November 12, 2004
Attorney Generalissimo
President Bush nominated Alberto Gonzales to take Ashcroft’s place as US Attorney General.
If the name sounds familiar, it’s because after the Abu Ghraib scandal was uncovered, some embedded patriots in the Justice Department leaked memos from Gonzales’ office advising the President that the “nature of the new war” on terror “renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”
Gonzales' memo, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance in interrogation, also concludes torture is legally defined as, "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department argued, the psychological harm must last "months or even years."
So, according to Gonzales, anything short of that is NOT torture, and is applicable to anyone the executive branch deems a combatant in the vaguely defined 'war on terror'.
Gonzales has denied a link between those memos and the abuses. Yet the issue seems bound to be explored, and Anthony Romero, head of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the 2002 memo "will be the single toughest issue for him, because there's actually a paper trail."
Get ready for an interesting confirmation hearing...
AP
Nice topic.
While I don’t care about the welfare of enemy prisoners of war, I feel this guy is a bad choice.
My main concern is with the “American” enemy prisoners that are, and will continue to be, treated unfairly due to the “war on terror.”
As these definitions are applied to Americans, I can only hope the American public will wake up and take a stand against the tyranny that is going on.
This guy is in the same league as Reno and should not become our new AG.
Yeah, I think that could turn public support against him. I think he’d virtually have to say “The devil [read: John Ashcroft] made me do it”, in which case the Democrats cry Nuremberg and the Bush establishment disowns him for breaking ranks. Then again, perhaps the Democrats will let the issue slide on the conditions that he not let something like that happen again, and because he’s noticeably to the left of Ashcroft (not that it’s too difficult).
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2004 09:19 AMWhy don’t we skip the pretence and just get to the core: Bush nominating anyone is going to piss you off. Get over it.
Posted by: damon at November 12, 2004 09:56 AMAs a law student and future lawyer, i get very uncomfertable when people’s interntal memos giving LEGAL opinions about the state of the law to superiors are so prominent used to undermine them. That is, this gentleman did NOT say he would use torture on people- it was just his LEGAL OPINION that they were not barred by certain conventions.
I happen to disagree completely with his conclusions on these memos, but it seems to me that this is exactly the sort of inquiry into memos that no one ever had a right to see (think attorney-client priveledge) is very dangerous to the legal integrity if our system. Maybe i am overly sensitive to this because this will be my future profession, but i cant stress enough to you how harmful this is. When giving legal advice lawyers should only worry about whether there advice is accurate, not what will happen to their political careers if the advice gets out to the public.
The Democrats have already started this pattern of attacking people for their internal memos (demand to see Miguel Estrada’s memos), and this is another step down this dangerous, dangerous path. I ask you guys on the left- please dont undermine the important role that lawyers serve as legal advisors to further your political ends.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 12, 2004 10:18 AMI think it is a terrible mistake to not feel concern for prisoners of war that we capture. When we start to feel that it is okay to mistreat them, then we have lost our own humanity, and any pretense to a morally superior position.
That said, I strongly disagree with the legal opinion that he stated in that memo, and wonder how he feels such an opinion might be applied to “enemy combatents” who happen to be American citizens.
I cannot say I like his appointment, but unless something really bad shows up, I think the Democrats will let it go. They need to show signs of cooperation, and a willingness to work with Bush, at least until the important nominations like supreme court justices. I mean, if he were being nominated to the Court, then I would say there are problems.
OTOH, I have heard reports that conservatives are up in arms, because his position on abortion is not as extreme as Ascroft’s.
Posted by: Tim at November 12, 2004 10:30 AMMisha:
“That is, this gentleman did NOT say he would use torture on people- it was just his LEGAL OPINION that they were not barred by certain conventions.”
Gonzalez’ legal opinion was ILLEGAL because the Geneva Convention states that torture of prisoners is illegal.
“this is exactly the sort of inquiry into memos that no one ever had a right to see (think attorney-client priveledge) is very dangerous to the legal integrity if our system.”
It was an inquiry into a scandal that broke only through a whistleblower - before that it had been an dirty secret the administration had been trying to keep hidden because they knew they were breaking international law. I see no correlation between attorney-client priviledge in this particular instance.
