Attorney General Gonzales resigns

[RevDisk]

The Dems have been calling for special prosecutors for every aspect of the Bush Administration since they regained control.  If the AG has any sense he'll tell them to jump in a lake.
I don't think Chertoff will be in the running, having resigned over Katrina.  I would hope he could get someone reasonably good.  I think someone like Charles Pickering would be interesting.

You might want to notify DHS that their boss resigned.

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm

[Paddy]

Has Bush ever fired anybody?  It seems his loyalty to his 'friends' trumps his duty to his country. 
I suspect he views the Presidency as some kind of good ol' boy network.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I suspect he views loyalty as more important than the petty and vitriolic ravings of the far left.  Hence he never gives any ground to those who would crucify his advisors for nothing more than being his advisors.

That's what you meant by "good ol' boy network", right?

 

[Paddy]

I suspect he views loyalty as more important than the petty and vitriolic ravings of the far left.  Hence he never gives any ground to those who would crucify his advisors for nothing more than being his advisors.

Yet those same 'advisors' often resign in disgrace.  Whyizzat?

[wooderson]

Clearly those dastardly leftists have perfected mind control and force the advisors to resign.

[The Rabbi]

The Dems have been calling for special prosecutors for every aspect of the Bush Administration since they regained control.  If the AG has any sense he'll tell them to jump in a lake.
I don't think Chertoff will be in the running, having resigned over Katrina.  I would hope he could get someone reasonably good.  I think someone like Charles Pickering would be interesting.

You might want to notify DHS that their boss resigned.

http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/biography_0116.shtm

Darn.  Got him confused with the head of FEMA.  Well, he did come in for some kind of opprobrium.  I hope that will be enough to KO his nomination.

[Paddy]

he big question:

Will the next AG appoint a special prosecutor to investigate any of the number of claims that have the Senate already calling for a special prosecutor?

Better not.  The politicization of incompetence does not serve the American people.  The Democrats have no solutions, that's for sure.

[De Selby]

I suspect he views loyalty as more important than the petty and vitriolic ravings of the far left.  Hence he never gives any ground to those who would crucify his advisors for nothing more than being his advisors.

That's what you meant by "good ol' boy network", right?

 

So you actually would say that George Bush's way of operating the white house is honest, full of integrity, and that all the scandals are mere media inventions?

If not, which ones are legitimate causes for complaint?

I don't think GW is the evil genius of the century, nor do I think everything (or most things) that Slate says are true.  But it seems to me that to defend the administration at this point implies way more personal investment than most people would have with it.

I mean, I could see defending the Bush administration if I held an appointment, or it were paying me tons and tons of consulting fees.  But absent that, there's really no good reason to defend it.  Conservative, liberal, whoever, there's more than enough evidence (including the AG's office mess-that's what this is the product of) to demonstrate that Bush's whitehouse is incapable of carrying out numerous crucial political and administrative functions.

There's a reason why conservative republicans are abandoning Bush defense-it's that they know it only makes them look like they're completely out of the loop.  It would be smart, looking at the gun rights issue in 2008, to join the chorus against this admin so as to not convince all the independent and moderate voters that the Republican party actually believes Bush is doing a good job.  

If, on the other hand, conservatives succeed in convincing America that they actually believe GW is an effective and smart President, they will have handed 2008 to whoever runs on the other ticket.  Kucinich could win an election like that-it would be the equivalent of the Republicans running in 76 on a "Nixon did a great job! Don't let the media fool you, he'll be remembered as a master statesman!" platform.

[Balog]

Oh. My. God. SS actually posted something that A: wasn't about the ME & B: involved, you know, shooting. Kind of, towards the end. I am both shocked and awed.

[Paddy]

Kucinich could win an election like

Dream on.

that-it would be the equivalent of the Republicans running in 76 on a "Nixon did a great job! Don't let the media fool you, he'll be remembered as a master statesman!" platform.

History will record Richard Nixon as a statesman, leader, visionary and successful cold-warrior, although it won't happen until long after we're all wormfood.

[De Selby]

Oh. My. God. SS actually posted something that A: wasn't about the ME & B: involved, you know, shooting. Kind of, towards the end. I am both shocked and awed.

Shock and awe-isn't that the effect you need for victory?

[The Rabbi]

I suspect he views loyalty as more important than the petty and vitriolic ravings of the far left.  Hence he never gives any ground to those who would crucify his advisors for nothing more than being his advisors.

That's what you meant by "good ol' boy network", right?

 

So you actually would say that George Bush's way of operating the white house is honest, full of integrity, and that all the scandals are mere media inventions?

I think that pretty well sums it up.
What "scandals" was Bush involved in?  Firing prosecutors who serve at the pleasure of the president?  Taking responsibility for the LA gov and NOLA mayor's botching of their own emergency plan?
Seems like we've forgotten what real scandal is.  Sexual relations with subordinates, lying about it, fund raising scandals, travel office scandals...one could go on for some time here.

[Perd Hapley]

Clearly those dastardly leftists have perfected mind control and force the advisors to resign.

Yes.  They hold sway over education and most media outlets.

[De Selby]

The Rabbi,

Seriously, you're right in pointing out that they aren't nation-ending or earth shattering scandals.  But lying? Yep-plenty of that going on.  That's why there's so much assertion of executive privilege going on.  Cronyism? There are definitely strong indicators.  Mismanagement? That's obvious.  I don't think there's any serious commentator that would dispute the existence of widespread mismanagement wherever the whitehouse is involved.  I mean that literally-there is no defender of the administration besides the administration itself in terms of its leadership quality.

You are also correct to call the Clinton era scandals just that.  I don't think there's any real case to be made that Clinton was the savior of the country and that he was just "innocently" cheating-he engaged in plenty of extralegal activities as well.  But he's old news-I'll be happy to hear more about what a mess his whitehouse was if by some misfortune Hillary wins the primary.

Firing prosecutors who serve at the pleasure of the president?

This is at best something that happened in circumstances of questionable legality.  Firing people because they won't investigate political rivals, and then lying about why they were fired, would constitute a scandal.  I don't actually know if that happened-but that is one of the allegations, and Gonzalez is clearly hesitant to divulge any information about what went on at all.  There's certainly enough in the published allegations to warrant attention to the issue.

Then there was also the legality of the wiretap program-that's disputed, and it comes with a really bizarre story about Gonzalez at Ashcroft's bedside.  Again, I'm not saying that makes Bush criminal numero uno, but it's certainly something that would lead reasonable folks to want to investigate the allegations.

Taking responsibility for the LA gov and NOLA mayor's botching of their own emergency plan?

I don't count that as one of the major scandals-the complete and total rip-off free-for-all that's happened with the federal funds directed towards rebuilding certainly falls under the category of scandalous, though.  Again, something to be investigated.

The more serious allegations are the CIA leak scandals, the cash in Iraq scandals, the connections between Abramoff's lobbying and the whitehouse, the possible use of Federal funds and Whitehouse information systems for the private benefit of the Republican party, and the administration's game playing with "enemy combatant status" as applied to US citizens within the continental united states. 

There's at least enough supporting the allegations above to warrant suspicion and further investigation.  And the complete and total refusal of the Whitehouse to cooperate with any investigation under the banner of "executive privilege" is at a minimum an indicator of how bad the facts might actually look to outside observers.

I don't think Bush is a radical, an evil dictator, or anything remotely similar.  But I really don't see how any serious case can be made that he's good at doing his job, or that he's just an innocent victim of the worldwide international media conspiracy. 

In my mind, it's better for conservatives to throw their lots in with more open investigations into whitehouse activity, and to make the appropriate calls based on the results.  Backing GW and claiming that he's actually a success story in this election climate is really just a sure way to alienate the mass of voters who are unimpressed and unhappy with his performance. 

[Hawkmoon]

Personally, I am still wondering why so many people say that Bush, the Ivy League MBA fighter pilot, is stupid, when their favorite candidate managed to flunk out a couple of times...

Simple. Because Bush got into Yale and graduated from Yale due to the money and influence of his father and grandfather, not because he had two functional brain cells to rub together. With all the Bush family history at Yale, Jorge could have raped the president's wife (president of Yale, that is) and not even had his wrist slapped.

Of course, I grew up under grandparents who knew his grandfather. They were Republicans, but they didn't have any kind words about the "esteemed" Senator Prescott Bush.

[wmenorr67]

Heard that Spector after receiving a classified briefing on some of the information they were trying to get out of Gonzales realized that Gonzales was unable to actually tell the truth on some subjects in an open forum that the hearings were.

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi,

Seriously, you're right in pointing out that they aren't nation-ending or earth shattering scandals.  But lying? Yep-plenty of that going on.  That's why there's so much assertion of executive privilege going on.  Cronyism? There are definitely strong indicators.  Mismanagement? That's obvious.  I don't think there's any serious commentator that would dispute the existence of widespread mismanagement wherever the whitehouse is involved.  I mean that literally-there is no defender of the administration besides the administration itself in terms of its leadership quality.

Do you have any examples/proof of "lying" as opposed to the normal functioning of a very large government?
Cronyism?  Examples, please.
Mismanagement?  Please, show me anyplace that this administration has more mismanagement than others in similar situations.  Wherever you have large amounts of money thrown at problems (e.g. Katrina) you will have mismanagement if not outright fraud.  I remember when Wilson Goode burned down half of West Philly and the city had to rebuild the houses.  There was graft galore.  It is endemic to any situation like that.

