Wash. Post's Marcus ignored key info in concluding Gonzales not guilty of perjury
In her July 31 column "defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales," The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus wrote: "I don't think [Gonzales] actually lied about his March 2004 hospital encounter with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft. I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury." Marcus went on to question whether the July 26 testimony of FBI Director Robert S. Mueller before the House Judiciary Committee "really contradict[s] Gonzales or turn[s] him into a perjurer." But Marcus did not quote Mueller's full statement, leaving out a key part in which Mueller affirmed the opposite of what Gonzales now claims.
In addition, Marcus focused exclusively on the question of whether Gonzales perjured himself regarding the hospital confrontation, while ignoring other aspects of Gonzales testimony that may constitute perjury. For instance, while Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 24 that a March 10, 2004, briefing for the congressional "Gang of Eight" concerned "other intelligence activities" as opposed to the warrantless domestic wiretapping program, an unclassified letter from then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to then-Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) stated that the meeting was "on the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's preferred term for that NSA program. Gonzales also testified to the House Judiciary Committee that he had "not gone back and spoken directly with" those "involved" in the controversial firing of nine federal prosecutors, a claim disputed by former Justice Department official Monica Goodling. Both of these instances were noted by four Democratic senators in their request for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Gonzales. However, Marcus made no mention of either issue in her column.
A July 27 Post article reported that Mueller, in his testimony before the House a day earlier, "contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration." As Media Matters for America has documented, this debate culminated in an attempt by then-White House counsel Gonzales to pressure then-Attorney General Ashcroft to approve "a classified program," thought at the time to be the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. On that date, then-deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, who was acting AG as Ashcroft lay ill at a hospital, had refused to recertify the legality of the program. As the Post noted, during his testimony, Mueller confirmed that, based on a discussion he had with Ashcroft after Gonzales left Ashcroft's hospital room, the March 10, 2004, hospital room confrontation, which Mueller did not observe first-hand, concerned "an NSA program that has been much discussed." From Mueller's July 26 testimony:
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): So my question to you, first of all: Did you ever speak with either Mr. Gonzales or Mr. [then-White House chief of staff Andrew] Card while they were at the hospital?
MUELLER: No, ma'am.
JACKSON LEE: And if you did not do that, did any of your agents speak to those individuals?
MUELLER: I don't believe so. We -- I arrived at the hospital after Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had left.
JACKSON LEE: The discussion -- and I don't know if you did arrive -- it was -- did you have an opportunity to talk to General Ashcroft or did he discuss what was discussed in the meeting with Attorney General Gonzales and the chief of staff?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft.
JACKSON LEE: I'm sorry?
MUELLER: I did have a brief discussion with Attorney General Ashcroft after I arrived.
JACKSON LEE: And did he indicate the details of the conversation?
MUELLER: I prefer not to get into conversations that I had with the attorney general. At the time, I -- again, he was entitled to expect that our conversations --
JACKSON LEE: And I respect that. Could I just say: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
MUELLER: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a NSA program, yes.
JACKSON LEE: I guess we use "TSP," we use "warrantless wiretapping," so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?
MUELLER: I -- it was -- the discussion was on a national -- a NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.
In her column, however, Marcus cited Mueller's assertion that the hospital room encounter concerned "an NSA program that has been much discussed," but did not note that it came in response to Jackson Lee's question: "I guess we use 'TSP,' we use 'warrantless wiretapping,' so would I be comfortable in saying that those were the items that were part of the discussion?" Nor did Marcus note that Mueller added "yes" to his response. From Marcus' column:
We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague.
In his May testimony, Comey referred only to "a particular classified program." FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee last week that the hospital-room encounter was about "an NSA program that has been much discussed."
Does this really contradict Gonzales or turn him into a perjurer? It's clear there was an argument over the warrantless wiretapping program. Comey refused to recertify it. In response, something about the program changed; Justice officials were willing to go along with the modified program.
The New York Times reported Sunday that the disagreement involved "computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- not necessarily the more-limited program the president acknowledged. As the Times put it, "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales' defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."
After claiming that Gonzales' testimony regarding the hospital confrontation consisted of "technically correct linguistic parsing," rather than perjury, Marcus criticized the Democratic senators for requesting the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Gonzales, asserting that the request had "more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage":
Congress deserves better than technically correct linguistic parsing. So the bipartisan fury at Gonzales is understandable. Lawmakers are in full Howard Beale mode, mad as hell at Gonzales and not wanting to take it anymore.
But perjury is a crime that demands parsing: To be convicted, the person must have "willfully" stated a "material matter which he does not believe to be true."
The Supreme Court could have been writing about Gonzales when it ruled that "the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth" -- even if the answers "were not guileless but were shrewdly calculated to evade."
Consequently, the calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?
How Gonzales can continue to be this arrogant and continue to stay in this position is beyond any thinking at this point.
You are right, but I believe there is mch more going on behind the scenes. GOnzo quitting would be a huge blow to the administration. It would open up them up to even more questioning. I think he's a horrible AG, but I hope he keeps fighting it so the congress can squeeze out some real answers from these clowns.
I think things are much worse behind closed doors of this administration than what this nation is ready for.
Do you think this is the most corrupt AG since Hoover?
I think that is a very likely possibility. To the average American citizen who actually pays attention to this stuff how can it not stink of corruption? Unless they are a extremely partisan.
I would agree with you, this administration is corrupt and the media has done a poor job in reporting on it.
If you are referring to J. Edgar Hoover, he was never an AG. He was the Director of the FBI.
I think it is safe to say Gonzales has no equals in that regard. Strangely enough (and I can't believe I am writing this), after reading much about Ashcroft, he seems like a real saint in comparison to Gonzales.
How quickly one forgets...
Janet Reno as AG - Waco? Lying to family members of Elian Gonzales and the surprise raid at their house in the middle of the night to send a 6 year old back to Fidel's Cuba. How about when she refuse to name a special prosecutor in the Asian-foreign-contributions scandal, despite it being urged by her own investigator and endorsed by the head of the FBI. Or her lack of investigation on Hillary's Rose Firm documents?
Just wondering if you forgot all that. If you aske me, a case can be made that Reno tops Gonzales in incompetence and corruption.