“Maybe i am overly sensitive to this because this will be my future profession, but i cant stress enough to you how harmful this is.”
And I can’t stress enough how breaking international law has been harmful to America’s reputation. The administrations decision to cast aside international law only further endangered our soldiers and left this country open to greater threat through terrorism.
“When giving legal advice lawyers should only worry about whether there advice is accurate, not what will happen to their political careers if the advice gets out to the public.”
His advice was illegal, and any lawyer who gives out that kind of advice deserves whatever they get as a result.
“I ask you guys on the left- please dont undermine the important role that lawyers serve as legal advisors to further your political ends.”
This appointment is an outrage - though that is not surprising with Dubya in charge. As for our political ends, I really don’t think its asking too much to want the chief law officer of the nation to have enough morals to know that torture is wrong.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 12, 2004 11:13 AMAdrienne- you assume you know too much about this stuff, and sadly you do not. This is a rather technical legal issue about the applicability of certain portions of certain conventions, and the extent to which they are self-enforcing and apply to different kinds of conflicts.
I have done a good deal about this, and you are actually likely correct on the legal issue- but there is a very plausible LEGAL argument on the other side, which you refuse to awknowledge with dismissive “illegal” classifications, without actually doing the leg work to figure out exactly the legal issue at stake. (note, i am actually working for someone on behalf of one of the GTMO Bay detainees- so i am on your side on this!)
And this final statement shows how deeply you misunderstand what is going on here: “I really don’t think its asking too much to want the chief law officer of the nation to have enough morals to know that torture is wrong.”
He never said torture was not immoral, he was saying that it was not elligal under law that was binding on the united states on this case. You make claims that “His advice was illegal” which I guess you mean that his advice was legally wrong. If you want to challenge his legal compotence, thats fine- but I doubt anyone who seriously knows the law would do that, as he is a very respected legal mind (I also enjoy how you believe, without ever reading his memos, that you can make such broad claims about his supposedly illegal advice).
The above, my friends, is why examining people’s legal memos and taking them out of the advice-lawyer context is incredibly dangerous, irresponsible and harmful to the legal profession.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 12, 2004 11:27 AM“Adrienne- you assume you know too much about this stuff, and sadly you do not.”
Misha- I assume nothing. And I’m glad I’m not a lawyer! :^)
AP in his article wrote:
“Gonzales’ office advising the President that the “nature of the new war” on terror “renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.”
From what I understood when this story first broke, he had no authority whatsoever to render those strict limitations and provisions “quaint” because of the changing climate of terrorism.
Perhaps I am wrong.
“He never said torture was not immoral, he was saying that it was not elligal under law that was binding on the united states on this case.”
Why would we be suddenly above the law just because of terrorism? Europe has had terrorism for years and they’ve never broken the Geneva Conventions as far as I know.
“The above, my friends, is why examining people’s legal memos and taking them out of the advice-lawyer context is incredibly dangerous, irresponsible and harmful to the legal profession.”
I thought the above quote from AP’s article was a direct quote from the memo.
Posted by: Adrienne at November 12, 2004 11:54 AMIf we don’t respect the Geneva convention, other contries won’t either. And that means our own soldiers will be tortured to hell the next time they become POW’s.
Posted by: political news at November 12, 2004 01:12 PMOnly one country ever adheres to the Geneva convention and that is the US. The world allows our soldiers to be treated as animals while we pamper others. Some idiots commit small abuses and now we are the most inhumane people in the world.
The facts are: war is hell and we will always treat them better than they treat us.
The real issue with this is, how are Americans who have been classified as “enemies of the state” going to be treated?
The thought of an American being tortured or held without councel by their very own govt is frightening to me. Even if they really are part of the “war on terror,” as Americans they deserve their rights.
I heard a lecture by Alan Dershowitz re torture. He is a very liberal guy, so I recall I was surprised when he said something like, “We all believe in torture; we only differ about the justifications.” The example he used was that someone has kidnapped your daughter and if she is not found soon, she will die. You have captured the kidnapper, but he won’t talk. What do you do? Many of us would begin by breaking his thumbs and move on from there. If I were in that situation, that would be my inclination.
