Alberto Gonzales Lied to the Senate. Does Anyone Care?

[AGBF]

Well, now we know that Alberto Gonzales, currently Attorney General of the United States, lied to the senate during his confirmation hearings.

Is he going to be removed from office? President Clinton, remember, was impeached for allegedly lying!

Mr. Gonzales was aware of the illegal wiretapping program Mr. Bush was conducting via the NSA, but he told the Senate that he knew of no such program. He L-I-E-D!

When is this country finally going to decide that it is NOT OK for the President to do whatever he chooses and that his lying about what he is doing (and having his staff lie) is unaccaptable because there are THREE branches of government for a reason! The executive branch is drunk with power. It is up to us to sober it up! If we end up with a domestic tyrant, it is because we slept through the warning signals!

Read this, and, if you care about America, WEEP!!!

A Sad, Sad Story

Deborah

 

[rodentman]

If the wiretaps are, as purported, conducted between only known or suspected terrorists and one party is out of the country, I have no problem with them. The gov''t can listen to my phone calls anytime. I have nothing to hide. Sometimes I call people "douchebag" over the phone and Looie is prone to using obscenities, but other than that I don''t care.

We should extend the patriot act as well as allow wiretaps under these conditions. It''s a war with no rules.

As you probably know by now, I no longer get into protracted political debates on forums since it is a fruitless pursuit. I chirp up every now and then so people can have fun pretending they''re glad to see me.

 

[moon river]

I am bothered most by the lying. What kind of message is this sending the rest of the world when we can''t trust our own government!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/1/2006 4:56:42 PM
Author: rodentman
If the wiretaps are, as purported, conducted between only known or suspected terrorists and one party is out of the country, I have no problem with them.

And how do you feel when the Attorney General, rather than openly taking that stand, as you have done, instead lies to the Senate (which had statutory authority over him during the confirmation process)? Is it OK for Mr. Gonzalez to thumb his nose at the legislative branch? To lie to the Senate during confirmation hearings?

Furthermore, since we now know that both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gonzales lied about the wiretapping (Bush having said that subpoenas were being obtained for all wiretaps when they were [/b]not[/b]), how can we believe the wiretaps are what these admitted LIARS purport?


Deborah

 

[Momoftwo]

Date: 2/1/2006 4:56:42 PM
Author: rodentman
If the wiretaps are, as purported, conducted between only known or suspected terrorists and one party is out of the country, I have no problem with them. The gov't can listen to my phone calls anytime. I have nothing to hide. Sometimes I call people 'douchebag' over the phone and Looie is prone to using obscenities, but other than that I don't care.

We should extend the patriot act as well as allow wiretaps under these conditions. It's a war with no rules.

As you probably know by now, I no longer get into protracted political debates on forums since it is a fruitless pursuit. I chirp up every now and then so people can have fun pretending they're glad to see me.

I agree. You also notice it said he was accused by a democrat. Last time I checked in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. This is also the Washington Post, the most liberal paper I've ever seen in my life. I get tired of these posts that are nothing but bashing with little or no evidence. The government is listening to calls between those with known terrorist links. Get over it already. I'm tired of all the democrats whining. It's like a bunch of 5 year olds tattling to mommy.

Also, btw, Carter and Clinton (among others) used the same wiretapping without ever being accused of anything unethical or illegal. No one has proven that anything illegal or that lying has gone on. I need to find the email I have from someone I know in the Secret Service that says George Bush is the most genuine and trustworthy man they've ever met. He is very well liked by everyone who knows him. He's considered honest and treats everyone with respect, unlike the previous administration.

 

[aljdewey]

Deb, I applaud your sense of right and wrong. In a THEORHETICAL world, everything you said should be so.

But there comes a time when accepting a few universal truths can spare one a lot of needless disappointment.