I don't recall her ever lying to congress.
Or supporting illegal surveillance and torture.
I'm not sure it was Congress, but Reno's bald face lie that she was upholding the law in the Elian Gonzales affair, when in fact, she ordered the Justice Department NOT to follow the rules, and then instigated the kidnapping of Elian while her own Justice Department Officials were negotiating with his relatives seems to go to the point I was making.
However, you can put the litmus test as "most corrupt" to be making statements to Committees about his recollection of what transpired if you want, but in reality is small time.
Taking a 6 year old back to his only remaining parent when that parent has not relinquished custody of that child is not kidnapping.
You don't get to create your own laws to prove your points.
If you read correctly, I did not argue the custody of parenthood. I only mentioned the fact that Reno countered her own Justice Department rules and going against every precedent with child custody cases, used storm troopers to forcibly take the child from American citizens against the wishes of his dead mother, for political purposes and then lied about it.
Have you ever seen any other AG do anything remotely similar in child custody cases?
It speaks to her corruption and her incompetence to be a lackey for the Clintons.
"used storm troopers to forcibly take the child from American citizens against the wishes of his dead mother"--AA
Whose wishes do you find more legally relevant - a dead mother or a live father? Just wondering if you are as "pro-life" as you think you are.
If you recall, she died trying to get to America with her son. Had she lived, this would all be moot. I think her sacrifice should count for a lot with regards to her wishes for her son to live here. I do believe they were divorced at the time. I'm not sure what relationship the father had with Elian. The legal custody of divorced foreigners for children here in the U.S. could have been handled through regular Justice Department channels. What you seem to forget is that Reno went against those procedures and behind her own department because of political pressure and not some altruistic purpose of reuniting a parent with a child. To believe otherwise is simply ignoring the facts.
I see. You are pro-death then.
Wow. That doesn't make any sense.
"If you recall, she died trying to get to America with her son. Had she lived, this would all be moot."
So the father has no rights?
Not only that. It is a living biological father's rights being entirely usurped by a dead mother's rights. That is the essence of the question.
I thought you guys were against illegal immigration.
"for political purposes and then lied about it."--AA
Just what "political purposes" would those be? Surely to ingratiate herself to crazy Miami Cubans in a politically important toss-up state like Florida?
I see she was able to ride the coat-tails of that decision into the governor's mansion as well. Yup. What a wonderful political purpose that was. Maybe that is why Gore won there in 2000. All of those grateful Miami Cuban wackos voted for him.
Considering she lived in Florida at the time and ran for public office after her term as AG it would have benefited her more to not intervene and ignore the court. Had she done that conservatives would be criticizing that too. If you are a Democrat you can do no right in the eyes of Republicans. It doesn't matter what action she took, they would still fault her for it because she is a Dem.
What you forget is she was a lackey of Clinton.
Below is a quote from an interview with Alan Dershowtiz, a noted Clinton defender.
DERSHOWITZ: They should have gotten a court order. They should have sought to hold the family in contempt. And if the family refused to comply with the court order, then they could have issued contempt citations and arrested the family. But I have a reason why they didn`t go for a court order. They didn`t go for a court order because they knew they couldn`t get one.
ZAHN: Why?
DERSHOWITZ: And they acted lawlessly - they couldn`t get one because the 11th circuit had already turned down their request for a court order, and the family would have argued that giving the child over to the father, at this point, would moot the case in the 11th circuit because, predictably, within a few days, Greg Craig will come out with a hand-scrawled little note from Elian saying he now withdraws his application for asylum.
This is established to really confirm the terrible precedent that the administration can act without court approval and break into the home of an American citizen. You know, the picture of Elian smiling is the picture of the day, but the picture of the gun-toting INS agent coming into the house is the - is going to be the precedent, the picture in the history books. It`s a dangerous day for all Americans.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0033DVEven assuming anything you wrote is true, you still didn't answer the question. How did Clinton benefit from this politically? Do you think Clinton or Reno wanted a discount on their Cuban Cigars from Castro?
You are really baffling today, AA.
One reason is that the Clinton administration has been pursuing, albeit tentatively, the normalization of diplomatic relations with Cuba. This policy is not based on any illusions about the nature of Castro's regime, but on a recognition that the greater the contact between Cuba and the United States, the quicker and more peaceful will be the post- Castro transformation of Cuba. Part of any such normalization process entails the impartial enforcement of the law, and that means respecting the custody claims of Elian's father.
"Part of any such normalization process entails the impartial enforcement of the law, and that means respecting the custody claims of Elian's father."--AA
I would never expect that to be a political consideration. It just seems like the decent thing to do. Maybe they are coincident in this case. I don't see how it could be held against Clinton/Reno either way.
"This is established to really confirm the terrible precedent that the administration can act without court approval and break into the home of an American citizen. You know, the picture of Elian smiling is the picture of the day, but the picture of the gun-toting INS agent coming into the house is the - is going to be the precedent, the picture in the history books. It`s a dangerous day for all Americans."
I disagree with this. The family had no right to keep him from his father.
Alan Dershowitz a friend to the Clintons? I think you should do some better research.
"[G]oing against every precedent with child custody cases..."
I'm no family law expert, but isn't there some precedent against one parent fleeing the country with his/her child against the wishes of the other parent?
That's wholly inaccurate. I'm not sure where you get your information, and don't care, but I was paying as much attention to politics then as I do now. Though I didn't like her decision it was what the law dictated. I find it puzzling that a conservative would be upset that an immigrant be deported, or a family values type would protest the return of a son to his father. And it wasn't in the middle of the night.
Waco? She took full responsibility despite the fact that her people disobeyed her direct orders not to fire on the compound. Your assertions are dubious.
Bing,
The law was unclear at the time as to who had legal custody. Hence the custody battle.
The corruption was in contravening her own Justice Department rules with regards to handling cases such as these. Surely you realize the extraordinary circumstances of this case made it very clear that proper procedures needed to be followed. As an aside, I do believe the forcible removal of Elian at gunpoint was done in the middle of the night.
Reno acted in bad faith on top of it all as she went behind her negotiator. You should pay more attention. :-)
The court had ruled and she acted on the courts ruling. I remember it quite well, I was living in West Palm Beach.
I think you are relying more on revisionist history than actual facts. I have always been very skeptical of my government. I consider it part of my civic responsibility and take it very seriously. All these things you mentioned are simply no true. I wouldn't defend Reno of being a great AG, but what you are accusing her of is simply not accurate and sound suspiciously like right wing talking points. Regardless, even if your claims were accurate, Gonzales is much much worse because he has broken his oath to uphold the Constitution by repeatedly violating it. None of the things you mentioned fall into that category of malfeasance.
What I am referring to is that fact that the family was appealing the ruling when the armed forces invaded an American citizen's home and removed him by gunpoint him in the MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT ;-) from his relatives.
That doesn't sound so all-american to me.
So before it wasn't clear and now they were appealing the ruling. Try to stay focused. As I said I did not think it was necessarily the right thing to do but it was the legal thing to do. Had she broken the law I would have supported her being ousted. That was not the case.
Just because you're appealing a ruling doesn't necessarily mean you get to ignore it. I have no idea what you consider to be all-American, but the action was perfectly legal and even foudn by the courts to be reasonable.
Every appeals ruling subsequent to the raid had the effect of upholding the father's custody. The Surpreme Court wouldn't even hear the case.
Quite frankly, you have nothing.
What a joke. The capacity of wingnuts to just flat out deny reality is astonishing
Typical right-wing tripe, comparing symbolic cases blown out of proportion to genuine Constitution threatening corruption. This administration used the AG office to help rig elections in favor of their political party. When confronted with this the lying and covering up went right to the AG himself, blatantly lying to the public and to Congress. The GOP did plenty of maneuvering to make Reno's bungling look worse than it was but there was nothing anywhere near the scope of Gonzo's corruption. It seems you've done nothing but watch the lame coverage of this case on the teevee and haven't really begun to understand what has been going on.
If you'd like, I'd be interested in what you define as "supporting illegal surveillance" and "torture".
Can you do something other than spout these talking points. What exactly is the illegal surveillance? What specifically was the "torture"?
When you get done, how do either of these examples support your contention of corruption?
The kind of surveillance that even this corrupt Administration can only defend as "involving State Secrets", and therefore not adjudicable. Several courts have already ruled the unwarranted wiretaps to be illegal, and have had their verdict overturned on appeal as "involving State Secrets". Once that approach had been invented, other courts have been thwarted at the outset, forcing dismissal of otherwise legitimate proceedings.
The primary "State Secret" involved is the total disregard of law and Constitution by these corruptors, with the belief that some argument may be supplied post hoc to evade the righteous outcry.
Your argument fails when you say that the rulings were overturned upon appeal.
That seems to me to make it legal.
You have to go deep into conspiracy theories to say the court of appeals were in the hands of the Bush Administration and subverting the Constitution in order to make your case. That argument doesn't pass the smell test.
"Your argument fails when you say that the rulings were overturned upon appeal.
That seems to me to make it legal."--AA
No it doesn't. It is technically unresolved either way.
Since this is a classified program it is very difficult to bring a case in civil court as there is little to no information available about it and the government will not disclose anything at all about it.
This makes it difficult to claim damages or establish standing as well. It is probably the wrong approach to try this in the civil arena for these obstacles.
In the dismissals, the one recent majority opinion I read makes it clear they were not judging the merits of the case and that there are important questions about the programs that need to be addressed.
Congress needs to investigate this and possibly bring it to the Supreme Court.
Open, you are countering your own argument. If it is an open question then it hasn't yet been ruled illegal. The repeated claims of illegality are at best unproven. At worst, untrue.
By using the word technically Open accurately made their point. Is murder an illegal act? Yes. Are all murderers found guilty of doing this illegal act? No. Is the act still illegal? Yes.
I am willing to make an educated and fact based opinion that yes Gonzales and Bush and Cheney are guilty of breaking laws and trampling on the Constitution. I do not need the court's approval to know when someone has broken the law.
You can cling to a very narrow interpretation of legality when it suits you, but it broadens greatly when you are attacking Democrats. At least be consistent. After all Reno was not found to have broken any laws or involved in illegal activity by a court. Mainly because she isn't guilty of the things you claim her of.
The program is unconstitutional. But in a civil case, you need someone with standing (a person who has been spied upon without a warrant) to sue. When the NY Times wrote the article revealing the illegal program, they estimated that between 5,000 to 10,000 Americans had been spied upon illegally. If Democrats can get the names of those Americans, then those persons can sue.
"Open, you are countering your own argument."--AA
Huh? What argument? I think you are confusing me with someone else.
People are obviously entitled to their opinions on the subject, but you were claiming the actions by the Bush Administration legal essentially because the merits of the case have not yet been addressed. That is logically fallacious.
If you would have argued the presumption of innocense, you would have had a stronger argument, but then again, it is merely a presumption and not a determination.
If I was genuinely countering my own argument, I would have argued that the actions were illegal simply because the merits were not addressed by a court, which is not like any comment of mine I can see on this thread and quite frankly wouldn't make any sense.
The FISA law says they are the ONLY avenue of wiretapping Americans on security grounds. Bush just CLAIMS he can wiretap anyone he wants. I am willing to extend a presumption of innocence but there is certainly a prima fascie case of illegality on Bushs part.
"John Boehner, the House minority leader, disclosed that a Fisa[sic] judge had ruled the programme[sic] illegal earlier this year."-- [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] stand corrected. This is no longer just a personal opinion. There is at least one official ruling now from the presiding authority that the action was indeed illegal. AA's arguments have been mootified and the NYT has been vindicated.
Are you kidding? The President chooses his judges and the previous Congress granted them to him. He has been stacking the deck with members of the Federalist Society. That's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.
Hahaha.... I'm not so sure about all the judges being members of the Federalist Society but I'll agree with your conspiracy theory that the President has the constitutional power to nominate federal judges. ;-)
Yes, indeed many of them are and that was a requirement at the Justice Department according to Monica Goodling's testimony. HAHAHAHA boy you're not only ignorant of some basic facts about our government you are also smug. And not very funny, kind of alarming really.
Okay. You've gone over the edge. It's been fun.
