Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Gonzales should resign

National Review calls for Attorney General Gonzales to resign. The concluding paragraph:

"What little credibility Gonzales had is gone. All that now keeps him in office, save the friendship of the president, is the conviction of many Republicans that removing him would embolden the Democrats. It is an overblown fear. The Democrats will pursue scandals, real or invented, whether or not Gonzales stays. But they have an especially inviting target in Gonzales. He cannot defend the administration and its policies even when they deserve defense. Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start."

Discussions - 26 Comments

I don’t like Gonzales either...soft on immigration, hamhanded in his dealings at Justice. Nonetheless, it’s a bit late for a "fresh start." This administration is done...I’d ride it out and put energy into the ’08 elections. Handing them a victory here ("where there’s smoke there’s fire) would be a mistake.

Is it normal for a President to burn through 2 AGs? Why did Ashcroft leave?

Not only should America’s #1 anchor baby, Alberto Gonzales, resign, but given his involvement in the Ramos and Campean convictions, his ties to the Mexican Gov. and Mexican organized crime, and his support of the third-world invasion of the USA, he should be arrested and tried for treason.

Fear of emboldening the enemy itself emboldens the enemy.

Steve, it is not unusual for cabinet members to leave. Clinton had much higher turnover than Bush has had, although Janet Reno had no sense of shame and refused to take responsibility for her many screw-ups. With the exception of Clinton and JFK, every President since Hoover has gone through at least two AGs. Some have had as many as four.

The more important question here is why we would let the Democrats use a non-scandal (legally firing U.S. Attorneys) to get rid of an AG that they oppose for other reasons (torture memos, etc.). The response from the right has been disappointing to say the least.

The president’s politically-correct buddy should never have been appointed in the first place. Gonzo should go, but let’s not be under any illusions about whom Bush is likely to replace him with. Maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised, but I doubt it.

There is no such thing as a "fresh start" for any Department of the federal government. Unless you conduct a thorough going purge of the whole thing. The problem is that the Democrats have a stranglehold on every single bureaucracy in every department of the government, CIA, State, Education, Justice, Treasury, the Pentagon. They control it all.

So if you want a real "fresh start," and not just some cosmetic gimmick, then you need to conduct a purge. Gonzales is irrelevant, and has been irrelevant for quite some time. Throughout this administration, it’s been the institutional establishment in the saddle, calling the play. You see that most especially regarding our policy, or more accurately, our non-policy regarding China and its military buildup, and more prominently regarding Iran. The Bush men DEFER to the establishment. Review GHWB’s tenure at CIA, where he was initially viewed with strong suspicion, and within weeks, he was warmly accepted. Why pray tell? Because he backed the establishment, and promised not to cause any waves. Even when he finally agreed to the "TEAM B" experiment, he later expressed that he regretted having done so.

In the Bush clan, it doesn’t fall very far from the tree.

I am open to persuasion, but my view on the matter right now is that getting rid of Gonzo would do little good and makes Bush look even weaker than he is. It doesn’t really matter anymore whether there is a substantive case to be made in favor of this move. From the point of view of serious conservatives, I’m sure there is. There was such a substantive case to made against his nominating Harriet Miers for the SC and many smart people made it. Those people got what they wanted. Whether or not Alito was worth the price we’re paying for him is debatable and my mind is conflicted, not settled, on this issue. But I sense that that kick in the teeth for Bush was the real beginning of the mess we’re in now. We can argue about whose fault it was that he got kicked--but the fact is that we kicked him. We could have controlled our foot. This strikes me as more of the same. It’s too easy to kick Bush while he’s down. Some circumspection might be in order here. There’s generally not much to be gained from such an unsporting move.

The democrats, lacking any program, have concentrated on decapitation of the republicans. Don’t give them another notch in their gun.

To go easy on the Bush Administration would be a terrible mistake. It would be perceived as support for lying, scheming, stealing, profligate spending, scapegoating, treasonous outing of agents, war-making, and war profiteering. We want to avoid emboldening those who would commit us to senseless wars, use them as excuses to steal our civil liberties, spy on our private lives, and then lie when their actions are finally exposed.

And, of course, Mr. Moveon.Org fails to note that we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THAT HAS OCCURRED.

That’s what hearings are for, isn’t it? Time to practice your mantra: "There’s no THERE there." The way you did with Libby, and Ney, DeLay, the continuing and increasing wake of Abramoff and his buddies. The way you continue with Walter Reed, terrorist training camps in Iraq, and WMD’s, Cheney/Halliburton.

Oversight is back, and we’ll see what evidence turns up.

I don’t give two damns about Gonzales, and I don’t think any Republican should either.

Sure, the Dems are out and about, hunting scalps. That’s their game, that’s been their game since the Nixon administration. Go ask the ghosts of that administration, go ask Robert Bork, go ask John Tower, query Gingrich, query Delay.

But it’s important to maintain perspective. Bork was a fight that was worth it, and we now know in retrospect, how important that battle was. When the GOP allowed Gingrich to be driven forth, that too was a huge loss to the party, and the runaway spending that followed, the campaign finance "reform" that was rammed through, we can see what a huge loss he was.

But Gonzales is nothing. We never should have allowed Bush to pick such an empty suit for so important a job, especially when we had a guy like Giuliani out there. The problem with Gonzales all flows from the penchant has for selecting token incompetents. He’s not even weak, he’s a non-entity, he’s a political empty-set. He’s a token, that’s why he was picked, he’s just like Condi. His loss will mean nothing. L’affaire Gonzales should not be viewed as a thing effecting the overall GOP.

What we should do is throw Gonzales under the bus, and then nominate another qualified HISPANIC. And this time, a Hispanic who wouldn’t waste his breath repeating all of this "new tone" nonsense.

It’s fascinating too how Fung conflates fishing expeditions with Congressional "oversight."

The events at Walter Reed, and other military {and VA} health centers are open for legitimate Congressional oversight. But when you conduct political fishing expeditions during a time of war, into non-issues, that are beyond legitimate Congressional oversight, {personnel decisions in the Executive branch are not matters open to Congressional legislation, THUS are NOT matters appropriate for Congressional "oversight"}, then you’re not just sowing mischief, but you’re crippling the Presidency in a time of war.

It’s as Senator Lieberman noted, "if we politically wound the President in a time of war, we weaken the nation," {loose paraphrase}.

And I would submit that there are limits (already surpassed) to the benefit of doubt any administration can enjoy while hiding behind the "time of war" cloak. Especially when the war was sold to the world based on a pack of lies.

I would also submit that the spectre of a government that exposes the spouse of a critic, spies on its political enemies, and fires anyone who dares to investigate its buddies, is a dangerous one, indeed. If you think that the country is better off when we condone or support such activities, then we disagree.

I expect that many in your camp thought that it was important to spend millions on the "Whitewater" fishing expedition, as well as the Lewinski scandal. As usual, it is a matter of whose ox is being gored.

Who the hell is "Ney?" As for Libby, I’ve never defended him in any way...he’s guilty of lying to an investigator, but that doesn’t make him guilty of "outing an agent." How come no one’s going to jail for doing THAT, smartass? Don’t think DeLay is in jail either, is he? What’s he been found guilty of? He does have something in common with a ham sandwich, though...both can be indicted on vaporous charges.

I have finally decided on what you are, Fung. You are a bigot, a man who justifies his blind hatred by manufacturing causes. Many times I can read your posts without nausea, but when you have one of these Moveon.Org "moments" it’s just sickening. These "fits" deprive you of reason and charm...ugh.

Actually Dain, what Fung is is a person who sees the administration differently than you do.

This "angry left" meme is ridiculous. Of course the left is angry! You guys are furious with the left and you’ve only had the legislative branch out of your hands for a few months. Try it for 10 years, pal.

No really, try it.

Try for 40 before that, pal...