Dershowitz made a distinction between proactive and reactive torture. It is wrong to torture someone as punishment, but okay to do so if it will force him to give up information that will save lives. Although I believe I would break a couple more bones of the kidnapper of my daughter just for good measure. Of course, I am greatly simplifying Dershowitz’s good argument, and I suggest anyone who wants to know the details read what he has written on the subject.
In many ways the rules of war do not apply to the war on terrorism. For example, a person found behind your lines, dressed in civilians clothes is thought to be a spy and subject to execution. Almost all terror suspects fit this definition. I don’t think anyone is advocating that particular practice. Another problem is non-state actors. We have no legal provision for war without having a state. Usually you keep prisoners of war until the war is over or they are paroled. In this case, terror suspects would never get out.
We have to come up with some sort of solution to these problems, but pretending to be outraged by rulings of our government when it is attempting to adjust to this new situation is just not very useful. The way that some liberals seem to define torture, it would include almost any imposition of discomfort or pain. By that definition, not stopping the car immediately when someone claims he has to pee would qualify.
We have to come up with some sort of solution to these problems, but pretending to be outraged by rulings of our government when it is attempting to adjust to this new situation is just not very useful.
What makes you think the outrage is pretend?
Posted by: Alejo at November 12, 2004 02:59 PMAlejo
Maybe not pretend. I don’t know. Stupid things like Abu Ghraib outraged me. But like Dershowitz, I don’t think we can dispense with such an important tool and the discussion of it does not outrage me. I guess different people have different outrage thresholds.
Posted by: Jack at November 12, 2004 03:09 PMJack —
Well, speaking only for myself, it’s accumulated outrage and it’s quite sincere. This is the most secretive, aggressive, antagonistic, and smug administration I have ever seen and the fact that they are secretly trying to find ways to justify torture is just another nail in the coffin.
Fine, we think we might need to use torture in order to protect ourselves. I don’t agree, but say that’s so. Why does it have to be underground so no ones knows about it until after it’s already happened? That’s just too much power in the White House, in my opinion.
Posted by: Alejo at November 12, 2004 03:22 PMDamon-
Pretense? The legal decision that allowed Abu Ghraib to occur is not a pretentious reason to question somebody’s nomination.
Under the constitution, treaties are binding. If he gave a piece of legal advice that lead us into internationally illegal acts, then that is a reasonable barrier to him being confirmed as the lead law enforcement officer in the country, especially when great shame comes of that decision.
Misha-
It’s advise and consent. Decisions, rulings and briefs are evidence of these people’s careers and those senators are elected representatives.
Alejo
There is a good and mercifully short book by John Lewis Gaddis called “Surprise, Security and the American Experience” that puts a lot of the recent policies in historical perspective. The Bush policy resembles the rationale developed by John Q Adams.
Adrienne:
You say that the Gonzalez appointment is outrageous. I’m curious who you might suggest as an alternate who you would NOT find outrageous. Just curious if you have anyone in mind.
AP:
No one has mentioned this, but I will. I’m a bit put off by the title you chose for this thread “Attorney Generalissimo”. I don’t particularly mind if you dislike the nomination of Gonzalez, but to title your post in a racial context is certainly discomfitting.
Now you can certainly claim to not have intended a racial comment, but I doubt you’d have used the term “Generalissimo” were Gonzalez not Hispanic. Perhaps it was an unintended slip on your part—-I certainly don’t want to ascribe motive. If so, its certainly something you want to avoid in the future.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 12, 2004 04:59 PMOk I want to make a few comments to a few different people on a few different things they said, so bear with me.
kctim:
This guy is in the same league as Reno and should not become our new AG.
What do you have against Janet Reno? I am only asking because I personnally am not well versed on her actions during her time in that position to have any personnal opinion on the subject (considering I was not yet old enough at the time to particularly care about that kind of thing).