Trying to have a conversation with a broken record is rather maddening but I assure you itis not I that is over the edge. I'm being reasonable and trying to offer something to the conversation. You are erecting straw men and moving goal posts. Before you can help yourself you first must recognize you have a problem. And you do have a problem.
You are merely erecting straw men and accusing me of using talking points. It does not matter what examples I give you. You will only erect a new straw man. I could lay out a thorough case but do not have the time. I don't expect you to trust me, I don't care one way or another. I believe he has broken the law and have given you the examples. Are you trying to tell me there hasn't been illegal wire tapping? Because it would be odd for the President to admit doing just that. As White House council Gonzalez argued that the Geneva Conventions were quaint and did not apply any longer. As AG he is the one that has to sign off on these activities.
Look, there is a Constitution and bill of Rights that clearly state this is not how an AG is supposed act. There is a right to privacy, a court must issue a warrant. These programs do not do that. Instead they have simply spied on American citizens. The latest leak from the White House confirms they were data mining the personal information of millions of unsuspecting Americans who broke no laws.
Ah yes, the Clinton did it too excuse. Say what you will about Reno, she pales in comparison to this AG. She looks like the greatest AG of all time compared to Gonzales. The AG is the top law official in the land and Gonzo has broken more laws than one can count.
Please list the laws Gonzales has broken.
Shorter posting: YOU list the laws Gonzales has not personally broken. Then we can compare that list to the laws that he has permitted, condoned, encouraged other members of this Administration to break.
Funny! Thanks for the laugh.
Think nothing of it you give them to us every day. Delusion can be so amusing
He and his office have actively violated the Hatch Act. He has lied to Congress. He authorized the President's use of torture which means he was involved in a conspiracy to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, ratified by Congress and part of our Constitution. He has authorized the illegal use of wire taps without warrants. Shall I go on? List the "crimes" of Reno please. There is no legitimate comparison to be made and it's the last resort for conservatives who have no defense, blame Clinton or his administration or justify current law breaking by making the dubious claim that Clinton did it too.
Resorting back to talking points and not giving proof of illegality does not make for a good argument.
But I get it. You guys don't like Gonzales and you'll take any controversy and say it is illegal and corrupt. Same old same old.
Funny how you move the goal posts. You simply asked for a list and complain that he didn't bring proof.
Pretty slick.
Open,
One can say he participated in dog fighting too. It goes without saying that there needs to be proof beyond simply regurgitating partisan rants.
There is proof chief, plenty of it. Go do the research before you make the charge that I am using partisan rants. You haven't provided proof of your claims regarding Reno either.
See. You can only spout talking points.
What's a talking point? Instead of criticizing how I say something how about refuting the content of it. It is you that rely on talking points and apparently to lazy to do any research of your own. Suit yourself.
Bush ADMITTED to spying on private citizens.
This was through the nebulous legal reasoning by Gonzo.
Again - BUSH ADMITTED TO SPYING WIHTOUT A WARRANT
No, you are simply naive and willfully ignorant. I don't know how you'd like the illegal activity listed, as I have said you are only interested in erecting more straw men.
There are plenty of conservatives who share the view that Gonzales and the Bush Administration is breaking the law. Bruce Fein, Paul Craig Roberts, John Dean, Kevin Phillips, Jonathan Turley, etc. etc. They are using talking points too I presume.
Reno isn't even close. I love how conservatives seem to forget that Reno was confirmed during the Waco siege. She had barely assumed the reigns when the whole thing blew up in her face. She then took full responsibility in stark contrast to what the Bush Administration later did, which was to blame the Clinton administration for their own failures.
As for Elian Gonzales, I don't really remember all that much about the situation other than the Miami relatives were absolutely nuts. The right thing happened in the end despite the best efforts of the wackos in Miami.
Considering that most of the many special investigations Reno did appoint didn't amount to much (at great expense to the taxpayer), I think she indulged the critics to a greater extent than she was obliged to do.
If Gonzales appointed half as many prosecutors over the same stretch of time as Reno, you might have more of a point in that regard.
"If you aske me, a case can be made that Reno tops Gonzales in incompetence and corruption."
With all due respect, when we have exhausted the number of people who have a grip on reality in this nation, we can then move on to surveying you to see what your opinion is. Even the highly partisan legislature during the Clinton era did not see fit to drag Reno in for questioning as Gonzalez has been, and I'd dare say that Reno wouldn't have perjured herself right and left before Congress, either.
Your false patronizing does not become you.
I'd submit that the partisanship by the Dems today is far greater than during the Clinton years, even with the impeachment.
As I mentioned earlier regarding Elian Gonzales, Reno countered Dept. of Justice rules and executed a kidnapping of Elian Gonzales from his relatives. All the while knowing Elian's mother died trying to get him to the U.S. It was only because Castro complained that Clinton, through Reno disregarded the procedures that might have let Elian stay.
She also at other times, submitted briefs against her own Special Council, doing her best to impede his investigation into the Clinton affairs. That was unprecedented as the Special Council, like the AG, is supposed to represent the A.G. and the people of the United States.
Regardless of when she was appointed, Reno took full responsibility for Waco. Not excusing at all the actions of David Koresh, her ineptitude in managing that affair is at least partially culpable for those unfortunate deaths of his children. The same can be said of the Ruby Ridge incident.
There are many other instances where Reno bowed to political will of the corrupt Clinton administration.
When Bush and Gonzales are long gone, I believe Reno will still stand out as one of the most corrupt and inept AGs ever.
"I'd submit that the partisanship by the Dems today is far greater than during the Clinton years, even with the impeachment."
What leads you to that conclusion?
I'm surprised you'd ask. The seemingly countless investigations by Dems into the Administration, the attempt to usurp the power of Commander in Chief by the Dem leaders in Congress by constantly calling for votes to leave Iraq. The gross misstatements by Dems saying Bush lied. The defeatist position staked out by the Dems in the war in Iraq. The venom and hate expressed by Dean, Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Murtha, etc.
Hope that helps. :-)
You think there are too many investigations in comparison to the Clinton Administration?
Hahaha! Good one. How many special prosecutors are actively looking into this adminstration right now? Fitzy is pretty much mopping up the paperwork at this point. Is there anyone else that is even active?