This is from "Congresspedia:

"Robert William Ney is a Republican who formerly served as a U.S. Representative from Ohio’s 18th District. (map). He delivered his resignation to Congress on Friday, November 3, 2006."

Before the Jack Abramoff investigations became news in 2005 (see below), Ney was best known for his work on the election reform efforts founded in the wake of the confused 2000 voting in Florida, and his support and backing for the Stand Up For Steel crusade and resulting laws. "

As for DeLay not being in jail: Neither is Osama bin Laden. Is he a friend of yours, too, because he hasn’t yet been put in prison? Another place DeLay is not any longer is on Capitol Hill, and it is not because Republicans engaged in oversight, but rather because someone with integrity finally traced the slime trail to the right guy.

Just wait, Dain. The fall guys and their lies will shield Rove and Gonzales and Cheney and Bush only so long. The White House has only so many pawns to sacrifice, before the major players (like an Attorney General) start to feel exposed. Gonzales is already feeling the love from his party as they push him closer and closer to the front. What a loyal band!

Uhm, Fung, Whitewater resulted in the sitting Governor of Arkansas going to jail, and the number two man at Justice going down too. Hardly chump change, don’t ya think, along with a bevy of other lesser creatures.

Congress has authority to investigate those issues that it can pass legislation upon. It does NOT extend beyond that. Executive Branch personnel decisions are Constitutionally vested in the Executive Branch; which means they’re not subject to Congressional legislation, thus not open for Congressional "oversight." This isn’t an exercise of oversight, it’s a fishing expedition.

Here’s a question, are you really going to be so bold as to suggest that POLITICS has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats pursuing this drama, this non-scandal?

You’re not going to walk out on that plank, now are you?

Is this administration "hiding behind a time of war?" Unfortunately, they’re not. You see, the Bush administration has this thing about "new tone" and Congressional cooperation. Whereas the previous administration battled everything, and would pull out everything, including the legal equivalent to the kitchen sink in an attempt to forestall an investigation, {such as Clinton’s attempted invocation of The Soldier Sailor’s Act}, this administration actually assumes that the Democrats are motivated by good faith, and thus they keep trying to cooperate with people who are still living out their fantasies from the ’60s.

"Spies on its political enemies....." Uhm, you’re referring to the previous administration there, aren’t you, you’re referring to the creatures that made use of creatures like Pellegrino, isn’t that the administration you’re referring to. You couldn’t possibly be referencing this administration, which hasn’t the political will, political nerve or political savvy to adopt such measures.

Let’s go through the various Clinton scandals, all of which resulted in the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TASKING KEN STARR to investigate, and get to the bottom thereof. Whitewater morphed into Travelgate, which then entailed a sidetrip to Fostergate, which then turned into Filegate, all of which occurred before we ever got to Lewinskygate.

You name a Department during the Clinton tenure, I can name you the scandal. Even lesser agencies, such as INS, we can name a scandal. Energy Department losing State secrets. Labour? Alexis Herman. Transportation? Henry Cisneros. Pentagon? Linda Tripp’s personnel files.

White House? Hillary’s comment to David Watkins, "We need to get these people out, and our people in." All of which of course meant that longtime Travel Office personnel had to be destroyed, indicted, bankrupted, reputations ruined, marriages broken-up. And for what?

And for what?

For all of the incredible efforts the Clintons went through to gain political power, ............. for all of it, all of the lengths they went to, ........... what did they do with it?

What a fricken waste!

So, this Ney...a corrupt guy who paid the price. Good. I could name you any number of Dumbocrats who were equally guilty (like...Speaker of the House Jim Wright). It doesn’t prove a thing about the Bush White House.

Plamegate? Nothing there at all...just some poor schmuck caught lying to an investigator. No original "crime" at all. Lawyergate? No crime...just the Executive doing what the Executive has the Constitutional power to do. Without the Leftist media, none of this would go anywhere. The truth is, compared to Clinton, Bush’s administration has been squeaky-clean.