Only one country ever adheres to the Geneva convention and that is the USI know you are trying to justify our actions here but I must demur. Are you trying to imply here that because nobody else adheres to a fundamentally good peiece of international legislation that America shouldn’t either? I find it hard to agree with any argument that boils down to a “they did it first” or “everyone else is doing it” kind of mind set. I give you enough benifit to assume that is probably not what you were trying to imply. However, just because we are the only people who are taking the moral high road, doesn’t mean we should detour because we find ourselves alone on that road. “political news” had a point (although a short one): If we want other countries to follow that convention we have to do so ourselves regardless of whether or not they are ultimately complaisant.
Stephen:
The legal decision that allowed Abu Ghraib to occur is not a pretentious reason to question somebody’s nomination.
This is a bit of a nonsequittor, but you have seriously misued the term pretentious. The American Heritage Dictionary defines pretentious as follows:
1.Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2.Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious.
Probably the better word to use here would be sufficient or if you must use a big word, an exceptable alternative is “commensurate”.
jack:
The Bush policy resembles the rationale developed by John Q Adams.
How so? I am not being pretentious here, I’m simply not a connoseiur (is it obvious to anyone else that someone here is studying for his GREs…he he) on that subject and would be interested to know the connections (a link explaining this would be perfectly sufficient).
joebag (can I nickname you this without being derogatory?):
No one has mentioned this, but I will. I’m a bit put off by the title you chose for this thread “Attorney Generalissimo”.
While I can see where this could be racially offensive, the reason it sparked my interest (and possibly is why AP worded it as so) is that it makes connotations to the political cartoons of Ted Rall (who lovingly refers to our fearless leader as “Generalissimo el Busho” ).
Personally, I am a fairly avid reader of his political commentary and cartoons (to those conservatives, let me warn you that he is VERY liberal). Of course I don’t know if those were his reasons for using that terminology, but that is what peaked my interest about the post. Posted by: Nick at November 12, 2004 06:32 PM
Nick
I took the GRE in 1977 and haven’t studied since.
The John Q Adams analogy comes from the Gaddis book. I won’t go into more detail than anyone wants here. In short, Adams was responsible for a lot of the rationale behind U.S. foreign policy in the first half of the 19th Century. Adams reacted to the burning of Washington by the Brits by wanting to make the U.S. self sufficient in its defense and much more powerful than any potential challengers in N. America. He was behind the ruthless, but effective treatment of Spanish Florida that secured the U.S. border, for example. The result of an active and preemptive policy was that by the end of the century the U.S. had no serious threats anywhere in the W. hemisphere. Bush reacted in a similar way on the world scale to the attacks on New York and Washington. While it is unlikely that the U.S. can establish the same thing in the world, dealing decidedly with threats is in the same spirit. It is not my theory, I just thought it was interesting.
You’ll notice, Nick:
1.Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified
I feel the use of the word pretentious is justified. There are pretentious ways to present ideas, to argue a point of logic, and to perform a work of art. We say somebody argued the point pretentiously, that is expecting a point to mean or stand in for something greater than it actually was.
The connotation may be a bit funky, in retrospect, but My use of the term was calculated on the grounds that the words pretense and pretentious share roots and areas of meaning. A pretentious person is a person who acts with the pretense of something, and such a person would argue something pretentiously, pretending to greater logic than he actually had.
Jack-
Our interventions have had significant consequences for our modern times. Just look at the economic and political condition of many of the nations in our hemisphere. We are responsible for much of that.
In protecting our interests here and abroad, we should prescribe solutions here and abroad that both get the job done, and get it done without causing an excessive amount of serious side effects. We should learn from history in our approaches, ensuring that we don’t have to repeat certain mistakes more than we have to.
Call it the “Vioxx/Fen-Phen” principle of foreign policy. Unfortunately, this is an administration that doesn’t read the warnings on the side of the bottles For example, on Iraq:
Gulf War: Take one every twelve years. Warning: Should be taken with plenty of troops.
Terror Alert: For topical use only.
War on Terrorism: Maintain constant dosage internally.
Gonzales Legal decision: May cause cramps, bleeding, bruising, prolonged fits of nudity and the sudden spontaneous desire to form unclothed human pyramids while female MPs point at genitalia.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 12, 2004 09:57 PMStephen
All history and politics are “compared to what?” proposition.
Latin America’s social and political features that caused so much trouble predated effective U.S. intervention in their affairs. Most of the continent’s problems are home grown. Anyway, the alternative to the U.S. probably would have been colonization or recolonization by European powers, and we have seen how well that worked out in Africa and SE Asia. You will recall that when the U.S. was preoccupied with the War Between the States, the French took the opportunity to install the hapless Hapsburg Maximilian as emperor of Mexico, and only withdrew their support when the war was over and Phil Sheridan’s cavalry prowled the border. Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world in 1900 until its political class destroyed the country’s prosperity, with no help and often in opposition to the U.S.
Even absent overt colonization, a Western Hemisphere “in play” in the global balance of power would not have been beneficial for anybody. Argentina came perilously close to becoming a Nazi ally, while Brazil fought along with the allies. Imagine the war spilling over into the southern cone. Better not.
I find it ironic that when Bush announced his decision that the U.S. would opt out of the International Criminal Court to be set up in The Hague (I think), his reasoning was fear of Americans being railroaded by our enemies due to no clear safeguards established to prevent this from happening.
Bush ‘unsigned’ from the agreement in May 2002. Therefore, does this mean the administration had already began looking into ways to get around the Geneva Convention?
You might also be surprised by Gonzales’ reaction to the memo fallout. You can read it in the entry I will be posting shortly.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 12, 2004 11:56 PM
is anyone more than amused at the whole conservatives attacking conservatives on who is more conservative?
specter, gonzales….
apparently these guys aren’t right wing enough for the evangelicals…..who want to “derail” these godless republicans…
ahhhh i love it when the rabid begin to eat their own….
Bert, the Clinton administration voted against forming the International Criminal Court in 2000.
But then they only signed it hours before the final deadline, and Clinton then recommended that Bush (then Presdident-elect Bush) not submit the treaty to the Senate for ratification until it was seriously changed.
Here’s what Clinton said: “I will not, and do not recommend that my successor submit the
Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.”
So it’s clear that US objections to the ICC were bipartisan and in place before even 9-11—not, as you suggest, part of an attempt to circumvet the Geneva Conventions for pursposes of the war on terror.
Also, Gonzalez’s interpretation of the rights afforded prisoners under the Geneva Convention is correct. Enemy insurgents of the type we’re fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq today are not—under any readings of the Geneva Convention—protected from anything. In fact, what they’re entitled to under the Geneva Conventions is to be placed against a wall and shot without trial as soon as they’re captured. This isn’t a course of action we should advocate, but it’s not illegal.
Torture should be off-limits for humanitarian reasons, but Gonzalez is 100% correct in saying that the Geneva Convention does not contain the pertinent statutes.
Posted by: Martin at November 13, 2004 12:26 AMMartin,
Thanks for the background on this country’s decision to take a pass on the ICC. However, my suggestion was mere speculation, as I can’t shake this ‘inflammatory’ tic.
However, I do have a problem with your explanation of Gonzales’ interpretation. As I agree that an insurgent deserves swift justice rendered by our fighting soldiers, but what if he/she is a citizen of sovereign nation? A sovereign nation friendly to the US? And, would you allow such treatment of an American such as John Walker Lind?
It turns out the majority of these prisoners held at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were no help to American Intelligence and saw little fighting. What kind of treatment do they deserve until we reach that conclusion?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 13, 2004 02:58 AMJust FYI, in light of Gonzales’ [ahem] liberal views on torture, I cleverly used the word “Generalissimo” to evoke images of Latin American military dictators.
Has anyone considered what message Bush’s nomination of Gonzales sends to our Iraqi allies? I mean, this is the guy who, quite possibly, wrote up the legal justification for Abu Ghraib. Now he’s going to be the US Attorney Generalissimo.
That’s got to be even more of a slap in the face than making Negroponte - Reagan’s CIA death squad apologist - the ambassador.
Guy’s I have to admit I’m a little sketchy about this “Enemy Combatant” thing.
However I am ashamed of my country for holding men incomunicado for as long as we have.
