U.S. Attorney General Resigns

willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"

Thank goodness

Fortunately for Gonzales, he will probably soon forget he held the position and made a mockery of the judicial system...

Not likely

For starters, W. will try to put one person forward, the dems will nix them, and W. will appoint in the middle of the next vacation of congress. This person will simply replace gonzales and will ensure that no real investigation occurs until the end of W. time. The dems need to go after after W. AND obtained convictions, then it would make future presidents about doing such actions. But congress, and the dems in particular, have shown that they will allow it to drop. Nixon and reagan were allowed free walks due to the succeeding presidents being republicans. But the next president will almost certainly be a dem. If so, they need to not pardon and allow justice to prevail. Otherwise, we will see that each republican will continue to screw US at will.

Re:Not likely

If the Democrats think they'll get the White House next, they don't have much incentive to limit the power of the White House.

Re:Not likely

August Pollack has come up with 'The Hillary Rule [xoverboard.com],' which I think is kind of awesome.

This is very simple: as a conservative, you are only allowed to defend things like this if you can say- in the same breath- that you have no problem with President Hillary Clinton having the exact same level of power

Sort of brings home the point that we have limits on power because the person wielding that power is not always on your side of the issues.

An old sentiment

Federalists passed something called the "Alien and Sedition Act" in 1798 which allowed prosecution of anyone who said bad things about the current government. This particular governmental power was hastily repealed in 1802 when it became likely that Thomas Jefferson (a staunch opponent of the act and those who passed it) would win the next presidency.

Politics is like football. We've been at it so long that we forget that fitness was the original purpose of the game, and just care about winning.

Re:Not likely

Until then I am not voting, and encourage everyone within earshot not to vote. Maybe when voter turnout gets to be less than 20% they will start to notice.

So, in other words, the message you're sending them is "Unless you do what I want, I'll just ignore you and let you do whatever you want".

Yeah, good plan. To express your disapproval of government power-grabbing, you're going to help them grab more.

Re:Not likely

As I and about 500 others used our vote to throw a mayoral election in one of the nation's 10 largest cities, I can tell you without reservation that voting CAN work. As pointed out elsewhere here, you just have to have a sufficient number of pissed-off voters that're ready to put their vote where their mouth is. Details on the above election upon request.

Re:Not likely

this isn't us versus them. _we_ are the problem

we the American people hired incompetents to run our business. or we abdicated, left the hiring up to the lamers who'll actually stand in line to vote - those dumbfucks don't have anything else better to do??

we the people used to be in charge but we slacked off. and now who's in charge? assholes. but who hired them? who _let_ them?

if the American people are ever going to be in charge of their own lives again then we have to wake up, take responsiblity, quit crying like pussies that "someone stole my country" and fucking take it back

fucking vote! even if it's for Ralph Nader. fucking vote. campaign. volunteer. shoot your mouth off. act like you give a shit! be loud. be proud. be a real patriot. and realize you might have to sacrifice something. do it anyway

Your doing it wrong...

You are doing it all wrong. You should vote. You should just vote for a third party. The reason people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate is that they have been convinced that they are "throwing away their vote". If you are actually advocating literally throwing away your vote, you can double the effectiveness by voting third party. There is little to no chance that the third party candidate will win, so it doesn't matter what the candidate stands for. Besides, they are unlikely to be a bigger problem than either of the two major candidates.

If you think that 20% voter turn out will get the governments attention, just imagine what a 70% turnout would do to them with 30% of the votes going to third party candidates! So, don't encourage your family and friends not to vote at all. Don't try to convince them that they should think a third party will get elected. Just explain that if they are going to withhold/throw away their votes, withhold them from the possible winners by putting them on a third party.

If not voting is supposed to be the death by a thousand cuts, voting for a third party is the salt you rub into the wounds.

Re:Not likely

Who held Congress for nearly all of the time Clinton was it office? The 90's were so great because no one party held control over any one branch of government. The Dems had the Executive, the Repubs had the Legislature and the Judaical was held by moderates.

Of course this was how the founding fathers envisioned that the government would work, three equal branches of government would check each other. Instead, in the early part of the 21st century, the three branches of government shifted dramatically to the right and began to collude with each other, instead of checking each other. The result is the fascist government we have had these last (almost) 8 years.

Re:Not likely

8 Clinton years of no war

Were you around during the Clinton presidency?

No war?

