Is there anyone who thinks Gonzales should stay in office?

[Cali Coug]

Anyone?

How many times will he lie to the Congress in this debacle? This all would have blown over months ago if he had have simply been honest initially. Now it is a mess that is paralyzing the entire DOJ.

Gonzales testified that he had not spoken with any potential witnesses in order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. Then Monica Goodling tells the Congress that Gonzales spoke with her and walked her through the AG's recollection of events in an attempt to "help her refresh her memory." Whaaa? So either Gonzales lied about not speaking with witnesses AND potentially attempted to pressure a witness, or Monica lied (together with McNulty, Sampson, and others).

This is a circus. Get the ringmaster out of there.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

This is a circus. Get the ringmaster out of there.

And while we're at it, let's fire the Chief Clown too: Pat Leahy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

And while we're at it, let's fire the Chief Clown too: Pat Leahy.

He's elected. Gonzales is appointed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He's elected. Gonzales is appointed.

It was an expression.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It was an expression.

Yes or no: Gonzales should remain in office.

If yes, why?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes or no: Gonzales should remain in office.

If yes, why?

I really don't have an opinion. He seems to have mismanaged the situation, but in politics, with a hostile press and a hostile "oversight" committee in charge, all is not always what it seems. Is what he did a fireable offense? I'm not persuaded that it is.

The second question is: is he worth the political capital spent? Here I'm not persuaded that it is, either. However, it's ultimately Bush's call, and since he's 3-1 in national elections, I'll defer to his judgment. As I've said before, there's something to be said for not throwing your men to the dogs every time they bark. If Bush fired every person who the Dems called "incompetent" or "a liar" the White House would be an empty place indeed.

Lastly, we all know this isn't about Gonzales. He's just the whipping boy for the great white whale: Karl Rove. Pat Leahy is as much an Ahab as anyone in Washington.

And doubly lastly, the public doesn't care about this anymore, anyway. He's off the front page, and I doubt we'll see him back there. Except for Cali Coug, who has something of a Gonzales obsession, it's a dying story.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really don't have an opinion. He seems to have mismanaged the situation, but in politics, with a hostile press and a hostile "oversight" committee in charge, all is not always what it seems. Is what he did a fireable offense? I'm not persuaded that it is.

The second question is: is he worth the political capital spent? Here I'm not persuaded that it is, either. However, it's ultimately Bush's call, and since he's 3-1 in national elections, I'll defer to his judgment. As I've said before, there's something to be said for not throwing your men to the dogs every time they bark. If Bush fired every person who the Dems called "incompetent" or "a liar" the White House would be an empty place indeed.

Lastly, we all know this isn't about Gonzales. He's just the whipping boy for the great white whale: Karl Rove. Pat Leahy is as much an Ahab as anyone in Washington.

And doubly lastly, the public doesn't care about this anymore, anyway. He's off the front page, and I doubt we'll see him back there. Except for Cali Coug, who has something of a Gonzales obsession, it's a dying story.

Has there ever been a more boring "scandal" than this one?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really don't have an opinion. He seems to have mismanaged the situation, but in politics, with a hostile press and a hostile "oversight" committee in charge, all is not always what it seems. Is what he did a fireable offense? I'm not persuaded that it is.

The second question is: is he worth the political capital spent? Here I'm not persuaded that it is, either. However, it's ultimately Bush's call, and since he's 3-1 in national elections, I'll defer to his judgment. As I've said before, there's something to be said for not throwing your men to the dogs every time they bark. If Bush fired every person who the Dems called "incompetent" or "a liar" the White House would be an empty place indeed.

Lastly, we all know this isn't about Gonzales. He's just the whipping boy for the great white whale: Karl Rove. Pat Leahy is as much an Ahab as anyone in Washington.

And doubly lastly, the public doesn't care about this anymore, anyway. He's off the front page, and I doubt we'll see him back there. Except for Cali Coug, who has something of a Gonzales obsession, it's a dying story.

I actually would agree, if not for the fact that Gonzales has said things to the Congress on multiple occasions now that were blatantly false. There is a substantial difference between hiding the truth and lying, and Gonzales appears to have crossed into lying on multiple occasions.

After over a month of hearings, we still haven't heard who decided to fire the attorneys. Sampson says his boss was lying. Gonzales blamed McNulty in a press conference and said McNulty was totally responsible (though Gonzales had previously testified to Congress that his regret in this process was NOT involving McNulty). Goodling appears to be an idiot and she doesn't remember what happened (but she does remember Gonzales telling her what happened in an attempt to "comfort her").

Then we have the great story of Gonzales going to Ashcroft's hospital room to get him to sign off on something that the AG had rejected as illegal (unrelated to this scandal but disappointing and possibly illegal).

So:

1. Gonzales appears to be lying to the Congress; and
2. The entire DOJ appears to be incompetent and paralyzed at the moment (which reflects very poorly on the head of the DOJ).

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Tex

I really don't have an opinion. He seems to have mismanaged the situation, but in politics, with a hostile press and a hostile "oversight" committee in charge, all is not always what it seems. Is what he did a fireable offense? I'm not persuaded that it is.

The second question is: is he worth the political capital spent? Here I'm not persuaded that it is, either. However, it's ultimately Bush's call, and since he's 3-1 in national elections, I'll defer to his judgment. As I've said before, there's something to be said for not throwing your men to the dogs every time they bark. If Bush fired every person who the Dems called "incompetent" or "a liar" the White House would be an empty place indeed.

Lastly, we all know this isn't about Gonzales. He's just the whipping boy for the great white whale: Karl Rove. Pat Leahy is as much an Ahab as anyone in Washington.

And doubly lastly, the public doesn't care about this anymore, anyway. He's off the front page, and I doubt we'll see him back there. Except for Cali Coug, who has something of a Gonzales obsession, it's a dying story.

That might be the most chicken-shit answer I've ever heard to a direct question. You're like Mortimer Freaking Snerd, and the GOP is the one with its hand up your ass. Is it so hard for you to just say that the guy screwed up? That he's a bad guy? That George Bush made a mistake when appointing him?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

That might be the most chicken-shit answer I've ever heard to a direct question. You're like Mortimer Freaking Snerd, and the GOP is the one with its hand up your ass. Is it so hard for you to just say that the guy screwed up? That he's a bad guy? That George Bush made a mistake when appointing him?

Now now, we're trying to be more civil here, remember? Vulgarity and personal attacks are unnecessary.