As for being "out of power," the Republicans have far more experience at that than the Dims. They will rediscover their purpose and make a comeback...maybe even in 2008. That would be a happy day.

Fung, I stand by what I said...your hatred of George Bush has unhinged you. You aren’t worth talking to when you have one of these "fits."

Dan,

I really WAs talking about the Bush Administration, and about the need for oversight after 6 years of having a rubber-stamp congress, with Republicans setting agendae, looking the other way when their buddies screwed pages, engaged in war profiteering, price-gouging, illegal, pre-emptive wars, torture in prisons, illegal spying at home,,,,, etc..

I never suggested that the Dems were squeaky clean, but I WOULD ask you to objectively try to balance lies over fellatio against lies leading to hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths PLUS well over 3000 American families in mourning over their sons and daughters killed in Iraq PLUS the effect on our current and future budget deficits, and status as debtor to our friend China.

How can anyone have a conversation with you, if all you do is compare "your" guys with "my" guys? since when did the Dems become the standard of morality and legality on THIS blog?

Dain, you are right about one thing: I am nearly unhinged with my hatred of what the Bush Administration has done, and will continue to do.

But, you are wrong again, and still, about "nothing there." If that was true, there would be no need for Libby and Gonzales and the rest of them to lie in the first place.

If the Republicans come back, I trust it will be with a sane team at the helm. I can live with Republicans, but this bunch of jerks has been a travesty.

Fung, I don’t disagree with the concept of oversight. But the Democrats have an obligation that the oversight be legitimate oversight, designed to advance the interests of the nation, and not just that of a single party.

"[L]ies over fellatio...," that dog don’t hunt ’round here. Whitewater didn’t involve sex. It was about money, a land deal, a sweetheart of a land deal. Filegate started when FBI files on over a thousand prominent Conservatives turned up in Hillary’s custody. Travelgate was an attempt to get prominent contributors to the Clintons complete control of the Travel Office, without going through the usual governmental bidding process. There wasn’t any sexual aspect to the investigation into why the sitting White House Counsel decided to kill himself with an antique revolver. Jim Guy Tucker went down, likewise Web Hubbel. And they didn’t go down for perjury. It was far more than that.

You asked "how anyone" can have a conversation if all you want to do is engage in tit for tat, which is a wise question, and it’s a point that I make frequently myself.

I didn’t raise aspects of the previous administration to forestall discussion of the problems of the present administration. Anyone who has read these threads occasionally over the last year KNOWS that I’m one Conservative more than willing to utterly blast this administration when I think it’s gone wrong. But this "scandal" over the firing of the US Attorneys is something that’s patently absurd.

So sure, rip the administration over Walter Reed. Rip them for standing idle while Congress was pouring BBQ sauce over all of their pork, but don’t rip ’em for this nonsensical story about Gonzales.

This administration has made mistakes, they’ve brought in too many cronies from Texas, too many people who were in on the right Protestant prayer group, too many people who knew the right contact down in Texas. Meirs, Gonzales, Brown. And not just them.

Powell was lost at State, he lacked firm convictions, which rendered him easily captive to the institutional voice at State. Tenet should have been fired pronto after 9/11, he sure shouldn’t have received a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Rice is out of her depth. She’s floundering in the weeds of a "Palestinian peace process." It’s ridiculous.

So sure, this administration has made some serious mistakes, foremost of which was not thoroughly pounding Iran after 9/11, just for being the prime sponsor of muslim mayhem and death on the planet, sure this administration has made errors, but there is a but, and that but is that we’re in a time of war, and that the Democrats seem more keen on crippling this Presidency and crippling our war effort than actually winning the damn war that we’re in.

I’m partisan, but I’m not wanting in good faith, when it comes to discussing the affairs of state.

Well, I think we agree more than we disagree. I’ll concede on the infusion of politics and revenge, in addition to righteous anger and purer motives behind the "oversight" in the case of Gonzales.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/10119