Illumination70
The Fly
As a result of hearing about Gonzale's resignation, I have to say 2 words ,
WOO-HOO!!!
WOO-HOO!!!
Gonzales Resigning
- Thread starter Sherry Darling
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I know I should be excited about this, but it's hard. Yeah, all these people are resigning, but they are doing it only AFTER they've already done massive damage to the country.
Maybe if any of them actually serve some jail time I'll start jumping for joy. But I doubt that will ever happen. I'm sure they will all keep out of jail and have lucrative careers writing books and doing speaking engagements.
Maybe if any of them actually serve some jail time I'll start jumping for joy. But I doubt that will ever happen. I'm sure they will all keep out of jail and have lucrative careers writing books and doing speaking engagements.
Bono's shades said:I'm sure they will all keep out of jail and have lucrative careers writing books and doing speaking engagements.
Yeah, I'm sure Gonzales won't have trouble recalling anything when he gets a lucrative publishing deal.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
No one has come to his defense? 
MadelynIris
Refugee
Is Bush doing the right thing? All signs point to yes. Not only with the revamp of the cabinet, but this is really effecting senior executives at all of the agencies and pentagon. There is a new breed of Generals and Directors, and all signs are pointing to ending the war in Iraq before the election.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Really?
MadelynIris
Refugee
yes
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MadelynIris said:
Define "end." A full troop pullout? Some "peacekepers" left?
MadelynIris
Refugee
I believe we will hold some major bases, operate from those as needed, but will leave the day to day up to the Iraqis. We'll be there as a deturrence from major actions by Iran or others.
No more walking targets.
But the war, essentially will be ended.
No more walking targets.
But the war, essentially will be ended.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
the point of "the surge" was to get the ball rolling on the new-and-improved "the liberals stabbed us in the back" narrative that will be invoked in plitical discourse over the next 20 years to explain/blame away this fiasco. it's what people like, you know, STING use to explain Vietnam.
the same thing is going to happen with Iraq.
i've been meaning to start a thread on this, but i actually get too upset to really do any more reading on it.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Vincent Vega said:I've said it before: You are going to even steal us the Dolchstosslegende
The Vietnam War equivalent to the Dolchstoßlegende is the Vietnam Syndrome.
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
And Merkel blamed China today for copying. 
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Obviously Bush has his own definition of integrity that has nothing whatsoever to do with the dictionary definition. He is the decider, don't forget.
Varitek
Blue Crack Addict
I've been really busy so I'm late to this party but 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Well, of course. For his definition to be in line with the dictionary definition, he'd have to be able to actually read the dictionary. And I don't think 'integrity' is in the children's picture dictionaries.
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
MrsSpringsteen said:
.
When you have morals, you don't need ethics.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
BonosSaint said:
.
and who needs books when you've got guts?
Did you know the gut has more nerve endings than the brain?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Ted Olson becomes frontrunner for Attorney General, top sources tell DRUDGE REPORT; announcement could be imminent...
I can't imagine they would announce it today, since his wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
I can't imagine they would announce it today, since his wife died on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
at this point
I will say that if he is the nominee
I hope that he is not confirmed.
I will say that if he is the nominee
I hope that he is not confirmed.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
deep said:
Why?
dbs
deep
Blue Crack Addict
at this point in time we really need someone to be the Attorney General for the American people
not someone that has been White House Council, or Solicitor General
Alberto Gonzales never stopped putting the political interest of Karl Rove and political goals of the Administration above the American people and the Constitution
why do you think he resigned?
Olson comes with the same baggage
Why not find someone that has a better background than being a Bush cronie?
not someone that has been White House Council, or Solicitor General
Alberto Gonzales never stopped putting the political interest of Karl Rove and political goals of the Administration above the American people and the Constitution
why do you think he resigned?
Olson comes with the same baggage
Why not find someone that has a better background than being a Bush cronie?
MadelynIris
Refugee
From page 3... it's happening eh? Plan to pullout troops.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He seems to be a better pick
and most likely would get a an easy confirmation.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Well some Republicans apparently might not be happy about it. Can you imagine saying that Padilla had a right to a lawyer? Outrageous..
time.com
By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON2 hours, 15 minutes ago
If the administration was trying to avoid a fight with the left over the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales' replacement as Attorney General, they may have succeeded with the nomination of former New York district judge, Michael Mukasey. The question now is whether they'll have a fight with the right. Both in Mukasey himself, and in the process by which he picked him, Bush has gone against the right, spurning their favored choice, engaging with - and conceding to - Democrats, and naming a New Yorker who is an unknown quantity on many of the social issues about which they care most deeply.