1. Life is not fair. Sorry, it just isn''t. It''s a great idea, but not terribly practical.
2. There is no Santa Claus. I know, I know....this one disappointed me too, but we all have to accept it sooner or later.
3. Any man-made institution - be it organized religion, government, whatever - is susceptible to corruption and dishonesty.
4. Politicians lie. There is positively NO way to be a politician without doing so.
5. There is really no such thing as REAL checks-and-balances.

Regarding #5, checks and balances are nothing more than an illusion to make us believe we don''t have to worry. They are the equivalent of the "invisible magic cape" one might give his 3-year old son to protect him from ghosts and let him sleep restfully. There is no magic cape, but as long as the son believes there is, he can rest unworried.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/1/2006 5:18:01 PM
Author: aljdewey

...there comes a time when accepting a few universal truths can spare one a lot of needless disappointment.


1. Life is not fair. Sorry, it just isn't. It's a great idea, but not terribly practical.

2. There is no Santa Claus. I know, I know....this one disappointed me too, but we all have to accept it sooner or later.

3. Any man-made institution - be it organized religion, government, whatever - is susceptible to corruption and dishonesty.

4. Politicians lie. There is positively NO way to be a politician without doing so.

5. There is really no such thing as REAL checks-and-balances.

I appreciate it when you interject a bit of levity into the discussion, Al, but I can't sign off on your posting. You may be right that life stinks and all politicians do, too, but if no one keeps after them, the stench will get a lot worse.

Our system isn't perfect, but many of us think it's the best system anyone has yet come up with. If citizens stop holding elected officials responsible, if they just sigh and say, "Yup. Everyone's corrupt," then the US will slide into the kind of corruption one finds in a banana republic. Or in Colombia, where one never calls the police.

Our JOB as citizens is to remind politicians that we haven't forgotten the way the government is SUPPOSED to run: honestly.


Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/1/2006 5:15:12 PM
Author: Momoftwo
Last time I checked in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

That would depend who you are and what crime you have been accused of, I guess. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a T-shirt and no one presumed her innocent as she was handcuffed.

"Minutes before the President of the United States would tell the Congress how much he appreciates 'responsible criticism and counsel,' the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was dragged from a gallery overlooking the House chamber where Bush would speak, handcuffed and arrested for the 'crime' of wearing a T-shirt that read: '2245 Dead. How many more?'

Cindy Sheehan, who had been invited to attend George Bush's State of the Union address by Representative Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not put the 'dangerous' shirt on for the event. The woman whose protest last summer outside the President's ranchette in Crawford, Texas, drew international attention to the antiwar movement, had been wearing it at events earlier in the day.

Indeed, as Sheehan, who had passed through Capitol security monitors without incident, noted, 'I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her.'

No one has suggested that Sheehan was in any way disruptive.


So why was she arrested?

Because, as Sheehan recounts, she was identified as a dissident.

Before the arrest, media reports buzzed about official concern regarding Sheehan's presence. And, as she was being dragged from a room where the President would shortly extol the virtues of freedom and liberty, police explicitly told Sheehan that she was being removed 'because you were protesting.'

Capitol Police and other security officials, whose rough treatment of Sheehan was witnessed by dozens of people who attended the State of the Union event, said she was arrested for 'unlawful conduct.' Conveniently, she was held until after the President finished speaking.

Is there really a law against wearing a political T-shirt to the State of the Union address?

No.

The Capitol Police do have protocols that are followed in order to avoid 'incidents' during major events. But their own actions Tuesday night confirm that Sheehan was singled out for rough justice.

Beverly Young, the wife of Representative C.W. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, showed for the State of the Union address up sporting a T-shirt that read, 'Support the Troops--Defending Our Freedom.' When Capitol Police asked her to leave the gallery because she was wearing clothing that featured a political message, Mrs. Young says, she argued loudly with officers and called one of them 'an idiot.'

But Mrs. Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed.

Sheehan, who caused no ruckus, was arrested not because she engaged in 'unlawful conduct.' Rather, by every evidence, she was arrested because of what her T-shirt said--and, by extension, because of what she believes.

