U.S. Attorney General Resigns

willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"

Thank goodness

[thdougherty]

Fortunately for Gonzales, he will probably soon forget he held the position and made a mockery of the judicial system...

Not likely

[WindBourne]

For starters, W. will try to put one person forward, the dems will nix them, and W. will appoint in the middle of the next vacation of congress. This person will simply replace gonzales and will ensure that no real investigation occurs until the end of W. time. The dems need to go after after W. AND obtained convictions, then it would make future presidents about doing such actions. But congress, and the dems in particular, have shown that they will allow it to drop. Nixon and reagan were allowed free walks due to the succeeding presidents being republicans. But the next president will almost certainly be a dem. If so, they need to not pardon and allow justice to prevail. Otherwise, we will see that each republican will continue to screw US at will.

Re:Not likely

[ucblockhead]

If the Democrats think they'll get the White House next, they don't have much incentive to limit the power of the White House.

Re:Not likely

[Rabbit Time!]

August Pollack has come up with 'The Hillary Rule [xoverboard.com],' which I think is kind of awesome.

This is very simple: as a conservative, you are only allowed to defend things like this if you can say- in the same breath- that you have no problem with President Hillary Clinton having the exact same level of power

Sort of brings home the point that we have limits on power because the person wielding that power is not always on your side of the issues.

An old sentiment

[MythoBeast]

Federalists passed something called the "Alien and Sedition Act" in 1798 which allowed prosecution of anyone who said bad things about the current government. This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.

Politics is like football. We've been at it so long that we forget that fitness was the original purpose of the game, and just care about winning.

Re:

[hondo77]

This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.

Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who was elected President in 1800?

Re:

[ultranova]

This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.

Is this the same Thomas Jefferson who was elected President in 1800?

Well, you see, they didn't have Diebold machines back then, so they had to do the recounts by hand, and that took some time; so why Jefferson was elected in 1800, they didn't know it until two years later. That's why you need electronic voting

Re:An old sentiment

[WilliamSChips]

Actually, the law was written so that it would pass out of effect after the end of the presidential term. They planned to just pass it again after another Federalist became president.

Re:Not likely

[pluther]

Until then I am not voting, and encourage everyone within earshot not to vote. Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.

So, in other words, the message you're sending them is "Unless you do what I want, I'll just ignore you and let you do whatever you want".

Yeah, good plan. To express your disapproval of government power-grabbing, you're going to help them grab more.

Re:

[ImaLamer]

Hey, don't blame me, I don't vote. It's you assholes who keep electing them.

Re:Not likely

[UncleTogie]

As I and about 500 others used our vote to throw a mayoral election in one of the nation's 10 largest cities, I can tell you without reservation that voting CAN work. As pointed out elsewhere here, you just have to have a sufficient number of pissed-off voters that're ready to put their vote where their mouth is. Details on the above election upon request.

Interesting dance

[benhocking]

Don't believe for a second that your vote matters or makes a difference.

Yet, you somehow think [wikipedia.org] that not voting will matter more [wikipedia.org]. Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:

[arashi no garou]

You are both right, in a sense. Doing nothing more than voting once every four years doesn't do a damn thing to help matters, but then, protesting by not voting at all accomplishes even less. I think you both need to get out there and try to actively make changes yourselves, just as many others have tried to do in the past. You may have no effect at all; then again, you could become the catalyst this nation needs to wake up and see the evil leadership we are under. If you think we need a revolution, then re

Re:

[raehl]

Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.

Oh, they'll notice alright. They'll just campaign to only the 20% of people who vote.

Re:Not likely

[hazem]

I'm terrified of the power that any of these goons in office hold. I just wish the government would be drastically reduced.

But where do you think the power will go? It doesn't just go away.

We did the mistake of voting in term limits here in Oregon for legislators. The result has been essentially a transfer of power and influence from legislators to their aids and the lobbyists - who don't get removed after so many terms.

Voter turnout less than 20%? That's what the entrenched parties want. If you can get the middle to be apathetic and not turn out then all you have to do is activate your base more than the other guy. The middle voters are so unpredictable that it's better to keep them at home and unwilling to participate.

Re:

[jridley]

Great plan. Throw away the only power you have over them.
"Stop doing what you're doing, or I'll ignore you even harder and make it even easier for you to keep doing what you're doing, and to make more money and power for you and your friends."

I bet they're terrified of your apathy-foo.

Re:Not likely

[hercubus]

this isn't us versus them. _we_ are the problem

we the American people hired incompetents to run our business. or we abdicated, left the hiring up to the lamers who'll actually stand in line to vote - those dumbfucks don't have anything else better to do??

we the people used to be in charge but we slacked off. and now who's in charge? assholes. but who hired them? who _let_ them?

if the American people are ever going to be in charge of their own lives again then we have to wake up, take responsiblity, quit crying like pussies that "someone stole my country" and fucking take it back

fucking vote! even if it's for Ralph Nader. fucking vote. campaign. volunteer. shoot your mouth off. act like you give a shit! be loud. be proud. be a real patriot. and realize you might have to sacrifice something. do it anyway

Re:

[eclectic4]

Funny, that's how they do it in almost every other democratic, industrialized country. Hell, in France if breakfast is cold they run to the streets with pickets, and you can bet tomorrow their eggs will be piping hot. In most of these states, the government is actually scared of it's people, which is how it should be...

But in the US, we've been marginalized with stupidity. We are absolutely void of critical thought. All we needs is a "support our troops" sticker, an American flag flying outside of our hou

Your doing it wrong...

[Belial6]

You are doing it all wrong. You should vote. You should just vote for a third party. The reason people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate is that they have been convinced that they are "throwing away their vote". If you are actually advocating literally throwing away your vote, you can double the effectiveness by voting third party. There is little to no chance that the third party candidate will win, so it doesn't matter what the candidate stands for. Besides, they are unlikely to be a bigger problem than either of the two major candidates.

If you think that 20% voter turn out will get the governments attention, just imagine what a 70% turnout would do to them with 30% of the votes going to third party candidates! So, don't encourage your family and friends not to vote at all. Don't try to convince them that they should think a third party will get elected. Just explain that if they are going to withhold/throw away their votes, withhold them from the possible winners by putting them on a third party.

If not voting is supposed to be the death by a thousand cuts, voting for a third party is the salt you rub into the wounds.

Re:Not likely

[sadler121]

Who held Congress for nearly all of the time Clinton was it office? The 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government. The Dems had the Executive, the Repubs had the Legislature and the Judaical was held by moderates.

Of course this was how the founding fathers envisioned that the government would work, three equal branches of government would check each other. Instead, in the early part of the 21st century, the three branches of government shifted dramatically to the right and began to collude with each other, instead of checking each other. The result is the fascist government we have had these last (almost) 8 years.

Re:

[Scudsucker]

he 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government.

The 90's were great because Clinton stood up the Republicans on bs like the bankruptcy bill and slashing the budget to give tax cuts to the rich. The main issue that the Republican's stood up to Clinton and won was defeating universal health care, which has cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars for crappy care. Thanks, GOP! Once they had the White House and Congress all bets were off.

It's also worth mentio

Re:Not likely

[Holmwood]

8 Clinton years of no war

Were you around during the Clinton presidency?

No war?

You don't remember Somalia, Kosovo (and the bombing of Belgrade, where the US managed to bomb the Chinese embassy), and the bombings in Iraq (Desert Fox, anyone?), and missile attacks in the Sudan and elsewhere?

And as for terrorism, the WTC bombing in '93, the USS Cole, US embassies in Africa? Where hundreds died?

It's quite true there wasn't a conflict like Iraq, and we didn't lose over three thousand US troops in combat. But thousands died, just most of them weren't Americans.

Yes, the Clinton years were years of relative peace compared to now. But the idea that there was "no war" (and I'm speaking of conflict directly involving the US military; obviously there were a lot of other wars going on) is pretty peculiar.

Go tell the citizens of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo, and even Iraq that there was "no war" in the Clinton years. You might get quite an earful.

Holmwood.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's quite true there wasn't a conflict like Iraq, and we didn't lose over three thousand US troops in combat. But thousands died, just most of them weren't Americans.

Which is the correct way to run a war.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Not likely

[Sunburnt]

The Republicans are talking things like corporate responsibility,

Indeed? [wikipedia.org]

education,

Indeed? [wikipedia.org]

the enviornment,

Indeed? [wikipedia.org]

and it'll only be a matter of time before they co-opt the Dems on health care too.

Indeed? [wikipedia.org]

Sorry, but I think that after watching some of the hypocrisy of the past seven years, many Americans now know the difference between substantive policy and "talking things."

Of course, if the Repubs wanted to "co-opt" these issues by regulating business and trade practices, building a better education system, cutting pollution, and ensuring that the citizens of the world's richest country have access to health care, then I'd be all for them, but I somehow doubt that their shareholders...er, major donors want anything to do with it.

Re:

[Lars T.]

If you think Hillary Clinton won't abuse any power, then you have forgotten the flurry of Executive Orders that her husband issued during the last 90 days of his presidency. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/c-execorder s.html [leaderu.com] Bill Clinton abused the use of Executive more than any other president.

Oh, did he? [englishfirst.org]

Despite uncontradicted statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh that Mr. Clinton issued more executive orders than any prior president, his numbers are at the low end for recent presidents, despite questions about content. Mr. Clinton has averaged 45.8 executive orders a year, the least among the last eight presidents except for Mr. Bush, who averaged 42 per year.

Well, unlike the Probe Ministries (whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through

Re:Not likely

[Leftist Troll]

It's more than just visions of the next term, both parties are dedicated to maintaining a strong Federal government led by a powerful executive. They occasionally bicker about the details, but their fundamental belief in executive power is shared.

No recess appointments

[PIPBoy3000]

There's an agreement [tpmmuckraker.com] between the president and the Senate Leader Reid to no longer due this. If the President breaks that agreement, it'll upset folks, plus the Senate can be kept perpetually in session by having a senator come in every few days throughout the normal recess. It's not legally binding, of course, but if the President wants to accomplish anything in the next year, I suspect he'll keep his word.

