Should Gonzales resign?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Darrel Issa CA ( R )

Now, the White House doesn't owe the senator or myself an explanation of why they choose to get rid of any appointee. But once they give a reason, then we can hold them accountable. And that's what this is all about right now.

This is where the House and the Senate, Republican and Democrats, agree that this attorney general and everyone involved needs to come down and explain to us, not per se why the president chose to fire these people, but why we were deceived.

Both the House and the Senate were deceived by individuals who were given bad information and sent down to literally say what others, including Kyle Sampson, knew was not true. That kind of hubris by this administration has to be cleared up, and everyone responsible has to be held accountable.

...

So let's not mix whether or not these people should have been let go or the president had a right to do, with the fact that all of us want to know who led Congress astray. The House and the Senate were LIED to, not by the people that were sent to the Hill, but by the people who sent them there. And every one of those people owes us a resignation.

And that's the difference, perhaps, between what the Democrats are walking around. If someone led us astray, they should resign. And I don't care how high it is: Anyone involved with this cover-up of giving us the truth needs to step down.

...

Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.

Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.

Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.

In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's own e-mail. Quote: "Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-jun...neys_03-13.html

[drewau02 0]

If Alberto Gonzalez is to resign, then he should resign over being a spineless windbag throughout this entire ordeal.

I cannot believe the he is actually apologizing for firing U.S Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Clinton cleaned house with his U.S Attorneys during his first few months in office, firing most, if not all of them. I didn't have a problem when Clinton did it either. After all, he was the President and it's his call. Same deal with Bush. They serve at his pleasure and he can fire them whenever he chooses. Personally, I'm surprised that he kept these Democrat attorneys around this long and put Republicans Attorneys in their place.

Then again, if President Bush was going to fire anyone, then he should have fired that idiot US Attorney in Texas who sent those two Border Patrol agents to jail for shooting a drug smuggler and felon and that loser in Florida who conducted a witch hunt against Rush Limbaugh. I'm pretty sure that the nutcase who prosecuted Limbaugh was appointed by Bush. I could be wrong.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

If Alberto Gonzalez is to resign, then he should resign over being a spineless windbag throughout this entire ordeal.

I cannot believe the he is actually apologizing for firing U.S Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Clinton cleaned house with his U.S Attorneys during his first few months in office, firing most, if not all of them. I didn't have a problem when Clinton did it either. After all, he was the President and it's his call. Same deal with Bush. They serve at his pleasure and he can fire them whenever he chooses. Personally, I'm surprised that he kept these Democrat attorneys around this long and put Republicans Attorneys in their place.

And, of course, you don't get it. These weren't Democrats. These were the folks he appointed after the Dems resigned when he was elected. David Iglesias was the JAG attorney "A Few Good Men" was based on. Drudge is making a big deal out of Reno requesting resignations in 1993. Standard practice. It was no secret. This is Bush replacing folks who were investigating Republicans, or not serving Republican interests by indicting Dems before elections. The email trail shows they used a little know provision in the Patriot Act to avoid the Senate confirmation process, even though there was no national security issue at stake. It was all purely political and well beyond the fact that these were political appointees. So are judges, but you don't try to manipulate them either for purely political purposes. Then they trashed their reputations, even though most had stellar evaluations, all in an effort to defend their actions. Then they lied to Congress about it.

Bush can fire them for political purposes. It is wrong and unethical, but he can do it. He should just be up front about it.

[Tiger Al 0]

If Alberto Gonzalez is to resign, then he should resign over being a spineless windbag throughout this entire ordeal.

I cannot believe the he is actually apologizing for firing U.S Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Clinton cleaned house with his U.S Attorneys during his first few months in office, firing most, if not all of them. I didn't have a problem when Clinton did it either. After all, he was the President and it's his call. Same deal with Bush. They serve at his pleasure and he can fire them whenever he chooses. Personally, I'm surprised that he kept these Democrat attorneys around this long and put Republicans Attorneys in their place.

And, of course, you don't get it. These weren't Democrats. These were the folks he appointed after the Dems resigned when he was elected. David Iglesias was the JAG attorney "A Few Good Men" was based on. Drudge is making a big deal out of Reno requesting resignations in 1993. Standard practice. It was no secret. This is Bush replacing folks who were investigating Republicans, or not serving Republican interests by indicting Dems before elections. The email trail shows they used a little know provision in the Patriot Act to avoid the Senate confirmation process, even though there was no national security issue at stake. It was all purely political and well beyond the fact that these were political appointees. So are judges, but you don't try to manipulate them either for purely political purposes. Then they trashed their reputations, even though most had stellar evaluations, all in an effort to defend their actions. Then they lied to Congress about it.

Bush can fire them for political purposes. It is wrong and unethical, but he can do it. He should just be up front about it.

Here's my attempt at altruism for the day. I'll save the Fox crowd some repetitive stress syndrome.

LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!!!!!!!!!

[drewau02 0]

If Alberto Gonzalez is to resign, then he should resign over being a spineless windbag throughout this entire ordeal.

I cannot believe the he is actually apologizing for firing U.S Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Clinton cleaned house with his U.S Attorneys during his first few months in office, firing most, if not all of them. I didn't have a problem when Clinton did it either. After all, he was the President and it's his call. Same deal with Bush. They serve at his pleasure and he can fire them whenever he chooses. Personally, I'm surprised that he kept these Democrat attorneys around this long and put Republicans Attorneys in their place.

And, of course, you don't get it. These weren't Democrats. These were the folks he appointed after the Dems resigned when he was elected. David Iglesias was the JAG attorney "A Few Good Men" was based on. Drudge is making a big deal out of Reno requesting resignations in 1993. Standard practice. It was no secret. This is Bush replacing folks who were investigating Republicans, or not serving Republican interests by indicting Dems before elections. The email trail shows they used a little know provision in the Patriot Act to avoid the Senate confirmation process, even though there was no national security issue at stake. It was all purely political and well beyond the fact that these were political appointees. So are judges, but you don't try to manipulate them either for purely political purposes. Then they trashed their reputations, even though most had stellar evaluations, all in an effort to defend their actions. Then they lied to Congress about it.

Bush can fire them for political purposes. It is wrong and unethical, but he can do it. He should just be up front about it.

First,

Bush couldn't manipulate judges if he tried. After all, he can't even get em through the Senate Judiciary Committee when the likes of Ted Kennedy and Pat Lahey fillibuster them and deny them confirmation. So forget that.

And of course, you don't get what I was saying in my earlier post. It doesn't matter if they were Attornyes appointed by Clinton, the previous administration, or the freeking Easter Bunny. He's the President, it's his call. If Drudge wanted to make a big deal of it way back in '93, then maybe he should have tried convincing more Americans to vote for the other guy instead of Clinton.

What Republicans are you referring too? Any names? Tom Delay, your favorite whipping boy? Cased closed on him. Mark Foley? Case closed on him. Duke Cunningham? Locked up.

I'm sure these Attorneys were busy filing subpeonas against William Jefferson (D-LA). If memory serves me correctly, the Bush Administration and Congress defended Jefferson in his "cold cash" case. That crook has a file on him that makes Tom Delay look like a freeking choir boy and yet, he still has his seat.

The Bush Administration used a provision in the Patriot Act to precisely avoid the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, Ted Kennedy has been nothing but a perpetual headache for the Bush Administration and every other Republican Administration since the days of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Why have this fight when you can avoid it. The Patriot Act is valid law up to this point.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

If Alberto Gonzalez is to resign, then he should resign over being a spineless windbag throughout this entire ordeal.

I cannot believe the he is actually apologizing for firing U.S Attorneys who serve at the pleasure of the president.

Clinton cleaned house with his U.S Attorneys during his first few months in office, firing most, if not all of them. I didn't have a problem when Clinton did it either. After all, he was the President and it's his call. Same deal with Bush. They serve at his pleasure and he can fire them whenever he chooses. Personally, I'm surprised that he kept these Democrat attorneys around this long and put Republicans Attorneys in their place.

And, of course, you don't get it. These weren't Democrats. These were the folks he appointed after the Dems resigned when he was elected. David Iglesias was the JAG attorney "A Few Good Men" was based on. Drudge is making a big deal out of Reno requesting resignations in 1993. Standard practice. It was no secret. This is Bush replacing folks who were investigating Republicans, or not serving Republican interests by indicting Dems before elections. The email trail shows they used a little know provision in the Patriot Act to avoid the Senate confirmation process, even though there was no national security issue at stake. It was all purely political and well beyond the fact that these were political appointees. So are judges, but you don't try to manipulate them either for purely political purposes. Then they trashed their reputations, even though most had stellar evaluations, all in an effort to defend their actions. Then they lied to Congress about it.

Bush can fire them for political purposes. It is wrong and unethical, but he can do it. He should just be up front about it.