That makes this a most serious matter. Representative Pete Stark, the California Democrat who is one of the senior members of the House, is right when he says that Sheehan's arrest by officers he refers to as 'the President's Gestapo,' tells us a lot more about the George Bush and the sorry state of our basic liberties in the midst of the President's open-ended 'war on terror' than anything that was said in the State of the Union address. 'It shows he still has a thin skin,' Stark says of the President who claims to welcome dissent.

It also shows that the father of the Constitution, James Madison, was right when he warned that, in times of war, the greatest danger to America would not be foreign foes but Presidents and their minions, who would abuse the powers of the executive branch with the purpose of 'subduing the force of the people.'

This one incident involving one T-shirt is a minor matter. But seen in the context of the mounting evidence of constraints on legitimate protest, warrantless wiretaps and the abuses of the Patriot Act, it reminds us of the the truth of Madison's warning that: 'No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.'"

The War on T-Shirts

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/1/2006 5:27:52 PM
Author: AGBF


I appreciate it when you interject a bit of levity into the discussion, Al, but I can't sign off on your posting. You may be right that life stinks and all politicians do, too, but if no one keeps after them, the stench will get a lot worse.

Our system isn't perfect, but many of us think it's the best system anyone has yet come up with. If citizens stop holding elected officials responsible, if they just sigh and say, 'Yup. Everyone's corrupt,' then the US will slide into the kind of corruption one finds in a banana republic. Or in Colombia, where one never calls the police.

Our JOB as citizens is to remind politicians that we haven't forgotten the way the government is SUPPOSED to run: honestly.

I don't know how to say this without sounding flip, and I don't mean it to be.......but I wasn't actually asking for your sign-off, truthfully. You are totally free to disagree; I don't form my opinions based on whether others approve of them or not.

I am among those "many" you reference who think our system is the best anyone's been able to come up with.....but that doesn't prevent me from having realistic expectations of human beings. It doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be improved, of course, but a healthy dose of realism is usually a good first step.

Of course we should hold elected officials responsible; I never said we shouldn't.

My commentary was more along the lines of "this isn't news, folks". It's a bit Pollyanna-like not to expect such behavior, or to be outraged as though one had positively no inkling prior to now that it was so.

Maybe an example would better explain. Every parent, I'm sure, is realistic enough to expect that at some point in their offsprings' upbringings, they will try to lie. It doesn't mean it should be condoned, of course, but I wouldn't expect *anyone* to actually be shocked or surprised by it.

Yes, it's healthy to strive to make the world a better place, but pretending that the world is fair and that checks and balances really work is just deluding one's self when there is such strong and compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/1/2006 6:40:10 PM
Author: aljdewey
It's a bit Pollyanna-like not to expect such behavior, or to be outraged as though one had positively no inkling prior to now that it was so.

I must thank you for being the only person since I was 13 not to find me cynical, let alone to find me a Pollyanna! When I was a junior in high school I was willed the "naivete" of a graduating senior. She had an abundance of it and I had none...or so the graduating seniors thought.... But what did they know? Maybe I have always been a Pollyanna at heart

.

Deb

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/1/2006 6:37:49 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 2/1/2006 5:15:12 PM
Author: Momoftwo
Last time I checked in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

That would depend who you are and what crime you have been accused of, I guess. Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a T-shirt and no one presumed her innocent as she was handcuffed.

No, it really doesn't depend on that. The act of arrest isn't a presumption of gulit. It's a way to stop potentially unlawful or harmful behavior. Typically, a trial or court appearance follows. *That* is where one is determined innocent or guilty. It works this way for every case. You *might* be drunk as a skunk while driving, and that might be BLATANTLY obvious to everyone around you when you are arrested, but you are not actually guilty until charges are brought, you appear in court, and are found guilty. You may go through all that and be found innocent, too. It doesn't mean you're entitled not to be arrested in the first place, and the mere act of arrest doesn't signify guilt. In Cindy Sheehan's case, charges were not filed; she was instead released.

