Misrepresentations by Gonzales

[vernecarty]

Rumor has it that George has left Mike Almanzor's group. Apparently he has not been allowed to give stated ministry on Sunday afternoons at the Riverside group, so he has left, taking some people with him to start something separate. This is third-hand information from someone in contact with "brethren who would know." So far, we have been unable to confirm it. Anyone wanna' bet the new group meets in the rec room at Plymouth Village in Redlands?

A pox on all their houses...

Anybody else watched the testimony of Alberto Gonzalez before the senate judiciary committee?
It is truly a heart-breaking thing to observe a former judge with so little integrity, no, who in fact appears to be nothing more than an unabashed liar.
There are men sitting on that committee who are fomer judges and prosecutors.
Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States, adamantly insisted that despite his best effort, "he has no recollection" of a meeting with his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson last November in which the dismissal of the US attorneys was discussed.
In a perverse kind of way, in view of what was done, and all the misrepresentation that has already taken place, in a worldly kind of way it was "smart" to stick to his guns. At least he had the appearance of being consistent.
Is there anyone else though with the slightest doubt that this individual is nothing but a despicable liar?
I appreciate Arlen Spectre's trying to give them a way out but referring to it as "incompetence" but that does not change the facts.
I know Bush is still claiming publicly that he supports the man and was "pleased" with his testimony.
Gonzales will be gone in thirty days.
I feel sick to my stomach for this great country that God has so richly blessed...where did we go so wrong???!!

[trac4yt]

A national launch of new attorneys will be graduating in May.
The new pepperings will be reverberating off the walls within the halls of Justice from sea to shining sea shortly.

Thus, fear not, help is on the way.

[brian]

i agree, verne, its sad to see how two-faced our nations leaders are. i only really started educating myself about politics in the past couple of years. its not a pleasent experience.

firing the attorneys wasn't really that big of a deal, those attorneys serve at the descretion of the president and can be fired by him at any time. its gonzalez's insistence that the firings were because of performance rather than politics that is bringing him down. compounding that, he lied several times about his level of involvement. once he lied enough times, he couldn't get out of the situation without losing all credibility which will most likely cost him his position.

this administration has a history of hunkering down and sticking to their lies, because the polls show that at least 30% of the nation, the blindly loyal far-right footsoldiers who don't make the effort to educate themselves on what is really going on, will keep buying it.

i think it would be such a great idea for people to be required to pass a simple test demonstrating a passing knowledge of the canidates and current events before being allowed to vote. or at least make everyone take the test and then see who the most and least informed voters voted for. it would provide a lot of insight into the weaknesses of our political process.

brian

[vernecarty]

i agree, verne, its sad to see how two-faced our nations leaders are. i only really started educating myself about politics in the past couple of years. its not a pleasent experience.

firing the attorneys wasn't really that big of a deal, those attorneys serve at the descretion of the president and can be fired by him at any time. its gonzalez's insistence that the firings were because of performance rather than politics that is bringing him down. compounding that, he lied several times about his level of involvement. once he lied enough times, he couldn't get out of the situation without losing all credibility which will most likely cost him his position.

Absolutely. There has never been any suggestion the administration did not have the right to relieve these men of duty.
What is startling is the bald-face lying that has taken place, in attempt to make that case that the firings were not for political reasons.

this administration has a history of hunkering down and sticking to their lies, because the polls show that at least 30% of the nation, the blindly loyal far-right footsoldiers who don't make the effort to educate themselves on what is really going on, will keep buying it.

i think it would be such a great idea for people to be required to pass a simple test demonstrating a passing knowledge of the canidates and current events before being allowed to vote. or at least make everyone take the test and then see who the most and least informed voters voted for. it would provide a lot of insight into the weaknesses of our political process.

brian

The hubris of bush and his enablers is really quite stunning.
I get the sense from these folk that they are of the opinion that they are subject to no law whatsoever.
He is now stating in no uncertain terms that constitutional obligation of the congress to "advise and consent" in the matters of this war is wholly negated by his position of Commander in Chief.
George Bush lacks humility.
George Bush lacks integrity.
I am most deeply offended by the man because of the fact that he used a Christian mantle to influence so many (myself included), to trust that even if he made decisions that we did not agree with, his conduct would be constrained as that of a person who knows and fears God.
I think the nation is in danger, and those of us who call ourselves believers had better be on our knees asking God to deal with him if indeed he is a Christian.
The legacy of his administration is so far a shameful one.

[trac4yt]

Wasn't the mindset with Bush vs. Gore years ago one of a values "trump" for a Christian voter?  i.e. Bush's platform tended to make the voting finger sway to the "B" button rather than the "Gc" (Clinton legacy) button?

And most disregarded the "Se1", "Se2", "Se3", etc. (someone else) buttons.

Many Christians, most likely, went with "values represented line up with my conscience better than the other guy".

Later, in the winning, sequel election, post-9/11, the mindset was seemingly "onward to Iraq victory, since-we're-there with a small force" and perhaps, "no reinstitution of the draft on my watch" platform.

[vernecarty]

Later, in the winning, sequel election, post-9/11, the mindset was seemingly "onward to Iraq victory, since-we're-there with a small force" and perhaps, "no reinstitution of the draft on my watch" platform.

Many thoughtful observers have commented about the fact that the burden of this war is being borne soley by the men in uniform and their immediate families. There is a national distance and dis-egnagement that is peculiar and almost immoral.
"So long as it is the blood of others being spilled..."

The debacle at Walter Reed was not accident but precisely mirrored the "use 'em and discard 'em" mentality of the people who got us into this with apparently little serious thought of the full implications.
I make it a point to sit and watch the faces of the soliders who died in Iraq as they are feature on the "News Hour" in slilence as their names and photos become available.
These are our men and women who are dying over there...

[outdeep]

Wasn't the mindset with Bush vs. Gore years ago one of a values "trump" for a Christian voter?  i.e. Bush's platform tended to make the voting finger sway to the "B" button rather than the "Gc" (Clinton legacy) button?

I can say my sentiments were as a values voter.  I didn't expect Bush to be a perfect Christian but I felt he would lean favorably towards our issues.  Clinton on the other hand cause a morbid "high-five" celebration of NOW members when he vetoed the ban on partial-birth abortion.  No brainer here.

However, I can't say I feel the same on this election.  Guliani's family life is a problem in my opinion.  Newt may be brilliant but carrying on an affair while condemning Clinton is a problem.  McCain pro-Choice is a problem though I admire what he did in the military.  Most of the rest I haven't heard of or

In some ways I hope a Democrat would win so they can drive the bus for a while and stop whining about how the Surpreme Court prevented Gore from cherry-picking his own election results.

[Mark C.]

this administration has a history of hunkering down and sticking to their lies, because the polls show that at least 30% of the nation, the blindly loyal far-right footsoldiers who don't make the effort to educate themselves on what is really going on, will keep buying it.

i think it would be such a great idea for people to be required to pass a simple test demonstrating a passing knowledge of the canidates and current events before being allowed to vote. or at least make everyone take the test and then see who the most and least informed voters voted for. it would provide a lot of insight into the weaknesses of our political process.

brian

Hi Brian!

  In the first quote above you mention the "30% blind far-right foot soldiers" that will support the Pres. no matter what.  There are also the 30% of the far left foot soldiers who have a blind hatred of Bush.  These leftists fear the "great right wing conspiracy" that wants to take away their drugs, take away their right to abort a child right up to the time of birth (referring to the murderous smashing of a baby's skull just before birth and then sucking out of it's brains! ), and the greatest fear of all which is the destruction of the planet due to CO2!

   "Bush lies and people die" is their mantra and no manner how you try to reason with them they seem to know that Bush has an evil agenda.  Only God knows his heart, but as a voter we must judge his actions.  Bush signed the legistlation making partial birth abortion illegal and his court appointments helped to declare this constitutional.
 

   The Democrat response from Senator Boxer:  She saw the Supreme Court decision as being an equal wrong to what the Virginia shooter did!  I don't know Boxer's heart either, but from her views I can say that I utterly reject such a morally inept understanding of human life (maybe we should give the test you talk about to political candidates first before we give it to the voter)!

  BTW, they used to have a kind of test in order to vote down South years ago, but they were declared unconstitutional.  And, who is to decide what "the truth" is on your test?  We all have a bias that will tend to ignore certain things and highlight others in an effort to push our agenda. Depending on whether George Soros or Rush Limbaugh wrote the test the "truth" would be pole opposites.

    A note to Dave:  Senator McCain is not pro-abortion and has always been pro-life (not that he doesn't have other problems )

                                              God bless us and the USA,  Mark C.     

[outdeep]

    A note to Dave:  Senator McCain is not pro-abortion and has always been pro-life (not that he doesn't have other problems )

Thank you for the correction, Mark. 

[trac4yt]

That no harm would come to a member of the armed forces would be an assumed value, we would hope.

Risk and harm comes when there is a greater value in the realms of geo-political strategies of the USA.

Some of the strategies we may be aware of in the Mideast.

Other details of the strategies may be classified, complicated, and long range.
These also may prove boring for most Americans.

Pentagon think-tank folks may consider the number of American casualties reasonable within their future forecast models.

But when does the patience of the non-Pentagon folks run out in view of mounting casualties?

Americans may put a democrat in the oval office next, unless "rabbit out of a hat", accelerated progress is a reality in Iraq before election time.

[outdeep]

That no harm would come to a member of the armed forces would be an assumed value, we would hope.

I am not sure why this would be an assumed value.  I always understood the armed forces had inherant risks.  If this was an assumed value, we really blew it in WWII.

I think because Americans don't really grasp this and feel that the deaths in Iraq is a bigger problem than the larger number of deaths on our highways and the exponential number of deaths in the womb, we will probably indeed put a Democrat in office since they are activly playing this "war ought to be safe" tune.

[trac4yt]

By assumed value, even in WWII, generals would prefer uninjured men through every battle.  I would think that this value remains constant.

Of course, due to the higher values in war of securing victories against an opposing force, the realities of maintaining uninjured men is simply not going to be the case.

If somehow Americans would no longer be dying in Iraq/Afgh., even though we remain there, pressure would probably diminish.  If we simply did fly overs that simply prevented missle-lobbing into other countries, Americans would probably say, "that's better" even though civil war may rage beneath.  If civil war increased, Americans might add, "why keep living there?  didn't you see this coming?  why didn't you stop the head thug (Saddam) years ago?  Load up the trunk and the tank and head for a safer spot."

Of course, easier said than done.

[outdeep]

Thanks.  I think I understand "more better" what you are saying.

-Dave

[outdeep]

   The Democrat response from Senator Boxer:  She saw the Supreme Court decision as being an equal wrong to what the Virginia shooter did!  I don't know Boxer's heart either, but from her views I can say that I utterly reject such a morally inept understanding of human life (maybe we should give the test you talk about to political candidates first before we give it to the voter)!

“This [partial-bith abortion ban] is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it. And to frame it as an abortion issue is doing a disservice to medicine and to our young women and our country. So I hope we can get the focus back on the fact that this Supreme Court is deciding what medical procedures are necessary for child-bearing women.”
--Nancy Pelosi Quoted in San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/22/ABORTION.TMP

Note:  The deception, of course, is in "if she needed it".  According to doctors, there are no situations where you would have to kill the fully formed baby in the womb to save the life of the mother.  The procedure that is commonly used if the mother is having problems is called c-section.  Methinks it is indeed about abortion.

[Oscar]

“This [partial-bith abortion ban] is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it. And to frame it as an abortion issue is doing a disservice to medicine and to our young women and our country. So I hope we can get the focus back on the fact that this Supreme Court is deciding what medical procedures are necessary for child-bearing women.”
--Nancy Pelosi Quoted in San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/22/ABORTION.TMP

Note:  The deception, of course, is in "if she needed it".  According to doctors, there are no situations where you would have to kill the fully formed baby in the womb to save the life of the mother.  The procedure that is commonly used if the mother is having problems is called c-section.  Methinks it is indeed about abortion.

Dave,

It is indeed about abortion.  This "procedure" is used in order to legally kill fully formed babies SO THAT THEIR BODY PARTS CAN BE HARVESTED AND SOLD!

It is nothing but high-tech CANNIBALISM!   

Tom Maddux