Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 651 To 657 Of 657 Comments
WHOSE FREEDOM? WHAT IS SPEECH?
I agree that the hate crimes part of this case is most likely nonsense, but there is a difference between a crucifix, a flag, and a Koran -- only the Koran is beleived to be an actual holy item by its followers. Christians (well, most) do not believe the crucifix is a physical embodiment of divinity, but rather a symbol of the relgion. Likewise for the flag, American or otherwise: it may symbolize a country but it is not the country itself.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 09:03
The Koran, however, is specifically regarded as more than just a book in the Muslim faith. Christianity has no prescriptions against burning a Bible, or defacing a crucifix -- its unbelievably rude, but not a sin. The Koran is covered by strict rules in the Muslim faith, because it is essentially considered to be a actual physical manifestation of the power of Allah, and not just as a collection of words on pages. Thats where the issues with handling Korans at Gitmo came from -- to the Muslims, it wasn't just rude, it was being forced into a sin by the guards.
The above is a VAST oversimplification, but just wanted to throw my two cents in.
BTW, the crucifix case is distinguishable as well based on the fact that the crucifix was "art" (I use that term loosely), assuming you are refering to "Piss Crist" by the idiot a few years ago. If the gentleman in the instant case claimed this was some sort of performance piece, he may have a better defense (but I still don't see hate crime, unless he forced Muslims to watch him do it at gunpoint or something like that).
GONZALEZ: CAN EVERYONE BE RIGHT?
@ Sirius:
You want a Bill of Particulars, that may take a few days to research the legal threshold for cabinet officals -- impeachment runs under a different legal preinciple than criminal charges. I never impeached a cabinet offical before, so I don't have any pre-research done.
My reason for mentioning it was your post seemed to imply that Congress is incapable of impeaching cabinet officials, and I was trying to point out that it is legally possible, in that is has happened in the past.Grounds? For Gonzales, lying to Congress, as I discussed above. If on nothing else, he lied about not talking to anybody in regards to the fired attys. Since lying to Congress under oath is a crime, I assume Felonious behavior would be gounds to impeach (but again I'm guessing at this point).
Give me a few days for a legal standard.
As for the others, I never mentioned them -- in this thread at least, I'm talking about Fredo. One thing at a time.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 17:38
@ Sirius Familiaris:
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 09:30
I'm sure Republicans will remember this, but will they also remeber your position to "read the Constitution and drink a big glass of STFU juice "? So Congress can't impeach Gonzales, according to you? If I get your position correctly, Gonzales could literally be selling crack out of the DoJ, and there's nothing anybody can do about it if the Prez says its okay. You sure about that? I believe there have been impeachments of Cabinet officials in the past (at least one . . . Belknap, about 150 years ago) so unless the law has been re-written, it is legal for Congress to impeach a cabinet official.
And they are NOT appointing cabinet officals -- they are removing cabinet officials. Slight difference.
@jukeboxgrad:
thank you for the comment. Much appreciated.@daveinboca:
"But the substance of the Gonzalez case involves all sorts of intricate covert back-pages of top secret programs—-so the Dems play politics and pull off another “process crime†show trial a la Scooter Libby."Really? What the heck does firing a US Attorney have to do with "covert back-pages and top secret programs"? Inglesias sure seems like he was canned for not bringing the voter-fraud case the New Mexico GOP wanted brought -- care to explain how this has anything to do with the War on Terror (copyright 2001 W's White House). Lam sure seems like she was canned for digging into the Cunningham affair a little too effectively (what was it she was told? You have days, not weeks, to get the hell out of your office -- forget the investigation). Cummings ( think it was Cummings) got canned for not bringing a bogus voter-fraud case against ACORN. Schlozman gets rushed in to file the case. Again, what the heck does this have to do with National Security? "If I told you, I'd have to kill you" just stops being a viable defense at some point.
You complain that this is all just for show. While I don't doubt the Dems are milking it for all they can squeeze out if it, does that mean that Gonzales hasn't been lying to Congress? If a cop stops a speeding vehicle because the driver was black, does that mean the car wasn't speeding? You compared it to the "sham" of the Libby trial -- so you don't think Libby lied? W does. The Judge and Jury were pretty confident of it. Why don't you think he lied? How were the lies anything but an attempt to cover up the "smear Wilson" campaign? How does showing that the yellowcake uranium story was pure crap merit a smear campaign? Oh, thats right, you cant tell us -- national security.
ANY government, Right or Left, that refuses to tell its citizenry what the hell is going on, and relies on "just trust us," is anathema to the American Ideal. Answer me this: are you defending Gonzales because he is unfairly being picked on (i.e. didn't lie), or because he's on the Side of Goodness, and therefore must be protected regardless of his actions?Washington Post:
"When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."
As Mr. Eggen notes, the warrantless wiretapping had already benn going on for years at that point. A flat, bald-faced lie. I suppose you could argue that he HAD to lie, to protect our secrets, but if thats the case why not give one of his "I can't go into that" answers? There's only one logical explanation -- he thought he could get away with lying, no one would be the wiser, and no harm, no foul.
This is the chief law enforcement officer of my country, lying (repeatedly) to my elected representatives.
Sidenote: with all of the "it must have been two seperate programs" defending going on, its intersting to note that the only members of the Gang of Eight who have spoken out so far have flatly refuted his version of the 2004 meeting -- everybody agrees it was the TSP that was discussed. Well, everybody erxcept Gonzales. Guess all those Senators must be idiots, because if its everybody's word versus Gonzales, well, everybody must be wrong. Thank God there aren't any records of the meeting -- hate to have definitive proof of what happened or what was said.
And Tony Snow can't figure out why "no transcript" interviews with Admin officials doesn't sound like a good offer.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 30.07.2007 @ 05:52
Lets assume that your interpretation of the facts is correct, and there is a potential explanation that "clears" Gonzales.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.07.2007 @ 13:49
First, even if it is possible to analyze the facts in a way that may be non-perjury, the situation remains that the "innocent" explanation is one that clearly does not flow smoothly from the facts, but one that has to be reached for. When Gonzales testified that there were no disagreements, he was clearly trying to assure the Senate that the Administration was taking great pains to make sure the program(s) were run legally, and therefore Congres should just quit asking questions. Even if he didn't "lie" (a statement I don't personally agree with), it seems pretty blatant he was trying to deceive Congress -- "no problem, nothing to see here, move along now." That's intentional deceit to me (or gross stupidity).
Second, what about the "I didn't talk to anyone" statement? During the April testimony, he made clear that the reason he couldn't remember a damn thing was because he had carefully avoided talking to anybody relevant, so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Then Ms. Goodling not only testifies that they talked, but she felt he was trying to get their stories on the same page. When asked last week, Gonzales said that there was no lie in his first statement that he didn't talk to anybody since he only discussed the facts with her because she was an emotional woman, not to, y'know, coach her. The statemet in April wasn't "I didn't coach anybody" but "I didn't talk to anybody." Isn't that perjury (as well as deception)?
Third, these attempts to explain just what the heck Gonzales means always seem to happen after conflicting facts come out. The attys were fired for cause, we're certain. Oh, they wern't? Well, then I must have just thought they were (cuz otherwise I'd be lying). White House had absolutely nothing to do with this. Oh, they did (as shown by the Rove e-mail)? Well, I must not have known that (cuz otherwise I'd be lying).
I didn't talk to anybody. Oh, I did? Well, I meant something else. Don't worry about our surveillance, its totally legal. Oh, the DoJ and Ashcroft (Ashcroft!) thought it was illegal? Well, I must have meant some other program, or something else, but I'm certainly not lying.
As a liberal independent, it infuriated me when Clinton played the "it depends on what 'is' is" game. Yes, its possible he forgot how to use the present tense of the verb To Be in general conversation, but you show me a Conservative who doesn't believe it was a flat, bald-faced lie.
"WHAT'VE THEY GOT THAT I HAVEN'T GOT?"
Hit the issue squarely on target. If you can't even wing a good lie, you really have no business being at this level of the political game. Dem or GOP, if your job is to sell ideals, then you should at least be able to work a crowd.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.07.2007 @ 16:09
I'm not a fan of the Parlimentary system of government, but I do think Prime Minister's Questions should be instituted here, in some form or another, to at least force politicians to be good liars. I may not have approved of Mr. Blair, but damn he could field a question about anything, anytime, anywhere, and come out smelling sweet as a rose.
WHY THE POLITICIZATION OF GOVERNMENT IS WRONG
visitor to the site -- very impressive, and impressive posts. I'm one of the hippie liberal baby-killing lefties (not Dem, though -- independent), so feel free to take my comments with whatever grains of salt you like.
For the above "Clinton did it too" posters . . . I've seen variations on this theme at several sites, but most of the locations were too amped up on hate to have serious dialogue. I've always wanted to ask the logic of that position. Presuming you are all correct, and the Clinton Administration was the Fountain of All Evil (something I'm not affirming or denying), how does it make W look good to compare him to Clinton?
"W politicized the Surgeon General's Office!!"
"Oh yeah? Well, Clinton politicized the mailroom!!"
". . . and that was a bad thing, right? Something you wanted him to be punished for, right?"
"Of course!! And that's why W's doing the same is totally not a bad thing!"
"?????"To me, that defense of the administration damns it more than exculpates it (if I correctly guage your collective opinion of Slick Willie as "poisonous pond scum"). Even assuming Clinton was worse (again, not for or against, just assuming), the argument doesn't help W:
"W, you took my wallet!!
"Oh year? Clinton robbed a bank!!"
" . . . so, I still want my friggin' wallet back!"It just doesn't make sense to me, any more than the "everybody does it" defense. I don't know where you all live, but here (in NE PA) everybody speeds on the highway. Everybody, with no exceptions. If Mr. Quota decides to pull you over and write you a speeding ticket, "everybody's doing it" does not get you out of trouble -- in fact, I believe they call it a "confession".
I'm not trying to troll, I'm honestly wondering why you offer these arguments. Let me rephrase that -- why does either "Clinton was worse" or "everybody does it" seem to exonerate W's behavior for you?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.07.2007 @ 19:33