You would do well to take a civics course. Congress is finally providing the over sight it is Constitutionally obligated to do. If you paid attention to the investigation and read the testimony provided before Congress you wouldn't be so ignorant of the wrong doing of this administration. If anything main stream Democrats are angry that Congress is moving to slowly. But they are following procedure. Please don't accuse me of using talking points again. It implies I don't come to my own conclusions and I find that to be insulting. I check something out before I spout off about it and you obviously do not. Why don't you look into some of the investigations. Try to tell me which ones have no merit?
And Commander in Chief does not make you king. We do not have a monarchy nor a dictatorship. Ours is a republican democracy that has rules. Checks and balances and the current Democratically lead Congress is doing what it's supposed to do under the rules of the Constitution.
Want to know what's not in the Constitution? Executive Privilege isn't. But this administration uses it from Pat Tillman's death, to energy task force meetings up to warrantless wire tapping.
If you pay the least bit of attention and you love your country you'd be better informed and scared for the future of this country.
Simply stop using talking points and we'll be fine.
The out of the blue reference to "Pat Tillman" is a great case in point.
The White House has refused to turn over documents pertaining to death of Pat Tillman citing executive privilege. This is a fact, not a talking point. I wouldn't even know where to get talking points. I do research and come to my own conclusions.
The fact you aren't aware of the Pat Tillman situation is indicative of your ignorance on what is going on in your own government. I brought it up as an example of the abuse of power exhibited by this administration.
And the Tillman cover-up was due to the administrations likely involvement in his murder.
Yes, Tillman was going to meet with Chomsky, and their Golden Boy Hero Rambo was going to piss all over the "noble war against terror"
Right before the 2004 election. So they had him silenced - permanently.
That's just crazy talk. Unless you can prove such a statement, it is irresponsible to make such accusations. History has shown that most of the time the government covers things like this up is to avoid embarrassment or their own stupidity. Until that can be absolutely ruled out (what I would consider to be at least a near impossibility with this administration), claiming the government was behind such a thing does not appear at all likely.
Your argument is strikingly similar to the conservative conspiracy theories about Vince Foster and Ron Brown about a decade ago to name just a few. Let's not act like those kooky conservatives here.
Projection alert just because you have never had an original thought in your LIFE and put nothing into your posts but propaganda parrot regurgitation you THINK, and I use that term generously, that EVERYONE does the same.
Bing has been taking you apart with well thought out rationales and LOGIC. I understand you have a hard time recognizing it since you are totally incapable of performing it but that is what it looks like.
Give me one example of hate. Just one, I'd love to hear it. I'd like to know just what these Democrats have said that rivals the vitriol directed at Clinton.
Saying Bush lied isn't a gross misstatement. It's the truth. Look at his statements leading up to the war, he was willfully giving us faulty intelligence. Most rational conservatives have come to this conclusion as well. If you think Clinton lied and not Bush you are being disingenuous.
Bush did lie I have proven that at least a dozen times. You are delusional and just because you are committed to getting as many Americans killed as possible in Iraq doesnt mean Congress has any obligation to relinquish their oversight OBLIGATION in order to help your warmonger policies. Your capacity for self delusion is astonishing
Your illogical rants like this one give you away.
I no longer take anything you say seriously.
Emmet Tyrell has a good piece regarding Kultursmog.. That is the fog that envelopes liberals where they only see through the haze of their preconceptions. It fits you to a t.
Its pretty funny the degree conservatives go to create idiotic pseudo-explanations why everyone else doesn't see things their way. BDS, Kultursmog...yada yada yada.
How far the personal responsibility squad has fallen. They won't even take responsibility for their own failures.
Kultursmog -- Using German is a nice touch I have to admit. It seems to fit right in with you volks sehr naturlich. Sieg heil, baby!
In both those cases (Waco and Elian Gonzalez), Reno was trying to UPHOLD the law. The court had ruled that Elian's father should have custody of his child, and that the father living in Cuba did not disqualify him as the only surviving parent.
In the Waco case, you had a group of cultists who had MURDERED federal agents. What should Reno have done? Just allowed a group of people to not face trial for those murders just because one declared he was God? Is that how we should handle laws in our country? You can break them as long as you have enough weapons to hold off a siege?
Gonzalez is far worse because he is allowing or ordering the BREAKING of laws. His department illegally disqualified individuals from working in the department based on their political affiliation. They illegally spied on Americans without a warrant, and when Justice Department officials would not sign off on that illegal activity, they tried to visit the former AG in the hospital while he was not of sound mind. They were interfering in on-going legal cases, and firing US Attorneys who would not trump up phony charges against Democrats in order to subvert elections. They were arranging political meetings between Congressmen and US Attorneys.
That's why Fox News could not find anyone to defend Gonzalez over the weekend. There is no defense for what he has done to the Justice Department.
Brian,
You are letting your feelings get in the way of rational discourse.
Would the legal nature of the wiretapping be okay had the AG signed the form? That is what you seem to be arguing. If you are arguing that it would be illegal anyway, why does it matter whether the AG signed the extension?
Oh perhaps you can answer this question. Did Gonzales and Card carry on the surveillance when they did not get the ok from Ashcroft?
Like I said, I personally do not care for Gonzales, but lets not let talking points and Bush Derangement Syndrome substitute for an interesting discussion about Gonzales.
In the certainty that you will challenge for details - which are classified, and cannot be disclosed - YES!
The acknowledged "surveillance" is at most 10% of what is actually conducted. The field of those "surveilled" is 10 times, at least, what has been admitted. We see as much easily in the early disclosures of FBI unhappiness at running down the thousands of worthless leads derived from that surveillance, without finding any cause at all for surveilling.
You should know the answers to those questions. No it would not have been legal even with the AGs signature. Yes the White house went ahead with the program deemed illegal by the Justice Department anyway. Have you read the Constitution? Just curious.
I'm not letting my feelings get involved at all. I'm looking at the cases in legal terms. Reno was upholding the law in her cases, and Gonzalez was doing his best to subvert the law. Funny how you only mention the warrantless spying when I gave several other examples of his illegal activities.
The very fact that neither Ashcroft or Comey would sign off on the warrantless spying program should tell you all you need to know about it's legality. Both men understand constitutional law very well, and did not want their name associated with an obviously unconstitutional program.
