Gonzales to Recuse Himself From CIA Probe (Demos Broadly Support Gonzales)

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON -- Alberto Gonzales told a Democratic senator Wednesday that if confirmed as attorney general he would step aside from the Justice Department investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

Gonzales made the commitment during a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill with Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee will hold hearings, expected in January, on President Bush's nomination of Gonzales as attorney general.

Schumer said Gonzales, currently the White House counsel, was more closely involved in the CIA leak case than outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft, who recused himself from the case nearly a year ago under pressure from Democrats. Gonzales has testified before a federal grand jury in the case and has given advice about it to White House personnel.

snip...........

Like other Judiciary Committee Democrats, Schumer said Gonzales is likely to be confirmed with broad Senate support. "I'm favorably inclined," Schumer said.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-gonzales-cia-leak,0,424736.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

[saracat]

1. This is the DLC effect! Damn them and damn Schumer!

[LeighAnn]

17. StopAlbertoGonzales.com

They'll get the message if we hound them and don't stop

http://www.stopalbertogonzales.com

John Poindexter was a sure thing for our Big Brother, but we beat him back. Well, kind of. I think he's still operating in the shadows. Still, he lost a lot of funding and it kicked his program back, and it was nothing but outraged citizens sending emails and making phone calls and what-not. There's plenty of time before the confirmation hearings to put things right. Everybody's getting on the bandwagon because nobody's told them "no" yet. Lefties and righties alike have reservations about this man.

[GRLMGC]

2. Boo

Just what we need, someone who's okay with torture. A step up from from Big Brother John Ashcroft.

[ramapo]

3. They're all in this together

Republicans and Democrats alike. Nader's almost right when he says there's no difference. The only difference is campaign rhetoric. The Democrats say what we want to hear, the Republicans don't.

There are a handfull of Representatives, mostly the CBC/kucinich bunch and some of the true conservative Republicans who stand up to the ruling junta. The Senate really goes along to get along.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

5. the most ignorant statement I've read all day

"The only difference is campaign rhetoric."

[joeybee12]

7. Say that again when they start drilling in the Arctic--Dems have no balls

We're starting to see them roll over yet again--Dems apparently stand for nothing these days.

[leftchick]

10. pay attention...

That statement is quite accurate. I don't think I need to list the ways in which the Dems have folded like wilted flowers in front of the repukes on most issues.

[gottaB]

13. It's easier than actually paying attention, marking distinctions

Many Democratic senators will oppose the Gonzales nomination, but as long as there at least five that won't, there's little point in staging a fight over it. That means that soft or potential opponents will be easily swayed to support the nomination.

How many Republican senators will oppose the nomination? I would think not a one, but if any do they will be exceptional, and largely outnumbered by their fellow opponents from the Democratic side of the aisle. There is a real difference, and it will be clear to anybody who cares to look into it.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party is not positioning itself as the party that opposes torture. Several possible reasons for that come to mind. One reason is that the Republican Party does not symbolize torture, murder, extortion and rape--including anal child rape--in the minds of most voters. One could argue that the Democrats on the Hill have failed in their responsibility to educate and inform the public about what their government is doing. I would. But I think it would be naive to expect more hearings or the release of more documentary evidence to be sufficient to hold the ruling party accountable for its misdeeds, and make it symbolize those misdeeds in the public mind. We are operating here in the realm of political argument and rhetoric, and a public discourse shaped by corporate media with agendas of their own.

Personally I'm disappointed in Chuck Schumer and the other Democrats who are inclined to support Gonzales. The Party should strongly oppose the Republican torture agenda, and should listen to voices of conscience like Ted Kennedy or Pat Leahy. Politicians are accustomed to making deals and comprosises, but this is one of those cases where it's better to stand on principles, even if the public isn't fully engaged or supportive. Let the Republicans stand for torture. We want no part of it.

[paulk]

29. with new allegations of torture at Gitmo coming out

maybe Gonzales' record will come more to the front.

If the news media would make a story of this, maybe Schumer and the rest of the fence sitters would take a stand. The Democrats are scared to death of the "obstructionist" tag - they're scared to death of the media. With pretty good reason.

[saracat]

30. Why is that ignorant? Prove otherwise.

Don't just fire and run away. You insult that poster and don't defend your position? C'mon.

[ItsThePeopleStupid]

31. it was an ignorant statement because

It is the same as saying that Kerry would do the same as ** will do in the next 4 years, that if Gore had been president we would have seen, for all intents and purposes, the same policies of the last 4 years. After all, they're "all the same", just better sounding.

It ignores the Dems in congress who voted against **'s proposals--most of them, most of the time. It denigrates the congresscritters who DO fight, even at great political risk.

It sneers at any support I gave to any Dem either running for or in office in the last 4 years, either by voting or sending emails or working to get out the vote.

But I think this has been obvious for at least 3 1/2 years.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. *whew*

I thought for a moment that Democrats will actually get to their senses and show some balls.

