PDA

View Full Version : Bush names new Atty. General



highsea
11-10-2004, 03:08 PM
Bush Names Counsel Gonzales First Hispanic Attorney General

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush named White House counsel Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic U.S. attorney general, elevating his top lawyer to help lead the nation's war on terrorism.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ac1IGt_j8Afo&refer=us

Good for Dubya, and smart move for the Reps. Another major reason for the Democrats recent defeats in the polls is the loss of a big portion of the Hispanic vote. In 2000, Bush won only 34% of the Hispanic vote, in 2004 it was 44%. The Democrats have always relied on this demographic, but they are losing ground in a constituency that they have never had to work for in the past.

Ross
11-10-2004, 04:15 PM
This is so true. The Dems don't seem to have any long term strategies for building coalitions with Hispanics or any other particular group. I was impressed with the georgebush site that had separate links for coalitions with Hispanics, Catholics, Jews, etc. Unfortunately for my side, Rove had a well thought out strategy and did his homework. His planning ran cicles around McAuliff.

There is one large potential problem brewing for Bush. He is pushing for large scale amnesty programs for Hispanics which is extremely unpopular with much of the constituency that elected him. However, he may end up having his cake and eating it too, since the House Republicans are likely to kill his proposals. So he will come across as Hispanic-friendly, and the Repub House members will be popular in their states for killing the bills.

highsea
11-10-2004, 04:35 PM
I think this is one area where Bush's strong fundamentalism wrt to religion helped him. A lot of Hispanic voters are pretty devout Catholics, and so they tend to have strong opinions on issues like abortion, stem cell research, gay marraige, etc.

Personally I would like to see less religion influencing politics. The candidates were practically billed as the Christ and the Anti-Christ in this election, it makes you wonder where will they go from here?

silverbullet
11-10-2004, 06:15 PM
In reading the article and referrences to posible upcoming vacancies in the supreme court, I am concerned. I just hope he does not give into the pressure from fundamentals in who is selected, since they were so intent on getting him into office. Bush is conservative in terms of christianity and might be somewhat 'fundamental', but if they push too hard, he might have to learn a pretty tough lesson. When those situations arise, it could get pretty sticky.

Anyway, the new atty gen sounds good to me.

sb

wolfdancer
11-11-2004, 12:02 AM
Boing Boing!!
It's possible,............ that not everyone shares your endorsement...I ran across this item:
New AG nominee: White House counsel who called Geneva Conventions "quaint"
White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who once described the Geneva Convention as outdated and "quaint," may soon fill the post left vacant by John Ashcroft this week. SF Chronicle article on the new nominee.

Mr. Gonzales effectively endorsed torture in America's "war on terrorism," as detailed in this Newsweek article:

As a means of pre-empting a repeat of 9/11, Bush, along with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, signed off on a secret system of detention and interrogation that opened the door to such methods. It was an approach that they adopted to sidestep the historical safeguards of the Geneva Conventions, which protect the rights of detainees and prisoners of war. In doing so, they overrode the objections of Secretary of State Colin Powell and America's top military lawyers -- and they left underlings to sweat the details of what actually happened to prisoners in these lawless places. While no one deliberately authorized outright torture, these techniques entailed a systematic softening up of prisoners through isolation, privations, insults, threats and humiliation -- methods that the Red Cross concluded were "tantamount to torture."

Wally_in_Cincy
11-11-2004, 06:45 AM
...and the villification begins....

Qtec
11-11-2004, 07:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush's 'Blind' Justice in Texas Executions
by Derrick Z. Jackson

AN ARTICLE in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly should further inform and inflame the debate over the honesty of President Bush. When Bush was governor of Texas he routinely denied last-ditch pleas for clemency on execution day by systematically hearing no evidence, seeing no evidence, and sealing himself away from any tragic possibility that any evil was done at all.

The ''system'' was Bush and his legal counsel from 1995 to 1997, Alberto Gonzales. In 1997, Bush appointed Gonzales as Texas secretary of state. In 1998, Bush elevated Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court. Gonzales followed Bush to Washington to be White House counsel. Gonzales is widely speculated to be high on Bush's list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court. Gonzales would be the first Latino justice.

On execution day in Texas, it was the job of Gonzales to give Bush a summary of the case. The summary was the last information standing between an inmate and lethal injection. Gonzales provided 57 summaries to Bush. Gonzales intended for the memos to be confidential, but author Alan Berlow obtained them under Texas public information law.

Berlow found that Gonzales routinely provided scant summaries to Bush. The summaries, according to Berlow, ''repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of crucial issues in the cases at hand: ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.''

