To: Huck
Why is this surprising. Bush is for it. Gonzales works for Bush. I'd be surprised if he said anything else.
12 posted on
01/18/2005 12:43:36 PM PST by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: MineralMan
I don't know why anyone would be surprised by it. It's more like rubbernecking.
14 posted on
01/18/2005 12:45:12 PM PST by
Huck
(I only type LOL when I'm really LOL.)
To: MineralMan
Why is this surprising? Bush is for it. Gonzales works for Bush.As far as I could tell, Ashcroft was not a supporter of the AWB.
15 posted on
01/18/2005 12:45:36 PM PST by
jmc813
(The Jets have broken my heart)
To: MineralMan
He said it because he believes it.
128 posted on
01/18/2005 2:43:41 PM PST by
Czar
(StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
To: MineralMan
Why is this surprising. Bush is for it. Gonzales works for Bush. I'd be surprised if he said anything else.Well, he could say that as a private citizen, he sees no need for it, and enumerate all the reasons it's unnecessary and pointless, but that as an officer of the Executive Branch, he would faithfully and to the best of hi s ability enforce any law enacted by Congress.
150 posted on
01/18/2005 5:07:14 PM PST by
Still Thinking
(Disregard the law of unintended consequences at your own risk.)
To: MineralMan
Why is this surprising. Bush is for it. Gonzales works for Bush. I'd be surprised if he said anything else But many here have been arguing that Bush wasn't really for it, but was using his supposed "support" to defuse the issue for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Elections are no longer an issue for Bush.
175 posted on
01/18/2005 7:07:13 PM PST by
El Gato
(Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson