Be INFORMED

Sunday, March 11, 2007

NYT Says Bush Should Replace Alberto Gonzales

    An editorial from Sunday's New York Times

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

On Thursday, Senator Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, hinted very obliquely that perhaps Mr. Gonzales’s time was up. We’re not going to be oblique. Mr. Bush should dismiss Mr. Gonzales and finally appoint an attorney general who will use the job to enforce the law and defend the Constitution.

    Not only should Bush fire this dirtbag, but the House and Senate should investigate this bum for more criminal activity. In most cases I would believe in innocent until proven guilty, but in the case of any of the Bush Crime Family, they are guilty until proven innocent. Not much chance of that happening in this lifetime!

   The times editorial does miss one item of importance and that is that Bush doesn't follow nor defend the Constitution, so how would he know about hiring someone who would defend it? Another Attorney General would just be another Bush stooge.

 

Saturday, March 10, 2007

More Troops and More Cash For Bush?

   8,200 more troops are needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now? $3.2 billion in additional funds to pay for these extra troops?

    Bush did send a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying that the cost would be offset by canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items.       Source

    Yes, and cows can fly!    

"Gen. Petraeus expects under the Baghdad security plan as well as other parts of Iraq, that the number of people going into detention will increase and so these military police forces will be for that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

   What this basically says is that either the general and Bush saved this bit of news for now instead of telling the people that we would need additional troops , or that both Bush and the military generals are all incompetent for not realizing that more troops would be needed as those held in detention increased. I vote for the latter reason, especially on Bush's part because we all know that the man is a natural born idiot in the first place and then there is the fact that this administration has not been right about anything in six years.

   If Pelosi and the rest of the Dems go for this bullshit, then I would think that they need to be replaced the next time that their turn comes up.

   I've said it before and I will keep on repeating it. We did not place you Democrats in office to vote on non-binding resolutions, or to make deals with Bush on the war escalation or funding thereof. We put you in office to get our people out and back home, period! No if, ands, or buts! No discussion and no compromise with the White house or with each other. Do your freakin' jobs!!