×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Attorney General Resigns

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

United States 845

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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

845 comments

Thank goodness (5, Funny)

thdougherty (633759) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370885)

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

Not likely (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371169)

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:Thank goodness (1)

Cheirdal (776541) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371227)

Good riddance to bad rubbish. I honestly think the little weasel thought he wasn't going to be forced to resign.

Chertoff to replace him (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371307)

the head of DHS, easily the most screwed up gov't agency in all it's sectors--not just fema--, is replacing him. This is a man willing to piss on your hat and tell you to your face it's raining if the president tells him to. SO were getting another stooge not an independent jurist as attourney general. It's Bush's insurance policy against prosecution.

Wishful thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371367)

If anyone thinks Bush is going to appoint anyone except a conservative criminal, they are deluding themselves. There's no way in hell the conservatives are going to recommend an AG who will have the guts to prosecute all the Republicriminals.

Bush is going to stay the course, and anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention for the last few decades. Republicans have no intention to do anything except destroy our government and install a theocratic kleptocracy.

My money on their next appointment is Michael "I killed NOLA, ask me how" Chertoff.

Better late than never (0, Flamebait)

alfredo (18243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370893)

He has been a disaster for this country. Good riddance.

Re:Better late than never (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371043)

He has been a disaster for this country. Good riddance.
He is just a puppet. The puppet master is still pretty much in power. I doubt his replacement will be different. The democrats pretty much gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.

Re:Better late than never (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371065)

He is just a puppet. The puppet master is still pretty much in power. I doubt his replacement will be different. The democrats pretty much gave Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants.

Got a better idea? What should they do? Impeach him? What kind of Congress would waste months of time and disillusion millions of Americans by impeaching a President when they know they will never be able to get a conviction in the Senate..... oh wait, n/m....

Re:Better late than never (1)

alfredo (18243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371135)

We haven't let the Dems of the hook. We have been telling them that we will not work for them or give money until they start fighting for our country

Our money may not be much, but many of us are the ones who man the phones, walk the precincts, and distribute the yard signs.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been catching hell from their base. Get tough or go home.

I will be pushing for war crime charges to be filed against the bush junta. I hope you will join in the call for war crime tribunals.

Re:Better late than never (5, Insightful)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371337)

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 Joe's Abortion Clinic - you rape em we scrape em - on every corner.

If you're gay, well, you're fucked because neither party will support you 100%. However the democrats will at least wave your direction when you walk by but then turn around and tell the other folks you're just being nice to them because you feel sorry for them.

If you like guns, you'll vote republican because no matter what they say the Democrats will take away your gun the first chance they get, don't know how to hunt, or many other problems.

It doesn't matter that the candidate is a closeted gay, child molester, or anything else long as he votes for / against whatever one issue you let decide.

And I don't think this is a new phenomenon, they've just gotten better at it. No one wants to compromise anymore. It's my way or the highway seems to be the prevailing wind. You see that attitude everywhere from open source vs. closed source to civil unions vs. marriages. We wouldn't know what to do with someone who actually tried to work for a solution instead of standing up top going my way or the highway. The one campaign statement that to this day that infuriates me to know end is that over and over Bush said he was a uniter, not a divider. Post 9/11 he is the perfect example of a divisive president. The entire world was ready to invade Afghanistan and destroy anything that looked at you crosseyed after 9/11 and then next thing you know forget Afghanistan and the real issue, let's go to Iraq.

I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was some feel good hippie that just got in the way, he killed a good chunk of people and is up there with some of the bigger bad guys in the past. However the path we took really screwed us, but we can't bail out now or our leaving will kill more people than Saddam did in the first place. It's a culture battle at this point and we're too stupid to realize that. Democracy isn't for everyone, and you can't force it on them any more than you can anything else.

I've gotten to the point where I don't know what we can do. the Democratic party currently isn't offering anything worth looking at as far as the 'front runner' is. By the time my state's primary comes around the decision will already be made for me as to who the candidate is because of our fucked up system of nomination. I truly believe that the primary should be one day, nationwide, in February before the election. It's an IRV ballot where you rank your choices, winner take all. the fact that I believe it is after 'super tuesday' nothing can change the outcome.

It's not like IA, NH, and SC are really representative of the US Population either. Iowa gives whitebread a new meaning, as does NH. SC starts to represent the mix of ethnicity that makes this nation so great, but the real melting pot states aren't until later and receive less focus than any other state.

My $0.02 of ranting.

Hey (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20370899)

Hey, could some right wing ditto-head hurry up and tag this 'slashdotliberalwhining'?

Re:Hey (-1, Flamebait)

alfredo (18243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370947)

They are mourning the fall of Rove's 100 Year Reich.

They won't show, they are all at their recruiter's office lining up to fight in bush's war in Iraq.

slashdotliberalwinning (-1, Troll)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370999)

How about slashdotliberalwinning , to signify that we finally are?

Re:slashdotliberalwinning (4, Insightful)

faloi (738831) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371059)

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. (3, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371217)

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 (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371297)

Might be hard to believe, but a lot of conservatives aren't happy with the way things have been going throughout this administration.

I have to believe that most conservatives are happier with the corruption of the Bush administration than they would have been with electing a Democrat - or even another Republican - in 2004.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371403)

Except of course the conservatives were quite happy to claim Bush and his admin as one of their own when things were going better.

Re:slashdotliberalwinning (3, Insightful)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371073)

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

Don't hold your breath. (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371373)

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.

Now will the opposing party actually push back? (3, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370903)

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? (5, Insightful)

slughead (592713) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370991)

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? (1)

qweqwe321 (1097441) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371139)

The Democrats also have a very slim majority, not enough to override a Bush veto or a Republican filibuster. Unless Republican support somehow starts turning against Bush, you aren't going to see much happening.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (3, Insightful)

Xonstantine (947614) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371329)

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? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371239)

Fortunatly for Capitol Hill, people don't elect Congress.

They elect their Congressional representatives...who, for the most part, enjoy approval ratings of 50% or better.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (4, Insightful)

ajs (35943) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370993)

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.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371265)

CNN is talking about Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as a replacement. Bush may simply opt for a recess appointment to avoid a fight with the Senate, but the Senate would be hard pressed to turn down a guy most of them approved for a cabinet position only a couple of years ago. Either way, don't expect to see an Attorney General willing to appoint any special prosecutors [apathy.net] .

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370995)

Your commit would have some merit if the democrats hadn't been vocal on this issue about this for the last couple of years but they have been. You can hardly blame them for being ignored by the white house.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371019)

Good luck on that. The AG post is appointed by the President, so we'll just have another situation where he appoints a couple of losers, then one acceptable candidate who will slide through the senate because he's not as annoying as the early appointees.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Harriet Miers again.

At least you know what they'll want to do (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371277)

I wouldn't be surprised to see Harriet Miers again.
As an actual candidate, or to take the heat off the real candidate as done in the Supreme Court to fast-track an Ivy? The problem is that who else in his circle of friends is not an Ivy, and can do that exact job without it backfiring is a very limited pool.

Re:At least you know what they'll want to do (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371405)

The latter. She'll never make it as a candidate, but it'll be such a pointless rehash it'll make the more experienced stealth conservative more easy to push through. The administration doesn't have anything to lose by fielding worthless candidate after worthless candidate to soften up the Senate for the person they really want.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

mbulge (1004558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371051)

Democrats have been complaining about Gonzales, among other things, for months. The problem is that there is no real recourse when the law and the public are indifferent about all of the current corruption.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371097)

Actually, there were quite a few Republicans calling for a Gonzalez resignation as well--which means he screwed up so bad that even his own party won't go to bat for him.

What is also ironic is that a lot of conservative groups never wanted him to become AG in the first place because of some rather liberal leanings he had on abortion.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371145)

one that will actually ensure oversight of the branches of government as the position is supposed to be doing
 
Where did that come into the job description? The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices. He (or she) doesn't even have to give legal advice to members of the senate (they have their own lawyers), nevermind oversighting them. The only politics involved in the job is what kinds of cases (or even specific cases) the federal government should persue. There aren't enough federal marshals to catch and enough judges to try every potential criminal for every case. Someone has to triage it. When people think other types of cases should be persued or specific cases should be dropped they yell 'politics!' as a distractor.

Re:Now will the opposing party actually push back? (2, Informative)

jezor (51922) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371321)

"The AG's job is to represent the federal government's side in the supreme court and meanwhile give legal advice to the other cabinet positions and the executive offices."

Not exactly. It is the Solicitor General [usdoj.gov] who represents the government's position in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General [usdoj.gov] is the "the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government." Seems like a position whose holder should be very scrupulous about following as well as enforcing the law and maintaining the integrity of the Department of Justice, doesn't it? {Prof. Jonathan}

... and the Daily Show is off this week. (5, Interesting)

TrevorB (57780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370911)

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. (1)

Cerberus7 (66071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370955)

Hah! I was thinking the same thing. Anybody have a source for the dates of the Daily Show's breaks for the last year or so?

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (1, Funny)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370961)

Har har, in the Netherlands we get' em two weeks late so we are OK :)

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371079)

Huh, I figured it was a "my work here is done" kind of break. Thanks, Daily Show. Start working on Operation: Cheney Resignation when you guys get back!

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371207)

Who are you talking to?!!!!

Re:... and the Daily Show is off this week. (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371081)

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?

And yet, Leno, Conan, Letterman, Ferguson and all the other late night comics are still on the air and will have lots of bland fun with it. You're trying too hard.

Lightbulbs (5, Funny)

dws90 (1063948) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370923)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371105)

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.

The people's office.... (2, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370929)

Good! About damn time!

One of the most frustrating, maddening things about this administration is disregard for the people's will. Bolton was a good example. He was only supported by the president and Republicans. When appointing someone that represent the American people you need to have the support of the American people not just your party.

It's in that same spirit that I'm voting Republican in the next presidential election. Do you REALLY think one party rule is going to better under Democrats? I like the idea of one party controlling the White House and the other controlling Congress. It forces people to work together. Something this country BADLY needs now... and for the world as well before we damage things even more.

You're making my brain hurt. (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371129)

I tend to vote for the candidate rather than the party...It's a shit sammich either way, but at least I know what I'm getting before I take a bite.

And what the hell? One party rule sucks regardless so therefore...What? The system is out of balance right now, and we've had a long period of one party. The system is going to swing back, and a few years of the Left undoing some of the more ridiculous abuses of the Right before we lock 'em down with an unfriendly congress/executive will do us all some good. I'm tired of my damn property taxes going up every year to pay for schools and roads because the fed "Doesn't raise taxes."

A good solid electoral bitchslapping will maybe add some humility to the Repubs, and maybe knock them back toward the middle a bit.

Re:You're making my brain hurt. (1)

pete.com (741064) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371363)

That is one of the silliest things ever. So if I understand your complaint you are tired of your local taxes going up because the Feds won't raise taxes on you? I would MUCH prefer to pay more taxes locally, at least then I have a pretty good idea the money is being used to support the people, places and things around me and not some stupid pet project like the Bridge to Nowhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge [wikipedia.org] , or http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id =1202 [americansf...perity.org] the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative.

one more thing... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20370931)

"'For the previous six months, the United States Government has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership
Fixed that for you.

Was he faking, or was he brain dead? (5, Interesting)

shanen (462549) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370933)

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. (4, Insightful)

base3 (539820) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370937)

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. (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371113)

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.

Re:Must be a bigger fascist in the bullpen. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371281)

Gonzales was obviously being prepped when Ashcroft resigned, the *only* thing that surprised me about the Gonzales appointment was that shameful scene where he prostituted his entire family at his confirmation hearings and made his saccharine "I am not a torturer" speech.

There may be someone in the wings, but no obvious successor as there was during the end of Ashcroft. And say what you will about Alberto "thumbscrews" Gonzales, at least he didn't sing in public.

Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead! (1, Redundant)

cyberkahn (398201) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370939)

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!

Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.

Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,

Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.

Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.

Let them know

The Wicked Witch is dead!

Re:Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead! (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371061)

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!

Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Unfortunately, that hasn't stopped Cheney.

Re:Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead! (1)

TrevorB (57780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371075)

Only one thought to this: Democrats = Munchkins.

I wonder which presidential candidate represents the Lollypop Guild?

Not Quite, that's the Secretary of Labor. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371109)

No, I dont think they've gotten rid of Elaine Chao [wikipedia.org] . Even with all of the China bashing that's gone on, and her connections with pro-China entities, she might survive unscathed.

REJOYCE (1)

chrispix (624431) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370945)

REJOYCE! Well at least until the next numbskull is put into that position.

Another Ivy League Certified candidate? (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371195)

That means there's another candidate with some exposure to an Ivy - since it's hard to find someone who isn't in that administration. Even then, it hasn't been a large sign of competence either, more like the lack of it.

Tilt (1)

threaded (89367) | more than 6 years ago | (#20370953)

The 'rule of law' is a 'political consideration'!

Sounds like someone needs to brush up on their Constitutional law.

Re:Tilt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371237)

"Political consideration" is a polite euphemism for corruption. Thought you should know that. :)

Gonzales: The Microsoft of Attorneys General (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20370981)

We need to canvas really smart people (Jobs? Woz?) on who they think we should have in this post.

Tough Position (2, Interesting)

realsilly (186931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371001)

I am no friend to Attorney Gonzalez. In fact I've wanted him out of the position for some time. But to his credit, he has been placed in a horrible 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. It is a great honor and massive amount of responsibility to be in that position. But then to be "Serving at the Will of the President...", augh. He has shown to be loyal to his president. Did he misplace is trust and loyality? Maybe yes, Maybe no. But a strong un-dying loyality in this day and age is very very difficult to find.

In many ways, I respect that ill lasting lasting loyality. But sadly, I would have respected him more had he had the courage to be an honest man with integrity.

This is of course, only my opinion.

Re:Tough Position (4, Informative)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371149)


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 (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371199)

I understand what the position is for. I was making my point that he showed his loyality to one man.

Re:Tough Position (1)

eli pabst (948845) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371387)

Fuck that, he's a US citizen first. He even swore an oath to defend the constitution. He, more than anyone, should know that by rubber stamping the administration's policies he was damaging this country. It's exactly this blind loyalty to our leaders that is taking us down a dangerous road.

Thank Talking Points Memo. (2, Informative)

alfredo (18243) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371009)

They were the ones who first latched onto the US Attorney firings. It was through their investigative reporting that congress got involved.

Talking Points Memo [talkingpointsmemo.com]

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo. (-1, Troll)

Slugster (635830) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371087)

What exactly was the big pissfit about the firings?
The district attorney general positions are appointees, that means that every president gets to appoint them, and has, by firing all the existing ones.

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. ~

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo. (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371317)

don't remember the Democrats OR the republicans bitching when Clinton fired all the Republican district att's

Actually, I do remember the Republicans complaining when Clinton did it.

It was normal, and is expected by both parties.

Midterm, targetted firings are unprecedented, though.

Re:Thank Talking Points Memo. (4, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371335)

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.

Beseech? (0, Offtopic)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371015)

Seriously, who the hell talks like that anymore?

Hey Schumer -- 17th century England called. They want their verbs back.

Re:Beseech? (1)

Grey_14 (570901) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371261)

I use words like beseech once in a while... I think it adds flavor and variety to language, there are a lot of fun words out there to play around with

Re:Beseech? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371365)

Seriously, who the hell talks like that anymore? geeks practicing for Talk Like a Pirate Day, of course

Remember when Slashkos posted about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371027)

The Sandy Berger memos?

Yeah... I don't either...

It was about time (5, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371039)

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.

It means nothing..... (1)

8127972 (73495) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371053)

... He'll just get replaced by another Bush yes man. Sadly, it will be business as usual with a new face.

Now where did I put that... (1)

riffzifnab (449869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371063)

Now where did I put my Queen album collection? I have the perfect song.

The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (1)

Brazilian Geek (25299) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371083)

I've noticed that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have great power over Washington and the current administration.

Most big moves in DC happen when the shows are on a break. Either the administration fears the two jesters or this is a wacky coincidence.

Another event I can remember is "Scooter" Libby's commuted sentence.

16 comments, 5 tags: /. Poster Bias Revealed... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371093)

Need anything more be said? Check them out...

"politics, usa, anotheronebitesthedust, goodriddance, abouttime"

For those few brave conservatives who post here: Thanks for being the lone voices of reason, and not knee-jerk preteens spouting platitudes and whatever else it is the MM would have you believe in order to retain their 'king making' powers...

(Captcha: "dismount")

FuVck a Dick (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371141)

to place a paper its readers and memb3rs aal over watershed essay,

He was a good judge nontheless (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371143)

A web browser that does not animate animated gifs, is NON-CONFORMING.

This is what you get from the google-adclick-mozilla-ie7 trolls who have taken over the w3c consortium. Wait until css3 and javascript3 appear!

Schumer's a camera whore (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371153)

The President shouldn't have to nominate someone that the democrats support, but someone that is competent, experienced and has a history of obeying the law. If the democrats can't support that then they've got no hope in November of 2008.

Re:Schumer's a camera whore (1)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371369)

but someone that is competent, experienced and has a history of obeying the law
Based on his current and previous appointments of hacks, cronies, and true believers, I'm not holding my breath on this.

Reminds me to donate - (4, Insightful)

mattkime (8466) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371155)

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.

This only means.... (1)

securityfolk (906041) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371175)

...that Gonzo has found a more profitable career somewhere else. Keep an eye on him - he'll probably show up later at the Carlisle group, selling weapons to our enemies.

How is this News for Nerds? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371185)

How is this News for Nerds?

Make up your mind (0)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371191)

We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'
Unfortunately, we are forced to pick one or the other ... it's not possible to have both.

i didn't think much of ag ag (5, Informative)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371205)

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

his replacement will be so much better (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371215)

yes, I am sure the fearful leader is ready to put an honest man in place to replace this pile of steaming Attorney General

this will be better now, laws will be enforced and observered.

Re:his replacement will be so much better (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371295)

not to worry, the congress can give the dick-in-the-bush a hard time about their nominees, drag things out just to send a message

Re:his replacement will be so much better (2, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371371)

not to worry, the congress can give the dick-in-the-bush a hard time about their nominees, drag things out just to send a message
You mean the same congress that gave Bush the green light without any fight to spy on americans? The same congress that backed down from an Iraq pullout clause on the budget? The same congress that does nothing?

Schumer is an Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20371249)

He is a complete moron. Someone should take a dagger to his heart.

Ablative Armor (5, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20371355)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...