First,

Bush couldn't manipulate judges if he tried. After all, he can't even get em through the Senate Judiciary Committee when the likes of Ted Kennedy and Pat Lahey fillibuster them and deny them confirmation. So forget that.

And of course, you don't get what I was saying in my earlier post. It doesn't matter if they were Attornyes appointed by Clinton, the previous administration, or the freeking Easter Bunny. He's the President, it's his call. If Drudge wanted to make a big deal of it way back in '93, then maybe he should have tried convincing more Americans to vote for the other guy instead of Clinton.

What Republicans are you referring too? Any names? Tom Delay, your favorite whipping boy? Cased closed on him. Mark Foley? Case closed on him. Duke Cunningham? Locked up.

I'm sure these Attorneys were busy filing subpeonas against William Jefferson (D-LA). If memory serves me correctly, the Bush Administration and Congress defended Jefferson in his "cold cash" case. That crook has a file on him that makes Tom Delay look like a freeking choir boy and yet, he still has his seat.

The Bush Administration used a provision in the Patriot Act to precisely avoid the Senate Judiciary Committee. After all, Ted Kennedy has been nothing but a perpetual headache for the Bush Administration and every other Republican Administration since the days of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Why have this fight when you can avoid it. The Patriot Act is valid law up to this point.

I can't even make sense out of what you're saying, but in regard to Duke Cunningham, one of the fired attorneys had built that case and was digging deeper when she got the axe.

In an e-mail dated May 11, 2006, Sampson urged the White House counsel's office to call him regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," who then the U.S. attorney for southern California. Earlier that morning, the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam's corruption investigation of former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., had expanded to include another California Republican, Rep Jerry Lewis.

She had to go. The timeline:

The timing is well worth noting. But look what else was happening in the couple weeks before May 11th, and how many of these events were tied to the San Diego US Attorney's Office's expanded Cunningham investigation.

April 28th, 2006 -- Cunningham-Wilkes-Foggo "Hookergate" scandal breaks open. Probe grows out of San Diego US Attorney's Office's Cunningham investigation. CIA Director Goss denies involvement.

April 29th, 2006 -- Washington Post reports that Hookergate's Shirlington Limo Service had $21 million contract with Department of Homeland Security.

May 2nd, 2006 -- Kyle "Dusty" Foggo confirms attendence at Wilkes/Cunningham Hookergate parties.

May 4th, 2006 -- Watergate Hotel subpoenaed in San Diego/Cunningham/Hookergate probe.

May 5th, 2006 -- Porter Goss resigns as Director of Central Intelligence.

May 5th, 2006 -- WSJ reports that Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who Goss installed as #3 at CIA, is under criminal investigation as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation.

May 6th, 2006 -- WaPo reports on questionable DHS contract awarded to Shirlington Limo, the 'hookergate' Limo service under scrutiny as part of the San Diego/Cunningham investigation. Similar report in the Times.

May 7th, 2006 -- House Committee to investigate DHS contract with Hookergate's Shirlington Limo.

May 8th, 2006 -- Lyle "Dusty" Foggo resigns at CIA.

May 11th, 2006 -- LA Times reports that Cunningham investigation has expanded into the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), House Appropriations Committee Chairman.

May 12th, 2006 -- Federal agents working on the San Diego/Cunningham investigation execute search warrants on the home and CIA office of Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/013023.php

Take a deep breath and think about it. You probably still won't get it, but at least think about it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Take a deep breath and think about. You probably still won't get it, but at least think about it.

Does (s)he remind you of anyone else?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Take a deep breath and think about it. You probably still won't get it, but at least think about it.

Does (s)he remind you of anyone else?

Unfortunately, too many others.

[Ranger12 46]

So, if he does resign, you will have liberals claiming Bush made him resign and if Gonzales would have been white instead of a minority, Bush would not have asked him to resign. Forget the fact that Bush has put more minorities in powerful positions then any democratic president ever has.

If you ask me, it seems awful racist of the liberals to call for Gonzales' resignation. Has he really done anything that warrants a resignation? Has he done anything differently then past administrations have done?

When it comes to libbies, damned if he does, damned if he don't.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

So, if he does resign, you will have liberals claiming Bush made him resign and if Gonzales would have been white instead of a minority, Bush would not have asked him to resign. Forget the fact that Bush has put more minorities in powerful positions then any democratic president ever has.

If you ask me, it seems awful racist of the liberals to call for Gonzales' resignation. Has he really done anything that warrants a resignation? Has he done anything differently then past administrations have done?

When it comes to libbies, damned if he does, damned if he don't.

I hope you're drunk.

