Torture Boy Not Getting Any Help From His Own People (Except Bush)
Posted in H.L. News, Main Blog (All Posts) on April 20th, 2007 2:04 pm by HL
Gonzales seeks GOP support – gets little
AP
Excerpt
WASHINGTON – Desperate for support among fellow Republicans, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced grim prospects Friday after a bruising Senate hearing that produced one outright call for resignation and a fistful of invitations and hints to quit.
There were fresh calls from Democrats for Gonzales to step down. “The president should restore credibility to the office of the attorney general. Alberto Gonzales must resign,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) of California.
Gonzales and other administration officials had hoped his appearance Thursday would produce a groundswell of support among Republicans, but there was little if any evidence of that.
Alone among the nine Republicans on the committee, Sen. Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record) of Oklahoma called for Gonzales to resign.
Several other Republicans made plain their unhappiness.
Specter told Gonzales his description of events was “significantly if not totally at variance with the facts.”
“Why is your story changing?” Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record) of Iowa asked at one point, citing differences between an earlier explanation and the hearing testimony.
Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) of South Carolina, after hearing the attorney general’s account of the case, said, “Most of this is a stretch,” and added it seemed to him that some of those dismissed “just had personality conflicts with people in your office or the White House and (officials) just made up reasons to fire them.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama expressed concern with Gonzales’ memory at the hearing. In an interview later, he went further. “I think it’s going to be difficult for him to be an effective leader,” he said.
HLs Take
Of course Bush still behind him. Because for Bush to call for Gonzalez to step down would mean that Bush would have to admit he made a mistake by putting old torture boy in there in the first place, and in Bush’s mind he has never made a mistake. He even said so one time when he couldn’t come up with a single thing he would have done differently during his Presidency given the chance. Besides Bush loves Torture and murder almost as much as Torture Boy. They are Sicko’s on a mission, and no amount of reason will make them see the light.
April 20th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Why should Gonzalez step down for doing his job? Hell, Janet Reno did not quit after ordering the burning massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas! That was a major Bill Clinton screw up! How many times has the ATF and the FBI burned civilians under Gonzalez? How many times H.L.? Bill Clinton should be arrested for ordering murder and burning genocide to be done by his ATF!! Hillary Clinton might have been involved seeing as how she sat in on the cabinet meetings!!!
April 21st, 2007 at 6:33 am
The Justice report devotes a section to describing President Clinton and the White House’s involvement in the siege and the FBI decision to assault Mount Carmel. Clinton initially supported negotiations. When his chief counsel Bernard Nussbaum first told Clinton about the plan to gas Mount Carmel he reminded the President that the decision was “a Department of Justice call, not a White House call,” and Clinton responded that he had great confidence in the Attorney General and the FBI. When Janet Reno called him on April 18th regarding the plan he told her he supported her decision. (JDR:241-248)
What we wonder about is Clinton’s hostility towards the Branch Davidians. In his April 20th news conference he growled that Janet Reno should not have to resign “because some religious fanatics murdered themselves.” Two days later he asserted, “I do not think the United States government is responsible for the fact that a bunch of fanatics decided to kill themselves.” Also, Janet Reno told the House Judiciary Committee hearing that early April 20th, “The second call I got was from the president of the United States, saying, `That-a-girl’.” [271] If this was an exact quote, it would also seem to be a highly insensitive remark.
One explanation might be Clinton’s having been influenced by anti-cult propaganda, evidenced by this anti- cult comments quoted in an earlier section. Another explanation might be Clinton’s past association with agents wounded and killed on February 28th. In a March 18th, 1993 speech before employees of the Treasury Department Clinton said, “My prayers and I’m sure yours are still with the families of all four of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents who were killed in Waco–Todd McKeehan and Conway Lebleu of New Orleans, Steve Willis of Houston, and Robert Williams from my hometown of Little Rock. Three of those four were assigned to my security during the course of the primary or general election.” The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton wanted “to know the condition of one particular ATF agent who was wounded at Waco: Jay William Buford, an acquaintance of his from Arkansas.” [272] As we know, Resident Agent-in-Charge Buford was a primary investigator and planner in the botched February 28th raid on Mt. Carmel. Also, Clinton may have been angered by potential criticism of Clinton family friend Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell. He was deeply involved in Waco decision-making and the highest ranking official in the FBI Operations Center during the last fatal April 19th attack.
The New York Times wrote in its October 12, 1993, editorial, “The Waco Whitewash,” “the report is silent on the most glaring deficiency of the tragic episode: the lack of judgement at the top and the reasons for it.”
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.massacre.html
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:36 am
“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998
“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998
“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998
“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998 “The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998
“The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998 “The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War. †Bill Clinton December 16th 1998
“the surest way”
“the surest way” THE SUREST GO**AM way huhhhhhhh H.L.????
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Bill Clinton did not invade Iraq. George W. Bush did. End of story!
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The point is HE SHOULD have invaded Iraq but was busy telling America that threats to the national security of the United States were receding, all the while letting Saddam violate security council resolutions and letting Al Qaida train in the USA to fly planes without landing them and letting Al qaida strike the USA at will and making statements that he did not have the balls to back up …That is a fact…JacK!!!
The democrat party is full of hypocrites! Yep lock, stock and hypocrite. They have become the hypocrats! ha ha ha ha ha ha !! Buck out!!!
