Skip to main content

Gonzales: Manipulative or clueless?

The travails of George Bush and his Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, just keep getting worse. Remember, Georges' "mate" from Texas was the intellectual pygmy who advised President Shrub that the US didn't haven't to adhere to the Geneva Convention and that legislation dealing with the imprisonment and treatment of prisoners was perfectly fine. As we all now know, the US Supreme Court clearly thought otherwise.

Now, Gonzales, the White House and the GOP are facing a critical issue, in many ways mirroring the actions of the Tricky Dicky Nixon, of US prosecutors having having been removed or sidelined because their actions did not accord with whatever agenda the Bush team had.

Gonzales was called to testify to a Senate committee last week. The Economist reports on the appearance and questions whether Gonzales was either manipulative or clueless:

"Manipulative or clueless? Alberto Gonzales, America’s top legal officer, had to hold his hand up to one of these failings when he testified before the Senate judiciary committee on Thursday April 19th. He chose cluelessness, possibly the safer route, in describing his role in the firing of eight government prosecutors. The affair has been growing ever more intense. Democrats and many Republicans say an important branch of government, the Department of Justice, has been subverted for the sake of political gain. Mr Gonzales is being held responsible.

The attorneys are the federal government’s chief prosecutors in 93 districts across the country, and have considerable power and discretion in pursuing cases. When eight were fired in December 2006, several cases looked suspicious. Mr Gonzales, speaking for the Bush administration, first claimed that they were fired for poor performance. All, however, had received strong performance reviews. Then a more convincing reason was offered: “policy differences”. But as details have emerged of the cases, it seems they were fired because they declined to pursue nakedly partisan agendas."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...