August 27, 2007
Gonzalez Resigns
That's the word today:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, ending a months-long standoff with Republican and Democratic critics who called for his ouster over the Justice Department's botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firing of U.S. attorneys, officials said Monday.
Finally, a "victory" Democrats can get behind! Who's next on their hit parade?
UPDATE: From an e-mail I sent to Cookiewrangler on the subject:
You know, I don’t know enough about Gonzalez to judge whether he was a good choice for AG or not. However, the witch hunt by the Dems that ended with him resigning will only embolden them to ratchet up the pressure on the Bush administration over what amounts to piddly nonsense when we have real problems to worry about: illegal immigration and Islamist terrorism, to name the top two on my list. And all of this “gotcha” cr@p simply takes important time and resources away from those struggles. It’s time the American people put their foot down and told our politicians, “Enough already!”
Show Comments »
Pam,
It seems that Alberto Gonzalez is going to be the fall guy for what is really nothing more than a standard political action. The Dems have tried to make something criminal out of the firing of 8 US Attorneys. They choose to ignore the fact that they serve at the pleasure of the President, period.
Nobody raised a stink when Bill Clinton had AG Janet Reno fire all 93 US Attorneys. So why raise a stink about these eight?
Oops. I forgot. Bill Clinton was a Democrat. That makes all the difference....
Posted by: DCE at August 27, 2007 11:54 AMI hate having to point out the obvious, but the clinton administration let go the 93 us attorneys at the outset of the clinton administration's first term, while bush & co specifically targeted 8 us attorneys after the commencement of their second term...
obviously different circumstances.
bush & co made it worse, however, by not simply saying at the outset "we let them go because we wanted to do so, and that's the only reason we have to give you", which they could have and should have done.
and, all their documentation leading up to the firings could have easily been worded that way, as well.
however, they at the very least decided they had something to cover up, and behaved as if they did, which led to the investigation.
in short, this is all the current administration's/AGs office's fault, not the democrats, and is an wholly invalid comparison to the clinton administration.
next.
Posted by: tj at August 27, 2007 12:02 PMplease, change your post heading to "Gonzales"
Posted by: tj at August 27, 2007 12:43 PMThis is NOT the current administration's fault. The Democrats going after anything that is labelled 'Republican.' This is a political stunt by the Democrats. clinton let go 93 -- no one said a word. Oh, I forgot -- people (dems)think he is god. HA! Go Fred Thompson!!!
Posted by: cookiewrangler at August 27, 2007 04:33 PMcookie, as long as you're going to ignore little things like FACTS, expect to be ignored by those who don't.
Posted by: at August 27, 2007 04:53 PMtj,
The AG or the President could have also just as easily said "None of your damn business", but I doubt that would have satisfied the Democrats in Congress. I doubt that any response from the Bush administration, even the one you suggested, would have satisfied the Dems. The 'investigations' would still be going on regardless.
Posted by: DCE at August 27, 2007 10:35 PMI see that "situational ethics" are raising their ugly heads again! Here's the deal: It doesn't matter WHEN the President dismisses assistant U.S. attorneys - he can do it whenever he wants for whatever reasons (or no reason at all) he wants.
I realize that the Democrats in Congress see themselves as some sort of demigods who must CONTROL the President of the United States but the fact remains that CONSTITUTIONALLY the Executive is CO-EQUAL with the legislative.
The Dems keep up what they're doing and their next Congressional majority will be in the year 3,000!
I say that the President should nominate an absolutely brilliant lawyer who happens to be a frighteningly articulate woman who is also quite beautiful and blonde: Ann Coulter. Granted she couldn't be confirmed, but I think we would sure enjoy the hearings. At the very least, in a confrontation with Ann, the head of Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Chivas) would explode.
Like I say - no downside!
Posted by: Gayle Miller at August 28, 2007 08:27 AM