Re:

[Nimey]

I'm not particularly worried about what political talking-heads say, but you know they will and, more importantly, you know that there are people who vote who believe them.

WRT losers: damn right. I'm almost more disgusted with the Congressional Dems who don't have the spine to stand up to Bush's abuses than I am with The Decider himself.

Re:Not likely

[Xonstantine]

Unfortunately, I don't see any such election overhaul happening anytime soon.

Of course not, since it would require an overhaul of the electoral process, which would in turn hurt smaller states and swing states...so they'll never support it. But even splitting up the electoral votes by Congressional district or as a percentage has some merit. For example, California has more Republican voters than any other state in the union...but they happen to be outnumbered (significantly) by Democratic voters. So those 55 electoral votes go (D) every time, even though ideologically, the split is closer to 32/23 Same thing with Texas on the reverse side. Lots of Democrats, but those 34 electoral votes go (R) every time.

Re:Not likely

[homer_ca]

Awarding electors proportionally doesn't work because to be fair, every state would have to do it. To take your example of Texas and California, if one of those states went proportional and the other stayed winner takes all, that would be unfair to the D's or R's.

What does work is the National Popular Vote, and it's not a huge overhaul of the electoral process. It's an interstate agreement to assign all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states sign on (enough to make a majority of electoral votes), the law goes into effect. It's simple and fair.

Re:

[jez9999]

The end result would the reduction of almost all of the interior states to irrelevance, both during the campaign and also the election.

Tragic. They'll have to feel how 47/48 non-swing states feel right now.

Re:

[Aceticon]

But even splitting up the electoral votes by Congressional district or as a percentage has some merit. For example, California has more Republican voters than any other state in the union...but they happen to be outnumbered (significantly) by Democratic voters. So those 55 electoral votes go (D) every time, even though ideologically, the split is closer to 32/23 Same thing with Texas on the reverse side. Lots of Democrats, but those 34 electoral votes go (R) every time.

The problem is the use of electoral di

Re:Not likely

[operagost]

With the electoral college system, living in a state that gets a low amount of votes (like Rhode Island) lowers the power of your own vote.

That's not true. The number of electoral votes is a share reflecting the state's population compared to the rest of the US. If anything, it gives an advantage to the least populated states because they are required to have at least three.

I think it's about time to do away with the electoral college and just go strictly by the popular vote.

Maybe if you actually gave a reason to do that other to do it for its own sake, someone would listen to you.

Re:

[ArcherB]

I hate to venture OT like this, but this requires a correction.

He also would have won the electoral vote in 2000 if there had been a statewide recount of Florida's votes.

You mean like this [cnn.com]?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, or how many left-wing websites you quote, Al Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 and failed. Granted, if you change enough rules, Gore could have pulled it out, but that would not really be fair, would it? You can't change the rules AFTER the election to favor one side

Re:Thank goodness

[Sponge Bath]

I always felt that Peter Gabriel's song "I don't remember"
could have been Gonzales' theme music:

I don't remember,
I don't recal,
I have no memory
of anything at all.

Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[downix]

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties. This resignation is only good news if they finally gain some moxie and push for a hard Atty Gen, one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[slughead]

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties.

Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[Xonstantine]

Republican support turned against Bush a while back. Calling your base racist and pushing through an amnesty for 20 million illegals when the base overwhelmingly opposes it tends to do that. What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt. I mean, if there are more Duke Cunninghams out there either in the administration or Congress, by all means, throw them in the pokey. But while we're at it, how about we apply the same standards across the board? Pelosi seemed to back off pretty quick from her "drain the swamp" pledge considering that both Murtha and Jefferson are sitting on committees.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[r_jensen11]

What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt.

Bull-fucking-shit. Care to try to explain the Clinton impeachment process then?

Re:

[NMerriam]

So your saying that I can say what ever I want to a Grand Jury as long I believe its not relevant? RIIIIIIGGHT!!!!

No, he's saying that you can lie to a grand jury about anything the *judge* determines is not a material fact in the case. And he's 100% correct. If you want to tell a grand jury investigating a murder that the Sun revolves around the Earth, even though you know it for a fact to be untrue, you haven't committed perjury because it has nothing to do with the case.

The point of defining perjury in

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

[ajs]

There's no way that the Bush administration will put forth an actual watchdog. The best the Democrats can do is to block the nomination of one Loyal Bushy in favor of the next. No, I think they'll make a show of their resistance, but unless Bush puts forth someone who can't read or burns a copy of the Constitution on the steps of the Capitol Building before the hearing, the nomination will likely go through.

... and the Daily Show is off this week.

[TrevorB]

The Daily Show starts a 2 week break this week.

Is anyone noticing a trend where resignations seem to occur while The Daily Show is off on break?

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week.

[Carewolf]

Leno, Conan, Letterman, Ferguson

They are all mere comedians. Find it ironic or not; The Daily Show is the single most factual source of political news and comentary in the US.