Through weeks of quiet deliberation, Bush abandoned the confrontational pronouncements to which Congress has grown accustomed. Instead, White House counsel Fred Fielding reached out to Democrats, including Bush's constant opponent Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who had previously recommended Mukasey as a Supreme Court nominee. Schumer and Fielding went so far as to discuss names, and Mukasey's came up. "We're in an alternate universe," says one Senate aide, "Charles Schumer saying something nice about a guy used to be the kiss of death."
The administration also adopted the Clinton-like process of trial ballooning: leaking names through allies to see how much of a storm would ensue. For the better part of last week, the name of conservative darling and respected lawyer, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, was on everyone's lips in Washington. But strong pushback from Democrats, including Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who said he'd torpedo an Olson nomination, apparently sank his chances. "Olson would've been a bloodbath," says the Senate aide.
But in dropping Olson and going with Mukasey, Bush has opened himself up to attack from the right. Conservatives are worried about Mukasey's 1994 denial of asylum for a Chinese man who said his wife had been forced to have an abortion under that country's one-child law, which they say indicates he's weak on pro-life issues. And though he has consistently ruled with the administration on a number of important and high-profile terrorism cases, Mukasey broke with them in an early, crucial ruling, saying that American citizen Jose Padilla had a right to a lawyer, no matter what his status in the war on terror. Mukasey is also very close to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom social conservatives distrust.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. were waiting to see the reaction of leading conservatives to the nomination Monday. The neo-conservative columnist William Kristol wrote a favorable op-ed online Saturday, but a right-wing Catholic group, Fidelis, voiced serious concerns citing his ruling in the Chinese asylum case and his appeal to the left. Senate Republicans were cautiously optimistic, but still worried. "Conservatives will respond well to Mukasey if conservative leaders point in that direction," one Senate Republican aide said Sunday. But he worried that any uncertainty among conservatives could be deadly. "Hesitation kills," he said, "It will be perceived as weakness."
There is much at stake in the nomination. Democrats are still insistent on getting to the bottom of the U.S. attorney scandal that engulfed the justice department all this year, and the question of how Mukasey will pursue that will come up in the confirmation hearings. Further down the road, a number of key questions will occupy the next Attorney General, including the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere as well as the use of no-warrant domestic eavesdropping.
Mukasey is not guaranteed a free pass from the left: his rulings in favor of the government have upheld some of the toughest provisions of Bush's approach to fighting terrorism. However, Senate Democrats are largely positive so far on Mukasey, saying that as a judge he was very knowledgeable and an unquestioned straight-shooter. They also say he is independent, which is the highest priority of those who want to get to the bottom of any possible wrongdoing at the justice department under Alberto Gonzales.
time.com
By MASSIMO CALABRESI/WASHINGTON2 hours, 15 minutes ago
If the administration was trying to avoid a fight with the left over the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales' replacement as Attorney General, they may have succeeded with the nomination of former New York district judge, Michael Mukasey. The question now is whether they'll have a fight with the right. Both in Mukasey himself, and in the process by which he picked him, Bush has gone against the right, spurning their favored choice, engaging with - and conceding to - Democrats, and naming a New Yorker who is an unknown quantity on many of the social issues about which they care most deeply.
Through weeks of quiet deliberation, Bush abandoned the confrontational pronouncements to which Congress has grown accustomed. Instead, White House counsel Fred Fielding reached out to Democrats, including Bush's constant opponent Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who had previously recommended Mukasey as a Supreme Court nominee. Schumer and Fielding went so far as to discuss names, and Mukasey's came up. "We're in an alternate universe," says one Senate aide, "Charles Schumer saying something nice about a guy used to be the kiss of death."
The administration also adopted the Clinton-like process of trial ballooning: leaking names through allies to see how much of a storm would ensue. For the better part of last week, the name of conservative darling and respected lawyer, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, was on everyone's lips in Washington. But strong pushback from Democrats, including Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, who said he'd torpedo an Olson nomination, apparently sank his chances. "Olson would've been a bloodbath," says the Senate aide.
But in dropping Olson and going with Mukasey, Bush has opened himself up to attack from the right. Conservatives are worried about Mukasey's 1994 denial of asylum for a Chinese man who said his wife had been forced to have an abortion under that country's one-child law, which they say indicates he's weak on pro-life issues. And though he has consistently ruled with the administration on a number of important and high-profile terrorism cases, Mukasey broke with them in an early, crucial ruling, saying that American citizen Jose Padilla had a right to a lawyer, no matter what his status in the war on terror. Mukasey is also very close to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom social conservatives distrust.