In his Congressional testimony, James Comey (2nd ranking official in the Justice Dept at the time) said, "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis.
The fact that the Bush admin felt the need to send Andy Card and Alberto Gonzalez to Ashcroft's hospital bed in order to pressure him to sign off on an illegal program should tell you all you need to know about this administration. The fact that Ashcroft STILL wouldn't sign it should also tell you he himself felt the program was illegal.
What is getting in the way is YOUR Bush Idolotry Syndrome. If Bush nuked New York City YOU would call it a brilliant urban renewal project. Ya got nothin.
SOLON:
Another American is far beyond the "Bush Idolotry Syndrome". He is demonstrating his roots in belief of the Rightwing Talking Points MYTHS about the Clinton Administration ... all of which time and investigation and even court rulings have determined to be BOGUS.
Waco and Ruby Ridge ... two great examples of usual "law and order conservatives" doing a gigantic FLIP-FLOP in order to heap blame on a Democratic Administration. Imagine, Conservatives defending lawbreakers, and referring to law enforcement personnel as "STORM TROOPERS"?
Yes, in the world of Rightwing talking points, up is down and black is white, when it comes to smearing Democrats. All stated beliefs and "root principles" go out the window, because the prime directive is to BLAME the DEM.
To be fair, though, our co-poster here does not even pretend to be aware of or knowledgable about OUR America, the one we live in which is currently being screwed up by Bush. He's representing ANOTHER America ... one of fantasies, denials, and endless rightwing talking points. He still firmly believes in all the debunked and discredited smears of the Clinton era. None is so blind as he who REFUSES to see.
To be fair I wasnt happy about Waco and was inscenced about Ruby Ridge and was throwing a bloody fit at the time.
Solon don't you know these people who suffer from BDS would excuse Bush if he murdered a baby on live prime time TV, by saying "Well it was going to die anyway and he saved us some social security money to boot" For the sarcasm impaired that was sarcasm.
AA this business regarding Elian Gonzalez and AG Reno is ridiculous. The child lost his mother. His father was not an absent parent in his life. Why would Republican who are so big on “family values” want to separate a child from his surviving parent? Who are you to choose what’s best for a child who has a parent to decide for him. Because his surviving parent lived in Cuba?
And did Janet Reno testify, under oath, before congress and have 75 "I don't recall moments"? I don't think so.
Pearlene,
I'm not arguing the case, only that it was unresolved and Reno went against her own Department to order the raid, which was not even remotely called for. It was purely political. She abused American citizens and surviving refugee from a Communist country and against his wishes, forced him at gunpoint from his relatives here in the US because Clinton wanted to placate Castro. It was a indeed a dark day for the U.S.
Had Gonzales and Bush tried this, I'm sure you'd feel different.
"Had Gonzales and Bush tried this, I'm sure you'd feel different."--AA
I wouldn't. My principles don't change depending on who is in office. As a father myself, I would want my wishes with regards to my children respected over some crazy distant strangers.
If the shoe were on the other foot and some woman had defected to Cuba and died on the way over, should the father in the US be allowed to get his child back? There would be hell to pay if they didn't do it and rightfully so.
This is just a basic question of decency.
>I'm not arguing the case, only that it was unresolved and Reno went against her own Department to order the raid, which was not even remotely called for. It was purely political. She abused American citizens and surviving refugee from a Communist country and against his wishes, forced him at gunpoint from his relatives here in the US because Clinton wanted to placate Castro. It was a indeed a dark day for the U.S.
God you are full of bs, as always. The raid was not remotely called for? I happened to follow this episode really closely, and yes the raid was called for because the courts had already ruled that Elian must be turned over to his biological relatives. Imagine that! The relatives refused. That is why the raid took place.
And it is really humorous that you claim Elian was taken against his wishes. He was fricken six years old! And he was not a refugee. His mother stole him illegally from his father without his permission.
The pictures of Elian on the plane ride home show him very happy. The relatives, who were absolutely kooky, claimed without evidence the photos were faked. They were not. Imagine that Elian was happy with his real father, who walked him home from school every day.
And what proof do you have that Clinton wanted to placate Castro?
You really are lying about the facts of the case, and the posters here who didn't follow it closely don't know any better.
AA, you say you aren’t arguing the case but yet to claim she “abused” American citizens. How? The raid? The relatives knew that they would have to turn that child over to his father. Whether they thought it was best or not, they were not his parents. They could have avoided the raid and done the right thing by giving the child back to his father.
“surviving refugee from a Communist Country and against his wishes“
How do you know what his wishes were? Since when does a child decide where he or she lives? He had a father who played a major role in his life even though he was divorced from his wife, does he not have rights? You would want to take a child’s surviving parents rights away from him and listen to relatives who did not know him as well as his own dad?
“It was a indeed a dark day for the U.S.”
AA, it was a dark day for a child who lost his mother, nothing compares to that. It was a sad day for those who spout “family values” and then try to keep a boy from his father because of politics. Would Elian have had a better life in America? I don’t know but I do know nothing can replace a father who loves his son.
Pearlene,
I think you and your friends are just arguing because I brought it up.
Name me any other custody dispute where armed soldiers raid a house to remove a 6 year old while relatives are trying to appeal a decision.
It was anything but a typical case. It should have been played out by the Justice Department rules, which everyone here, seems to forget, Reno countermanded.
I'm all for the rule of law. What I'm not for, and again all you Reno supporters forget, is for armed agents invading citizen's homes when the child is not in danger, just to placate a murderous dicatator.
In reality all this is simply about who one thinks is a worse AG. You are entitled to your opinions.
"Name me any other custody dispute where armed soldiers raid a house to remove a 6 year old while relatives are trying to appeal a decision."--AA
Well it didn't even happen in the case you are mentioning. They weren't "soldiers" to begin with. Your premise is wrong, so it is kind of hard to follow you after that.
I do find that your entire recollection of the events appears faulty. I guess that explains why you still have some unresolved issues.
I also don't see how a lack of precedent would bolster your case as the entire situation was unique in and of itself (not even counting your efforts to paint a false picture of the situation). Those crazy Miami relatives directly challenged the government infamously stating "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt." But of course, you leave all the little inconvenient details out of your inane recollections.
This has been gone over time and again and I don't see anything improper regarding Reno's actions. You are simply full of beans on this one, Barn.