It's not ironic.

[unsigned integer]

It's just a sad, sad statement when the most informed news you can get, in the paraphrased words of John Stewart, is a fake news show lead into by puppets making crank calls. John gets that. I honestly don't know how he manages to be so chipper and funny - he has to get up on that stage and make fun of some of the saddest/worst stuff in this country. Daily. Perhaps in the hopes that he's entertaining AND informing ... as opposed to places like Fox News, or CNN, which are failing us on so many levels.

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week.

[cowscows]

I'm not sure I entirely agree. Whether you're conservative or liberal, whatever your view of the world, some things are just plain bullshit, and some things are the plain truth.

Much of what the media does to pretend that it's being fair is talk to people from both sides of the issue, and pretend like that's their job, to have a platform for a republican to talk about an issue, and then a democrat talk about that issue. But that's only a small part of their job. Their job is not just to allow each side to give their take on it, the media needs to verify all that stuff, challenge it, and call out what's true and what's not.

So CNN has a republican tell me that we're making progress in Iraq, followed by a democrat telling me that there's no real progress and things aren't getting better; that doesn't help me make an informed decision. The media needs to quantify and qualify what they're being told. And if it turns out that one side is spewing nonsense, then the media needs to call them out on it, or at least stop giving them a stage to spread that incorrect information.

Of course, a lot of that is a moot point as far as a couple of shows on comedy central are concerned, because, you know, they're comedy shows.

Re:

[Ieshan]

That's because knowing the real news is a prerequisite to finding The Daily Show humorous.

Satire isn't in itself informative, but the people who read it are informed because the content of the media is directed towards the informed.

Lightbulbs

[dws90]

How many Alberto Gonzaleses does it take to change a lightbulb?

One, but he'll end up doing it multiple times because he can't recall doing it before.

Re:Lightbulbs

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Alberto Gonzaleses does it take to change a lightbulb?

Actually, a $6 billion no-bid bulb-changing contract was already given to Halliburton.

The people's office....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Good! About damn time!

One of the most frustrating, maddening things about this administration is disregard for the people's will. Bolton was a good example. He was only supported by the president and Republicans. When appointing someone that represent the American people you need to have the support of the American people not just your party.

It's in that same spirit that I'm voting Republican in the next presidential election. Do you REALLY think one party rule is going to better under Democrats? I like the idea of one party controlling the White House and the other controlling Congress. It forces people to work together. Something this country BADLY needs now... and for the world as well before we damage things even more.

Re:

[dpilot]

It's really scary when a comedian is one of the best journalists we have to offer.

Back in my I Myth-ed the special they did for Walter Cronkite's 90th birthday. This weekend my wife and I finally got around to watching it.

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

Imagine Walter Cronkite as a guest on The Daily Show!

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

Was he faking, or was he brain dead?

[shanen]

Actually Gonzo and I were at the same school at almost the same time. No way he could have graduated with such a weak memory, so I've basically been wondering what happened to him. He still has his wits and he's just faking the idiocy? Or was is some kind of mental disease from excessive mental gymnastics and brown nosing?

Anyway, I'm still amazed that Dubya let him resign, even if Chertoff is the replacement (according to rumors). The last thing the neo-GOP wants now is a functional DoJ. Everything is coming unraveled for them.

One more thing. Don't let the door hit ya' on yer way out.

Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

[base3]

Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Thank Talking Points Memo.

[alfredo]

They were the ones who first latched onto the US Attorney firings. It was through their investigative reporting that congress got involved.

Talking Points Memo [talkingpointsmemo.com]

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

[Jeremi]

I don't remember the Democrats OR the republicans bitching when Clinton fired all the Republican district att's and replaced them with Democrats. It was normal, and is expected by both parties

I shouldn't even have to post this, because anyone still spewing the above bullshit obviously already knows the answer and is just blowing smoke, but just in case anyone else was wondering: Replacing all the political appointees as part of coming into office is traditional. Replacing in the middle of a term, only those attorney generals who prosecuted Republicans, or refused to prosecute Democrats is what's scandalous here. The Justice Department had a long history of being largely independant and non-partisan, and that is what was ruined by the Bush administration. That is not normal, nor expected, and that is why morale at the Justice Department is at an all-time low, with scores of senior staff leaving [findlaw.com]. Allowing that to continue would result in a country without rule of law, only political persecution of the party not in power, by the party in power.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

[Nimey]

They were fired because they wouldn't abuse their offices for the President's political gain.

You make me sick.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

[alfredo]

It is normal to replace all the USA's when a new president takes office. What made this different was they went after Attorneys that were not partisan enough in the cases they took. Inglesis refused to speed up an investigation to indict a Dem before the election. He refused to be influenced. If you saw the movie "A Few Good Men" Tom Cruise played the part of Inglesis. Yes, that story was about him.