[Tallpine]

Q: Do you really want a competent government

[roo_ster]

He did approve a lot of people that were incompotent.  Joseph B. Stanford, John Bolton, John Poindexter (convicted of multiple felonies), Elliott Abrams, John Ashcroft, David Hager, the DoD neocons (Stephen Bryen, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Larry Franklin (convicted)), etc 

Just 'cause you have an axe to grind against certain folks does not make them incompetent.  There is a distinction and difference between policy/personal animosity and competence. 

Joseph B. Stanford
Calling him incompetent for orthodox Catholic religious views is roughly equivalent to folks calling pagans incompetent for their non-standard religious views. If you are prejudiced against folks due to their religion or their taking it seriously and practicing it, just come out & say so.

John Bolton
One of the very few to call the UN on its corruption.  He stood up to the UN gun-grabbers and excoriated them for their anti-RKBA notions.  Also worked in the interests of all Americans & especially American servicemen by vigorously opposing the International Criminal Court and undermining it by means of side agreements with other countries.   I want that sort of incompetence working on my side.

John Poindexter
Yes, he was convicted, but you neglect to mention they were all tossed out on appeal.  As to incompetent, a PhD in Nuclear Physics argues otherwise, not to mention his career in the Navy.

John Ashcroft
The first AG in over a century to endorse the individual RKBA embodied in the 2nd.  Also, much more his own man than many AGs.  Yeah, a lot of folks didn't like him because he was a pentecostal.  Big whoop.  I suspect there are other religions with equally discomfiting rituals adhered to by members of this board.

I could go on, but I tire and will be content with folks whose first name starts with "J." 

Now, I don't necessarily agree with all the J-folks' political positions.  I also am under no illusion that they are not competent.  To take a non-J example, I want Harriet Miers nowhere near the SCOTUS...due to her known policy views.  But all the evidence points to her being pretty competent at her White House staffer work.

[stevelyn]

Just remember - we are to hate everyone associated in any way with the Bush administration, because we have been told to...

I can think for myself very well, thank you.

The Bush administration has managed to get people to hate them all by themselves.

[Archie]

Excuse me, I seem to have mistaken a meeting of the Democratic Underground for a forum of firearm owners.

The only disgrace connected with the resignation of the Attorney General is the way the moonbat left conducted themselves - to include the U. S. 'media', the propaganda arm of the DNC.

Anytime one reads - repeatedly, I might add - statements like '...it's obvious the Bush administration is incompetent...' without any sort of explanation other than '...the media says so...' one is fairly sure of the non-intellectual and overly emotional processes in that determination.

So keep talking dirt about the first President in the last two to have both intelligence and determination.  Your masters who tell you what to think will be very happy with you.

[The Rabbi]

Hi Archie.  Thanks for stopping by.
You are confusing left-wing Bush hating paranoia with right-wing Bush hating paranoia.  Try to get them straight.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The Bush administration has managed to get people to hate them all by themselves.

I agree with that wholeheartedly.  Bush definitely isn't like other politicians.  For Bush, winning popularity contests holds a somewhat lower priority than, say, defending the country or standing up for his allies.

[De Selby]

Do you have any examples/proof of "lying" as opposed to the normal functioning of a very large government?
Cronyism?  Examples, please.
Mismanagement?  Please, show me anyplace that this administration has more mismanagement than others in similar situations.  Wherever you have large amounts of money thrown at problems (e.g. Katrina) you will have mismanagement if not outright fraud.  I remember when Wilson Goode burned down half of West Philly and the city had to rebuild the houses.  There was graft galore.  It is endemic to any situation like that.

The mismanagement, lying, and failures speak for themselves.  There is no point in recounting all of them, as that would require twenty threads to hear arguments on every one.  Take a read of any paper-there are no defenders for this administration left.  Even less so are there folks saying it's actually done and is doing a good job.  The fact that absolutely no one wants to put his name behind the claim that the Bush administration is doing a great job and we'll all thank them for it should be telling to you.

Regardless, I reject the assumption we seem to be operating on in this thread that "Bush bad=clinton good."  Acknowledging the obvious failure of the Bush administration to accomplish much of anything, and to entangle itself in scandals, does not require believing that Clinton was better, or that all conservative teams are going to be as incompetent as the Bush administration.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Do you have any examples/proof of "lying" as opposed to the normal functioning of a very large government?
Cronyism?  Examples, please.
Mismanagement?  Please, show me anyplace that this administration has more mismanagement than others in similar situations.  Wherever you have large amounts of money thrown at problems (e.g. Katrina) you will have mismanagement if not outright fraud.  I remember when Wilson Goode burned down half of West Philly and the city had to rebuild the houses.  There was graft galore.  It is endemic to any situation like that.

If you can't see mismanagent, dishonesty, and good indictators that there is lying going on, this discussion is fruitless.  Take a read of any paper-there are no defenders for this administration left.  Even less so are there folks saying it's actually done and is doing a good job.

"It's so obvious that it isn't worth discussing" is an argument of last resort to people who's arguments suck.  Rhetoric 101.