Glad they disabused me of that notion.

[Rose Siding]

6. Yeah, that was a close one

But how could they resist his twisting of int'l law to the will of the US? Or his uncanny ability to explain death row cases in under 30 minutes using language that even a child could understand?

[Swamp Rat]

8. He needs an anal probe

[Guarionex]

9. Why are Democrats supporting this clown?

Did the "moralistic" Democrats forget that this is the man who has supported the violation of human rights of people in Guantanamo, not to mention the architect of post 9/11 U.S. "torture" rights law?

Why are we putting a man with such a distorted view of international law and human rights at the forefront of our legal system? Are we freaking mad?

Could we just flush the country down the toilet please...it's stinking already.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. No point in fighting a losing cause.

Save it for Bush's supreme court nominees. We'll need it.

[paulk]

12. who are "we"?

Bush is appointing Gonzales, not the Democrats. A president, historically, has the right to appoint anyone he wants to his cabinet. Even if every Dem. voted no, Gonzales would still be appointed. It's almost unheard of to filibuster a cabinet appointment.

[Bridget Burke]

15. I can see saving the filibuster, but must they vote for the guy?

How about some serious, pointed questioning before the vote?

If the Republicans have the votes to approve him, so be it. Let all the Democrats vote NO & the result be on the heads of the Republicans.

[Just Me]

21. In my eyes, the guy is a co-conspirator in the commission of war crimes.

He wrote the memo.

No decent Democrat, Independent or Republican who sincerely believes that a democracy requires adherence to the rule of law would approve this guy who "rationalized" away the Geneva Convention and international law.

It's simply disgusting to me that he is even being considered as the appointee,...but, it was just as disgusting to me that Ashcroft was appointed.

[alfredo]

27. If he gave counsul to suspects in the Plame case, then

he knows who they are.

What if he was in on it. that would be a big blow to bush having his Att Gen branded a traitor.

[grumpy old fart]

26. Exactly! n/t

[paulk]

28. I hope the Democrats do some serious questioning

and put this guy's positions on the record. Not that it did a heck of a lot of good with Ashcroft. And it would be nice if they would all vote no - just on principal. But - some of them may be worried about a Latino backlash costing them votes if they drag Gonzales through the mud. They also may conclude that the time and energy needed to fight a battle they will lose might be better spent somewhere else.

[msgadget]

19. True.

And, Schumer's remarks are no surprise. He plays the game, picks his fights carefully and with maximum publicity. As I recall, he also supported Goss.

[depakid]

14. "confirmed with broad Senate support"

Forget the Dems. They're hopeless. I don't see them winning ANY national elections- even if they were fair and honest elections- any time in the next 20 years.

And frankly, they don't deserve to.

[grumpy old fart]

24. Dems need to stand for SOMETHING.....

You know, all this jump on board crap just leads to Dems running candidates who have to explain why they voted for the criminal measures they want to criticize come election time. Isn't a vote for Gonzalez just a rubber stamp to our abandonment of even the pretense of caring about human rights? For crissakes, can't the Dems at least make the case that the AG shouldn't be someone so closely linked with torture?

[napi21]

16. Common guys. Shrub could have picked a lot worse for AG.

You can't expect shrub to pick Hillary or Kennedy ya know. He's going to ick a Pub, and although you have every right to grump and groan about whatever you want, remember all those he could have chosen. Could have been Ala. Judge Moore, or a lot of others like him who would be much much worse!

[grumpy old fart]

25. Yeah, but it coulda easily been someone better.

I mean, there are plenty of Repug lawyers who, I assume, are not directly tied to advocating the scrapping of the Geneva Convention and rationalizing torture.

[mmonk]

18. This is why I can't say

the Dems still promote my values. I'm kinda old fashioned and think we should return to international law, the Geneva conventions, as well as domestic and military law standards. But I guess there's no stopping the train. Let's keep this 19th century economics model and international rogue status going!

[RuleofLaw]

22. When will the Democrats learn?

Approve Gonzales and when he later down the road does something outrageous, the Republicans can say: "But you voted for him"!

Why not take a stand now? Why not show some fundamental value differences between the democrats and the republicans?

I surely wish we had a opposition party in this country.

[RuleofLaw]

23. Not only a question of International Law

Its a question of US law. When the US signed the Geneva Convention, it became part of US law, enforceable by US Courts. Why is this so hard to understand?

[UpInArms]

20. Gonzales is not fit to clean septic systems

for the nasally impaired.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1111-27.htm

excerpt:

The president is putting his own counsel, Alberto Gonzales, who wrote the famous memo defending torture, in charge of America's civil liberties. Torture Guy, who blithely threw off 75 years of international law and set the stage for the grotesque abuses at Abu Ghraib and dubious detentions at Guantánamo, seems to have a good grasp of what's just. No doubt we'll soon learn what other protections, besides the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, Gonzales finds "quaint" and "obsolete."

Soon all those "quaint" documents will be shredded into the dustbins of history.

:grr: