Every senator who votes to confirm Alberto Gonzalez must be declared

[KlatooBNikto]

complicit in sanctioning war crimes. This goes double for Democratic Senators. We must first work to defeat these senators and then show them the door.

[henslee]

1. must be declared an enemy combatant?

[ghostsofgiants]

22. Hahaha, that's what I was thinking.

[cally]

2. No, let's pick our battles

There is nothing Dems can do to stop this one. Why waste a fight. Save it for one we can win. I think we are flailing at the wind if Dem comgressmembers fight everyone.

Gonzalez is evil. Let him expose himself further.

[depakid]

7. That's what they always say

and it's no more than a lame excuse for selling us out.

The justification is no better in this case than it was for goss, Ashcroft and every other lunatic and/or profoundly stupid bill the GOP pushes at the Dems.

The more the Dems sell out, the weaker they get. This will be yet one more nail in their coffin.

[Deja Q]

20. I read your response before the message of the person you responded to.

:thumbsup:, BTW. Well said.

[KlatooBNikto]

11. Losing in a battle as important as this one tells all Democrats we will

not tolerate people who go against our principles.It is like voting for old Adolf himself with the idea that we can defeat him in the future.

[Terry_M]

14. I keep hearing that a bit too frequenty.

[Pastiche423]

15. HFS!

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Will some people never learn?

[cally]

19. The question was if Dem reps who

don't take a stand on this one should be shunned. I think not. They have to pick their battles. Make a difference.

I do think every Dem should not vote for him. He's evil.

[wickerwoman]

23. We've been saying this for four years.

We must have a lot of energy saved up, because damned if I can think of a single fight we've actually engaged in in the past four years let alone won.

[librechik]

34. we're going to lose anyway, if they vote no they only show their

integrity and faithfulness to the rule of law. Why would they vote yes? Dems in Congress should try to form a voting bloc out of conscience.

[imenja]

3. then you'll be working for a lot of Republicans

because the Democrats are voting for Gonzalez. They have already said so.
I'm sure Rove would love to help you out. Give him a call.

I appreciate your opposition to Gonzalez. Call all the Senators and tell them why you object to him. Pressure them all you can before the vote. But to declare war on all those who vote to confirm is not ultimately constructive, unless of course you want to see Democratic loses.

[Amigust]

8. Just curious, why are Dems voting for him?

What crumbs will they get for supporting him?

What would they lose if they voted as a block against him?

[imenja]

24. Here are some of the reasons I've read and heard

Because they have so little power now they feel they have to pick their battles carefully. This one they can't win. The fact Gonzalez is a Hispanic makes it all the more difficult for them to oppose him. Apparently Henry Cicero's and Ken Salazar are backing him and helped introduce him at the confirmation hearings. Bush knows what he is doing choosing these token minorities to promote his destructive policies.
Also, there is the belief that it is the president's right to chose his own cabinet, except in egregious examples. I think most probably agree that the problem with this government is George Bush rather than Gonzalez in particular. Lastly, will they get anyone better if they defeat Gonzalez? Unlikely, and Bush will continue to violate all notions of legal decency, with or without Gonzalez.
They also are thinking of Tom Dascle. The Republicans defeated him by claiming he obstructed Bush's appointments. They want to pick their battles carefully. Remember that their only tool to block Republican appointments is filibuster. They have to use it carefully and sparingly or it will lose effectiveness. There is also the very real threat that the Republicans will take away the filibuster provisions in the Senate rules.
I would certainly like an AG that didn't sanction torture. I found Gonzalez' responses on those questions completely unsatisfactory. I would also like an opposition party with the power to mount real challenges. You have to admit their ability to do so now is extremely limited. We have to make sure they take a clear stand on Supreme Court appointments. Sad as it is, Bush will continue to violate human rights, with or without Gonzalez.

[bpilgrim]

37. "They want to pick their battles carefully"

which fucking battle do they think is worth fighting fer christ's sake if this one ain't. :crazy:

they are ENABLERS.

btw: how many times do you have to repeat the SAME DAMN MSG in a single post?

peace

[imenja]

38. do you think torture rides on Gonzalez alone?

Is Abu Ghraib the fault of Gonzalez or Bush? Do you think defeating Gonzalez is going to change the Bush administration's policy? Is it worth losing the right to filibuster? Do you truly believe there is no difference between the two parties on this and other issues? Then by all means, work to defeat Democrats, bring the party down and help Rove make this a one party state.