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:33 am
Buck you for got that all the while this was going on, he was getting knobber jobs. he was useing the wrong head.
sflieral — you need to read the iraq pack that willie signed back in 1998, and you will find the truth
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
Nobody should have invaded Iraq. Clinton didn’t and Bush did. And 9/11 happened while Bush was President, not Clinton. Buck can rant about this and try to explain why the Bushies did what they did all he wants, but don’t keep dragging Clinton into it.. he had nothing to do with 9/11 or the mess in Iraq.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:25 am
sfliberal… So let me get this straight than we should have just let them keep bombing our ships and buildings and done nothing. right and you wanted to move to France when. Take your sorry bleeding ass back to France and stay there. Clinton signed a Bill into law in 98 that required the US to REMOVE SADDAM from power and that is fact. So you want to say that Clinton didn’t but Bush did that is fine that is your right but if Clinton had done his job right rather than worry about were he was getting his next BJ than the Towers would have still been standing. As for 9/11 happening while Bush was President that is right but if who was the President when the USS cole got bombed or when the towers got bombed or how about Oklahoma or may the embassys. Tell me who was President than. CLINTON and he was doing his job. Right. As I said take your sorry bleeding ass to France you’ll do good there.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
And Doug , there would not have been a problem if Clinton would not have sexually harassed women. He brought it on himself! He liked to scoop the ol’ ass! I mean I like to grab a lady’s ass also, but I ask permission first. Then he lied to the American people in a finger waiving lecture to the camara. He should have just said that he was getting “knobber jobs” from a ugly fat girl or that it was none of our business he was getting “knobber jobs” from an ugly fat girl!
Here is some free stink on Sandy Berger. Bill Clinton’s national security advisor!
Sandy Berger sent an email to Michael Barone, responding to Michael’s column in U.S. News. As we have written extensively on the Berger affair and have been harshly critical of Berger, it seems only fair to reproduce Berger’s email in full, as it constitutes his response to his critics. Here it is:
“Michael: I screwed up. There was nothing sinister about it. I was under serious pressure to digest the entire Clinton record on terrorism for eight years so that we could testify fully to the 9-11 commission. I spent several arduous days at the Archives looking through the files. This document was interesting to me because I had commissioned it in 2000–a look at what we learned from the millennium terror threats that were avoided. Tired, stressed, I made a very stupid decision–to take the documents home with me so that I could review them in more detail and so that I could compare the apparent differences among versions. Since this document had been widely circulated to all the relevant agencies (State, Defense, CIA, Justice, etc.), I felt certain the commission would get it from one or more of these agencies.
There were no handwritten markings on the documents (which were copies) or anything else unusual. I took no other documents–originals or copies–besides the ones specified in my plea agreement.
The DOJ has stated unequivocally that there is no evidence that I took other documents and that the commission received everything.
That’s the long and short of it. I made a very stupid mistake. I deeply regret it. Top-level career Justice Department prosecutors investigated it aggressively for two years. We reached a plea agreement that they believed was fair. That was two years ago. Now I wish this thing would go away.
Best, Sandy
I don’t buy it. Berger didn’t make an impulsive decision–“tired, stressed”–to smuggle documents out of the National Archives. He stole documents on multiple occasions. On one occasion, he sneaked them out of the archives, went to a nearby construction site and hid the documents under a construction trailer, so he could come back later and pick them up. I simply don’t believe that Berger engaged in this kind of cloak and dagger behavior just because he found the documents “interesting” and wanted to study them at home.
Most of all, I don’t see how Berger’s explanation can be reconciled with his own admission that he didn’t just take the documents home; he cut some of them to pieces with a pair of scissors. Why did he destroy the documents if he wasn’t trying to prevent them from coming to light?
Nor am I impressed by Berger’s claim that the Department of Justice “has stated unequivocally that there is no evidence that I took other documents and that the commission received everything.” There is no evidence as to what documents Berger took because the Archives staff let him walk off with them and didn’t try to monitor what he was doing until it was too late. That being the case, the only evidence as to what documents were taken is Berger’s own confession.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Bill, Saddam didn’t cause 9/11.. it was mostly jihadists from Saudi Arabia that did it. Should Clinton have invaded Saudi Arabia while he was President to prevent 9/11? And the USS Cole was bombed in mid-October of 2000, just a few weeks before Bush became President. So what did Bush do to retaliated for that when he took office? And Reagan was President when 200+ Marines were killed by terrorists in Lebanon. What did he do to retaliate for that besides pulling us out of Lebanon and selling arms to Iran? I will agree that Clinton could have done more to respond to Oklahoma City.. like invading Oklahoma or sending in cruise missiles. One less red state would have prevented 9/11 because Gore would have been elected in 2000 and not Bush.
April 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I will agree that Clinton could have done more to respond to Oklahoma City.. like invading Oklahoma or sending in cruise missiles. One less red state would have prevented 9/11.
So you are a commy bastard, willing do destroy our own country for your politial adgenda,and beliefs. The very thought you could evan mention it makes me sick
April 24th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
When is the go**am San Andreas fault line going to do this nation a favor????
oooops 10.6 10.7 HA HA HA
April 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
sfliberal…
It has been proven that Saddam was helping the terrorists. Second yes the USS Cole was bombed in Oct. 12,2000 but Bush didn’t take office until Jan. 20, 2001 that was FOUR months later. So tell me why didn’t Clinton do something in that 4 months. As to Reagan he put more troops into Lebanon. As to your claim about Clinton should have sent cruise missiles into OKC. That is the kind of stuf that will have the FBI knocking on your door.
And if Gore would have become President he wouldn’t have done a danm thing about the Towers being bombed just like Clinton. He would have handed this country over to the Terrorists.