Carol Lam was the one who put Cunningham in prison. She was working her way up the chain of command and was getting too close to the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

One of the new USA's replacing Cummins was the man who crafted the caging lists that denied black soldiers their right to vote in 2004 and 2006. He went to the Pentagon and found what black soldiers were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. They then sent a "do not forward" letter to their stateside post. When the letter was returned, they used that letter as evidence to challenge their votes. vote caging is illegal.

The USA's that remain are to a man, people who enforced caging lists, voter roll purges, and brought politically motivated cases timed for greatest effect at the polls. The calls of voter fraud was just a cover for their own illegal acts.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you my land you should be concerned when the Attorney General's office becomes a political arm of any party.

I want an AG that is loyal to the law, not the president. Even the much maligned Janet Reno was a far sight better than Gonzales. She went after Clinton with the same gusto as a Republican.

Re:

[BobMcD]

One of the new USA's replacing Cummins was the man who crafted the caging lists that denied black soldiers their right to vote in 2004 and 2006. He went to the Pentagon and found what black soldiers were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. They then sent a "do not forward" letter to their stateside post. When the letter was returned, they used that letter as evidence to challenge their votes. vote caging is illegal.

That one seems a bit over the top. I've honestly never heard of this before. Got a source for it?

Re:

[truesaer]

I did a little research and found this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2167284/pagenum/all/#page_ start [slate.com]

It seems the original source of this was Monica Goodling, the AG's staffer who resigned and claimed executive priviledge for most answers during her congressional hearing.

It was about time

[bogaboga]

What a stint Mr. Gonzales had with my president's White house...but I thought he'd hang on. I will remember him for his 63 times he invoked the "I don't recall..." mantra. On the other hand, I wonder whether any slashdotter can tell me what good has been accomplished by my president to-date. Sincerely, I am at a loss to find anything worthy of a mention.

Here's another one...the VP also used this "I do not recall..." slogan while under fire. It's about time our constitution was amended to automatically have a senior official resign when the all of a sudden they cannot recall matters so important and held so dear to these United States.

Re:It was about time

[Dr. Manhattan]

My favorite cartoon [workingforchange.com] about the Gonzales' "I don't recall" stuff.

Re:

[MMC Monster]

Actually, this sounds reasonable. If an elected official cannot remember whether something happened or not, maybe they seek mandatory neurologic testing to make sure there isn't a reason. If he cannot remember a number of different events, maybe he/she should be institutionalized for his own safety.

Schumer's a camera whore

[Anonymous Coward]

The President shouldn't have to nominate someone that the democrats support, but someone that is competent, experienced and has a history of obeying the law. If the democrats can't support that then they've got no hope in November of 2008.

Reminds me to donate -

[mattkime]

From the article: "Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position"

Events like this remind me to donate to the ACLU.

i didn't think much of ag ag

[circletimessquare]

until i heard that story of him rushing to the side of the previous ag, john ashcroft, who was ailing in hospital, himself no friend of the rights and freedoms americans hold dear, and the bastard was seeking an extension of the secret wiretapping program from a sick man [wikipedia.org]:

In a December 2005 article[31][32] in The New York Times, it was revealed that the NSA was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without proper warrants. This led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department. This investigation was shut down after the President[33] denied investigators the security clearances necessary for their work. Some critics have alleged that the President did so in order to protect Gonzales from the internal probe.[34]

According to May 15, 2007, testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee (as reported in the New York Times[35]) on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. (then Mr. Bush's chief of staff) tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. The purpose of this dramatic middle-of-the-night visit was to reauthorize the secret wiretapping program, which Comey (as acting AG) had refused to reauthorize. (Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.)

" In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval for a matter. I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.[36] "

Comey's testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales' assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify."[36] He added that some "top Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over it."[36]

it takes some effort to make john ashcroft look like a brave defender of american's freedoms. and ag ag did that, by acting like some sort of blitzkrieg operative for the extension of capricious and dubious powers. all very shady, all very slick, all very despicable, and forever afterward in my mind ag ag was worthy of not just resignation, but prosecution and punishment

now it looks like, like a previous white house operative [wikipedia.org] (ag was the general counsel of gw bush in texas), that he's just the fall guy for his higher ups. resigning and taking the heat that rightfully should lead to dick cheney, karl rove, and gw bush

i'm not one for impeachment, it's a radical act, but i'm wondering where all the self-righteous a-holes who were ready to pillory clinton for whitewater and getting a blowjob from an intern are on the subject of gw bush, (or iran-contra, for that matter). or is it just a partisan game to get the other team at all costs, regardless of any actual judgment of the scale of wrongdoing?

personally, clinton could have had roman orgies on the scale of caligula in the white house. compared to what bush has done to this country's image in the world, orgies in the white house ranks as an impeachable offense a couple of orders of magnitude below what the shocktroops of chicanery the gw bush team has given us

gw bush: the usa's worst president, ever. he's just a moronic drunk rich kid. he wasn't even rightfully elected by the will of the american people. can you imagine how different things would be on the world stage today if al gore was in the white house?

the 2008 elections cannot come fast enough

Re:i didn't think much of ag ag

[Dr. Manhattan]

What, the whole "Screw the Geneva Convention, let's torture people" [msn.com] (PDF file) thing wasn't enough?

it took you this long?

[misanthrope101]

Before he even took office he was discrediting the Geneva Conventions as "quaint and outdated." He was instrumental in making torture official US policy...oh scratch that, sorry, he was instrumental in necessitating our redefinition of torture so what we were doing wasn't torture anymore. Anyone who was behind him until the Ashcroft/bedside story has been asleep for a few years.

It's easy to be suspicious when the wind if finally blowing that direction--where were you when this crap started? I knew about Abu Ghraib before I knew about Abu Ghraib, because I've read about the Zimbardo prison experiment. This has been ugly since day one, and I'm not too sympathetic to anyone who gave Gonzalez et al the benefit of the doubt for this many years when they gutted habeus corpus, normalized torture, built secret prisons, etc.

Ablative Armor

[Phoenix666]

That's what Karl Rove and Gonzales are trying to be for Bush and Cheney. I wish to god there was someone in the Democratic party with the balls to bring Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the gang to justice. Letting these guys resign and skate away to enjoy the spoils of their crimes is just as deadly to our democracy as the crimes themselves, because our system of checks & balances and faith in the rule of law remain compromised. Impeach, try, and convict. That's the only way to begin to untangle the disaster they've visited on us and the world.

To those who call themselves Republicans and resist this idea, just imagine Hillary Clinton as president with all the powers Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves. It should give you screaming nightmares, because it sure does me.

Loyalty more important than competence

[humankind]

Gonzales is yet another example how the Bush administration values loyalty over competence. In virtually every executive-appointed office, Bush has installed people who are not qualified to do the job, but are unconditionally loyal to him and his party.

While this may have always been true, it's never been more true now and this exemplifies the weakness of the American system of government. You elect a president, and then he puts incompetent cronies in positions of huge responsibility in important areas of the government. We've also seen that Bush has no reservations against using loopholes like congressional recess appointments to get around the checks and balances in Congress.

In other countries like Switzerland, heads of each major area of government, from transportation to defense, are independently, democratically elected. The next time an American starts talking about "democracy", remind them that they need to look elsewhere, far outside of their own country, to find a more true example of the democracy.

Re:Loyalty more important than competence

[dpilot]

>installed people who are not qualified to do the job

What's really fun/annoying about this is the win/win nature of it for the ones who did it.

They've got their cronies in all of these positions and are tilting the agencies agendas in "loyalist directions" besides. Clearly a WIN.

On the other hand, if those agencies are called upon to fulfill their primary missions, as understood by the rest of the nation...

Those filling the positions are not fully competent to do so, and the agency falls down on its job. How is this a WIN? Simple, the folks selecting the appointees also like to say that they're in favor of smaller government, and that anything that can be privatized, should be. If the agency fails in it's job, it's clear evidence that government is incapable, therefore it should be privatized. Of course you're supposed to ignore the fact that their appointees caused the failure in the first place. It becomes a WIN.

What's truly sad here is the decimation of institutional memory. Some of that may be bad, but not all, and at the very least if the institutional memory is gone, you can't learn from it to improve. The top tier has always been political, but what's happened this time is that the second and third tiers have resigned because they couldn't stomach what the top tier was doing. There's the real problem, the core agency competence has left.

Scary, Scary, Scary: Habeas Corpus

[boxless]

This is the guy who testified to the Senate that the right to habeas corpus is not guaranteed to US Citizens.

What a strange 6 years we have lived through since 9/11. I'm hoping it will be over soon. At least the Gonzalez chapter is.

Wouldn't it save the taxpayers money....

[DickBreath]

...to simply outsource the DoJ to somewhere offshore which can perform its non-function for much less money?

Just wondering.

Strategic Resignation

[glassware]

Congress has only barely worked up the will to investigate these misdeeds, and I am saddened to realize that Alberto Gonzales' resignation will completely end somehow push everyone to "move on." If ever there was an administration that deserved to be hounded until the end of its days, it would be this one - but they are practicing strategic resignations. Every time there is a lull in an investigation, the official under fire resigns, to be replaced by an equally inept and loyal official who simply isn't under investigation yet. The fact that the obvious target of hatred is gone saps the will of the investigators, and everyone involved gets away with no jail time and no penalties.

Rove has free time now

[Analogy Man]

Now that Rove is available I am sure he would be confirmed with no problem. Certainly a man that can put the law before partisan considerations.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[faloi]

Might be hard to believe, but a lot of conservatives aren't happy with the way things have been going throughout this administration. If anything could prove that Republican != Conservative, it's certainly been the Bush White House. I think the more things get shaken up, the more both conservatives and liberals win.

Hmph.

[SatanicPuppy]

Lot of liberals aren't happy with it either, and the difference is, they didn't vote it in in the first place. If you voted for the republicans in any of the last 3 elections, you've got to accept responsibility for your choice.

Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the conservatives. They always vote the same way (well, some vote libertarian). Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. The thing that pisses me off is the damn fickle swing vote. You'd think, since they're not really wedded to an ideology, they'd be better than the right or the left, but really, they're just a bunch of jokers who vote based on whether a candidate has "Presidential Hair" and other such simplistic crap.

We may blame all the problems on the government, but it's the responsibility of the people to demand good government, and to put good people in power.

Re:

[farmerj]

More parties you have more room for compromise, because the lines aren't drawn so firmly, and coalition is pretty much the only way to fly. Of course, look at the Brits...They've got multiple parties, but one is utterly dominant, with no need of compromise. Ugly scene.

First past the post elections systems tend to become two party systems [wikipedia.org] after a long enough period of time.
The UK would be considered a two party system, the Labour and Conservative parties are the major parties with the Liberal Democrats

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

Except of course the conservatives were quite happy to claim Bush and his admin as one of their own when things were going better.

Re:

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yeah, well the difference is that Republicans have been blindly following party dictates and castigating anyone who dares criticize their brethren. Being secretly disillusioned means nothing if by action you show 100% loyalty.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[rootofevil]

nobody wins until the balance of power is restored to the people, where it belongs.

Don't hold your breath.

[SatanicPuppy]

We pay lip service to the people, but really, the people have very little say.

When the country was founded, the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as a hedge against mob rule...The members of the electoral college were typically rich landowners, and they weren't required to vote based on the votes of the citizens beneath them, so if the rich landowners didn't like candidate A, they could just vote for candidate B, regardless of how the people voted.

That's not the case these days. These days, most states require the EC to vote based on how the people in the state vote...No wealthy landowners here!

Except...Who do the people vote for? The candidates chosen by the two big political parties. How do the big political parties choose their candidates? Effectively it's money. Whoever can line up the most wealthy landowners behind them, that person wins. That's pretty much the point of the primary system...Trot out the candidates, and see which one the money guys like best.

Sure, there are two guys up on stage, but really they're the same. They go to the same schools. They know the same people. They do roughly the same crap in office.

Power to the people will be a first in this country, if it ever happens.

Oh give me a break please

[snowwrestler]

The people have as much power as they have ever had. In fact they have more power than they had in the early days, because the electoral college has been reduced to a rubber stamp based on the popular vote in each state...at least now your vote is being overridden by your fellow citizens and not some rich elector.

Except that the people have to exercise that power for it to make any difference. The #1 thing that takes power away from the people is this depressive meme that what they do doesn't matter anyway.

Obligatory Douglas Adams

[SatanicPuppy]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

--Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Re:

[Paulrothrock]

Sadly, this is very true. If I, for example, really voted my conscience, I'd have to vote Green. Now, that's one less vote for the Democrats, which weakens them. If enough people on the far left vote Green or Socialist or something, it significantly weakens the position of the left-of-center party so that the right-of-center party wins the election. And since they're opposed to positions that I'm in favor of, I'm usually voting against the Republicans rather than for anyone.

The only way you'll ever have a

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

[Pojut]

How about slashdotliberalwinning , to signify that we finally are?

Shit like this really REALLY pisses me off.

Right, Left, Rebulican, Democrat...we are all AMERICANS. When will you people get that through your thick skulls?

There are no "teams" here, people. We are all in this boat together. The more of you that put a letter after your name, the more this country falls apart.

The "team" nature that this country has become obsessed with is the marking of our downfall. People like the person quoted in this post are the EXACT reason why this country is fucked. It's not because he is for the liberals or because he is for the conservatives...it's because he is declaring a "side" as "winning".

The instant you do that, we all lose.

Re:Better late than never

[OS24Ever]

He's just one disaster in a string of disasters. It's not going to get any better either because basically what people have elected into office is a huge disaster.

Until there are term limits on every office, real congressional districts instead of roarshark tests, and a voting populace with a brain you're not going to see much different.

We've done too good of a job polarizing the two parties. everything they do is boiled down to one issue for that voting block and that is what makes the call. If you're against abortion, you'll vote republican no matter what because the Denmocrats want to open Joe's Abortion Clinic - you rape em we scrape em - on every corner.

If you're gay, well, you're fucked because neither party will support you 100%. However the democrats will at least wave your direction when you walk by but then turn around and tell the other folks you're just being nice to them because you feel sorry for them.

If you like guns, you'll vote republican because no matter what they say the Democrats will take away your gun the first chance they get, don't know how to hunt, or many other problems.

It doesn't matter that the candidate is a closeted gay, child molester, or anything else long as he votes for / against whatever one issue you let decide.

And I don't think this is a new phenomenon, they've just gotten better at it. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway seems to be the prevailing wind. You see that attitude everywhere from open source vs. closed source to civil unions vs. marriages. We wouldn't know what to do with someone who actually tried to work for a solution instead of standing up top going my way or the highway. The one campaign statement that to this day that infuriates me to know end is that over and over Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Post 9/11 he is the perfect example of a divisive president. The entire world was ready to invade Afghanistan and destroy anything that looked at you crosseyed after 9/11 and then next thing you know forget Afghanistan and the real issue, let's go to Iraq.

