Gonzales at the Senate Judiciary Committee

[interesteddad]

<p>

He can join the lying rubbish heap along with the Secretary of State.

</p>

<p>Yep. Condoleeza Rice has earned every bit as much scorn as Abu Gonzales. She’s just a sychophant water carrier, too.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Statement from Presidental Press Spokeswoman Dana Perino tonight:</p>

<p>

President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General’s testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators’ questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence.

</p>

<p>You bet the President was pleased. Abu kept his mouth shut about Bush and Rove and Meiers ordering the firing of the US Attorneys.</p>

[NYMomof2]

<p>There are a few clips of his testimony on crooksandliars.com. Schumer states that he has answered over 100 questions with “I don’t recall…”</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>At least he didn’t have any trouble with the definition of the word, “is.”</p>

<p>

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “there’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):</p>

<p>“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not–that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement…Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/[/url]”>http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[mini]

<p>Yeah, it’s all Clinton’s fault. </p>

<p>Stay the course.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=gonzales&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&search_category=0[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=gonzales&search_sort=video_date_uploaded&search_category=0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>There are a whole slew of labeled clips on YouTube. </p>

<p>C-Span has the full morning and afternoon sessions online here:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Judiciary/Courts&CatCodePairs=Issue,JC;[/url]”>http://www.c-span.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Judiciary/Courts&CatCodePairs=Issue,JC;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[razorsharp]

<p>Few people remember the nuiances of their daily discussions that are not of significance at the time. Only later did the issue become significant because of Democratic witch hunts. His answers today are understandable. If Gonzales had known that Democrats would find objectionable firing people for political reason when those people were hired for political reasons, he would have remembered his conversations better.</p>

<p>It is unfortunate Democrats don’t spend more time legislating than investigating.</p>

[mini]

<p>Hardly a nuance when you fire some one for poor performance based on a performance evaluation you never looked at. </p>

<p>I’d have no problems with firing someone if s/he doesn’t toe the political line. Just say so. It would have blown over in 72 hours. Instead, we get to watch this jerk twist in the wind.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>What I have garnered from today’s “testimony” is that Gonzales was a manager by name only, he “delegated” and questioned pretty much nothing</p>

<p>He wasn’t proactive. WHen asked about voter intimidation, he said that when you are checking on voter fraud, youhave to be careful to not scare voter…huh? Not even close to the voter intimidation being referred to.</p>

<p>He knew little about any current cases being looked into, except where prepped by GOP questions</p>

<p>When asked about the emails, he was totally clueless</p>

<p>As for tying this to Clinton, is that the best you got…laughable</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>And he said during his testimony they knew this was going to be “questionable” so you can bet he either knew, or said, just do it and don’t give me details so i can deny it later, so to claim, well, they didn’t think it would be a big deal, please, they prepare for everything, and have a spin ready</p>

<p>Witchunts, guess an Attoreny General lying is a good thing, and saying, i don’t recall to cover lies, please, would you buy that from your wife or husband</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Don’t kid yourself. Abu Gonzales is hardly clueless. Those were very carefully prepped answers:</p>

<p>

WHen asked about voter intimidation, he said that when you are checking on voter fraud, youhave to be careful to not scare voter…huh? Not even close to the voter intimidation being referred to.

</p>

<p>Oh, he knew exactly what that question is about. The Bush Justice Department has GUTTED the voter rights division. And, one of Karl Rove’s primary campaign strategies is to suppress minority voting through the intimidation of voter fraud cases. That’s why these US Attorneys were fired three weeks after the 2006 election.</p>

<p>

When asked about the emails, he was totally clueless

</p>

<p>Hardly clueless. The Senators asked him if it is true that Patrick Fitzgerald (and therefore the Justice Depart) had possession of all of Karl Rove’s RNC and White House e-mails, even the “missing” ones. And, if so, would Justice provide them as subpoena’d by the committee. Abu’s answer was a mastery of obsfuscation. I don’t recall if we had them. And, if we did have them, I don’t recall if we still do (red flag!). And, if we do have them, I don’t know if we could provide them because there may be White House “equity” in those e-mails. In short, “go eff yourselves”.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Okay, clueless in his “answer” not clueles in his actual knowledge</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

Hardly a nuance when you fire some one for poor performance based on a performance evaluation you never looked at.