Both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. were waiting to see the reaction of leading conservatives to the nomination Monday. The neo-conservative columnist William Kristol wrote a favorable op-ed online Saturday, but a right-wing Catholic group, Fidelis, voiced serious concerns citing his ruling in the Chinese asylum case and his appeal to the left. Senate Republicans were cautiously optimistic, but still worried. "Conservatives will respond well to Mukasey if conservative leaders point in that direction," one Senate Republican aide said Sunday. But he worried that any uncertainty among conservatives could be deadly. "Hesitation kills," he said, "It will be perceived as weakness."
There is much at stake in the nomination. Democrats are still insistent on getting to the bottom of the U.S. attorney scandal that engulfed the justice department all this year, and the question of how Mukasey will pursue that will come up in the confirmation hearings. Further down the road, a number of key questions will occupy the next Attorney General, including the rights of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere as well as the use of no-warrant domestic eavesdropping.
Mukasey is not guaranteed a free pass from the left: his rulings in favor of the government have upheld some of the toughest provisions of Bush's approach to fighting terrorism. However, Senate Democrats are largely positive so far on Mukasey, saying that as a judge he was very knowledgeable and an unquestioned straight-shooter. They also say he is independent, which is the highest priority of those who want to get to the bottom of any possible wrongdoing at the justice department under Alberto Gonzales.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
There's an enemy out there, time is being wasted talking about ethics and morals. After all Bush said we don't torture, so can't they just drop it?
Gee and here I thought torture wasn't good for this country.
WASHINGTON — President Bush, seeking Thursday to salvage the embattled nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, defended the former judge's refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding as illegal torture. But the nomination suffered another setback in the Senate.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said that Mukasey's unwillingness to answer definitively on the legality of the interrogation method that simulates drowning increases chances that it could be used against U.S. troops.
"I therefore intend to oppose this nomination," Kennedy said in remarks prepared for the Senate floor. "Judge Mukasey appears to be a careful, conscientious and intelligent lawyer, and he has served our country honorably for many years. But those qualities are not enough for this critical position at this critical time."
On the upside for the administration, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, announced they would support Bush's nominee.
Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not," the president told a group of reporters invited into the Oval Office.
Further, Bush said, "It doesn't make any sense to tell an enemy what we're doing."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whose vote may decide whether Mukasey's nomination advances from the Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, said he has not decided but defended his fellow Democrats who have.
"I do not think Democrats are mistreating him at all," Schumer told reporters.
Prospects for Mukasey's confirmation have dimmed because of his refusal to equate waterboarding with torture. Three of the 10 Democrats on Judiciary already had said they'd vote against him.
In a potentially ominous sign for the administration, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters he could not guarantee a floor vote if Mukasey's nomination fails in committee.
"I really believe in the committee process," said Reid, who has not announced how he would vote. "If I'm asked by members of the committee to stay out of the fray, I am willing to do that."
Bush later Thursday raised the stakes about Mukasey in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about details of a classified program he has not been briefed on," Bush told his audience. "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge McKasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general. That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war."
Bush called on the Senate to promptly approve Mukasey, saying the nation needs to have an attorney general in place to help wage the war on terror.
Without saying whether interrogators use waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, Bush said, "The American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law." Asked whether he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied, "I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there."
Mukasey's confirmation seemed assured two weeks ago but now increasingly is in doubt.
Freshman Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said Wednesday he would oppose the nomination. Mukasey's refusal to say that waterboarding is "unconditionally wrong" would leave open the possibility that U.S. agencies could cross a moral and legal line and use it on detainees, Whitehouse said.
"If we allow the president of the United States to prevent or to forbid a would-be attorney general of the United States ... from recognizing that bright line, we will have turned down that dark stairway," Whitehouse said. "I cannot stand for that. I will oppose this nomination."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed Whitehouse to the floor to add his opposition.
"As good a person as he may be, his response to this question, this basic and fundamental question ... leaves me no alternative but to oppose Judge Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general of the United States," Durbin said.
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., announced earlier this week that he would vote no.
Bush, in a meeting with reporters in the Oval Office, said he was concerned that some people "have lost sight of the fact that we are at war with extremists and radicals who want to attack us again." He said it was important that Congress approve the laws, financing and personnel necessary to combat U.S. enemies.