[drewau02 0]

Typical. You don't debate what I say, you just accuse me of not making any sense. Then, you post a column favorable to your cause. Why don't you post more objective columns that tell the whole story? Well, it's probably because you don't want the whole story told. All you do is provide a time line that does nothing more than insenuate foul play here.

If all this happened in 2006, why did Bush wait until one year later to fire Lam? If she had to go, then why did she not go last year? Why did Bush wait one year so she could continue to build her case against Lewis?

Lam wasn't the only Attorney fired. What about the other ones? Who were they investigating?

Maybe Lewis is guilty. He's no more guilty than William Jefferson, whose name you refuse to mention. He's no more guilty than Sandy Burger.

The Dems have Congress. If they want to investigate this matter and timeline, then they have the power to do so.

If Lewis is guilty, then the next Democrat president can appoint an attorney who can open the book on him again and prosecute him, if indeed he is guilty. Hell, they can investigate Bush too and maybe expose him. The truth always comes out sooner or later.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Typical. You don't debate what I say, you just accuse me of not making any sense. Then, you post a column favorable to your cause. Why don't you post more objective columns that tell the whole story? Well, it's probably because you don't want the whole story told. All you do is provide a time line that does nothing more than insenuate foul play here.

If all this happened in 2006, why did Bush wait until one year later to fire Lam? If she had to go, then why did she not go last year? Why did Bush wait one year so she could continue to build her case against Lewis?

You have to make sense before I can debate what you say. You are so eager to avoid this topic you've worked in Kennedy, Burger and the Easter Bunny. I'll stick to the topic at hand.

I provided a factual timeline. You post whatever you want. Funny, you criticize me for providing facts that support my point. Shame on me!! "Bad libbie, bad libbie!"

But he waited far less than a year-- he waited until after the election, right before Christmas when attention was largely elsewhere. If it were truly a performance issue, why wait at all? If its all about performance, why single out this case for a phone call. Why not put it in an email?

[drewau02 0]

You have to make sense before I can debate what you say. You are so eager to avoid this topic you've worked in Kennedy, Burger and the Easter Bunny. I'll stick to the topic at hand.

Okay, in plain English. The President has a right to fire US Attorneys, despite the cause. Savey? The Democrats, as the majority in Congress, have a right to investigate Bush and Gonzalez for stonewalling an investigation. Savey? I mentioned Kennedy and Lehay because you claimed that Gonzales and Bush went around the Senate Judiciary Committee byway of the Patriot Act with these firings. I explained why. This process would have been a headache because of the likes of Kennedy and Lahey. Savey? I added the Easter Bunny for humor but obviously you didn't catch that.

I provided a factual timeline. You post whatever you want. Funny, you criticize me for providing facts that support my point. Shame on me!! "Bad libbie, bad libbie!"

It's funny how you posted a timeline from the LA Times and the vigorous reporting done by the Washington Post. I wonder how many "timeline" stories they posted about Sandy Burger stuffing forged documents down his pants during the time of the 9-11 commission hearings? Sure, they will post a timeline about a Republican but a Democrat? I seriously doubt it. If they did, then I didn't hear about it or have yet to read it.

I also asked you how many other Republicans were being investigated by these attorneys, besides Lewis. After all, Lam wasn't the only one fired. Come on, I want some more names. You're all insistent on this being the biggest cover up since Water Gate so please, enlighten us "non-nuanced conservatives" here.

It's also funny how you failed to mention the memo circulated by Harriet Meyers back in 2004 regarding the possible firings of 93 US Attorneys so that the Bush Administration could start over with a clean slate. You failed to mention that Bush rejected this idea back then. But then again, that's before all the "evil, despicable, Republicans" needed to have their sins covered up, right?

What about this Iglesias cat who refused to investigate the matter in New Mexico over voter fraud and registering illegal aliens to vote? He didn't pursue this to my knowledge. Think that may have had something to do with his firing?

But he waited far less than a year-- he waited until after the election, right before Christmas when attention was largely elsewhere. If it were truly a performance issue, why wait at all?

This is actually one of the rare smart PR things that the Bush Administration has ever done. If he fires any Democrat before the election, then it's "culture of corruption this, culture of corruption, that" blah blah. It would have been an incessant campaign issue against Republicans when everything else was going against them. They didn't need this case being brought up. Whenever you fire Attorneys who support the other party, then it's always contraversial. So yes, firing them when attention was elsewhere was actually a smart play for the Bush Administration. Any other president would do it.