Berlow cited the 1997 case of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded man who was executed for the murder of a 29-year-old restaurant manager. Washington was executed even though his journey through the justice system was riddled with omissions and incompetence. The jury was never told of the level of his retardation or of the vicious abuse he received as a child. Washington's lawyers failed to find mental health experts for Washington's defense.

In his summary to Bush about Washington, Gonzales played up the murder and almost entirely omitted the evidence that cried out of a miscarriage of justice. Washington's final 30-page petition for clemency was centered on the issues of ineffective counsel and retardation. On execution day, all that Gonzales presented Bush was a three-page memo in which the only mention of the petition was that it had been rejected by the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

The board was well known for its lip service to clemency petitions. In a 1998 ruling where the board barely met Supreme Court muster, US District Judge Sam Sparks lamented, ''It is abundantly clear that the Texas clemency procedure is extremely poor.'' Sparks added, ''It is apparent none of the members read every word on every line on every piece of paper in the clemency application.... A flip of the coin would be more merciful than these votes.''

Berlow cited the case of David Wayne Stoker. Stoker was executed in 1997 even though one key state witness recanted. Another witness lied about having drug and weapons charges dropped in exchange for fingering Stoker. Law enforcement officials lied on the stand about the exchange. A psychiatrist testified that Stoker would kill again without ever having examined Stoker. Another medical witness had lost his license years before for felony falsifications of evidence.

Gonzales wrote about none of this in his execution-day memo to Bush<hr /></blockquote>


Appointing a man who doesnt know the difference between right and wrong will not be beneficial for the US. It certainly does nothing to unite the Dems and the GOPs.
As far as I can see, his speciality is, "how to break the Law by moving the goalposts".
ie, POWs are now called insurgents, therefor not entitiled to protection under the Geneva Con.

Q

silverbullet
11-11-2004, 03:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> ...and the villification begins.... <hr /></blockquote>

You got it wally. People will tear apart everything and often misquote, take words out of context. It is these kind of practices that make it very hard to get anything remotely resembling accurate information.

In fact, this week, I have seen threads go up with links to websites with particular titles, and if the ccbs responded to the name of the threads and did not look at the sites, they would not have known that just about everything on the sites were satire.

When I was younger, I did not listen to politics. I was extremely active, raising a child on my own and other activities, I did not have hours to wade through a bunch of BS. All I wanted to know was 'this candidate wants to do or believes this, the other one believes or wants to do that'. So until I was about 35-40, I just asked my father, he said it was thus and so, and I voted like he did:republican. Once I realized I was not really partisan, and started looking at both sides, and trying to wade through everything, I realized what a headache it was.

For instance: after discounting all of the bias and media hype, there was very little for me to go on in 2000 in deciding who to vote for in Bush vs Gore. And considering how close that one was, I was apparently not alone in that difficulty.

One thing about that retarded kid, though... If Gonzales was the prosecuting atty, that is his job, to try to get the jury to find him guilty. It is no difference than a defense lawyer, defending an obvious murderer, will try to get him off or the sentence reduced.

Trial law is pretty brutal, and if the evidence was not solid, yet he was found guilty, that rests also with the jurors. Sometimes in a particular locality, good non-biased jurors cannot be found, and if the judge will not approve a 'change in venue', the person does not get a fair trial. To put the blame for what happened on the prosecuting attorney, shows either a lack of knowlege of how the system works (and sometimes does not) or just a desire to use, again, any information to bad mouth a person.

sb

JPB
11-11-2004, 05:22 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote silverbullet:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> ...and the villification begins.... <hr /></blockquote>







One thing about that retarded kid, though... If Gonzales was the prosecuting atty, that is his job, to try to get the jury to find him guilty. It is no difference than a defense lawyer, defending an obvious murderer, will try to get him off or the sentence reduced.

Trial law is pretty brutal, and if the evidence was not solid, yet he was found guilty, that rests also with the jurors. Sometimes in a particular locality, good non-biased jurors cannot be found, and if the judge will not approve a 'change in venue', the person does not get a fair trial. To put the blame for what happened on the prosecuting attorney, shows either a lack of knowlege of how the system works (and sometimes does not) or just a desire to use, again, any information to bad mouth a person.

sb

<hr /></blockquote>


This is totally untrue. A prosecutor has an extremely high moral and ethical obligation in a death case (all cases, but death cases especially.) Of course not all of them live up to it. Also, defense lawyers and prosecutors have different ethical obligations. Defense lawyers may ethically do things prosecutors can't. So it is much different than what a defense lawyer does.


I read the Atlantic article about Gonzales when it came out a while back. If half of it is true, Gonzales is a monster. An utterly immoral and unethical person who will play games to see retarded people intentionally killed. Sick stuff he did as Bush's lawyer if it is at all true. Assuming it is true, I would not hire him to prosecute traffic offenses. Or any legal job for that matter.



