expect to win like this?

Your standards are quite low.

They intended to show displeasure (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by lilybart on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 02:57:11 PM EST

with the presence of a war criminal on campus.

they were not trying to win anything

they have been taught the law and the CONSTITUTION and they didn't think the current AG is worthy of a place in our government


Lilybart (none / 0) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:24:50 PM EST

What is it you fail to understand about my comment?

If they had challenged him to a debate to demonstrate his lack of "whatever," they could certainly claim a certain amount of flar, of character, of belief in that they are smarter/better/faster/quicker than Gonzales.

They didn't. That speaks volumes.


Remember Gonzo will not do any debates (none / 0) (#27)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:17:52 PM EST

He wouldn't debate anyone. The President would interject with "Executive Privilege" it's my Constitutional right to "Executive Privilege".

I would so enjoy hearing a debate between Gonzo and any law student. I would have to give the law student odds simply because they've been studying law much more than Gonzo lately.

Bring on the Debates!

Oh, we would of course have to set down some rules:
"I don't recall", "I can't remember", and "It's been deleted" do not constitute a real answer.

"Just because" doesn't work for answers either.

Both parties must adhere to these ground rules before the debate.

Do you think the President would watch that? Doubt it, but I can here Bush now, "Alberto did a great job answering all those partisan questions. I have full confidence in his abilities as my Council. Umm, Attorney General"


Freewill (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:33:02 PM EST

The issue isn't what Gonzales would do.

The issue is what the students didn't do.


I'm saying (none / 0) (#29)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 06:54:51 PM EST

Bring on the debate!


Freewill (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:18:51 PM EST

Don't tell me, tell the students who had an opportunity to talk to the man and chose drama instead.


Yeah, I'm sure they had the opportunity to have (none / 0) (#34)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:43:24 PM EST

a sit down conversation with one of the most guarded individuals in the United States of America nowadays. Sure.

But, it's alright in your world to boo off stage and heckle anyone who opposes the President's views. Correct? You know, the hecklers could have just sat down and had a civil debate and not made themselves look so childish.

Oh, in Jim's world... Sit down debates with ones opposition is weak. In Jim's world we must ignore the opposition and only use converstation as a reward.

But in Jims world, it's alright to heckle and name call anyone whom he chooses and that's debate in his world.

No, Jim never resorts to labeling anyone. He doesn't resort to slimey tactics. Jim is the master debater.


: Freewill (none / 0) (#56)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 02:52:16 PM EST

The students could have easily carried signs demanding a debate. They could have easily issued the challenge through the MSM.
They didn't. Quit making excuses.
In my world you changes things talking to each other.
Evidently you favor other ways.

You Comment was Clear (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:21:57 PM EST

There was never any discussion in this thread about debate. It is a non-sequitur on your part obvioulsy meant to divert attention from your very unAmerican attitude regarding protest.

Gonzales, nor anyone in the WH, is open to debate. How can you debate with someone offers no access and who has no memory.

Besides, that is not the point. The point is that your authoritarian position on protest bears no resemblence with longstanding American values. Great leaders in America have always welcomed protest. Fascist leaders have always admired people like you who would stifle dissent. America is not the country for you ppj.


Well, he's often said (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:28:09 PM EST

he wants to go to Iran.


Really? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:32:44 PM EST

Let's all pitch in to make it happen. We could use a correspondent in Iran.


Would we get (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:36:19 PM EST

reverse spin?


Or (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:44:35 PM EST

Letters from a Tehran Prison.


I'm sure we'd (none / 0) (#19)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 03:52:36 PM EST

be able to hear it from here.


Not Sure (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:04:59 PM EST

He may be buried quite deep.


: He already is... (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:38:03 PM EST

squeaky (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:26:36 PM EST

The method they chose explains it all.

I understand you, and they, wouldn't want to debate Gonzales.


Actually ppj (none / 0) (#23)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:37:23 PM EST

There would be no point. Gonzales has the same problem you do. There is nothing left you can say. And nothing left he can say.

Krauthammer on Fox, March 16:

"Gonzales is a dead man walking. He's finished."

Method? (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 04:46:38 PM EST

Now it is the method of protest, before it was that Harvard people should know enough not to protest. Another deflection to hide from your position that public dissent should be eliminated?


squeaky (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 05:53:07 PM EST

You know, one time I waited patiently for over six months to let my discouragement with some of our products be known.