You don't remember Somalia, Kosovo (and the bombing of Belgrade, where the US managed to bomb the Chinese embassy), and the bombings in Iraq (Desert Fox, anyone?), and missile attacks in the Sudan and elsewhere?

And as for terrorism, the WTC bombing in '93, the USS Cole, US embassies in Africa? Where hundreds died?

It's quite true there wasn't a conflict like Iraq, and we didn't lose over three thousand US troops in combat. But thousands died, just most of them weren't Americans.

Yes, the Clinton years were years of relative peace compared to now. But the idea that there was "no war" (and I'm speaking of conflict directly involving the US military; obviously there were a lot of other wars going on) is pretty peculiar.

Go tell the citizens of Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, Kosovo, and even Iraq that there was "no war" in the Clinton years. You might get quite an earful.

Holmwood.

Re:Not likely

It's more than just visions of the next term, both parties are dedicated to maintaining a strong Federal government led by a powerful executive. They occasionally bicker about the details, but their fundamental belief in executive power is shared.

No recess appointments

There's an agreement [tpmmuckraker.com] between the president and the Senate Leader Reid to no longer due this. If the President breaks that agreement, it'll upset folks, plus the Senate can be kept perpetually in session by having a senator come in every few days throughout the normal recess. It's not legally binding, of course, but if the President wants to accomplish anything in the next year, I suspect he'll keep his word.

Now will the opposing party actually push back?

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties. This resignation is only good news if they finally gain some moxie and push for a hard Atty Gen, one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

Right now, the opposition party has failed in it's watchdog duties.

Political parties have no duties, only the need and desire to keep themselves in power. Congress (controlled by Democrats) has one of the lowest approval ratings ever at present. They aren't pushing for anything now.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

Republican support turned against Bush a while back. Calling your base racist and pushing through an amnesty for 20 million illegals when the base overwhelmingly opposes it tends to do that. What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt. I mean, if there are more Duke Cunninghams out there either in the administration or Congress, by all means, throw them in the pokey. But while we're at it, how about we apply the same standards across the board? Pelosi seemed to back off pretty quick from her "drain the swamp" pledge considering that both Murtha and Jefferson are sitting on committees.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

What Republicans aren't in favor of is a purely political witch hunt.

Bull-fucking-shit. Care to try to explain the Clinton impeachment process then?

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back?

There's no way that the Bush administration will put forth an actual watchdog. The best the Democrats can do is to block the nomination of one Loyal Bushy in favor of the next. No, I think they'll make a show of their resistance, but unless Bush puts forth someone who can't read or burns a copy of the Constitution on the steps of the Capitol Building before the hearing, the nomination will likely go through.

... and the Daily Show is off this week.

The Daily Show starts a 2 week break this week.

Is anyone noticing a trend where resignations seem to occur while The Daily Show is off on break?

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week.

Leno, Conan, Letterman, Ferguson

They are all mere comedians. Find it ironic or not; The Daily Show is the single most factual source of political news and comentary in the US.

Lightbulbs

How many Alberto Gonzaleses does it take to change a lightbulb?

One, but he'll end up doing it multiple times because he can't recall doing it before.

Re:Lightbulbs

How many Alberto Gonzaleses does it take to change a lightbulb?

Actually, a $6 billion no-bid bulb-changing contract was already given to Halliburton.

Was he faking, or was he brain dead?

Actually Gonzo and I were at the same school at almost the same time. No way he could have graduated with such a weak memory, so I've basically been wondering what happened to him. He still has his wits and he's just faking the idiocy? Or was is some kind of mental disease from excessive mental gymnastics and brown nosing?

Anyway, I'm still amazed that Dubya let him resign, even if Chertoff is the replacement (according to rumors). The last thing the neo-GOP wants now is a functional DoJ. Everything is coming unraveled for them.

One more thing. Don't let the door hit ya' on yer way out.

Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned? That's when Gonzales was put in. Be sure there will be someone just as pliable and loyal to the Party--and probably smart enough not to get caught perjuring himself. So I wouldn't get too excited.

Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen.

Remember how excited everyone got when Ashcroft was fired^W^Wresigned?

Actually, Ashcroft was a right-wing asshole, with nothing better to do then go after sick people smoking weed (*gasp*, the horror!) but even he had misgivings about the direction this administration is taking civil rights and law enforcement.

I'd take Ashcroft back over Gonzales in a heartbeat.

It was about time

What a stint Mr. Gonzales had with my president's White house...but I thought he'd hang on. I will remember him for his 63 times he invoked the "I don't recall..." mantra. On the other hand, I wonder whether any slashdotter can tell me what good has been accomplished by my president to-date. Sincerely, I am at a loss to find anything worthy of a mention.

Here's another one...the VP also used this "I do not recall..." slogan while under fire. It's about time our constitution was amended to automatically have a senior official resign when the all of a sudden they cannot recall matters so important and held so dear to these United States.

Re:It was about time

My favorite cartoon [workingforchange.com] about the Gonzales' "I don't recall" stuff.

Reminds me to donate -

From the article: "Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position"

Events like this remind me to donate to the ACLU.

i didn't think much of ag ag

until i heard that story of him rushing to the side of the previous ag, john ashcroft, who was ailing in hospital, himself no friend of the rights and freedoms americans hold dear, and the bastard was seeking an extension of the secret wiretapping program from a sick man [wikipedia.org]:

In a December 2005 article[31][32] in The New York Times, it was revealed that the NSA was eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without proper warrants. This led to an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department. This investigation was shut down after the President[33] denied investigators the security clearances necessary for their work. Some critics have alleged that the President did so in order to protect Gonzales from the internal probe.[34]

According to May 15, 2007, testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey to the Senate Judiciary Committee (as reported in the New York Times[35]) on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr. (then Mr. Bush's chief of staff) tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. The purpose of this dramatic middle-of-the-night visit was to reauthorize the secret wiretapping program, which Comey (as acting AG) had refused to reauthorize. (Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.)

" In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval for a matter. I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.[36] "

Comey's testimony laid out that "contrary to Gonzales' assertion, there was significant dissent among top law enforcement officers over a program Comey would not specifically identify."[36] He added that some "top Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over it."[36]

it takes some effort to make john ashcroft look like a brave defender of american's freedoms. and ag ag did that, by acting like some sort of blitzkrieg operative for the extension of capricious and dubious powers. all very shady, all very slick, all very despicable, and forever afterward in my mind ag ag was worthy of not just resignation, but prosecution and punishment

now it looks like, like a previous white house operative [wikipedia.org] (ag was the general counsel of gw bush in texas), that he's just the fall guy for his higher ups. resigning and taking the heat that rightfully should lead to dick cheney, karl rove, and gw bush

i'm not one for impeachment, it's a radical act, but i'm wondering where all the self-righteous a-holes who were ready to pillory clinton for whitewater and getting a blowjob from an intern are on the subject of gw bush, (or iran-contra, for that matter). or is it just a partisan game to get the other team at all costs, regardless of any actual judgment of the scale of wrongdoing?

personally, clinton could have had roman orgies on the scale of caligula in the white house. compared to what bush has done to this country's image in the world, orgies in the white house ranks as an impeachable offense a couple of orders of magnitude below what the shocktroops of chicanery the gw bush team has given us

gw bush: the usa's worst president, ever. he's just a moronic drunk rich kid. he wasn't even rightfully elected by the will of the american people. can you imagine how different things would be on the world stage today if al gore was in the white house?

the 2008 elections cannot come fast enough

Re:i didn't think much of ag ag

What, the whole "Screw the Geneva Convention, let's torture people" [msn.com] (PDF file) thing wasn't enough?

it took you this long?

Before he even took office he was discrediting the Geneva Conventions as "quaint and outdated." He was instrumental in making torture official US policy...oh scratch that, sorry, he was instrumental in necessitating our redefinition of torture so what we were doing wasn't torture anymore. Anyone who was behind him until the Ashcroft/bedside story has been asleep for a few years.

It's easy to be suspicious when the wind if finally blowing that direction--where were you when this crap started? I knew about Abu Ghraib before I knew about Abu Ghraib, because I've read about the Zimbardo prison experiment. This has been ugly since day one, and I'm not too sympathetic to anyone who gave Gonzalez et al the benefit of the doubt for this many years when they gutted habeus corpus, normalized torture, built secret prisons, etc.

Ablative Armor

That's what Karl Rove and Gonzales are trying to be for Bush and Cheney. I wish to god there was someone in the Democratic party with the balls to bring Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and all the gang to justice. Letting these guys resign and skate away to enjoy the spoils of their crimes is just as deadly to our democracy as the crimes themselves, because our system of checks & balances and faith in the rule of law remain compromised. Impeach, try, and convict. That's the only way to begin to untangle the disaster they've visited on us and the world.