"just to placate a murderous dicatator."--AA
Wow. You think the biological father is a murderous dictator? Are you out of your mind? ; )
Just kidding. But seriously, this conflict could have arisen with nearly any country. I don't see how Castro has anything to do with it. It seems you would deny the father his own son just to spite Castro. That seems like a cynical use of the child as a political pawn on your part.
Of course, predictably you will charge Castro or mindnumbingly the father of the same thing. The problem with your argument is that if you were to argue it on its own merits (independent of the political situation between the US and Cuba), YOU are the one that would ultimately lose (as you did). Therefore your faultfinding with Clinton/Reno appears to be simply partisan disingenuousness.
You can read minds into Clinton's supposed reasons all you want (and I don't see where Clinton or Reno got any direct benefit from the whole fiasco other than the rest of the world's applause at our doing the right thing in the end and the goodwill that comes with that). It is of course moot as it was the right decision independent of the politics.
"How about when she refuse to name a special prosecutor in the Asian-foreign-contributions scandal, despite it being urged by her own investigator and endorsed by the head of the FBI." - AA
The republicans investigated that and came up with nothing. It was a phony scandal.
Nothing eh? Typical.
No doubt Reno's purposefully misreading of the law regarding the by not seeking independent counsel to investigate campaign fund-raising by Clinton Administration seems to escape your detection.
Oh.. nothing eh? Take a look below.
(from Wikopedia)
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996,[1] the PRC's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of the PRC sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC[2] in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the PRC targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. A number of the convictions came against longtime Clinton-Gore friends and political appointees.
Congressional investigators said that the investigations were hamstrung due to lack of co-operation of witnesses. Ninety-four people either refused to be questioned, pled the Fifth Amendment, or left the country altogether.[So turn your high powered perception on the Bush Administration and really be shocked. You set the standard, if the above meets your criteria of criminal corruption then you should be outraged at what the Republicans have done. Unless your just a partisan hack. I won't deny that Clinton and co. were involved in bad behavior but this is nothing compared to what is going on now. I was angry then and I'm angry now. Why aren't you?
Did you really not know what I meant by "came up with nothing"? All these scandals that were initiated by the republicans were to get the Clintons or Gore in some way and the republicans came up with nothing except for Lewinsky matter. There were many investigations during the Clinton years and there were people arrested and convicted but they failed to get their intended target. White Water was another example.
Loonz,
Now that is funny! Talk about revisionist! Thanks for the laugh.
You can trust wikopedia about as much George Bush. Conservative hacks alter information there all the time and use it as a source of information.
You mean sending him back to HIS FATHER? Yeah with his mother dead we certainly should have seperated a child from his only surviving parent.
You are correct, I did not have my coffee yet. Hoover although corrupt was never AG. Gonzales is the most corrupt we have ever had.
I think he did work in the Justice Department before he became president though.
For the same reason Pretzelboy Bush remains arrogant and stays in HIS position. And Pretzelboy is protecting Alberto.
Yet its real. And well paid voices insist that its just for political capital against this administration. Which does nothing that is not political.
Power Line refers to Ruth Marcus as a "fair minded liberal".....No political leanings attributed to her in this MMFA article.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/07/018085.php
Powerline?? are you really going this route?
I've been through this before. Power Line is a prominent conservative blog that is (I'm sure) monitored by MMFA regularly. But they rarely have threads about them so I think their stuff is pretty credible. So yes, I'm going there.
OK, so Powerline characterizes Ruth Marcus as a fair minded liberal. What's your point?
I just thought it was interesting that Powerline labeled her "liberal" because I would have had no idea where she was politically since MMFA didn't mention it. Maybe you disagree with that label, I'm really not familiar with her work.
I've never read her before either, so I have no idea how accurate Powerline's characterization is. I just don't see how that's relevant to what she's written about Gonzales. If she is a liberal, then this Gonzales article clearly shows that she's an uninformed and/or deceitful one.
If she were a "fair minded liberal" she wouldn't be parsing testimony to imply Gonzales didn't perjure himself. So I don't find your source as credible in this instance. A columnist that stretches the truth is no liberal in my book, whether conservatives they are or not is irrelevant.
You're not familiar with the person or her work, but you're willing to insinuate that MMFA is being hypocritical based on a write up from a right-wing blog. Got it.
I read her regularly and would characterize her as one of the overly homogeneous, overrepresented middle-aged (or older), comfortably middle class (or higher) cadre of WaPo opinion page writers. WaPo and many other outlets desperately need to cultivate a much more diverse set of writers, including more who do not have so much interest in maintaining the status quo that they no longer investigate, muckrake when necessary, and call a spade a spade even when the powerful tells them it's really a teacup.
You seem to be expressing the commonly expressed misapprehension that conservative misinformation needs to be intentional and can only be forwarded by unfair-minded conservatives.
I actually agree with Ruth Marcus' conclusion that persuing perjury charges is the wrong way to go about this. It just would have been nice if she would have represented the argument more accurately and inclusively.
MMFA has repeatedly said they don't mention and don't care about the political leanings of the person in question -- just the misinformation.
I disagree. I think MMFA views the lack of disclosure as misinformation in many cases.
What precisely is there to disclose? She is an opinion page writer, not a page 1 writer. She is not misrepresenting herself. Does she have a financial or other relationship to one of the parties about which she writes or is she being paid by someone other than the Post or syndicate? If you think she needs to give herself a label that some right-wing source has made up and would attach to anyone that disagreed with that source, there would be no end to the number of labels any self-appointed arbiter could make up and whine about.
When put on a TV program and advocating a position without divulging there is a bias or a possible conflict of interest most definitly constitutes misinformation. This would in no way apply to this case. Since we are talking about her misinformation that furthers a conservative cause there is NO conflict nor would there be any relevance whether or not she was a liberal. This is very simple
First there is this amazing, obfucatory, "down the rabbit hole," albeit Orwellian, clause: "I don't think [Gonzales] actually lied..." Is she kidding? Is this journalism or opinion? Is she having a séance or what?
What she "thinks" a.k.a. speculates, skewers, agitprops, disinforms, etc. etc., has "literally" nothing to do with whether Mr. V05 "mis-speaks," or figuratively doesn't tell the truth, or creates euphemisms for the "reality based" community to ponder, what she "thinks" has nothing in common with what he actually couldn't answer repeatedly to the lawful queries of "his" bosses in the senate.
Interesting how this clairvoyance on her part kind of dovetails with what she conveniently leaves out her article with regard to FBI director Mueller's testimony. Is that considered "parsing" or "lying?" Like, for real? Na-mean?
Then there's: "I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury." Who in the hell does this woman think she is? Cassandra, a Madame Sosostris or something? Is she that good of a psychic? Or just another paid jingoist for the Rethunglican Politburo? Ah, yes... I don't think that needs a response, from here or from the great beyond.
Quoth Rather, (even though I'd rather not), this is more evidence of how the media has been "dumbed-down and tarted-up." Marcus writes as if she has the power to decide outcomes instead of doing what Ed Burke's "fourth estate" is charged to do--inform the public.
Oh well, this fine notion went the way of those hallowed Jeffersonian postal rates that meant that we might have a chance of hearing part of the whole truth, actually, from non-corporate media sources that are still somewhat responsive to us... Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Damn fine post!
I give it a 9.99. I'd have given it a 10.0, but I had to look up "Ex nihilo nihil fit."
Except..
Ruth Marcus is an editorial writer, so yes, it is legitimate for her to write her opinion.
Tommy - is that you?
Tommy has a sense of humor and an occasional period of lucidity. So far, Dexter with the many digits has neither.
Is it legitimate for her to argue against a strawman as well?
Let's go over the facts.
What Gonzo said contradicts Comey and Mueller.
Who's lying? Better yet, who has reason to lie. Not Comey, he's already resigned. Not Mueller, because he doesn't need to protect anyone.
I need to become an opinion page columnist - no basis in fact is ever needed, just write what you believe.
According to the courts, lying is protected free speech, even if you are a "news" entity. Oh we have fallen so far from Jefferson's vision. I blame Rupert Murdoch.
Marcus' opinion just serves to illustrate the debasement of America by the Bush Administration --
-- that the standard for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States hinges on whether or not he actually committed a crime!
The AG should resign now, and the President and VP should also resign. Enough is enough
What has Janet Reno or Bill Clinton to do with what is going on now? The short answer is: nothing. This isn't about what happened when Reno was Attorney General. It is about Alberto Gonzales and his selling out of the Justice Department to forward the political agenda of this administration.
"What has Janet Reno or Bill Clinton to do with what is going on now?"
That depends. If you're a rational American, living in the reality-based Universe, not even the most tenuous connection.
If you're another American, the type who can condemn the use of "talking points" in the same sentence as he writes "Bush Derangement Syndrome", the connection is double-ditto definitely undeniable.
(pssst... enjoyed your posts, Dep. Fife, thanx)
Gomer,
I guess you are still stalking me. Oh well.
There is a difference between characterizing someone who demonstrates their animosity daily regarding Bush and at the same time only relies on meaningless phrases without backing them up.
Oh wait.. that describes you too!
Glad you enjoy 'em. ;-)
Meaningless phrases is your charge but there is proof behind them whether you like it or not. Bush actually has done bad things and there is actual proof despite what you like to dismiss as "talking points." liberals aren't ideological robots like today's conservative. We tend to be more skeptical and do more research in these matters. All you have are other people's opinions and a knack for smug ignorance. No offense.
Bing,everybody gets to spend a little time with AnotherAmerican,who has earned his role as the Deputy Barney Fife of MMFA for his ability to return smug and condescending despite repeated humiliations.
He's actually a nice guy, just a little gullible and terrified of the world, and, for all his time linking to definitions of common terms at Wikipedia, still does not quite understand what "talking points" are.
I think he has been ridiculed for his own talking points enough, and they were things he believed, that he's re-defined talking points as facts that he doesn't like.
But be nice to him, he is one of the most consistently entertaining posters here, and admirable in his ability to march in poorly equipped and hang in there tenaciously.Until the meltdown, signalled by an increase in "hahaha"s and "lol"s, at which point it's best to back off a bit.
Gomer,
I appreciate your kind words but object to your characterization.
I can see how all of you 'independent liberals' are constantly showing your independent thought by repeating ad infinitum your Bush Derangement Syndrome catcalls and insults to anyone who disagrees. It takes a whole lot of thought to do so.
Your smugness is not becoming. Just because you all ignore points I make about most threads here and instead repeat the 'talking points' provided by MMFA that you think you are humiliating me. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I do like the debates, but so many of you spend your time lowering the discourse, somehow mistakenly thinking infantile name calling is making an argument. It shows weak thinking.
I suggest you comment on the threads rather than your sophomoric and shopworn posts where all you can do is allude to the Andy Griffith show. You can do better than that.
Until then you are still a gomer.
"Just because you all ignore points I make about most threads here and instead repeat the 'talking points' provided by MMFA that you think you are humiliating me."--AA
If it is any consolation, I don't think you are humiliated by the points that are ignored. Its all those other ones that do it.
; )
And yes, I have read Marcus before, and to say she is "fair minded' or 'liberal', well, consider the source.
My question for people like Marcus: If this was truly simply a question about two or thirty thousand different programs, why didn't the WH and Gonzales immediately demand a closed session to explain the gap? Tony Snow was asked about this the day after Gonzales testified and he flicked his eyes nervously and offered a tepid "we'll look into it". Why the avoidance, why the delay? They hemmed and hawed for half a week until they could get the uncomfortable Mike McConnell to come up with an extraordinarily tortured letter explaining Alberto's meaning of "is". Because other people are willing to sacrifice their integrity for this White House to beat the perjury test, does not mean it meets the smell test. Marcus has bought the Bush koolaid that this is about exquisite and explicit details, not about truth or deliberate obstruction of Constitutional oversight.
Hm, out here in small town America, we say: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..uh, duh... it's a duck. It may not meet the foie gras test, but it's still fine eating.
I guess that would depend on the definition of liberal. The late great folk singer Phil Ochs on a CD I have when introducing his classic song, love me, I'm a liberal defined a liberal as ten degrees left of center at the best of time and ten degrees right of center when it effects him personally. By THAT definition she might qualify as a liberal