Attorney General Gonzales resigns: NY Times

[Shifty]

http://www.indecision2008.com/mothe..._context=show&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

 

[Mysterio]

considering he hasn't even left the administration left, i'd have to be a mind-reader to know for sure, so of course it's speculation.

so you have no qualms calling him a criminal without any proof whatsoever. it's ok, because it's just speculation.

armitage came forward after the investigation had begun. there wasn't enough evidence to charge them for treason, which doesn't mean that there was no crime committed, but if you don't have a problem with people at the highest level of government outing a covert agent working in the field of nuclear proliferation while we're trying to supposedly stop saddam hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, then you must be extremely partisan. how would you have reacted if a democratic administration had done the same?

ok, now you're really reaching. fitzgerald knew about armitage from the very start; grand jury proceedings are private and secretive. it was only later that armitage PUBLICALLY came forward. no one was being investigated for treason. that is nothing short of over the top, overemotional rhetoric. she wasn't a covert agent; she was no longer a field agent. she was a desk jockey who hadn't been in the field in years who was taking care of very young twins. if it were a crime, then why hasn't armitage been charged with one? that was the purpose of the investigation, wasn't it?

i'm just saying they look out for their own. once they're done with their political careers they usually end up as i pointed out.

and who doesn't look out for their own? this isn't something that is found solely within the republican party. this is the world of politics and it transcends party. it isn't the sole domain of the left or the right, republican or dem. no one has a monopoly on that practice.

ah, that william jefferson. i'm with you know. i assumed you referring to william jefferson clinton. yeah, i'm familiar with that case. i think he should fired or resign, just like the rest of the democratic party who called for his resignation when it first became public. so what?

so here is a man who has actually broken the law, but you only want him to be fired or to resign? yet you're willing to torch some member of an administration on nothing but your baseless speculation and gut feelings?

 

[sinewave]

so you have no qualms calling him a criminal without any proof whatsoever. it's ok, because it's just speculation.

i think you misunderstood my comments about the speculation regarding gonzalez, but that was most likely my fault for not being clear enough. what i was referring to was that it was speculation on my part that he'd end up on the board of directors at a corporation or a teacher at AEI, not that he did anything wrong in regards to the u..s attorney scandal

ok, now you're really reaching. fitzgerald knew about armitage from the very start; grand jury proceedings are private and secretive. it was only later that armitage PUBLICALLY came forward. no one was being investigated for treason. that is nothing short of over the top, overemotional rhetoric. she wasn't a covert agent; she was no longer a field agent. she was a desk jockey who hadn't been in the field in years who was taking care of very young twins. if it were a crime, then why hasn't armitage been charged with one? that was the purpose of the investigation, wasn't it?

armitage, libby and rove were listed as sources of the leak. armitage had already left his office by the time he had been revealed as the primary source of the leak. why weren't rove and libby fired when they were found to have been involved in the case, as bush promised?

your claim that plame wasn't a covert agent is completely false. fitzgerald cleared that up during the trial. she did indeed hold covert status before she was outted. this perfectly illustrates my biggest problem with the republican mindset. you guys would rather resort to making up lies about the victim of this scandal to cover up any wrong doing, rather than fess up and admit that this was a completely despicable act perpetrated by people at the highest levels of our government. i'll ask you again, since you conveniently avoided the question the first time i asked it; what would your reaction be to this scandal if it had happened under a democratic administration?

and who doesn't look out for their own? this isn't something that is found solely within the republican party. this is the world of politics and it transcends party. it isn't the sole domain of the left or the right, republican or dem. no one has a monopoly on that practice.

believe what you want. i'm confident that many of the members of this administration who've resigned under questionable circumstances will be rewarded with kushy jobs in the private sector that many of the past and current administration officials hold ties to.

so here is a man who has actually broken the law, but you only want him to be fired or to resign? yet you're willing to torch some member of an administration on nothing but your baseless speculation and gut feelings?

no, i didn't say that at all. i definitely think he should be held accountable for any and all crimes he's committed under the rule of law. so does the rest of the democratic party, unlike the republicans with their own. the dems in washington called for him to resign when his misdeeds were discovered. can you say the same for the republicans? did you notice how many of them stuck up for delay when he faced charges?

are you going to respond to all the other corrupt and immoral government officials i pointed out? you've only come up with one instance of a democrat being involved in criminal activity within the last two presidential terms, while i've pointed out several more on the republican side during that same time period. where's your outrage over them? one versus countless others. it's pretty obvious which party is more corrupt and morally reprehensible, despite their claims of moral superiority.

 

[Addendum]

so you have no qualms calling him a criminal without any proof whatsoever. it's ok, because it's just speculation.

ok, now you're really reaching. fitzgerald knew about armitage from the very start; grand jury proceedings are private and secretive. it was only later that armitage PUBLICALLY came forward. no one was being investigated for treason. that is nothing short of over the top, overemotional rhetoric. she wasn't a covert agent; she was no longer a field agent. she was a desk jockey who hadn't been in the field in years who was taking care of very young twins. if it were a crime, then why hasn't armitage been charged with one? that was the purpose of the investigation, wasn't it?

She wasn't in the field from 1997 to 2001. During that time, she was reassigned to Langley, and while in the states she met and married Joe Wilson, had twins in 2000, and then in 2001 was sent back for overseas work.

 

[Mysterio]

i think you misunderstood my comments about the speculation regarding gonzalez, but that was most likely my fault for not being clear enough. what i was referring to was that it was speculation on my part that he'd end up on the board of directors at a corporation or a teacher at AEI, not that he did anything wrong in regards to the u..s attorney scandal

you said, "[gonzalez] was a loyal soldier. that's all bush and cheney care about. they want a mindlessly loyal administration that will do whatever they tell them to do and when they get caught doing something illegal they lie their asses off,..." you don't see where you were implying that gonzalez was caught doing something illegal?

armitage, libby and rove were listed as sources of the leak. armitage had already left his office by the time he had been revealed as the primary source of the leak. why weren't rove and libby fired when they were found to have been involved in the case, as bush promised?

armitage leaving office is completely beside the point; it's irrelevant. he is the admitted leaker and people such as you were claiming a crime had been committed (or in your case, "treason"). being in office is immaterial to whether a crime was committed or not. libby and rove were not listed as sources of the leak. Novak's column was the piece that started everything. Libby and Rove were not Novak's sources.

your claim that plame wasn't a covert agent is completely false. fitzgerald cleared that up during the trial. she did indeed hold covert status before she was outted. this perfectly illustrates my biggest problem with the republican mindset. you guys would rather resort to making up lies about the victim of this scandal to cover up any wrong doing, rather than fess up and admit that this was a completely despicable act perpetrated by people at the highest levels of our government. i'll ask you again, since you conveniently avoided the question the first time i asked it; what would your reaction be to this scandal if it had happened under a democratic administration?

it isn't false. you can look it up if you would take the time to research it and not just rely on left-leaning op/ed pieces. you are blinded by your dislike of the administration and are letting it cloud your senses and any sense of objectivity you have.

as for "you guys"...i don't know who "you guys" are. who are you trying unsuccessfully to lump me in with?

no, i didn't say that at all. i definitely think he should be held accountable for any and all crimes he's committed under the rule of law. so does the rest of the democratic party, unlike the republicans with their own. the dems in washington called for him to resign when his misdeeds were discovered.

now that is patently false. he wasn't asked to resign as congressman; he was asked to resign his seat on the very visible ways and means committee.

are you going to respond to all the other corrupt and immoral government officials i pointed out? you've only come up with one instance of a democrat being involved in criminal activity within the last two presidential terms, while i've pointed out several more on the republican side during that same time period. where's your outrage over them? one versus countless others. it's pretty obvious which party is more corrupt and morally reprehensible, despite their claims of moral superiority.

no, i didn't read that part of your post because there wasn't any point in paying attention to them. i only needed the one congressman to make my point. you are the one who believes corruption is tipped in one side's favor so of course you are again only going to look in one area that supports your preconceived worldview while ignoring the fact that it's not restricted to that one group.

 

[sinewave]

you said, "[gonzalez] was a loyal soldier. that's all bush and cheney care about. they want a mindlessly loyal administration that will do whatever they tell them to do and when they get caught doing something illegal they lie their asses off,..." you don't see where you were implying that gonzalez was caught doing something illegal?

again, you misunderstand what i said. what i said was it's not speculation that gonzalez did something wrong. his testimony contradicted fbi head robert mueller's, acting attorney general at the time james comey's and gonzalez's own aides.

armitage leaving office is completely beside the point; it's irrelevant. he is the admitted leaker and people such as you were claiming a crime had been committed (or in your case, "treason"). being in office is immaterial to whether a crime was committed or not. libby and rove were not listed as sources of the leak. Novak's column was the piece that started everything. Libby and Rove were not Novak's sources.

the way i understand it, armitage claims he accidentally leaked plame's name in a conversation with novak. i can only assume that he had worked out the same kind of deal as novak did with fitzgerald when he (armitage) came forward early in the investigation. novak testified that rove corroborated her name with him in a phone call after armitage had leaked it. rove also apparently leaked it to cooper, according to an e-mail between the two, prior to novak's article. here's what it says on wikipedia about that:

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to TIME reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in TIME, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA

also, it was concluded that libby also leaked her name to judith miller, who then tried to protect him as her source by refusing to testify and ended up in jail under contempt of court.

it isn't false. you can look it up if you would take the time to research it and not just rely on left-leaning op/ed pieces. you are blinded by your dislike of the administration and are letting it cloud your senses and any sense of objectivity you have.

repeating a lie doesn't make it true, man. she was covert. read this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

or check out the first paragraph in her bio on wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

are you so desperate to cover up for the lies of this administration that you'd continue to propagate them or are you just too lazy to actually look up the information yourself? ask yourself this; why do you want that lie to be true so badly?

as for "you guys"...i don't know who "you guys" are. who are you trying unsuccessfully to lump me in with?

do you consider yourself a republican or a conservative? if so, i'm lumping you in with the rest of the reps and conservatives who've continue to spread this lie to save face in what would be a lid-blower of a scandal if it had happened under a democratic administration.

now that is patently false. he wasn't asked to resign as congressman; he was asked to resign his seat on the very visible ways and means committee.

i don't think congress has the power to ask one of it's own to resign it's post. that would have to come from his constituents. i don't know. but i didn't claim that anyway. i should have been clearer, but i said nothing of him being asked to resign as a congressman.

no, i didn't read that part of your post because there wasn't any point in paying attention to them. i only needed the one congressman to make my point. you are the one who believes corruption is tipped in one side's favor so of course you are again only going to look in one area that supports your preconceived worldview while ignoring the fact that it's not restricted to that one group.

so you've got one guy on the dem's side, but when i point out the overwhelming corruption within the republican ranks you think it's even steven? i've got a lot more examples if you're interested, but i assume you aren't since you don't care about republican corruption. you claim i'm partisan, but you can't be bothered with the countless instances of corruption within the republican ranks. why are you being so hypocritical?

 

[hippie_hunter]

It's official,all of Bush's followers have left him for dead.

Not true actually. There's still Condelezza Rice, Michael Chertof and Dick Cheney.

People like Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Harriet Miers, Scooter Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and Alberto Gonzales left not because they left him for dead or because they saw the ship sinking, they left because they had no choice at all.

The only one who really left the sinking ship was Colin Powell, because it was clear that he hated working for him.