Democrats & Liberals Archives

Bring Me the Head of Alberto Gonzales!

Now that the inappropriately-named Monica Goodling has resigned [*], we need to refocus on the real target. And make no mistake, her resignation was not a victory, since it was undertaken to protect her ability to invoke the 5th Amendment, something never done by a standing Justice official in the history of the Republic.

No, the real target is Mr. Alberto Gonzales. Most people think he will resign by the time the month is out, but if so, we will lose an historic opportunity to sharpen the focus on some of the greatest crimes of this Administration - warrantless wiretapping, Abu Ghraib, rendition of prisoners, and lying to Congress. For the good of the country and for posterity, he needs to tried for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Why not Bush himself? As Harry Reid pointed out in one word: "Cheney." But Alberto Gonzales' removal from office would have a striking impact as the first Attorney General to be impeached, letting Bush know that he himself is not beyond reach of the law. I think it would make good TV, too, like a weeks long OJ chase, or a daytime political American Idol!

Posted by Rob Mann at April 7, 2007 1:42 AM
Comment #215420

Looks like a witch hunt to me.

Posted by: tomd at April 7, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #215422


What is it about her name that is inappropriate?
If you think you can be funny or cute, why don’t you attack her views or her actions. Using her name is childish. So typical.

Posted by: wkw at April 7, 2007 9:41 AM
Comment #215428

Goodling = Good underling. I’m not attacking her name, just noticing that she wasn’t actually so good.

Posted by: Rob Mann at April 7, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #215438

Rob, would the “real target” by any chance ever be the terrorists?! Can you answer that question first?!! Or, do you believe Bush & co. are the terrorists or worse than the terrorists?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at April 7, 2007 11:21 AM
Comment #215439

Now it is time for congress to offer Goodling immunity from crimes about her part in this and compel her testament,under oath. Her 5th rights are preserved and the truth comes out.

Posted by: BillS at April 7, 2007 11:30 AM
Comment #215450

Bill s, Rob,

It is really easy to accuse one of “crimes” without having to actually define the “crimes”. It is also really easy to accuse one of “crimes” without actually charging one of “crimes”, which is why the Congress will not go after Gonzales, other than to make him look like he committed some sort of “crime”. Let’s look at the “crimes” you mention above:

* warrantless wiretapping- Congress hasn’t touched that one. I wonder why? Maybe because we have been so successful in keeping further 9/11’s from happening? Hmm?

* Abu Ghraib- just what did Gonzales do that was criminal there? After all, he is the target, right?

* Rendition of prisoners- see above questions…

* Lying to Congress- Is that the best you can do? If so, every Democratic President would have been impeached to date. Certainly, the most recent would have been Bill Clinton. I thought just about every Democratic Congressman in the Halls of Congress today set a precedental vote eight years ago that it is perfectly OK to lie to Congress, and in fact under oath to a federal judge and not face the prospect of impeachment. You guys are just going to have to better than you are capable of with this fledgling story to get anyone to pay attention!


Posted by: JD at April 7, 2007 12:57 PM
Comment #215502

You can’t, by definition, plead the fifth, if nothing you could say would concern something illegal. You also can’t get out of testifying by doing so. You could plead the fifth on particular questions, but not avoid them altogether.

Please ask yourself, what am I rationalizing here? In essence, you are rationalizing the executive branch misleading, even lying to Congress outright. Quite a few Republicans have stepped up and said this was unacceptable. It seems they don’t appreciated being handed a bill of goods anymore than the rest of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 7, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #215512

So, Stephen, what are the charges of which she or Gonzales may face? What did they do that was illegal. One has to know the charges of which they are being accused before they are tried by Congress, which is exactly the role that Congress has taken since the Democrats have come into power. They are not exercising oversight, they are witch hunting; trying to bring down individuals for absolutely nothing, and the Bush Administration is not taking the bait! This is making the Democrats who think they rule all of Washington furious. Well, sorry, Nancy Pelosi, the President is not ready to give you the keys to the White House and the Exective Branch.


Posted by: JD at April 8, 2007 1:03 AM
Comment #215538

Lying to Congress is a crime, you know, and I believe that it would be tried in court.

As for it being a witch hunt, I believe the evidence is there to demonstrate that officials in the White House and DOJ were in fact dismissing US Attorneys on political grounds, in response to their failure to issue indictments on Democrats, or their too-close-for-comfort corruption investigations of Republicans.

Why should Bush be able to bypass the constitutional checks on his power to appoint officials. He’s supposed to present somebody to the senate for approval.

What do you believe? That a president should be able to use the top justice officials in our states and cities to initiate false charges against his political rivals in order to discredit them? That doesn’t sound like an American way to do things. That sounds like a banana republic way of doing things.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 8, 2007 11:20 AM
Comment #215673

I read this morning that even Newt is calling for Gonzalez to step down. He is not indicating that he believes there was a hidden agenda. He merely thinks that Gonzalez and his immeadiate team should step down as the result of gross incompetance within the department.

It is quite a tangled web that this pathetic joke of an administration has managed to weave during its term. It almost seems as though there is no end to their bungled ways.

Posted by: ILdem at April 9, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #215955

What do you believe? That a President should be able to use the top officials in our states and cities to initiate false charges against his political rivals in order to discredit them?
Stephen Daugherty

You mean like Clinton used the IRS to go after religious organizations?


Posted by: JD at April 10, 2007 8:08 PM
Comment #216187

Religious organizations that use their status for the benefit of a political candidate are not eligible for tax free status. They want to play, they better pay.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 12, 2007 10:31 AM
Post a comment