Part of the transcript from yesterday. It would be funny if it wasn't so pitiful

-----------------------------------


SCHUMER: No, I am just asking you a yes-or-no simple question, just as Senator Specter has. And just like Senator Specter and others here, I'd like to get an answer to that question. You just said there was one program. Are you backing off that now?

GONZALES: The president...

SCHUMER: Was there one program or was there not that the president confirmed?

GONZALES: The president confirmed the existence of one set of intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: Fine. Now let's go over it again, sir, because I think this shows clear as could be that you're not being straightforward with this committee; that you're deceiving us. You then -- then you said in testimony to this committee in response to a question that I asked, "There has not been any disagreement about the program the president confirmed." Then Jim Comey comes and talks about not just mild dissent, but dissent that shook the Justice Department to the rafters. And here, on June 5th, you say that Comey was testifying about the program the president confirmed. You, sir...

GONZALES: And I've already said...

SCHUMER: Sir.

GONZALES: ... I have clarified my statement on June 5th. Mr. Comey was talking about a disagreement that existed with respect to other intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: How can we -- this is constant, sir, in all due respect with you. You constantly make statements that are clear on their face that you're deceiving the committee. And then you go back and say, "Well, I corrected the record two days later." How can we trust your leadership when the basic facts about serious questions that have been in the spotlight, you just constantly change the story, seemingly to fit your needs to wiggle out of being caught, frankly, telling mistruths? It's clear here. It's clear. One program. That's what you just said to me. That's what locks this in. Because before that, you were, sort of, alluding -- in your letter to me on May 17th, you said, "Well, there was one program," -- you said there was the program, TSP, and then there were other intelligence activities.

GONZALES: That's correct.

SCHUMER: You wanted us to go away and say, "Well, maybe it was other" -- wait a second, sir. Wait a second.

GONZALES: And the disagreements related to other intelligence activities.

SCHUMER: I'll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you're getting right close to the edge right here.
You just said there was just one program -- just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn't directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second -- you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don't know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement...

SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect -- and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman -- in all due respect, you're just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don't even know what he said. You don't even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you're bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don't even know. I'll give you another chance: You're hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You're now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

GONZALES: I don't know, but I'll find out and get back to you.

This man is obviously lying and isn't very good at it.....What a joke this whole administration has become....I saw a program recently on PBS where one of the leading republicans is calling for an impeachment of both Cheney and Bush because it is very dangerous to set this precedent of just ignoring the constitution and places a terrible amount of power in the hands of the executive branch...If ignored, he said that we can start waving bye bye to our constitution and the balances it has always provided....He said we need more statesmen and less partison quarrels....I quite agree....

Yikes! Is it 1987 again?

I saw a good portion of the testimony on TV - the transcript doesn't do it justice.

It was even worse on TV, as "Fredo" took numerous time-outs to consult with his advisors. Just pitiful.

This is nothing more than Democrat Political Circus Theater. Evidently Charles Schumer, Patric Lehey & the rest of the Democractic Ringmasters looking for TV "Face Time" missed the part about how US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and may be terminated either with or without cause at any time.

Did the Democrats seeking to further embarrass this President any way possible give the same scrutiny to Bill Clinton's dumping of 93 US Attorneys when he assumed the office?

http://www.op...=110009784

I highly doubt it.

Bill Clinton fires 93 US Attorneys = No problems there.

GWB fires 8 US Attorneys and it's a National Conspiracy requiring Congressional investigation.

The testimony I quoted had nothing to do with the U.S. Attorneys, but thanks for chiming in.

Perhaps I should wake up before I post.

Ah, no prob!

Thanks, Kyle. That gets to the heart of the matter. You've saved us all a great deal of time now that we know how wonderful our President, AG and the rest of the current administration are. Thanks for enlightening us. After all, we're just idiot liberals who don't know the difference between something important and something frivolous. Maybe you and Kenneth Starr could teach us a thing or two about posturing and protocol. What do you say?

The firing of the 93 US attorneys at the beginning of Clintons term is typical for most administrations as most of them do this to reflect their own ideologies.....The rub came when Bush fired in the midst of his own two terms and he fired REPUBLICAN appointees that wouldnt go along with Karl Roves directives or the ones that had gotten a bit too deep into going after fellow republican senators or congressmen.....these were men and women HE had appointed earlier.....this is clearly interference and politicizing the justice department....

