Sunday, July 29, 2007

THE NY TIMES INSERTS AN "IF" INTO THEIR CALL FOR CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GONZALES

>


You know how most of us at DWT feel: impeach Bush and Cheney and the rest of the rotten regime can be taken care of within the bounds of the criminal justice system. That would include Bush's shameful excuse for an Attorney General, his pathetic Texas crony Alberto Gonzales. The Times has been 6 months or so behind us on most everything and they're not there on impeachment... yet. This morning, however, they do make the case-- or a mini version of the case-- for Gonzales' impeachment.

The editorial starts with the absolute premise of incompetence and then moves on to perjury. "Americans have been waiting months for Mr. Bush to fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who long ago proved that he was incompetent and more recently has proved that he can’t tell the truth. Mr. Bush refused to fire him after it was clear Mr. Gonzales lied about his role in the political purge of nine federal prosecutors. And he is still refusing to do so-- even after testimony by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller, that suggests that Mr. Gonzales either lied to Congress about Mr. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping operation or at the very least twisted the truth so badly that it amounts to the same thing."

The Times, in passing, also makes the case for Bush's own impeachment but, like I mentioned, they're still 6 months from figuring that out and speaking about it out loud. The Times is far more comfortable ignoring Bush and going for the low lowest hanging fruit, Abu Gonzo.
Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request.

If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

He won't; it's not. They should start Monday but they're afraid of the right-wing media, so they probably won't.


UPDATE: NOT EVEN FOX COULD FIND A RIGHT WINGER BRAVE ENOUGH TO COME ON TV AND DEFEND GONZALES

Think Progress has a riotous report out this morning about how Faux News talking head Chris Wallace tried to find a right winger to come on and defend Gonzales. None would. He contacted the far right senators on the Judiciary Committee-- Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Sam Brownback, Chuck Grassley-- who are all Bush Regime rubber stamp shills who will always vote to do whatever Bush and Cheney tells them to do. But none would make public spectacles of themselves, not even on their own propaganda network-- defending Abu Gonzo. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has this to say:
Both the president and country are better served if the attorney general is a figure of competence. Sadly, the current attorney general is not seen as any of those things. I think it’s a liability for the president. More importantly, it’s a liability for the United States of America.

The closest anyone would come to defending Gonzales is Utah's far right nutcase and Regime apologist Chris Cannon who, when asked by Chris Matthews last week if Gonzales is "a good attorney general," said, "He's a good guy."


HOUSE MEMBERS EARN GOOD SALARIES-- IF THEY'RE NOT WORTH IT WE SHOULD FIRE THEM

Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) has a record that not only merits firing, but makes me think she should refund her salary for the last year. She was singing a variation on the Democratic Leadership's anti-impeachment talking points. (Yes, my friends, the Democrats have talking points too. I called 7 progressive congressmembers in a row last week to ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 333 and it was word-for-word exactly the same message from each one.) But Tauscher went a step further when she wrote to one of her constituents to explain why she wouldn't support the impeachment of Alberto Gonzales. Tauscher's response:
The Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the president in a non-impeachable office. Unless convicted of an illegal act, the Attorney General cannot be removed from office without the president asking for or accepting his resignation. However, please be assured that I will keep your thoughts and concerns in mind as I review the circumstances surrounding recent allegations of impropriety within the Justice Department.

Apparently Ellen O. Tauscher has never read the U.S. Constitution, something that doesn't surprise me one bit. She's a reactionary horse's ass with a voting record only a Republican could like. The Constitution is very clear about impeachment-- Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the united States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I took the liberty to emphasize a few words; Thomas Jefferson surely never imagined we would have elected officers in government as stupid and ignorant as Ellen Tauscher. Perhaps Ellen Tauscher can't be impeached-- but that's what primary elections are for.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 3:49 PM, Blogger Jimmy the Saint said...

I wonder what the status of a primary challenge against her is. I remember Kos talking about it last year. Has any progress been made? Will it be talked about at YKos?

 
At 4:06 AM, Blogger DiSCo said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it

to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading..
seslisohbet
seslichat
sesli sohbet
sesli chat
sesli
sesli site
görünlütü sohbet
görüntülü chat
kameralı sohbet
kameralı chat
sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat siteleri
görüntülü sohbet siteleri
görüntülü chat siteleri
kameralı sohbet siteleri
canlı sohbet
sesli muhabbet
görüntülü muhabbet
kameralı muhabbet
seslidunya
seslisehir
sesli sex

 

Post a Comment

<< Home