Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Disgraceful - Gonzales' dithering about taking the oath.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 01:48 PM
Original message
Disgraceful - Gonzales' dithering about taking the oath.
The chief law enforcement official (admittedly not the way I usually refer to the torture czar) in our country dithers about taking an oath, and sits by while a third-party debate is waged as to whether he will take one or not -- disgraceful.

I hope against hope Dem talking heads will create an echo chamber around the fact that Gonzales' testimony without accountability has no credibility.

Gonzales' comments that his responses would be the same with an oath or without one falls into the "talk is cheap" category. If that's the case, why not take an oath?

Can you imagine Patrick Fitzgerald walking into a hearing room and dithering about whether to take an oath?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
calmblueocean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Every day I wonder if they can go any lower...
... and every day, somehow, they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. And every day, it seems "our" tolerance for low grows bigger....
I work for an extremely liberal organization (not politics-related) and I doubt ANYONE here even knows Gonzales was testifying today. When I tell my co-workers about things like Gonzales not testifying under oath, they give me one of two looks -- "do you really care?" -- "oh, is that important?" Aaaargh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. YO AG, if you have nothing to hide - that's what your base would say
Make them proud, raise that right hand. And you know, even when you do lie to the committee the bush base will continue to love you and rationalize your anti-american unconstitutional actions because they are "conservatives."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Hello! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. You are correct. This goes right to the heart of the arrogance and the
lawlessness of this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. Really shows up our "democracy" as an illusion, doesn't it?
That's the most stunning thing about the past five years with these criminals in charge.
Never have I been so cynical about politics in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Yes, it does seem like the whole "democracy" thing was just a lie
I am completely disgusted. No republican has been held accountable for anything, yet ordinary working folks have to pee in a cup just to get a job. Ordinary people get audited, investigated, wiretapped, patted down, pulled over... and those republicans shits sit there and say that Gonzales, the torture and spy genius, is too honorable to need to be sworn in. I have never felt such utter disgust and hopelessness for my country as I do now. Most citizens have checked out, and most congressmen act like they've gotten phone calls in the middle of the night. Meanwhile, the nightmare progresses with more war plans and more plans for destorying our economy and our rights. Unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. "...gotten phone calls in the middle of the night...."
First, you've read my mind.

And your comment, "...and most congressmen act like they've gotten phone calls in the middle of the night...." strikes a definite chord.

I read a very chilling passage this evening from something linked to in another DU post -- an article written by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, former Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of the National Review - in other words, a strange bedfellow to be sure!

He wrote:

.... Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why president Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif....

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the oppostition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don't want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Every day countless thousands of common citizens--John and
Jane Q Public are required to race their hand and take the oath before presenting even the most inocuous testimony in legal proceedings. Yet, the chief law enforcement officer would be offended by being asked to do the same? This just pisses me no end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I had to take an oath when I got my will.
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 02:04 PM by BOSSHOG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
29. During my divorce hearing...
I had to swear under oath that my soon-to-be-ex was sleeping around and driving me into debt. Not that I minded, but still...

If I had to, why not these "people"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Excellent point. We have to take oaths, why not the AG?

Especially while "testifying" in a matter of national import!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Did he in fact take it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, he didn't. Links --
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 02:16 PM by quiet.american
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5597854...

Monday's hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn't necessary.

He wasn't. ``My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not,'' Gonzales told the panel.


Video - ThinkProgress:
Senate Conservatives Refuse To Put Gonzales Under Oath
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/gonzales-under-oath...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. since when is it a matter of choice? these people have no limit. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sounds like he feels political considerations prevent his
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 02:13 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
pleading the Fifth. He considers it jist ain't fair!

Go on, Gonzo! Instead of saying, "... in case I incriminate himself", why not use the weasel words favoured by Oliver "Hardy" North: "On the advice of my counsel, I respectfully and regretfully decline to answer the question based on my constitutional rights".

What with the same chorus from the Anderson and Enron people, "I plead the Fifth" is beginning to sound like some kind of new Republican Party motto, that they want to replace their elephant emblem with a big high 5. They'll surely be congratulating each other.

Maybe Defendants in major criminal trials will, in future, simply intone, "I plead Republican".