Bush should have fired these people, whome I think he appointed earlier than '07. Just like he should have fired all those Dems in the state department and should have hired someone who would clean up the CIA. Of course, Bush's plan was to be a "uniter" of both parties and this philosophy has not served him well. I think that he's finally starting to understand this but it may be too little, too late.

If the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee don't like his new appointees, then they have the legal authority to vote against their confirmation after the one year recess appointment they get.

I'm done with this argument. These firings were legal and ethical. If you don't believe so, then write Harry Waxman and crew and tell them to investigate this. They'll get Gonzalez under oath and then we'll see what's what. They have the authority. Furthermore, don't they have the so called "timeline" as well? So this case should be a slam dunk, right?

[AFTiger 282]

TT and AL, here is a napkin. Wipe the drool from your chest. Bush can fire any ot them at any time and for no reason just as Clinton fired 93 for no reason. Oh yeah, there was an investigtion on him being conducted by the US Attorny in Arkansas. It kinda went away for awhile.

[otterinbham 0]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Then indicted. Politics hell, he broke the law.

[Tiger Al 0]

I like how at his press conference he kept stating how he accepted responsibility and was accountable, yet, he claimed to not know anything about Sampson firing some of his field lieutenents. He made a CEO analogy which fails miserably because, if he's the CEO, he was unaware that his 'district managers' had been canned.

[CCTAU 3,350]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

[otterinbham 0]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

What you didn't address is the total lack of a coherent strategy on the part of Bush. The entire foundation for our invasion of Iraq was non-existent. So instead of actually tackling terrorism and Al Queda, we're mired in an endless conflict that was unrelated to the war on terror, and now actually provides inspiration for those against us while sucking up valuable manpower, resources, and credibility. I spend a lot of time dealing with military types in asymmetrical warfare, guys who have done important and unheralded work in places such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Africa, and all of them agree that the entire Iraq episode was utterly unrelated to the true war against Bin Laden. As one colonel put it, it's this war's answer to Gallipoli: Ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and seriously damaging to the war's overall strategy.

[CCTAU 3,350]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

What you didn't address is the total lack of a coherent strategy on the part of Bush. The entire foundation for our invasion of Iraq was non-existent. So instead of actually tackling terrorism and Al Queda, we're mired in an endless conflict that was unrelated to the war on terror, and now actually provides inspiration for those against us while sucking up valuable manpower, resources, and credibility. I spend a lot of time dealing with military types in asymmetrical warfare, guys who have done important and unheralded work in places such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Africa, and all of them agree that the entire Iraq episode was utterly unrelated to the true war against Bin Laden. As one colonel put it, it's this war's answer to Gallipoli: Ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and seriously damaging to the war's overall strategy.

At this point in time it does not matter what we did before. What matters is making it work for the future. I was under the impression that we were in a war against terrorism, not a was against Bin Laden?

[channonc 466]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

What you didn't address is the total lack of a coherent strategy on the part of Bush. The entire foundation for our invasion of Iraq was non-existent. So instead of actually tackling terrorism and Al Queda, we're mired in an endless conflict that was unrelated to the war on terror, and now actually provides inspiration for those against us while sucking up valuable manpower, resources, and credibility. I spend a lot of time dealing with military types in asymmetrical warfare, guys who have done important and unheralded work in places such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Africa, and all of them agree that the entire Iraq episode was utterly unrelated to the true war against Bin Laden. As one colonel put it, it's this war's answer to Gallipoli: Ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and seriously damaging to the war's overall strategy.

At this point in time it does not matter what we did before. What matters is making it work for the future. I was under the impression that we were in a war against terrorism, not a was against Bin Laden?

And how is "terrorist" defined???

[otterinbham 0]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

What you didn't address is the total lack of a coherent strategy on the part of Bush. The entire foundation for our invasion of Iraq was non-existent. So instead of actually tackling terrorism and Al Queda, we're mired in an endless conflict that was unrelated to the war on terror, and now actually provides inspiration for those against us while sucking up valuable manpower, resources, and credibility. I spend a lot of time dealing with military types in asymmetrical warfare, guys who have done important and unheralded work in places such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Africa, and all of them agree that the entire Iraq episode was utterly unrelated to the true war against Bin Laden. As one colonel put it, it's this war's answer to Gallipoli: Ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and seriously damaging to the war's overall strategy.

At this point in time it does not matter what we did before. What matters is making it work for the future. I was under the impression that we were in a war against terrorism, not a was against Bin Laden?