And FWIW, I've played the capital litigation game, so have some experience with these matters. Not as much as others, but more than the average billiard discussion group member. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif


You are right tho that trial law is brutal. Death penalty work especially.

hondo
11-12-2004, 06:48 AM
Did I read that Gonzales was one of the lawyers
defending the Enron thieves? Oh, well, sleazeballs
need representation too.

eg8r
11-12-2004, 09:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did I read that Gonzales was one of the lawyers
defending the Enron thieves? Oh, well, sleazeballs need representation too. <hr /></blockquote> You are exactly right.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-16-2004, 07:32 AM
This appointment is just another gross mistake for Little Bushy. Interesting, the only mistake he would own up to in the debates was that he made some mistakes in appointments, apparently nothing has changed.

Defending Enron Exec. unforgivable! Killing the retarded, unforgivable.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-16-2004, 07:34 AM
This appointment is just another gross mistake for Little Bushy. Interesting, the only mistake he would own up to in the debates was that he made some mistakes in appointments, apparently nothing has changed.

Defending Enron Exec. unforgivable!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 08:06 AM
This is exactly what I was referring to in the other thread about (Secret Rules Of War) the shooting of the Iraqi men. This man (Bush) wants what he wants, Laws and rules mean nothing to him. Advice from experts, who know more than he does, means nothing to him.

If we torture our captured people, how are we any different than the Terrorists and Insurgents?
I hope we can still recognize this great nation when he if finally out of office.
Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
11-19-2004, 02:07 PM
Gayle, don't know if you caught this on the news, but Iris Chang, who wrote "The Rape of Nanking", published two other books, and was writing her fourth, committed suicide...severe depression, probably from her research. Her books told of the horrors inflicted on the Chinese, by the Japanese, during WWII...80,000 women raped, 200,000 to 300,000 tortured,killed, and some buried alive.
Our country will never go down that path, but "war is hell"...

Wally_in_Cincy
11-19-2004, 02:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> ...the horrors inflicted on the Chinese, by the Japanese, during WWII...80,000 women raped, 200,000 to 300,000 tortured,killed, and some buried alive.
<hr /></blockquote>

I talked about this once and called the Japanese bloodthirsty bastards and Gayle hollered at me and said I was a rascist

crawdaddio
11-19-2004, 02:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Gayle, don't know if you caught this on the news, but Iris Chang, who wrote "The Rape of Nanking", published two other books, and was writing her fourth, committed suicide...severe depression, probably from her research. Her books told of the horrors inflicted on the Chinese, by the Japanese, during WWII...80,000 women raped, 200,000 to 300,000 tortured,killed, and some buried alive.
Our country will never go down that path, but "war is hell"... <hr /></blockquote>

I wonder how many native americans were murdered?

[ QUOTE ]
In "American Holocaust", Stannard estimates the total cost of the near-extermination of the American Indians as 100,000,000. <hr /></blockquote>

Peace
~DC

Gayle in MD
11-19-2004, 02:50 PM
That is an outright lie Walley. I have never used the term rascist. You should apologize for this statement, not that I think you will.
Gayle

eg8r
11-19-2004, 09:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That is an outright lie Walley. I have never used the term rascist. You should apologize for this statement, not that I think you will. <hr /></blockquote> While looking through some old posts of yours I was a little surprised... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle 3-24-03:</font><hr> In the beginning of this mess, it looked to me, I will admit, that Bush was being a bit trigger happy. I didn
't like the prospect of war, but also, I don't like being part of a country, with the kind of power the U.S. has, that is willing to just sit back and let innocent people who cannot defend themselves be persecuted by a mad dictator...
<hr /></blockquote> My how times have changed. A year and a half later and none of your posts have the same tone.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think we need ANY Americans, at this critical time, going around trying to put down AMERICA. There are enough jerks around the world only to happy to do that. America is the greatest nation in the world, and I can think of no other nation that has devoted itself to the high ideals to which our country has proven itself to be committed, nor of any other nation which has given so much to help the helpless others around the world who are suffering from maniacs like this one. <hr /></blockquote> What about these ideals now? What did you mean when you posted this (I know a little unfair since it has been over a year and a half), now the majority of Americans are, bushyites, as you like to refer to them.

[ QUOTE ]
The last paragraph you wrote, is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned. There are many countries which need our help, and the help of all the other nations, I agree, and I am proud that it is our country that is presently helping the poor Iraqi people at this time, unlike the French, the Germans and the Russians, who are helping their oppressor, Saddam Insane.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, a post from the same time period, what changed? Seems you are so against this war now? Is it the new (newer than this post) information from the beloved Clark?

Alright, I think I found what Wally was referring to... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally's post:</font><hr> They started it. The Japanese were bloodthirsty bastards. Why don't you go read about the stuff they did in China, Korea, and the Phils.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle's response:</font><hr> I love my country as much as you. It is the melting pot of the world. I suppose you think that ALL Japanese people are bastards? <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally's rebuttal:</font><hr> I said "were". Don't put words in my mouth. And they were. They were worse than Hitler in a lot of ways. Look it up.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle's reponse:</font><hr> Oh sorry Wally, so does that mean you thought all Japanese people WERE bastards. Oh Ok, I think I got it now. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally (quoting Gayle in red and responding in blue):</font><hr><font color="red"> Oh sorry Wally, so does that mean you thought all Japanese people WERE bastards. </font color>

<font color="blue"> You are correct. I should have said the Japanese "military" and "leadership" were bloodthirsty bastards. My bad </font color>

<font color="red"> Oh Ok, I think I got it now. </font color>

<font color="blue"> You're insinuating I'm a rascist? Sorry Gayle, you won't make that one stick. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I guess whoever wants can make a judgement on that one. LOL, sorry I had nothing to do at 11:30 PM on the eve of the biggest garage sale I have ever been part of. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am tired of marking junk, knowing full well someone is going to talk me down on the price. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

Qtec
11-19-2004, 10:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I am tired of marking junk, knowing full well someone is going to talk me down on the price.
<hr /></blockquote>
You big softie! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

If you want $3 for something you should mark it up for at least $6. They haggle, you eventually sell it for $3, they think they got a bargain and everybody is happy!
Have fun.

Q

Wally_in_Cincy
11-20-2004, 07:53 AM
Thanks for the research eg8r. Interesting.

And for the record I am not a rascist. Even though I prefer open-wheel racing, I have many friends who are NASCAR fans.

Gayle in MD
11-20-2004, 10:18 AM
Thank you for pulling this up Ed, I think it is definately proof that I tried to get behind our president after 9/11. Kind of destroys your theory that I Hate Bush.

Your attempt to dig around into the past and then take things out of context in order to try to discredit me, lol, wow, why is this ringing a bell???? come to think of it, isn't that what Walley was doing also? How very interesting.

Also proves that my post to Walley was just an effort to get clear on his meaning. If he read more into it than I meant at the time, I can't help that. Pretty obvious I wasn't hollering, and never called him a racsist, as he said in his post.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
11-20-2004, 07:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for pulling this up Ed, I think it is definately proof that I tried to get behind our president after 9/11. Kind of destroys your theory that I Hate Bush. <hr /></blockquote> It absolutely does not, rather is supports it. At one point, it shows you were not so partisan. At some point that changed and look at your posts now.

[ QUOTE ]
Your attempt to dig around into the past and then take things out of context in order to try to discredit me, <hr /></blockquote> This was not an attempt to dig around, no need the search function works fine. This is not like I was going to Vanity Fair hoping to find some political story to support some twisted liberal view.

What was taken out of context? Clarify this?

[ QUOTE ]
How very interesting.
<hr /></blockquote> What is interesting is how defensive you are acting.

[ QUOTE ]
Also proves that my post to Walley was just an effort to get clear on his meaning. <hr /></blockquote> Here was the point of the post, and you are too blinded to even see it. While I was searching to find this dialogue I found the rest. Found the change in tone interesting so I posted it. I did not expect you to notice this but I also felt it was no reason to have to clarify it the first time around.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty obvious I wasn't hollering <hr /></blockquote>Not sure I know what you are referring to, did someone say you were hollering?

eg8r

eg8r
11-20-2004, 07:57 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You big softie!

If you want $3 for something you should mark it up for at least $6. They haggle, you eventually sell it for $3, they think they got a bargain and everybody is happy!
Have fun. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, this is exactly what my wife told me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif What a long day. We made $300 (jokingly offered 10k for the baby, but they would not take the wife /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif ). Definitely NOT worth it, except we no longer have all that stuff in the house.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-21-2004, 09:46 AM
Yes Ed, Walley said it. also, my compassionate view about trying to save the oppressed and tortured has not changed. I happen to think that we should help those in our country first, protect those in our country first. Charity begins at home, as they say. Weren't you the one saying that we should help the aids sufferers here rather than in Africa some months back?

What has changed for me is my view of George Bush, and his methods. I still love my country, and I still care about all who suffer in the world. That will never change.

Many of the books I have read these past few years are excerpted in Vanity Fair, a great publication BTW, and it is easire to refer to that magazine rather than going through the whole book to find the parts I wish to access.

Defensive? I don't really care what you think of me Ed. Whatever it is, why don't you go to church and pray about it instead of letting your hatred for me occupy so much of your time?
Have a nice day...
Gayle in MD, BTW, Did you know that Laura calls him Bushy?