How do you refer to a Republican in an $10,000 suit? The Accused.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. "....based on my constitutional rights...."
Well, maybe even Gonzales realizes that would be the height of irony coming from him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Good point!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. So did the guy NOT take the oath to testify there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Check out post #10 ---. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Are you serious? That would make it all the easier for an
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 02:21 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
innocent party to take the oath.

Oh... I get it. He's suddenly become a Quaker...although not of the Nixonian ilk, of course.... remembering Christ's command not to swear by any oath, letting our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no". Such piety in a law chief is most moving. Let's hope it spreads... but not necessarily hold our breaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. You know, times are such that might be put forward as his defense. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Certainly,you couldn't put any skullduggery past them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Quakers are Pacifists
making it hard to support the war. But then, "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"...like mine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. In that case, he'll have to start spying on himself, won't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. Dude says his answers would be the same... the difference is, under oath,
they could land him in prison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. That simple
They are all criminals hoping not to end up in their own prison camps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. He won't take an oath?
Then what's the point of having these hearings? I'm not watching it - did he eventually swear or not? I thought witnesses at a Congressional hearing always had to take an oath before testifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Good question -- and no, he didn't take an oath. See my post #10.
The GOP "senators" are taking the fall for it, as in "Republicans Decline to Swear In Gonzales"-type headlines, however, I say an Attorney General with an ounce of integrity would have insisted on being sworn in, because in the real world his "testimony" isn't worth diddly without the standard of legal accountability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
24. Like a breathalizer test: Refusal = guilt.
They indict themselves, but then have the votes to pardon themselves.

You just can't trust a repug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
25. I still say the Dems should have walked out
Even the corporate media whores wouldn't have been able to ignore every Dem leaving the room in protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
28. bush refused to take an oath when testifying before the 9/11 Commission
These people are all alike. They have rules that apply to them, and then there are rules that apply to us.

No way on God's green earth are these people going to take the oath. They walk into these hearings with the express intention of lying about anything that threatens their position or their power. There's no way they intend to get caught in the same trap which snared Clinton when he lied under oath.

That's what it's all about. You know it, they know it, and anybody with two brain cells to rub together ought to be able to figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gkhouston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
31. Um, no.
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 05:23 PM by gkhouston
He would have politely interrupted, told them their arguing back and forth was absurd, and asked to be sworn as a matter of course. It's what he, as a prosecutor, has expected of countless witnesses and defendants. Why should he do any less?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quiet.american Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Damn, I wish Fitz was AG. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. It was worse than that.
My understanding is the Specter, as chairman, refused to put Gonzales under oath. Specter opened up the hearing by notifying the committee that no oath would be given and explained that other laws applied and that this was Specter's idea, that Gonzales himself had it seems wanted to be sworn in. What patent horseshit. Democrats objected and forced a vote on the issue. Normally this would be irrelevant as the Republican majority would simply vote with Specter, however there weren't enough Republicans present to win the vote so Specter announced that he had the missing Republican's proxies. Feingold challenged him on that - Specter didn't have the proxies, but then Feingold backed down as Specter would simply have put the session in recess until he did.

The Specter praisers here and the Graham praisers as well should be wary: these guys are playing with a stacked deck. This hearing is bullshit, and that became clear from the opening gavel. They are about to rubber stamp the executive tyranny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarcojon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
36. What a slime
The Dems won't roll over on this one, will they? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why are these people so afraid to take oaths to tell the truth? Talk about
telegraphing their intent to lie. Nasty little smarmy nazis, so proud to smirk their spew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
38. Fraid to go to jail for his boss? You're going there anyway, honey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
39. Reno - Testimony to 9/11 Commission
<snip>
Tuesday, April 13, 2004

THOMAS KEAN: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
RENO: I do.
KEAN: Please be seated.
.
.
.
<snip>

Boy, that's not so hard is it?


http://ctstudies.com/Document/911_Commission_Reno_Testi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
40. The chief law enforcement officer in the
country weasels out of being sworn in before being asked questions by a Senate committee about unconstitutional activity he is engaging in that is robbing Americans of their civil liberties and the repukes on the committee are all for it while Dems just sit there looking aggravated. Shame on everybody involved.

The Dems should have made a huge huge stink and shamed the fascist freak into being sworn in, or, if that didn't work, simply refused to participate in such a farce. Where the hell was the anger? Leahy was the only one who looked majorly pissed. They all should have been absolutely outraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC