Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by James_Newman, Apr 17, 2007.
One thing for sure, Gonzales is certainly making John Ashcroft (Bush's 1st AG) look pretty good, isn't he?
Let's see: We've gotten Imus fired so I suppose Gonzales is the next on our hit list. Wonder who's after him?
Scary, isn't it?
As bad as Gonzales is, Ashcroft still doesn't look good to me!
The situation with Gonzales began some time before the Imus thing; therefore, your statement doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, 'bout 30 seconds after he was confirmed.
Terry (et. al.)--
[Please take the following in the spirit that it is intended.]
I'm sorry that my post doesn't make sense to you.
Did it ever occur to you that it's possible there may just be another way of looking at why I might have posted what I did?
Of course you certainly are entitled to your opinion(s), but just because yours may at times conflict with mine (or with any of our other BB friends [and I do consider you as my friend!], for that matter) doesn't mean that you must necessarily come down so hard on them, does it?
In fact, if you must know, my post was simply intended to add a little touch of humor.
Now, if it's your belief that humor is not something we Christians need to occasionally have , then I suppose that's your privilege.
OTOH, I tend to believe that even God probably has a sense of humor--otherwise He would not have made me!
Hope this clarifies the reason for my post. OK?
Blessings to y'all!
I was not complaining, just pointing out a seeming inconsistency.
I didn't mean to sound "so hard."
I enjoy humor, but I didn't know that was your intent
Rosie O' Donnel is next. She dared to ask some questions, in public! How un American!
I would not lose any sleep over that one.
I do disagree with the Imus firing.
I'm leaning towards Gonzales' resignation/termination. It certainly appears that he lied about his role in the attorney firings. He'd have been better off to say that he initiated their termination for not following the instructions of their superiors. That would have been the truth and it would have been perfectly warranted. He really screwed up.
My opinion is John Ashcroft was a much better AG. I also believe he had stronger principles.
I am certainly no fan of George Bush, as he has betrayed every conservative principle in existence. However, he is POTUS, and he has the right to fire these attorneys at his pleasure or will. If Gonzales made recommendations, the ultimate choice was the President.
Why does everyone blame Gonzales for decisions that the President has the right to make without question? If he lied or mislead about this or other situations, why dont you all make arguments for those points, and not this one, which is mute.
I agree with you on each point raised.
What I was saying was, Gonzales screwed up in not telling the truth about the firings, and by trying to dodge the issue by saying he wasn't involved.
The President has the right to fire anyone under him for not following his directions. He is the chief Executive in charge of law enforcement, so all federal attorneys fall under his direction. If they choose to do something contrary to what he feels is correct, he has the authority to terminate their employment.
I hope you didn't construe my comments as anything different than that. I don't think Gonzales necessarily did anything wrong in the firings, but if he did lie about his involvement and the reasons, he should be canned. The AG should not be lying to the public just to save himself from some perceived embarrassing press coverage.
Bush has the authority to replace these attorneys at any time. The problem is that it now appears that Gonzales lied; if he hadn't lied it would have looked like the firings were done for strictly political purposes. It this had happened, it would have made Bush look bad, therefore the evasive tactics.
It doesn't matter why Hewanted them fired political or otherwise. He doesnt have to have a good reason.
Some conservatives are as stupid as liberals.