Date: 2/1/2006 6:37:49 PM
Author: AGBF

'Minutes before the President of the United States would tell the Congress how much he appreciates 'responsible criticism and counsel,' the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq was dragged from a gallery overlooking the House chamber where Bush would speak, handcuffed and arrested for the 'crime' of wearing a T-shirt that read: '2245 Dead. How many more?'

No, she was arrested because when warned that such a display wasn't allowed in the chamber, which she ignored with no response and made no corrective action. She said "I was never told that I couldn't wear that shirt into the Congress,......I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things...I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later."
HELLO? She's HOW OLD? Do you really think she's not smart enough to understand what "not allowed" means and figure out to zip up her jacket? I'd bet my year's salary that it would occur to even a 10-year old to correct the situation by zipping up his jacket.....and I'm equally certain it occurred to her, too.

People are arrested every day for protesting abortion in front of clinics because they are too close to the entrance. There are laws and rules that govern the right to protest. You can't just do it anywhere you wish, however you wish. The same holds true for freedom of expression and freedom of speech.....those freedoms don't mean "anywhere you want, anyway you want, anytime you want" without restriction. If I hated the Pope, freedom of expression wouldn't allow me to walk into the nearest Catholic church during the middle of a packed Sunday service and start spouting my feelings. I'd be ejected, and rightfully so. If I refused to respond to a request to stop, I'm quite sure law enforcement would be called to assist in removing me, too.

This is why people like Cindy Sheehan have a hard time garnering support. They take things WAY to the extreme. She said "I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ultimate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government." NO ONE said you can't say or write ANY negative statements about the government, and to portray the message as that is inflammatory and untrue. The message was "you can't do it HERE, and you can't do it NOW", not "you can't do it at all."

Date: 2/1/2006 6:37:49 PM
Author: AGBF

Cindy Sheehan, who had been invited to attend George Bush's State of the Union address by Representative Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, did not put the 'dangerous' shirt on for the event. The woman whose protest last summer outside the President's ranchette in Crawford, Texas, drew international attention to the antiwar movement, had been wearing it at events earlier in the day.

Yes, I'm sure it was a complete and total coincidence.

Gosh, in order to believe that, I guess we'd have to also believe a few other things. We'd have to also believe that she didn't receive the invite more than minutes in advance (highly unlikely). I suppose we're all supposed to believe the woman doesn't own a single shred of clothing without an anti-war slogan on it? And gee golly gosh........I'll just bet someone *forced* her to remove/unzip the jacket and display it too, right? Yep, there is a Santa Claus.

Honestly, I'd have a lot more respect for saying "yep, she knew it was contentious and she did it anyway because she believed in it" instead of trying to paint it all like some unfortunate coincidence with absolutely no meaning or ill intent behind it. To suggest that it was just an unintentional misstep by an innocent bystander with absolutely no forethought,,,..that's just an insult to anyone with a shred of intelligence.

"No.....no, I didn't mean for that kid to buy drugs from me" said the local drug-dealer, talking with his pockets laden full of contraband. "I was just standing here on the corner (which just happens to be a known drug-dealing location) with my friend Joe minding my own business. That kid just came up and just GAVE Joe money. I couldn't help it that Joe reached into my pocket and took out the drugs and gave them to that kid. No one told me I couldn't stand here on the corner with a pocket full of drugs; if they had, I wouldn't have done it. Of course, the police car came by and told me I should leave this corner because drug-dealers aren't allowed here, but since *I* wasn't actually "selling" them, I just ignored the admonition because, hey, it didn't apply to me. I was just innocently standing here with my friend Joe, who's a generous soul and just wanted to give the kid something as a present. I'm just an innocent bystander."

Date: 2/1/2006 6:37:49 PM
Author: AGBF

Indeed, as Sheehan, who had passed through Capitol security monitors without incident, noted, 'I knew that I couldn't disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn't want to be disruptive out of respect for her.'