Posted by: Rocky at November 13, 2004 09:09 PMrocky…
haven’t you heard…guilty until proven innocent in a court of law is SOOOOO 1990……
welcome to the future brother!
besides….if the government arrested them , they must of done something bad….so they don’t deserve lawyers….
hmmm….is my sarcasm too blatant?
ooops…someone is at the door…must be the stormtroopers…
Posted by: rob at November 14, 2004 01:17 AMJust a comment here.
America is supposed to be the shining light for the rest of the world. How ironic then, in some ways, we appear to be no different than the totalitarians we are fighting.
Who else would I nominate? Dispite the fact that he said he wouldn’t be interested, Gulliani has the qualifications and he certainly would fly through the nomination process dispite his centrist views.
Posted by: Rocky at November 14, 2004 12:00 PMHmmm. You are against a minority-american? Shocking. If a Republican-american said the same things you just did - you would claim racism. Is there any reason why you can’t win an election?
moving on then…
Moving on to what?
Ashcroft was a mistake. He couldn’t win against a dead guy.
Bush and Co. have taken us giant leaps back toward the dark ages of McCarthyism.
So if a republican makes a statement, a centrist claims racism?
Bush needs to lose the go it alone mentality and move the country back toward the center. Nominating another polarizing AG isn’t going to heal any wounds.
Posted by: Rocky at November 14, 2004 06:11 PM“Ashcroft was a mistake. He couldn’t win against a dead guy.”
Looks like someone watch far. 9/11 instead of carying about facts. Ashcroft was winning against a very popular man, and then the man DIED tragically right before the election. And you mock the man for losing in THAT situation? Whats more, Ashcroft lost by a very close, disputed race, and instead of pulling an Al Gore (or a “democrat”) and demanding recounts, investigations and other tactics to try to steal the election, he announced that because of the problems and horrible situation the widdow had been through, he would not drag her through a legal battle and conceeded. This si why when he came up for AG, i fully supported him.
Sadly, personal integrity failed to translate to a good term as AG. He did some terrible stuff, and I am glad he is gone. But this tactic of painting everyone you dont like as completely pathetic, incompotent and evil is beneath thinking people with open minds.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 14, 2004 07:22 PMMisha,
“Sadly, personal integrity failed to translate to a good term as AG.”
Did this mans “personal integrity” fail him as soon as he took his office?
I think not.
If thet last four years are any indication I am painting him as he deserves.
A man can have intergrity and do things I disagree with. This is the difference between open-minded and close-minded people, I think. They can respect the personal qualities of honestly, loyalty and character that people whom they disagree with hold. For example, I think John McCain spearheaded one of the most anti-freedom, anti-first amendment laws in American history. But i still respect him for his personal intergity. I respect many on the left, even though they push semi-socialist programs that I believe undermine the essense of american freedom. So I also respect John Ashcroft’s personal integrity, even though I think his term as attorney general undermined constitutional protections that I value and fight for.
Also, your response ignores that you basically took a pathetic half-truth from Micheal Moore’s movie and stated it as if it was a fact with no context whatsoever.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 14, 2004 07:48 PMMisha,
you assume too much. I didn’t need Michael Moore to tell me Ashcroft was a facist. I didn’t like or respect the man from day one. A good man does good. He fit in with Bush’s agenda.
Please, Misha, don’t presume that I am not able to think for myself.
BTW I haven’t seen Moore’s film. As a matter of fact the only Moore film I have seen is “Roger and Me”.
“For example, I think John McCain spearheaded one of the most anti-freedom, anti-first amendment laws in American history.”
And, Misha, one of the most necessary pieces of legislation, if we would have our election process survive.
Posted by: Rocky at November 14, 2004 08:01 PMagain you dodge the issue that you used a disengenious half-truth without context to attack ashcroft simple because you dont like him. I guess it was too much to hope for- oh well.
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 14, 2004 08:09 PMMisha,
Please say what you mean.
I make value judgements based on value.
I never liked Ashcroft “based” on his values.
I’m insulted that you feel that I need anyone, including you, to tell me how to think.
I am not dodging the issue.