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was some feel good hippie that just got in the way, he killed a good chunk of people and is up there with some of the bigger bad guys in the past. However the path we took really screwed us, but we can't bail out now or our leaving will kill more people than Saddam did in the first place. It's a culture battle at this point and we're too stupid to realize that. Democracy isn't for everyone, and you can't force it on them any more than you can anything else.

I've gotten to the point where I don't know what we can do. the Democratic party currently isn't offering anything worth looking at as far as the 'front runner' is. By the time my state's primary comes around the decision will already be made for me as to who the candidate is because of our fucked up system of nomination. I truly believe that the primary should be one day, nationwide, in February before the election. It's an IRV ballot where you rank your choices, winner take all. the fact that I believe it is after 'super tuesday' nothing can change the outcome.

It's not like IA, NH, and SC are really representative of the US Population either. Iowa gives whitebread a new meaning, as does NH. SC starts to represent the mix of ethnicity that makes this nation so great, but the real melting pot states aren't until later and receive less focus than any other state.

My $0.02 of ranting.

Roarshark?!

[Kozz]

Content aside, that's the funniest misheard/mistyped term I've seen in a while. It's not roarshark, it's Rorschach [wikipedia.org] . I'm normally not a pedant on things like this, but had to correct this one.

Re:

[WindowlessView]

Thanks for that excellent post. Sadly it will probably not get its due in one of these topics where most people are more interested in venting than anything else.

The attacks on the traditional primary line up and the whining of other (larger) states is largely misguided and the current trend of trying to jump the line is going to be a disaster if allowed to continue.

The early primary states are not a problem, they are a national treasure.

Any sense of disenfranchisement from states voting later in t

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[wonkavader]

"What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m...."

I know you're going for a laugh, but it has to be said: "A congress which watched the constitution with even half as much attention as it watched it's ass."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

which is why...

[sethawoolley]

That's why the impeachment proceedings are generally going after Dick first. If you get him first, then you can go after Bush on the same materials.

You know who then becomes president? Yep, that's right.

Re:Tough Position

[oh_my_080980980]

Do you have any idea of the duties of the Attorney General? The Attorney General is not the President's private counsel. The Attorney General is the PEOPLE'S COUNSEL. As such, his loyalties are to the People of the United States, NOT the President.

People need to brush up on their civics lessons.

Re:

[necro81]

He did serve "At the Pleasure of the President," and show his loyalty to him. But, I will contend forcefully that his loyalty has been sorely misplaced. Loyalty is a virtue; misplaced loyalty is folly. Dammit, he didn't swear an oath of office to the President; his job is to be loyal to the people and the Constitution. If the President's wishes contradict what is in the interests of the people and skirt the Constitution, there should be no ambiguity in the Attorney General's mind as to which should take

Re:Tough Position

[cybermage]

Lets assume for one moment, before he took this position that he was a good lawyer. But to be led by a man who has destroyed so many other reputations is no easy task.

Gonzales has been with Bush since Texas. That's how long his poor judge of character has been in place.

As for him being a good lawyer, that's hard to say. I'm more concerned about whether he's an ethical and moral lawyer, which he is not; and, that didn't start when he took the AG job. Remember that it was Alberto Gonzales that convinced the president that the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture were "quaint" and don't apply to the U.S. We have the detentions at Guantanamo of "foreign combantants" and the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Americans suspected of ties to terrorism because of him.

Gonzales was amongst the crew strongarming former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the ICU to approve the warrantless wiretapping program. The polital firings of U.S. attorney's is just the last straw on a big pile of straws.

Re:

[lawpoop]

I think loyalty is a virtue that belongs to the past, like allegiance to the King. I read your post, and I think I understand where you're coming from, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that loyalty is something that belongs to another era. We live under the rule of law, and our first allegiance should be to the law. Loyalty is a moral that is great in a society where it's my tribe against your tribe, or my King against your King, but it really goes contrary to the rule of law. Cases in

Re:

[dc29A]

not to worry, the congress can give the dick-in-the-bush a hard time about their nominees, drag things out just to send a message

You mean the same congress that gave Bush the green light without any fight to spy on americans? The same congress that backed down from an Iraq pullout clause on the budget? The same congress that does nothing?

Re:The Daily Show and The Colbert Report

[Carewolf]

Remember kids, correlation does not imply causation

And repeating that sentence over and over doesn't mean there is no causation. Correlations are important, because they do imply something significant every now and then.

In this case the correlation is mostly comical though. So laugh.

Re:How is this News for Nerds?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Code is Law.

Or do you live on a planet where 80% of the world's telecommunications links do not run through the United States of America, where those 80% are not illegally wiretapped, where strong encryption wasn't suppressed under a fifty-year-old munitions law, where the most popular vendor of operating systems software did not secretly include an escrowed backdoor to their encryption engine, where merely fixing broken technology doesn't earn you an indictment and/or a designation as a terrorist, where the US government doesn't kidnap innocent people off the streets of foreign countries, torture them for months, and dump them in countries that will torture and kill them?

Nerds are still People.