Posted on 01/10/2007 9:34:13 PM PST by paltz
Gonzalez was the AG when the deal was cut I believe.
"A storm of protest from sharp-eyed viewers ensued,"
Only people who were next to brain dead would not have seen this. You don't have to have sharp eyes to see what's wrong with this picture.
Sandy Berger, meet Jack Bauer
Justice is politically corrupt (like the State Dept.), it's do-nothing on major issues like treason and it's tone-deaf to frustrated cries from patriots for justice applied evenly and actively domestically.
Since Gonzalez is a Bush appointee, we've laid off this weird, unfocused man out of respect to the President. This must not continue. President Bush should ease him out post haste. PC should not play a part in the appointment of a new AG as it did with Reno and Gonzalez.
Leni
Hey, can't we all just get along? Can't we all agree that the Clintons are smarter than we are? That we shouldn't judge them? That we should just surrender to Sharia law and love terrorists?
That's just the tip of the iceberg, our government is so corrupt it makes third world countries blush.
That's what we know he was hiding. We don't know what else we don't know.
What a slimy SOB...the repercussions of this are sickening.
There may have also been some notes about bin Laden, along the lines of "don't kill him".
Sandy Berger
Bill Clinton
MSM
Heh.
It was Gonzalez, but Ashcroft told BOR what he knew was stolen about six or eight months ago.
100%. he destroyed those drafts, there are no copies of the drafts, so whatever was written on them - is gone.
"I believe this happened under Ashcroft."
They don't want to hear that Miss Marple, they are just interested in attacking ANYONE with spanish surname.
?????
There was a Republican administration in both cases. One would think that the Bush administration would have more incentive to prosecute Berger than the than the Nixon administration had to find out who was behind Watergate.
The reasons why why prosecutors didn't demand a tougher sentence for Berger are explained here.
it was known before that of course - Byron York has been the best at following this story. of course, we have to infer (through information from other sources, notably richard clarke) what we think the drafts of the after action report showed - since we don't have them.
they showed the extent of AQ operations in the US before 9/11, the debate over what should be done about it, and most importantly - who didn't want to do anything.
remember how the clintons operate - what they do, they accuse their opponents of doing, to deflect the issue. When Hillary entered the well of the senate and made that "BUSH KNEW" comment, that tells you what you need to know:
"On May 16, 2002, she took to the Senate floor waving a copy - ironically - of that day's New York Post, with its front-page headline "Bush Knew," a story about the then just-discovered pre-9/11 presidential daily briefing warning of coming terrorist attacks.
"I am simply here today on the floor of this hallowed chamber to seek answers to the questions being asked by my constituents," Hillary explained. "Questions raised by one of our newspapers in New York with the headline 'Bush Knew.'"
He also noted that she was screaming for more troops in Iraq right up until the president announced he'd do it.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.