Alberto's been a Bad Little Boy

[BigKahuna13]

Anyone else enjoy the bitch slapping that Congress (notably Republican Congressmen) gave Gonzalez yesterday?

[DMC Freeride]

Anyone else enjoy the bitch slapping that Congress (notably Republican Congressmen) gave Gonzalez yesterday?

Only caught pieces of it...

But - yes - what I've heard I've enjoyed...

[BrockVond]

Anyone else enjoy the bitch slapping that Congress (notably Republican Congressmen) gave Gonzalez yesterday?

I watched all 3 hours of the morning session. It began with folly (this runt Gonzales wouldn't take an oath that he was going to tell the truth) , continued to an intermezzo that was ludicrous (every President since Washington has broken the law, so why shouldn't we?) and ended in horror (You ask about stictly internal surveillance? Wiretapping of U.S. citizen to U.S. citizen communications? That is not what I am here today to testify about, Senator).

Let's just say I am not impressed with our Attorney General.

(But he's a genius compared to his boss.)

[GladeMasterB]

[BigKahuna13]

It began with folly (this runt Gonzales wouldn't take an oath that he was going to tell the truth)

tsk, tsk, making fun of the vertically challenged.

I wonder if the AG skipped out on American History 101. He's equated Washington's opening of other people's mail during the Revolution with the NSA wiretaps. You'd think someone would point out to Al that there wasn't a Constitution to violate at the time of the Revolution.

[BrockVond]

tsk, tsk, making fun of the vertically challenged.

Tragically, it turns out that is the least of his handicaps.

I was honestly rooting for the guy when i began watching. He had a few misteps, beginning with the silly argument over taking the oath, but he was doing ok. I'll tell you when he lost me: When he was asked about the government opening the 1st class mail of U.S. citizens, I thought to myself , "Please don't dodge. Please don't dodge. I beg you." And what did he do?

Pffft. I think most Americans would buy into the administration's argument if they were up front and honest about it. But Gonzales lost that oppurtunity with me. Good thing he didn't take the oath, he'd be on trial for perjury in a few years.

[BrockVond]

This administration is making very large mistakes and not making us safer by making those mistakes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opini ... wanted=all

[XtremeJibber2001]

This administration is making very large mistakes and not making us safer by making those mistakes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opini ... wanted=all

My favorite line:

...the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America.

I think this particular editorial writer is confused. The White House doesn't make Democrats look weak on defense, Democrats make Democrats look weak on defense.

If the Democrats only had a plan, they would show the world just how bad of a job the Republicans are doing with our safety, seriously.

[BigKahuna13]

This administration is making very large mistakes and not making us safer by making those mistakes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opini ... wanted=all

My favorite line:

...the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America.

I think this particular editorial writer is confused. The White House doesn't make Democrats look weak on defense, Democrats make Democrats look weak on defense.

If the Democrats only had a plan, they would show the world just how bad of a job the Republicans are doing with our safety, seriously.

I think this particular editorial writer hit the nail smack on the head. In 14 short paragraphs the writer cogently and succinctly spelled out everything that is wrong with this program and with the Bush Administration's transparent defenses of it.

At this point I don't care whether or not the Democrats have a "plan" for our defense - whatever that silly soundbite means. I'll settle for a political Hippocratic oath and only ask that they do no further harm.

[XtremeJibber2001]

This administration is making very large mistakes and not making us safer by making those mistakes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opini ... wanted=all

My favorite line:

...the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America.

I think this particular editorial writer is confused. The White House doesn't make Democrats look weak on defense, Democrats make Democrats look weak on defense.

If the Democrats only had a plan, they would show the world just how bad of a job the Republicans are doing with our safety, seriously.

I think this particular editorial writer hit the nail smack on the head. In 14 short paragraphs the writer cogently and succinctly spelled out everything that is wrong with this program and with the Bush Administration's transparent defenses of it.

At this point I don't care whether or not the Democrats have a "plan" for our defense - whatever that silly soundbite means. I'll settle for a political Hippocratic oath and only ask that they do no further harm.

The writer did do a good job. I was only speaking about that one line, sorry I forgot to indicate that.

BK, I tried to look up what "Hippocratic" means and didn't come up with a good explanation. Care to explain?

[DMC Freeride]

"Do no harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

[BigKahuna13]

Was referring to the "do no harm" bit as DMC stated. Essentially means that a physican's first responsibility is to not to make their patients worse
("the cure is worse than the disease").

[XtremeJibber2001]

"Do no harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Interesting. Thanks for the insight guys

[2knees]

My favorite line:

...the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America.

I think this particular editorial writer is confused. The White House doesn't make Democrats look weak on defense, Democrats make Democrats look weak on defense.

Did you read the whole article? Anyway, how you justify making that statement is a bit strange when taken in the context of this article and this thread. But the no plan cry seems to be your latest argument for just about everything. Assuming you did read this in its entirety and still came to that conclusion, do you feel that the White House should be given total immunity from laws currently in place and complete control over any and all domestic security issues? Does making the argument that our constitutional rights should be taken into consideration, at the very least, make someone less concerned about the safety of our country? Or, does that concern make that person more concerned about the safety and integrity of our nation? You seem so willing to forgo the rights bestowed upon you by the people that created our constitution, the backbone of our democracy. Isn’t that worth defending also? 9/11 wasn’t going to be stopped by any of the measures put into place legally or illegally after it happened. Russia and at least one other European country specifically warned us about the possibility of foreign terrorists using planes. The twisted irony in all of this is that it’s the people currently in charge who have the most to gain by having another incident, not the democrats/liberals/hippies/tree huggers or whatever other label you want to throw around. And that is not meant to minimize any tragedies past present or future. It's just the sick, twisted world we live in.

[XtremeJibber2001]

My favorite line:

...the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America.

I think this particular editorial writer is confused. The White House doesn't make Democrats look weak on defense, Democrats make Democrats look weak on defense.

Did you read the whole article?

Yes.

Anyway, how you justify making that statement is a bit strange when taken in the context of this article and this thread. But the no plan cry seems to be your latest argument for just about everything.

Your right, it is. A lot of things are being done I support and a lot that I don't support. The lack of a plan from the Democrats leaves me with less options, less alternatives, so I'm stuck with my party, even with my dislikes.

Assuming you did read this in its entirety and still came to that conclusion, do you feel that the White House should be given total immunity from laws currently in place and complete control over any and all domestic security issues?

Nope. But hey, lets cut the sh*t for two minutes, we all know the taps are illegal. Do we all really suspect that the NSA is listening to John Doe in VT talk about skiing with Junior? Do we think the NSA is hastily wasting away tax dollars listening to Bubbas phone calls to Bling about his wine? I don't think they are. I think they're doing just what they say they're doing, monitoring communications between US/non-US citizens and suspected Al-Qaeda members. I refuse to think otherwise until it is made public who has been monitored or more proof of what is actually occurring in this wiretap operation.

Does making the argument that our constitutional rights should be taken into consideration, at the very least, make someone less concerned about the safety of our country?

They should be taken into consideration. From what we know today, only persons that are suspect are monitored. I'm not personally concerned because I know I have nothing to hide. Do I think a clandestine wiretap operation may increase our safety, yes, but maybe not. We really don't know enough about it to say atm.

Or, does that concern make that person more concerned about the safety and integrity of our nation?

I think a clandestine wiretap operation does make it seem like the NSA is attempting all methods of protecting US citizens, even if it is illegal. It may not include the integrity of our nation, however.

You seem so willing to forgo the rights bestowed upon you by the people that created our constitution, the backbone of our democracy.

Yes, in this particular sense. Firstly, because I have nothing to hide. Secondly, I have personally chosen that I will voluntarily give up some of my rights as a US citizen if it helps in the quest for safety in the US.

Isn’t that worth defending also?

Yes, but it depends upon which rights we are speaking. Clearly I am willing to give up some degree of my civil liberties and your are not, we disagree.

9/11 wasn’t going to be stopped by any of the measures put into place legally or illegally after it happened.

Obviously, but it could prevent a future attack, then again, there really isn't a way of knowing that for sure.

Russia and at least one other European country specifically warned us about the possibility of foreign terrorists using planes.

They probably warned us about a lot more than that. Look at the US today. In terms of aircraft safety, we're not much safer today than we were pre-9/11.

The twisted irony in all of this is that it’s the people currently in charge who have the most to gain by having another incident, not the democrats/liberals/hippies/tree huggers or whatever other label you want to throw around.

Regardless of political affiliation, no one wants another attack, period.

And that is not meant to minimize any tragedies past present or future. It's just the sick, twisted world we live in.

I could think of countless ways that each party could capitalize on another catastrophic event. It is my hope that no politicians, on either side of the board, think like this.