Linda - it doesn't matter. Clinton did something, so everything W does is perfectly justified. We all just have to realize that EVERYTHING is Clinton's fault. I stubbed my toe getting out of the shower this morning - damn Clinton! It's raining - damn Clinton! Wait, rain is good - praise W! It's all in Page 1 of the How To Be A Mindless Neocon Sycophant Handbook.

I am just waiting for Americans to stand up and say " this country and our constitution has to come before our preferred political parties....the republican on PBS the other night was the one that actually wrote the impeachment against Clinton, but he admitted that Bush is far worse and that someone has to stand up and stop this insanity....Hey all you republicans, do you really want any future presidents to have to total power over congress and to be unstoppable.....If you don't then it is time to stand up as Americans and say ENOUGH!!!!!

So long as there are so many gullible, easily-manipulated people in this country, that will be difficult to do, Linda. The shortage of empathy in this country does not help matters, either. It starts with thinking for oneself and caring about others. There's been too much of the opposite in recent years - thinking about others (not in a positive way) and caring about oneself.

Very well put Brian, but maybe if people will just think not just of themselves, but of the world our kids and grandkids will inherit....We owe the ones that are coming along behind us, to preserve our constitution and provide as free a society as we inherited from our parents and grandparents...We certainly don't want them to blame us for making the presidency a dictatorship...

This is off TomPaine.com and I think it lends itself well to the current discussion:

Conscience of the conservatives
Submitted by Rick Perlstein on July 24, 2007 - 3:26pm.

Don't miss this nifty testimony from the former State Department director of media affairs, the latest truth-teller from inside the Bush administration. "They just wanted us to be Bush automatons," he says; no surprise.

Conservative intellectuals love to debate, to the finest imaginable level of abstraction, what qualities essentially define a "conservative." They proudly trumpet their distance from the pragmatic messiness of politics, announce themselves as the Republican Party's guardians of principle-insisting, rather, that they owe no allegiance to any party at all. Not too long ago I attended one of their marquee conferences on the subject, absorbing endless disquisitions on not merely how many angels it took to dance on this particular pin, but what precisely the pin should be made of, with exact specifications on its size and shape. They love this stuff. It lets them claim that their "movement" is essentially anarchic, an intellectual free-for-all, a debate that never ends. Most especially, one after one, they expressed doubts that the Bush administration was essentially "conservative" at all.

These panels taught me nothing about the essence of conservatism. For that, I had to await the surprise appearance of the guest of honor, presidential councilor Karl Rove, who appeared before us behind closed doors, with city cops posted at the threshold. This is the first time I've publicly told the story. The cowardly conservative truth-tellers running the conference insisted the briefing be "off the record."

Rove told them to shut up about conservative "purity," and said they were going to run the White House any way they please to achieve a permanent Republican majority. He singled out conservative magazines' criticism of the Bush administration's recent steel tariff for special scorn, if I recall.

Came the Q&A, when one after the other, the brave conservative intellectual truth-tellers put on a display of groveling I'd never seen before in a university setting. I'll never forget the truth-teller who apologized for criticizing the steel tariff, before asking how he himself could help Rove's political goals.

Obiescence in the face of strongmen: that is the essence of conservatism.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/25/cheney-criticizer-arrested-for-assault/


POOF there goes free speech......what is next!!!!

I found the comments of Republican Arlen Specter about the AG interesting.

for all who missed it here are a few exerts.....




http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015807.php

Arlen Specter isn't a Neocon, and as such, at least respects the law.

Here's something interesting regarding an individual Neocon opening his eyes:

http://blog.beliefnet.com...ieved.html

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 7/25/2007).]

You know, the problem is that there are so many things out there that support either side that the truth has gotten lost. Everyone has a comment, a theory, an opinion. But where does the truth lie?

Gonzales is obviously lying. And I agree that somewhere this has to stop or it truely will be the end of this country. At least the system was set up to avoid that since no one can serve more than the 8 years. At least we know if we don't implode in the next 18 months it will all be over.

We must continue to have hope. Hope for a better country and a better tomorrow. (ooohhh, that was very politician!)

I heard a question on the CNN debate the other night that I thought was interesting. They asked someone about concerns of 2 families running the country for a possible total of 24 years if Hillary wins in 08. That was a very very interesting point!!!!