I have told you exactly how I feel
The only thing I took issue with is with your statement about the way he lost the election- and that it reflects poorly upon him that he lost to the widow of a man who had died in a tragic accident days before the election. He then handled a close election loss with class, that the democrats could nto muster in Florida.
I am in agreement with you on his POLICIES. I have spent the last couple of months working on a rather high-profile litigation on behalf of gautanamo bay detainees- a litigation that he SPECIFICALLY went out of his way to attack at a conference I was at just this weekend. I believe in these things as strongly as you do, but nothign justifies makign statements like that about why he lost the election.
I dont see how i could be any more clear. An honorable response would have been something like “I am sorry i mischaracterized what happend in that election, but I still think John Ashcroft was a terrible AG and I am glad he is gone.” I would have respected that. Instead, you chose the other path. I do not respect that. I dont know if you care whether I respect it or not, but I am just stating my opinion on how i feel people ought to deal with those that they dislike (that is, critize them for their positions, but not use half-truths to undermine them).
Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at November 14, 2004 08:42 PMMisha,
now I understand your point. Let me rephrase my statement. I personaly don’t understand sympathy votes. In my mind he is either good enough to win or not, regardless if his opponent is alive or not. He wasn’t good enough.
I studied Ashcroft’s record as a senator and he seems like an empty suit, thus my distain for the man.
In any case the chickens have come home to roost.
From what I have learned it doesn’t sound like Mr. Gonzalez belongs in the AG’s office either.
Misha,
I have been reading your posts on these blogs for a little while now (although I am sure not as long as some others here have). I find that you tend to be very smart and well read with your rationals justifying the actions of conservatives but unbelievably biased when you refer to anything even remotely (as you blithly characterize) “democrat” related. Lets avoid being grandiloquent and try to be fair.
Your points on Ashcroft in that post were duely noted and Michael Moore should stand corrected for his felonious mendacity, but lets not pull what happened during his run for Senate out of context. People were basically presented with this choice: John Ashcroft or ANYBODY ELSE (considering the other candidate was dead) and more people chose anybody else over Ashcroft. It doesn’t matter if it was a close election, more people voted for the dead guy than voted for Ashcroft. I think that is fairly indicative of what people (in a fairly “swing” state) throught of his “values”.
Whats more, Ashcroft lost by a very close, disputed race, and instead of pulling an Al Gore (or a “democrat”)Wow, if that isn’t a piece of hatemongering if I’ve ever read one. Maybe Ashcroft should have challeneged a disputed race. I find it quite audacious to challenge peoples’ right to cast a vote and have that vote count. Its not pulling a “democrat” its being AMERICAN. The election system in Florida was flawed. I hope you aren’t arguing that there was NO flaw in that system. Why do you attack those people who were simply trying to extract a fair total from a flawed system? I would have rather waited until every vote had been fairly counted than have the Supreme Court decide who my president is (even IF Bush had eventually won). I find it so unbelievably RUDE that you would castigate a group of people for demanding justice.
I don’t think democrats should have to stand for being written off as “pulling an Al Gore” and thereby negating our legitimate complaints. I gave you due credit for your comments on Ashcroft (that he lost a closely contested highly partisan election and didn’t lose by a landslide) please afford us the same respect and keep your snide comments to yourself (and I will try my best to keep mine to myself…or at least keep them contained in the liberal board).
Posted by: Nick at November 15, 2004 05:18 PMSo… No one wants to comment on the message Bush’s nomination of Gonzales - the guy who, quite possibly, wrote up the legal justification for torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo - sends to our Iraqi and Afghan allies?
AP,
I would comment that with the rats leaving the sinking ship and Bush’s aparent nominations to replace them, shows a siege mentality.
Surely there are better qualified people to fill these jobs.
Rocky, there are definitely better qualified people available. The problem is, they’d probably disagree with Cheney… Oh, and Bush, too.
By moving Rice to State and Hadley to NSA, Bush gets a foreign policy team filled with neo-conservative hawks and yes-men (and women).
I think an apt description would be: incestuous amplification.
BTW, I think the changes are more like streamlining than a seige mentality. Bush believes he has a mandate to continue an agressive unilateral foreign policy, so he’s built a team to do more of the same, and then some.