He said the Senate's failure to confirm Mukasey promptly was "not good for the country."
Gee and here I thought torture wasn't good for this country.
WASHINGTON — President Bush, seeking Thursday to salvage the embattled nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, defended the former judge's refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding as illegal torture. But the nomination suffered another setback in the Senate.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said that Mukasey's unwillingness to answer definitively on the legality of the interrogation method that simulates drowning increases chances that it could be used against U.S. troops.
"I therefore intend to oppose this nomination," Kennedy said in remarks prepared for the Senate floor. "Judge Mukasey appears to be a careful, conscientious and intelligent lawyer, and he has served our country honorably for many years. But those qualities are not enough for this critical position at this critical time."
On the upside for the administration, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, announced they would support Bush's nominee.
Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. "He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not," the president told a group of reporters invited into the Oval Office.
Further, Bush said, "It doesn't make any sense to tell an enemy what we're doing."
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., whose vote may decide whether Mukasey's nomination advances from the Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, said he has not decided but defended his fellow Democrats who have.
"I do not think Democrats are mistreating him at all," Schumer told reporters.
Prospects for Mukasey's confirmation have dimmed because of his refusal to equate waterboarding with torture. Three of the 10 Democrats on Judiciary already had said they'd vote against him.
In a potentially ominous sign for the administration, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters he could not guarantee a floor vote if Mukasey's nomination fails in committee.
"I really believe in the committee process," said Reid, who has not announced how he would vote. "If I'm asked by members of the committee to stay out of the fray, I am willing to do that."
Bush later Thursday raised the stakes about Mukasey in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
"It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about details of a classified program he has not been briefed on," Bush told his audience. "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge McKasey on these grounds, they would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for attorney general. That would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war."
Bush called on the Senate to promptly approve Mukasey, saying the nation needs to have an attorney general in place to help wage the war on terror.
Without saying whether interrogators use waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, Bush said, "The American people must know that whatever techniques we use are within the law." Asked whether he considers waterboarding legal, Bush replied, "I'm not going to talk about techniques. There's an enemy out there."
Mukasey's confirmation seemed assured two weeks ago but now increasingly is in doubt.
Freshman Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said Wednesday he would oppose the nomination. Mukasey's refusal to say that waterboarding is "unconditionally wrong" would leave open the possibility that U.S. agencies could cross a moral and legal line and use it on detainees, Whitehouse said.
"If we allow the president of the United States to prevent or to forbid a would-be attorney general of the United States ... from recognizing that bright line, we will have turned down that dark stairway," Whitehouse said. "I cannot stand for that. I will oppose this nomination."
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, followed Whitehouse to the floor to add his opposition.
"As good a person as he may be, his response to this question, this basic and fundamental question ... leaves me no alternative but to oppose Judge Mukasey's nomination to be attorney general of the United States," Durbin said.
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., announced earlier this week that he would vote no.
Bush, in a meeting with reporters in the Oval Office, said he was concerned that some people "have lost sight of the fact that we are at war with extremists and radicals who want to attack us again." He said it was important that Congress approve the laws, financing and personnel necessary to combat U.S. enemies.
He said the Senate's failure to confirm Mukasey promptly was "not good for the country."
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
We were discussing this in one of my classes today...primarily the issue of water boarding.
I was sitting next to my friend who is EXTREMELY conservative and under her breath I heard her say "These are people who want to blow us up, why wouldn't you want to hurt them?"
Just as I was about to say "Tell that to John McCain" my professor mentioned that Sens Warner, McCain, and Graham, all republicans with military experience will support him for AG but only if he calls waterboarding illegal.
I was disgusted by what she said.
I was sitting next to my friend who is EXTREMELY conservative and under her breath I heard her say "These are people who want to blow us up, why wouldn't you want to hurt them?"
Just as I was about to say "Tell that to John McCain" my professor mentioned that Sens Warner, McCain, and Graham, all republicans with military experience will support him for AG but only if he calls waterboarding illegal.
I was disgusted by what she said.
MrsSpringsteen said:
Wow. These comments speak volumes.
First, how on Earth does whether or not we do something have anything to do with whether or not it is legal or not? Either it's legal or it's not. Whether it's being used has absolutely no relevance. But this is a good indication of how far removed from reality this administration is - that they would frame these comments in such a way that suggests that legality is flexible depending on who is doing the action(s) in question.
And with Bush's second comment he pretty much told the enemy what we're doing. That's as close to a full admission as you can get these days.
Similar threads