So we are all suppose to hold our breath until the bush administration is out of office and turn our backs on all of this illegality???? Where is your outrage??? Where is your sense of family values????? Where is your COUNTRY FIRST duty.....I don't get it....Clinton had his issues and the Republicans jumped on it like a flea on a dog....Now Bush is far more illegal (as described by the republican that wrote the impeachment against Clinton) and all you guys say is OH well we will quietly wait for his term to end.....WOW
Noone should get a pass no matter what party they belong to and the longer you make excuses for them ( no matter the party) the longer our country is in danger of losing our constitution......

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 7/25/2007).]

The firing of the 93 US attorneys at the beginning of Clinton's term is typical for most administrations as most of them do this to reflect their own ideologies.....The rub came when Bush fired in the midst of his own two terms and he fired REPUBLICAN appointees that wouldn't go along with Karl Roves directives

Linda, I again reiterate the fact that a President can fire ANY US Attorney for ANY reason at ANY time. It doesn't matter when the firings come and for what reason the firings occurred. Bush could've fired them because he didn't like the sox they were wearing on a given day - the reasons for the firings are irrelevant and are the concern of nobody save the person occupying the White House's Oval Office.

Your statement of "most of them do this to reflect their own ideologies" is disingenuous. How does every other President who "fires them to reflect their own ideologies" differ from Bushes firing them because "he fired REPUBLICAN appointees that wouldn't go along with Karl Roves directives"?

I wonder if this same "Outrage" currently being displayed by this farcical "Investigational" committee & the rest of the "Get-Bush-At-All-Costs" Democrats in the Congress will be there when (God forbid) Clinton the Second or Obama takes office and fires Bush's US Attornies?

Kyle - Linda was referring to the lack of outrage concerning Captain Codpiece and Friends' utter disdain for the law and honesty as a whole. The firing of attorneys is a minor issue, but it's the tip of a very large iceberg concerning executive privilege, a lack of transparancy in all affairs and the simple matter of a deceitful war that has cost the lives of 3,637 American soldiers.

Nothing, repeat, NOTHING Bill Clinton ever did approaches the level of contempt W and his cronies hold toward the law and the American people. I can understand if people don't share Clinton's beliefs when it comes to certain things or don't like his politics, but there is a pointed difference in the reasons not to like Clinton and the reasons not to like W. I didn't fear for my child's future under Clinton. Clinton never cheapened this country. W has and should be despised for it. Name ONE lasting positive thing W has done for this country.

The parallels between an apple and a tanker truck full of orange juice are similar to the differences between the transgressions of Bill Clinton and W.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 7/25/2007).]

this is such an old argument that has been dismissed long ago but whatever.....ok.....

1. Each new administration usually fires and hires their own 93 US Attorneys to reflect their own viewpoints.....Clinton did this and so did Bush when he first began his presidency.....

2. the 7 or however many US attorneys were fired were let go under cloudy circumstances.....The administration wont let the principles involved to testify claiming "executive priviledge"...They said they would testify in Private and wouldnt be allowed to be under oath and that there could be no record for this testimony....Many of these attorneys had refused to go after "seemingly" partisan crimes that Rove's office had been pushing.....If this is all so innocent, why cant we get the information that proves this innocence....why all the secretive acts....what are they hiding......

3. The Congress of the United States has a legit oversight responsibility to check these things out.....IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION......this is called balance of power....Why then is anyone fighting this as they are only exercising their balance of power oversight .....

but as Brian just pointed out, this is just the tip of the iceberg....
wanted to also mention that it DOES MATTER if the administration is directing investigations and prosecutions based on political party....that cheapens and destroys our judicial system
[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 7/25/2007).]

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 7/25/2007).]

Brian, this is true.

I do feel a little duped by this President and there are a lot of things that he's done that I haven't cared for (the pardon of Scooter Libby is just one example) but when it come to creating political theater just for tv face time, regardless of who is doing it, it bugs me.

Schumer, Leayhey (sp), and certainly Arlen Spector (being the liar - er I meant LAWYER that he is) should know that a President (ANY President) can fire whomever he/she wants for whatever reason he/she wants and is beholden to nobody but himself for the reasons for the firings. True, most Presidents do so at the beginning of their respective terms but for them to be harping on Bush for what appears to be for political points is a little disingenuous.