Finally we had a meeting in which the VP of Engineering and VP of Product Development showed up....

Guess I should have put on a silly looking hat and marched around the room rather than engaging them on issues such as featurs, competition, delivery.

Of course I actually had something to say besides:

You bad. Me good.


Sounds Smart (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:06:17 PM EST

Sometimes waiting to see how a product is received even though you know it is bad from the start, can be the right choice. Marching around and stomping could get you fired or lessen your influence in eventually getting the product retooled.

Unfortunately that has zero to do with the topic at hand. We are discussing political protest. Something you seem to disdain and something that is as American as apple pie.


Squeaky - It has everything to do (none / 0) (#51)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:35:23 AM EST

with the subject.

Unfortunately that has zero to do with the topic at hand. We are discussing political protest. Something you seem to disdain and something that is as American as apple pie.

Politics is a product, squeaky, And the person who said you can "brand" anything was very smart.

And the art of politics is to gather support.

Simply put, you attract more bees with honey.

Reasoned debate. Try it.


Wow (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 10:44:15 AM EST

If you think working out problems at the job are akin to political protests you are really ignorant.

I guess that you really are a Monarchist. Had we followed your honey method we would still be part of the British Empire.


squeaky (none / 0) (#57)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 02:53:59 PM EST

No, what I think is that political protest before debating is ignorant.


: Silly (none / 0) (#58)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 03:08:11 PM EST

And you know it. Not only is there no possibility of a debate, there is nor was any internal debate possible in this WH. The script was written before the Chimp took office.

OFF TOPIC (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Sailor on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:19:36 AM EST

and yet another psychotic episode of All About Jim.


"war criminal" (none / 0) (#31)
by diogenes on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:38:07 PM EST

Only in America is it considered wonderful to remove the "war criminal" Gonzales from power and evil to remove Saddam Hussein (the author of the Kuwait invasion, poison gas, and ethnic cleansing of Kurds) from power. If the president wanted to bomb Milosevic today you guys would call him a war criminal for that too (no UN approval, after all).

Why did we The U.S. (none / 0) (#32)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 07:52:20 PM EST

Put Sadam into power in the first place.
Allow him to gas those individuals and turn a blind eye. Yes, sorry to break this to you, Regan and friends knew this was happening and allowed it to happen. This was not anything newly discovered in the recent past. Where was your outrage in 1983 diogenes?
Equip the evil Sadam with machinery and weapons
Instruct him and his top advisers how to make those chemical weapons

Why the outrage now Diogenes. Where were you when America needed your voice to protest the evil that Sadam was conducting under the protective cover of America? You call yourself American?

Oh, pick-and-choose debate lines when they serve your purpose. I get ya!


Freewill (none / 0) (#35)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:45:21 PM EST

Uh, the US didn't put Saddam in power.

The US provided some asssistance to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war based on the enemy of my enemy is my friend theory. There has been much debate about how much assistance, but the issue is not settled.

As to instucting Saddam on how to make checmical weapons that seems a stretch, don't you think?

Links with proof welcone.


Something for you to ignore again. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 08:56:43 PM EST

The Ties That Blind

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons


Edger (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:08:11 PM EST

You're gonna have to do better than a Left Wing Newsletter...


: No. (none / 0) (#55)
by Edger on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 11:26:53 AM EST

I don't.

Because it's not about convincing you.

I know facts are meaningless in the face of your delusions.

Certainly Jim (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:01:52 PM EST

you know how to use Google don't you. You seem to always tell everyone else to use Google so take some of your own medicine.

To help you in your search on Google look up the heads of Sadam's chemical scientist and look where they went to school and No it wasn't Baghdad University either.

And now you finally agree that smarty Regan considered Sadam a friend! Quaint!

Isn't the meddling in foreign affairs only to force U.S. will onto others why we considered Iran a friend in the first place. Hindsight is a b**ch! On second thought maybe we shouldn't be playing these stupid "It's a theory it will work" foreign affairs policies. We were friendly with Sadam, we were friendly with Osama Bin YoMomma, and now look what that's got us into.

Oh, joy the Regan years of diplomacy! How it has changed our world for the better. NOT!