No one has suggested that Sheehan was in any way disruptive.

If she really wanted to be respectful, she could have opted to leave the jacket on and/or zipped. And yes, she was disruptive. Disruptive doesn't have to mean rowdy. It only has to mean it was against the rules of the place or offended the sensibilities of the host. It's not appropriate to come into the White House and mock something the administration believes in (even if you think they are wrong and you don't personally believe in it yourself).

This was a ticketed event; invitation via ticket. If I invite you into my house, and then in front of my friends, you begin to make rude faces at me, I'm likely to ask you to leave, even though I invited you. Invitations come with the expectation of appropriate-for-the-venue behavior. Even when you PURCHASE a ticket, say to a movie theater or a basketball game, you still have to act appropriately, and if you don't, you will be ejected.

Heck, even the school systems are enforcing rules about sending home students who wear inappropriate attire (including slogan T-shirts) to school. It's not *unlawful*, but it is against the institution's rules.

I feel for that woman. She lost her son, and she is heartbroken. But I certainly would call the police if she decided to "express herself" by coming into my home and offending me by pushing her views at me. She's entitled to her views, and she's entitled to express them in a civilly acceptable manner, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.

 

[mrssalvo]

Congressman's Bill Young's wife was also asked to leave for wearing a Pro-Military tee-shirt.

link

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 2/1/2006 11:04:12 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Congressman''s Bill Young''s wife was also asked to leave for wearing a Pro-Military tee-shirt.

link

I read that, too.....that would seem to fly in the face of the argument that Sheehan was "picked on" simply for having an opinion contrary to the administration.

 

[movie zombie]

'' "The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol. The policy and procedures were too vague," said Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine." ''

Chief calls it ''mistaken effort,'' also apologizes to congressman''s wife

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48624


back to the AG: yes, i do care that he lied. he should be removed.

movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/1/2006 11:04:12 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Congressman''s Bill Young''s wife was also asked to leave for wearing a Pro-Military tee-shirt.

If you had read the material I posted, you would have seen that that was not only mentioned, but expounded upon. Mrs. Young was asked to leave; called the policeman an idiot; and made a scene. Cindy Sheehan was not given a choice to leave! Instead of being asked to leave she was immediately handcuffed and she, unlike Mrs. Young, made no scene. I think that shows which of the two was more likely to disrupt the proceedings. (As if the proceedings were so sacrosanct! The Founding Fathers are probably spinning in their graves! They BELIEVED in the right to protest!!! They wouldn''t think that the President had an unalienable right to look popular on television. Not weighed against the right of free speech!!! I support Mrs. Young''s right to wear a T-shirt of her choice, too!)

Deborah

 

[mrssalvo]

Deb,I did read your article, i just chose to post the other link and mention Mrs. Young because it was not written any where in this thread and it made it seemed that Cindy Sheehan was the only one asked to leave because of her tee-shirt which was not true. It was also my understanding that Mrs. Young left on her own willinging even though she said some inappropiate things on her way out IMO. Ms. Sheehan was arrested because of her unwilliness to co-operate and leave on her own. I think both women chosing to wear tee-shirts to a ticketed Presidential event was inappropriate, and classless.

 

[IndiBlue]

My thought is-

How do we explain to our children learning about the Constitution (the powers that were given to the Executive Branch of our government) the difference between what was written and what is (currently) being practiced?

Not to use an over used phrase but, Actions speak louder then words!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/2/2006 9:12:59 AM
Author: mrssalvo
I think both women chosing to wear tee-shirts to a ticketed Presidential event was inappropriate, and classless.