Kyle,
I realize that you are sincere in your feelings about the whole thing being a farce...however, just fastforward a few years to a democratic administration....All of a sudden, the president fires his own appointees while they are in the middle of an investigation into democratic corruption....and they won't give a legit reason why and when you check the performance of those attorneys they were all given outstanding ratings.....Wouldn't that frost you just a tad???
I am just trying to explain how someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum might feel....I just want us to all hold all politicians to the same high standard no matter Republican or Democrat.....and yes Kyle, in a few years I will be yelling the same thing toward a democratic administration....it isnt my political party at all costs, it is my country at all costs.....and by the way, I am an independent and dont consider myself as a member of either party.....

since I have referenced several times the high placed republican that wrote the impeachment proceedings against Clinton and who is calling for bush and cheney impeachment, I thought it only fair to include the link from PBS Bill Moyers program that I saw this on...



http://www.truthout.org/d...407B.shtml












[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 7/26/2007).]

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 7/27/2007).]

I think this is great....alot of employees within the US Justice Dept. are now fighting back against this US Attorney General....which apparently is a precedent unheard of in the past....Americans standing up for America....



http://www.politico.com/n.../5331.html

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 8/12/2007).]

1. Each new administration usually fires and hires their own 93 US Attorneys to reflect their own viewpoints.....Clinton did this and so did Bush when he first began his presidency.....

Linda, if you had been under oath, you would have just committed perjury.

Impeach!!! Impeach!!!

http://www.opinionjournal...=110009784

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

3. The Congress of the United States has a legit oversight responsibility to check these things out.....IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION......this is called balance of power....Why then is anyone fighting this as they are only exercising their balance of power oversight .....

Unfortunately, Linda, typing it in CAPS doesn't make it so. The Constitutional principle (though not actually WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION) is actually known as the "Separation of Powers." I can see why you would change it to "balance of power??", it makes your argument sound much more plausible.
Under this principle, the President's explicit Constitutional Powers are not to be overseen by any other branch. The Congress has no more power to investigate the President's firings as the President does to investigate what Senators Reid, Kennedy, and Feingold said during a urinal chat session at the big Senate sleepover.

Of course, Democrats never have a problem with this principle when it works in their favor, but always seem to forget about it when they're trying to overreach.

http://thehill.com/leadin...08-03.html

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 8/12/2007).]

Rick, If bull**** were cement, you, sir, would be Interstate 94......

Asphalt would have gotten you alot further

thought the newer interstates were being converted to cement...My mistake....I change that to asphalt....

Hey Linda: Just wondering why you whine frequently about "nobody wanting to discuss the issues" and then when relevant facts are brought forth your response is some slur or cartoon rather than practicing what you preach. Your behavior seems intellectual dishonest.

Oh Gee another attack by the right wing.....whatever shall I do....Actually Richard, I hate arguments, and don't wish to trade insults with anyone.....Just not my nature....just as it isnt my nature to call someone intellectually dishonest....So sometimes, my little cartoons express my feelings quite well....



[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 8/12/2007).]

Let's review. Rick made a great point about the "separation of powers" and the "balance of power" not being the same thing. Your response was to simple say that "Rick is full of it" rather than comment on the validity or lack thereof in his post, depending on your perspective.When this behavior is pointed out, you then complain about another "right wing attack".

If you don't like truly "arguments" then you are in the wrong place. My purpose in posting in political threads is not to find compromise but to win and change other peoples minds in the arena of ideas, and contend for my point of view. What is your purpose in posting?

Back to the AG. I think the time has come for him to resign. He is no longer effective. This sometimes happens in mud-slinging contests between an administration and congress.

I do think that the AG is covering up an appointment of a certain attorney to El Paso, TX that was a Bush insider. This guy was sent there by Bush as part of an agreement between Bush and the Mexican government, with specific instructions not to prosecute illegal aliens.

Keeping the current AG is an attempt to distract from this story. The presidents base would be outraged if they found out what was really going on here.

My point in posting is to perhaps exchange ideas and debate issues...I don't argue "down and dirty" as I feel that takes away from the discussions.....You seem to be enjoying attacking me instead of debating the issues....If ,as you just said, your point would be to change peoples minds about issues, perhaps that would be better accomplished by debating instead of arguing....big difference...I thought I was on a thread for debates.....Guess I misunderstood.....

By the way, my point back to Rick was a joke, which he obviously understood and we both laughed....Lighten up Richard....How is your blood pressure??

[This message has been edited by Linda Morgan (edited 8/13/2007).]

170/100

wow Richard, thats not good blood pressure....Take care of yourself...

Why so high, Richard? What are you and Rove hiding?