AG GONZALES, anybody else have prob's with the drivel we was...

[bridgit]

uttering on 'the news hour' last night? a tap dancing mouthpiece if there ever was one. i think this to be thee example of why the president's personal attorney should not be the AG of the united states; it offers the full weight of the justice department for the excuse & rationale of one man's personal transgressions against we the people.

they cannot be gone from office too fast imo

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. I saw it and it was drivel

But Patrick Leahy came on after him and pretty much blew him out of the park, which was great. It seems most shows would have just had Gonzales to utter his misinformation and left it at that. One of Gonzales' and the Administration's repetitive points is that it was "reviewed" and they "consulted" with Congress. It was reviewed by themselves and we all know about how much they consulted with Congress. The Gonzales dog and pony show just proves he is in way too deep himself as both an architect and an apologist of the crime. Every appearance he makes just solidifies the need for an independent counsel.

[bridgit]

4. yes. the 'consulted' part so far as i've heard, was to bring in token...

dems in a cynical attempt, one republicans use repeatedly, to lend themselves cover for just these very times we are witnessing. but it was difficult to watch an official who's job it is to protect the rights of us all, stumble over that reality while he attempts to justify the illegal actions of but one = his personal client and long time friend, g.w. bush.

it's just so cheap and tawdry what these people have done the the WH

[KoKo]

2. I saw him on with Soledad O'Brien this a.m....and he

looked pretty bad. His only argument was that Bush has authority to do what he wants because of his power to wage war. He wouldn't answer questions over who was wiretapped or if any of the wiretaps had resulted in any terrorists being arrested. She even asked him if any evidence was presented against a terrorist would it hold up in court because it had been obtained illegally and he refused to answer that question, too.

I didn't see Gonzales last night but I'm so used to see him smirking and cocky that I thought he either has the flu or the attention is getting to him having to lie and lie and lie that he looked so bad this morning.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

6. Great questions by Soledad! nt.

[bridgit]

8. didn't they just in response to the outcry 're-name' it: terrorist

surveillance? isn't that maybe better? cause now when the some 4 - 5,000 being under surveillance are found to not be terrorists, don't they now have a viable case against both bush AND gonzales?

these guys just keep bending the rules to do what the hell ever they want

[Just Me]

3. His success is dependent upon loyalty to totalitarian despots.

Shame on him.

[bridgit]

5. shame indeed...

[mwb970]

7. Gonzales is a shameless toady.

I hate to even watch this cringing, obsequious little lick-spittle defending the Man Who Would Be King in every un-American word and deed. Torture? Fine! Illegal detention? OK by me! Illegal wiretapping? You go, girlfriend!

Gonzales seems weak and womanish, kind of a male version of Harriet Miers. I think of him as just another of the swooning women (Miers, Rice, Hughes, Pickles, etc.) that this "president" has surrounded himself with as nannies.

I am so ashamed of America for allowing itself to be run by a lying crook with a megalomaniac streak. Down with King George!

[Arkansas Granny]

9. Yes, I saw him and yes, he was spouting drivel. I had a sudden

thought while watching him that I hadn't considered before. Is there a possibility that Bush did not authorize the NSA to do this surveillance? Is there a possibility that Bush found out about it at the same time that we did? Who handled the briefing of the members of Congress who were told about this program, Bush or or someone else in the administration?

I have often thought that Bush is not really running things and is only the figurehead that carries out PNAC's plans. It seemed strange to me when this was first reported that Bush couldn't comment on it at all, but less than 24 hours later he's out there saying that yes, he did it and he intends to continue. Then later he claims that Congress gave him the authority to do so, and so on.

Should I put on my tinfoil hat? Have I had too much coffee? Or has anyone else wondered about this?