Unless we want to fight with each other (which, I assure you, I have no desire to do), we shall have to agree to disagree. We are, it seems, at opposite ends of the spectrum. While you believe that it was inappropriate and tasteless for both women to wear political T-shirts, I believe it was the right of both to wear those shirts without being ejected from a public gathering. And not tasteless or inappropriate, either. You see, they are AMERICANS. Unless one cries "fire!" in a crowded theater, I think he should be able to protest anywhere, anytime on public land. I, personally, think it would be tasteless to demonstrate at a funeral or memorial service. But that's just my personal opinion of taste, not of law.

And, btw, this "ticketed" event is public!!! It couldn't be more public! It probably should NOT be ticketed! I wonder if Thomas Jefferson and John Adams knew how elitist we would all become here in the US. They feared George Washington would try to be King! Little did they envision what a Richard Nixon or a George W. Bush might do!!!

Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

did anyone read the article at the website i posted?! its already been admitted that the ''police'' were out of bounds with what the did [with both women].

movie zombie

 

[Rank Amateur]

Much ado about nothing.

 

[colormyworld]

It certainly is strange how half a doezen years ago these same people made such a stink for lying about a lapse in good judgement. To the extreme of impeachment. But now any one with an R behind their name can do no wrong.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/2/2006 4:03:39 PM
Author: movie zombie
did anyone read the article at the website i posted?!

Yup. I know the police admitted they were wrong, but here the actions of the police are still being upheld. Thus my response.

Deb

 

[movie zombie]

figured you read it, deb. just can''t understand why people insist on defending the police when they''ve already admitted their error. additionally, a 3rd person was removed:

"Gainer added that he was asking the U.S. attorney''s office to drop the charge against Sheehan. The statement also said he apologized to the Youngs and "share the department''s plans for avoiding this in the future.""A similar message has been left with Mrs. Sheehan," Gainer said.

For his part, Bill Young said he was not necessarily satisfied. "My wife was humiliated," he told reporters. He suggested that "sensitivity training" may be in order for Capitol Police.

A foreign-born American citizen who was the guest of Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., also was taken by police from the gallery just above the House floor, Hastings said Wednesday. The congressman met with Gainer and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., about the incident. "I''d like to find out more information," Hastings said in an interview, identifying the man only as being from Broward County in Florida. "He is a constituent of mine. I invited him proudly."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8094.shtml


another article i read indicated there is not at ''dress code'' for invited guests in the gallary.

movie zombie

 

[Rank Amateur]

No demonstrations are allowed on Capitol grounds. What''s so hard to understand or stomach about that?

That said, I completely agree with your critique of the content of the President''s address.

 

[mrssalvo]

 

[movie zombie]

apparently wearing a t-shirt....as both the women did....is not considered a demonstration by the capitol police.
a permit is not required to wear such a t-shirt....or at least not yet.
hence the apology to both women.
it remains to be told the excuse for removing the 3rd person.

movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 2/2/2006 11:18:49 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
No demonstrations are allowed on Capitol grounds. What''s so hard to understand or stomach about that?

There''s a lot in that I cannot stomach. Who made the damned law that the Capitol grounds were sacrosanct?

Also: as MZ said, when one cannot choose to wear a message on one''s clothing, we are no longer living in the land of the free. Should we bar "religious symbols" as France has done, too? No Muslim head coverings, no Jewish stars, no crosses allowed on Capitol grounds?


Deb

 

[fire&ice]

At least Jerry Rubin, et al were fun to watch and had some personality.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 2/3/2006 10:35:40 AM
Author: fire&ice
At least Jerry Rubin, et al were fun to watch and had some personality.

i''m sure Mrs Young as well as Ms Sheehan have personality. that''s why they both wore statement t-shirts.

movie zombie

 

[E B]

Date: 2/3/2006 4:17:55 AM
Author: AGBF

There's a lot in that I cannot stomach. Who made the damned law that the Capitol grounds were sacrosanct?

Also: as MZ said, when one cannot choose to wear a message on one's clothing, we are no longer living in the land of the free. Should we bar 'religious symbols' as France has done, too? No Muslim head coverings, no Jewish stars, no crosses allowed on Capitol grounds?

I'm in complete agreement.