Links (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:02:46 PM EST

Thank you Edger and Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:25:43 PM EST

Great links and wow, you both were extremely quick. I wonder if Jim would even bother looking at them because I know in his vision of history things didn't quite look this real.

Here is a link of the National Archive at George Washington University Jim it has copies of the real and historical documents our government produced concerning Sadam and Iraq. It has pictures also.

Please have the Kleen-ex handy because I know this is going to be tough for you. Take the time to look through the links Edger, Squeaky and I have provided. Rest asured there are many more where they came from.

Reality sucks doesn't Jim. When in a glass house....


extremely quick (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:50:45 PM EST

because we've been through this a hundred times or more with him. He doesn't ask for them to read them. He asks only to draw you into an exchange of you answering his question, him dismissing your answer and asking you another, you answering, him dismissing, etc. etc. It's his way of feeling relevant. All he wants is a response from you. Any kind will do. Even ridicule or a swat. As long as he can monopolize your attention he's happy. It's just him doing this.


I haven't laughed this hard for a long while (none / 0) (#43)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:03:50 PM EST

Thank you Edger. I love your humor.

Yeah, I know better than to respond to the likes of Jim who are not even brave enough (like Bill O'Really) to proclaim their selected party's affiliation. Instead, they hide behind the false cover of being Independent as to make themselves seem credible. Yet, they spew the same crappy lines verbatim day after day after day. They even know where to place emphasis when responding.

Wait, could it be that Jimakappj is Bill O'Really in discuise? Could be.


Heh! (none / 0) (#45)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:09:14 PM EST

Maybe ;-)


But there's probably a better chance (none / 0) (#46)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:12:51 PM EST

he's really Charles Flowers. :-)


LMAO... Deep down inside (none / 0) (#47)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:47:58 PM EST

I'm really hoping he is this spokeperson found on the product package ;)


: Bush better order a case (none / 0) (#50)
by Edger on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 11:06:54 PM EST

of them about this big for Gonzo.

Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#48)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:48:24 PM EST

As I said, provide some proof. What your buds have shown are a bunch of links, with one exception, to Leftwing news letters. That's hardly sources that you want to take to the bank.

BTW - Squeaky, or was it Edger, said they had provided them before. No, they haven't, but I've seen enough like them to know what they would provide.

So don't feel like I find any of these particulary surprising, or newsworthy.

What we do know is that we gave some assistance during the Iraq-Iran war because we thought it better to let them fight each other than us having to step in and prevent Iran from taking over the SA pennisula and 80% of the world's energy supplies.

The war ran from 9/80 until 9/88.

A closer reading of what was sent will show that much came from western europe, manufactured under license from US firms. Many argue that this was just a cover, perhaps. It was definitely in our interest to NOT let Iran take over Iraq, and after that SA and Syria..

And did we teach Saddam to make chemical weapons?

Nope. We didn't have to.

As a side note I have never understood all this wailing over the fact that we were on Iraq's side during that war. Is it your belief that we should have stood by and let Iran take over the ME?

From all I have seen the Left only wants us to be involved in wars that don't help us. And do dumb things like causing problems in Pakistan while getting a lot of troops killed looking for a margalized OBL.

So thanks for proving that point, again.

Have a nice night, Freewill, and thanks for the help.

Oh BTW - You are new around here, so you pass out the standard crapola. Let me note again that I am a social liberal but a hawk on national defense.

The two positions are not mutally exclusive. Think Scoop Jackson, LBJ, JFK, etc...

And if you don't believe, I'll be happy to visit the blog's archives and provide you with linked proof. One for every $20.00 you contribute to Talk Left.

Can you spare a C note?? ;-)


Yadda, Yadda, Yadda (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 10:51:49 PM EST

: Freewill (none / 0) (#52)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 09:37:17 AM EST

Don't have that C note, eh??

Awesome article! (none / 0) (#41)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 29, 2007 at 09:37:49 PM EST

And to think, our Government with its knowledge of what they have provided to Iraq in means of chemical agents would send our troops into harms way. And they pointed fingers at Russia, France, Syria, Iran and Germany's for supplying Iraq and never once told the U.S. public we had any involvement. For Shame!

No wonder they provided the Chemical protection equipment to our troops. And they proclaim it was our Intelligence Agency that got us this information.

Only the truly blind and non-thinking can be led unquestionably by this Administration!