The democrats are devoting substantial time, money, and resources to worrying about how a few political appointees were fired. I would rather see the Democrats focusing on something more important like giving the President authority to raise the CAFE standards as he has asked. That would affect all Americans. The Demoracts look like dogs chasing their tails. Much ado about nothing.</p>

[VeryHappy]

<p>

Much ado about nothing.

</p>

<p>The Bush Administration has lied and twisted the facts to suit their own agendas, starting with tying Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9/11. We are spending BILLIONS on this war. </p>

<p>What about appointing Joshua Bolton et al. to their positions during Congressional recesses?</p>

<p>The Bushies have twisted every law, every public statement, to their advantage. I’ve never seen such a bunch of lying, coniving, unethical morons.</p>

<p>Other than that, I think Bushie is doing a heckofa job.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

The Bush Administration has lied and twisted the facts to suit their own agendas, starting with tying Saddam Hussein and Iraq to 9/11. We are spending BILLIONS on this war.

You just gave another example of something much more important than a few political appointees. </p>

<p>As you post reveals, this issue is just democrat payback and it is petty and a waste of time. </p>

<p>

What about appointing Joshua Bolton et al. to their positions during Congressional recesses?

You mean like the way Clinton did with Roger Gregory being appointed to the 4th circuit court of appeals. Bush must have gotten the idea from Clinton. </p>

<p>

The Bushies have twisted every law, every public statement, to their advantage. I’ve never seen such a bunch of lying, coniving, unethical morons.

Yep, like I said - petty partisian payback instead of focusing on governing. Democrats at their best – how about those first 100 hours?</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>

Yep, like I said - petty partisian payback instead of focusing on governing. Democrats at their best – how about those first 100 hours?

</p>

<p>ABC News/Washington Post Poll
April 12-15, 2007.
N=1,141 adults nationwide.
MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.</p>

<p>“Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their job?”</p>

<p>54% Approve
44% Disapprove
2% Unsure</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>ABC News/Washington Post Poll
April 12-15, 2007.
N=1,141 adults nationwide.
MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.</p>

<p>“The Department of Justice recently fired eight chief federal prosecutors. Based on what you know, do you think these eight U.S. attorneys were fired mainly on the basis of their performance, or mainly for political reasons?” </p>

<p>19% Performance
67% Political Reasons
14% Unsure </p>

<p>“Do you approve or disapprove of the way U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has handled this issue?”</p>

<p>24% Approve
58% Disapprove
18% Unsure </p>

<p>USA Today/Gallup Poll
April 13-15, 2007.
N=1,007 adults nationwide.
MoE ± 3 (for all adults).</p>

<p>“Do you approve or disapprove of Congress issuing a subpoena forcing the Justice Department to hand over documents in the investigation into these dismissals?”</p>

<p>67% Approve
23% Disapprove
10% Unsure</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[razorsharp]

<p>

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act,” according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

<a href=“ReadNews.dbm - Zogby Rehab, Mental Health”>ReadNews.dbm - Zogby Rehab, Mental Health;

<p>In other words, polls don’t tell much about the truth.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>Truth?</p>

<p>We are talking about the Bush administration. This bunch of hacks wouldn’t know anything about the truth if it bit them on the you know what.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>RZ, the Democratic legislative agenda is being blocked by the White House right now. Shouldn’t be a problem after Jan. 20, 2009. And with a few more Senate seats to boot. Making Joe Lieberman utterly irrelevant would be a small but delicious morsel on the side.</p>

<p>The White House m.o. these days it to tell people to shut up and clap louder.
Go head and think the Democrats are making much ado about nothing; we’re going to hand you your heads on a platter. You’ll wish for the good old days of 2006.</p>

[interesteddad]

<p>TheDad:</p>

<p>The biggest surprise in today’s Senate hearing was the visciousness of the Republican attacks. Spector, Sessions, and Graham were all jumping like rats from a sinking ship. You know you’re in trouble when Coburn from Oklahoma calls for your resignation! And, I mean, angrily calls for your resignation.</p>

<p>Fine with me. The loyal Bushies are going to take a lot of Republican senators and congressmen down in 2008. Coleman, Sununu, Domenici, Warner. When it’s all said and done, I wouldn’t be surprised to even see a Susan Collins be swept up in a house cleaning.</p>

<p>BTW, did you catch McCain singing “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” on YouTube. Has he lost his ever lovin’ mind?</p>