Hmmm...No need to be snide. I did refer to terrorism and Al Queda in my post, however Bin Laden is justifiably a huge focal point for the conflict because of his financing and organizational ability. However, to return to the original discussion, you make the assertion that it really doesn't matter what we did before. Actually, I'll challenge you on that, because it makes a huge difference. There's going to come a time in this struggle when a large scale military operation will be necessary, along with all the landing rights, overflight permissions, staging areas, etc. etc. etc. And yet, our potential allies and partners now have to look at any request on our part with well-founded skepticism, chiefly because of our ill-considered foray into Iraq. And that, my friend, must be laid at the doorstep of the current administration.

[Tigermike 3,055]

All politics is timing and message. What is remarkable to me is how tone-deaf this administration really is. Yeah, sure, Hillary fired a bunch of prosecutors when she was First Lady. But in 1996, the Clinton Presidency had yet to pile up one critical gaffe after another--while the current Bush administration can't seem to make a competent decision. And we can blame the MSM all we want, but the reality of things is that this administration has public approval numbers below Nixon's at the end of Watergate, numbers that are heading lower by the day.

What is so outrageous about Bush is how badly he has squandered a historic opportunity to change the shape of government in this country, and thrust this country into an endless nightmare in Iraq without a coherent strategy. As a result, rational conservatism will be doomed in this country for a generation.

No reason for anybody to resign. Clinton set the stage for, "if it ain't illegal, you can do anything." Now that a republican is making decisions, it bad, wrong, immoral. Hogwash.

I bet the families of the 9-11 victims are still in an endless nightmare too. Let's just hope the nightmare stays in the middle east and not back here in the US. The strategy is to keep them fighting elsewhere. We'll never rid the world of terrorism as long as islam is around. The best we can do is dictate where we fight them. Right now, that's in Iraq. The world is learning a harsh truth from this. Yes, we are paying the price, but the world is beginning to see that islam will bring about destructin of the modern world if left unchecked. So I choose the endless nightmare in Iraq to an endless nightmare here on our own soil.

What you didn't address is the total lack of a coherent strategy on the part of Bush. The entire foundation for our invasion of Iraq was non-existent. So instead of actually tackling terrorism and Al Queda, we're mired in an endless conflict that was unrelated to the war on terror, and now actually provides inspiration for those against us while sucking up valuable manpower, resources, and credibility. I spend a lot of time dealing with military types in asymmetrical warfare, guys who have done important and unheralded work in places such as the Philippines, Thailand, and Africa, and all of them agree that the entire Iraq episode was utterly unrelated to the true war against Bin Laden. As one colonel put it, it's this war's answer to Gallipoli: Ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-executed, and seriously damaging to the war's overall strategy.

At this point in time it does not matter what we did before. What matters is making it work for the future. I was under the impression that we were in a war against terrorism, not a was against Bin Laden?

Hmmm...No need to be snide. I did refer to terrorism and Al Queda in my post, however Bin Laden is justifiably a huge focal point for the conflict because of his financing and organizational ability. However, to return to the original discussion, you make the assertion that it really doesn't matter what we did before. Actually, I'll challenge you on that, because it makes a huge difference. There's going to come a time in this struggle when a large scale military operation will be necessary, along with all the landing rights, overflight permissions, staging areas, etc. etc. etc. And yet, our potential allies and partners now have to look at any request on our part with well-founded skepticism, chiefly because of our ill-considered foray into Iraq. And that, my friend, must be laid at the doorstep of the current administration.

If the dims get their way will we still need those "landing rights, overflight permissions, staging areas, etc. etc. etc.", on the way out?

[CCTAU 3,350]

And how is "terrorist" defined???

In true dim terms, as "is" is.

Anybody who wants to blow up innocent people for no reason. Aka. the muslix iranians running into Baghdad to "help" the cause. Bin Laden is part of the terrorist crowd, but he is not THE terrorist crowd. Sure, they are coming out of the woodwork in Iraq. I'm not really sure how we could have liberated Iraq and truly stopped all terroristic actions in that region without first demolishing the surrounding islamic fascist countries.

But should we have Gonzales resign over it? According to some out there, everything this administration does is a quagmire. Clinton was just about the most quagmirish president we've had and he got a pass on almost everything. So to equate the Gonzales issue with Iraq is just jumping on the pile for the camera because one was too lame to get in on the initial tackle.

[channonc 466]

And how is "terrorist" defined???

In true dim terms, as "is" is.

Anybody who wants to blow up innocent people for no reason.

Would you include gang riots or crimes like that?