To those who call themselves Republicans and resist this idea, just imagine Hillary Clinton as president with all the powers Bush and Cheney have arrogated to themselves. It should give you screaming nightmares, because it sure does me.

Loyalty more important than competence

Gonzales is yet another example how the Bush administration values loyalty over competence. In virtually every executive-appointed office, Bush has installed people who are not qualified to do the job, but are unconditionally loyal to him and his party.

While this may have always been true, it's never been more true now and this exemplifies the weakness of the American system of government. You elect a president, and then he puts incompetent cronies in positions of huge responsibility in important areas of the government. We've also seen that Bush has no reservations against using loopholes like congressional recess appointments to get around the checks and balances in Congress.

In other countries like Switzerland, heads of each major area of government, from transportation to defense, are independently, democratically elected. The next time an American starts talking about "democracy", remind them that they need to look elsewhere, far outside of their own country, to find a more true example of the democracy.

Re:Loyalty more important than competence

>installed people who are not qualified to do the job

What's really fun/annoying about this is the win/win nature of it for the ones who did it.

They've got their cronies in all of these positions and are tilting the agencies agendas in "loyalist directions" besides. Clearly a WIN.

On the other hand, if those agencies are called upon to fulfill their primary missions, as understood by the rest of the nation...

Those filling the positions are not fully competent to do so, and the agency falls down on its job. How is this a WIN? Simple, the folks selecting the appointees also like to say that they're in favor of smaller government, and that anything that can be privatized, should be. If the agency fails in it's job, it's clear evidence that government is incapable, therefore it should be privatized. Of course you're supposed to ignore the fact that their appointees caused the failure in the first place. It becomes a WIN.

What's truly sad here is the decimation of institutional memory. Some of that may be bad, but not all, and at the very least if the institutional memory is gone, you can't learn from it to improve. The top tier has always been political, but what's happened this time is that the second and third tiers have resigned because they couldn't stomach what the top tier was doing. There's the real problem, the core agency competence has left.

Scary, Scary, Scary: Habeas Corpus

This is the guy who testified to the Senate that the right to habeas corpus is not guaranteed to US Citizens.

What a strange 6 years we have lived through since 9/11. I'm hoping it will be over soon. At least the Gonzalez chapter is.

Strategic Resignation

Congress has only barely worked up the will to investigate these misdeeds, and I am saddened to realize that Alberto Gonzales' resignation will completely end somehow push everyone to "move on." If ever there was an administration that deserved to be hounded until the end of its days, it would be this one - but they are practicing strategic resignations. Every time there is a lull in an investigation, the official under fire resigns, to be replaced by an equally inept and loyal official who simply isn't under investigation yet. The fact that the obvious target of hatred is gone saps the will of the investigators, and everyone involved gets away with no jail time and no penalties.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

Might be hard to believe, but a lot of conservatives aren't happy with the way things have been going throughout this administration. If anything could prove that Republican != Conservative, it's certainly been the Bush White House. I think the more things get shaken up, the more both conservatives and liberals win.

Hmph.

Lot of liberals aren't happy with it either, and the difference is, they didn't vote it in in the first place. If you voted for the republicans in any of the last 3 elections, you've got to accept responsibility for your choice.

Don't get me wrong; I don't blame the conservatives. They always vote the same way (well, some vote libertarian). Same with the libs when it's their party who is screwing stuff up; gotta ride that sinking ship right to the bottom. The thing that pisses me off is the damn fickle swing vote. You'd think, since they're not really wedded to an ideology, they'd be better than the right or the left, but really, they're just a bunch of jokers who vote based on whether a candidate has "Presidential Hair" and other such simplistic crap.

We may blame all the problems on the government, but it's the responsibility of the people to demand good government, and to put good people in power.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

nobody wins until the balance of power is restored to the people, where it belongs.

Don't hold your breath.

We pay lip service to the people, but really, the people have very little say.

When the country was founded, the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as a hedge against mob rule...The members of the electoral college were typically rich landowners, and they weren't required to vote based on the votes of the citizens beneath them, so if the rich landowners didn't like candidate A, they could just vote for candidate B, regardless of how the people voted.

That's not the case these days. These days, most states require the EC to vote based on how the people in the state vote...No wealthy landowners here!

Except...Who do the people vote for? The candidates chosen by the two big political parties. How do the big political parties choose their candidates? Effectively it's money. Whoever can line up the most wealthy landowners behind them, that person wins. That's pretty much the point of the primary system...Trot out the candidates, and see which one the money guys like best.

Sure, there are two guys up on stage, but really they're the same. They go to the same schools. They know the same people. They do roughly the same crap in office.

Power to the people will be a first in this country, if it ever happens.

Obligatory Douglas Adams

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

--Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning

How about slashdotliberalwinning , to signify that we finally are?

Shit like this really REALLY pisses me off.

Right, Left, Rebulican, Democrat...we are all AMERICANS. When will you people get that through your thick skulls?

There are no "teams" here, people. We are all in this boat together. The more of you that put a letter after your name, the more this country falls apart.

The "team" nature that this country has become obsessed with is the marking of our downfall. People like the person quoted in this post are the EXACT reason why this country is fucked. It's not because he is for the liberals or because he is for the conservatives...it's because he is declaring a "side" as "winning".

The instant you do that, we all lose.

Re:Tough Position

Do you have any idea of the duties of the Attorney General? The Attorney General is not the President's private counsel. The Attorney General is the PEOPLE'S COUNSEL. As such, his loyalties are to the People of the United States, NOT the President.

People need to brush up on their civics lessons.

Re:Tough Position

Lets assume for one moment, before he took this position that he was a good lawyer. But to be led by a man who has destroyed so many other reputations is no easy task.

Gonzales has been with Bush since Texas. That's how long his poor judge of character has been in place.

As for him being a good lawyer, that's hard to say. I'm more concerned about whether he's an ethical and moral lawyer, which he is not; and, that didn't start when he took the AG job. Remember that it was Alberto Gonzales that convinced the president that the Geneva Conventions prohibiting torture were "quaint" and don't apply to the U.S. We have the detentions at Guantanamo of "foreign combantants" and the suspension of Habeas Corpus for Americans suspected of ties to terrorism because of him.

Gonzales was amongst the crew strongarming former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the ICU to approve the warrantless wiretapping program. The polital firings of U.S. attorney's is just the last straw on a big pile of straws.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

I don't remember the Democrats OR the republicans bitching when Clinton fired all the Republican district att's and replaced them with Democrats. It was normal, and is expected by both parties

I shouldn't even have to post this, because anyone still spewing the above bullshit obviously already knows the answer and is just blowing smoke, but just in case anyone else was wondering: Replacing all the political appointees as part of coming into office is traditional. Replacing in the middle of a term, only those attorney generals who prosecuted Republicans, or refused to prosecute Democrats is what's scandalous here. The Justice Department had a long history of being largely independant and non-partisan, and that is what was ruined by the Bush administration. That is not normal, nor expected, and that is why morale at the Justice Department is at an all-time low, with scores of senior staff leaving [findlaw.com]. Allowing that to continue would result in a country without rule of law, only political persecution of the party not in power, by the party in power.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

They were fired because they wouldn't abuse their offices for the President's political gain.

You make me sick.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo.

It is normal to replace all the USA's when a new president takes office. What made this different was they went after Attorneys that were not partisan enough in the cases they took. Inglesis refused to speed up an investigation to indict a Dem before the election. He refused to be influenced. If you saw the movie "A Few Good Men" Tom Cruise played the part of Inglesis. Yes, that story was about him.

Carol Lam was the one who put Cunningham in prison. She was working her way up the chain of command and was getting too close to the Whitehouse and Pentagon.

One of the new USA's replacing Cummins was the man who crafted the caging lists that denied black soldiers their right to vote in 2004 and 2006. He went to the Pentagon and found what black soldiers were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. They then sent a "do not forward" letter to their stateside post. When the letter was returned, they used that letter as evidence to challenge their votes. vote caging is illegal.

The USA's that remain are to a man, people who enforced caging lists, voter roll purges, and brought politically motivated cases timed for greatest effect at the polls. The calls of voter fraud was just a cover for their own illegal acts.

No matter what side of the political spectrum you my land you should be concerned when the Attorney General's office becomes a political arm of any party.

I want an AG that is loyal to the law, not the president. Even the much maligned Janet Reno was a far sight better than Gonzales. She went after Clinton with the same gusto as a Republican.

Re:Better late than never

He's just one disaster in a string of disasters. It's not going to get any better either because basically what people have elected into office is a huge disaster.

Until there are term limits on every office, real congressional districts instead of roarshark tests, and a voting populace with a brain you're not going to see much different.

We've done too good of a job polarizing the two parties. everything they do is boiled down to one issue for that voting block and that is what makes the call. If you're against abortion, you'll vote republican no matter what because the Denmocrats want to open