[bpilgrim]

39. certainly not

and the whole admin is complicit and so our many on our side of the asile... but this is a war for the hearts and minds and he represents the man who AUTHORIZED IT.

what kind of MSG. does it send to the world if not only is he nominated but there isn't much resistance from the loyal opposition?

and NOT ONLY is this about TORTURE of FOREIGNERS it's about even Americans being STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHTS and held INDEFINITELY.

if we don't fight this then WTF are we ever gonna get OUTRAGED about?

they do get outraged when someone disses their IMAGE but what about our RIGHTS :argh:

(not directed at you just our party leadership)

peace

[AG78]

9. Nice to meet you

"But to declare war on all those who vote to confirm is not ultimately constructive, unless of course you want to see Democratic loses."

Winston Smith.

How is it not constructive? If they vote for Gonzales, what's the difference if they lose their next election to a Republican?

Honestly, if now isn't the time to pick a fight, what time will be the right time? The guy who wants to give people the chair on primetime TV? The guy who puts you in the line destined for Camp 6?

If the Democrats are going to vote for Gonzales because well, "duh, that's just how Washington works", then the hell with them. Voting to confirm Gonzales is DEstructive.

[imenja]

26. likewise

Please see my post above.
There is no question you are morally right on the Gonzalez issue. I support your and the poster's efforts to use your influence as voters to oppose the nomination. And if you really think the Democrats are no better than the Republicans, you are correct to oppose them. But the fact is you will be furthering Republican electoral victories. You need to decide if that is what you want to do.
Also, I have the distinct impression that the intent of such posts and the people who produce them is to express animosity rather than effect political change. Why write this now rather than encouraging efforts to defeat Gonzalez? I suspect he has threatened to do the same many times. And perhaps he will follow through. It is for you to decide if you want to help him.

[CoffeeAnnan]

28. I want to remind you that Goldwater went down in flames in 1964.

But he set the stage for the Republican victories in 1972 and in the 80's.Either we stand for something and lose, if necessary or stand for nothing and still lose because even our own base distrusts us.Which route would you choose?

[imenja]

31. Agree

I agree entirely that we must stand for firm positions. The question is, is the Gonzalez appointment the issue on which you want to do that? Remember that the Constitution provides for the president to choose his own cabinet, with consent from the Senate. Senators don't feel their roll is to intervene in these appointments to the extent they would in a Supreme Court nominee. What are the chances that we will actually get a better AG if Gonzalez is defeated? Is it Gonzalez or Bush is responsible for the violations of human rights our government perpetrates? My view is that is Bush, and very sadly, he was not fired.
I believe the key issue for us to take a stand on is electoral reform (bless Barbara Boxer and the Black Caucus). On that issue, we can make an important difference.

[CoffeeAnnan]

33. It is even more important for us to maintain the faith our base has

placed on our integrity as a party.We need to keep demonstrating that we will not yield on these fundamental principles regardless of the outcome.The same thing I have advocated holds true also for Social Security.

Just as a hypothesis I would like to see how our Democrats would react if they were to confront the nomination of a Heinrich Himmler or a Herrman Goering.Will they let him pass waiting for another propitious day to pick the right battle?

My feeling is that the Democrats have been coopted by the Ariel Sharon wing of our Party which has declared open season on the torture of Arabs/Muslims. The Geneva Convention does not make an exception for Arabs/Muslims but apparently this cabal does.

[imenja]

36. position over outcome

So for you it is the position that is important rather than the outcome? That such action will not change US policy on human rights is irrelevant? If the Republicans follow through on their threat to change the filibuster rule so that other opposition becomes impossible, that is likewise irrelevant?
In my view, action needs to have a goal that can be achieved. I encourage you to express your moral principles. I will also write my Senators to oppose the Gonzalez nomination. But to vow to destroy the party because they don't take a stand on an unwinable issue does not make sense to me. As I said in my initial post, it's ultimate result is to further Republican domination.
The Social Security issue, conversely, is winable. It is Bush who has the uphill battle in that fight, because many Republicans will not support his privitization scheme.

[NewInNewJ.]

4. I totally agree.

If the Dem. can not stand up against torture, how are they any less guilty form the guy who approves it?

[saltpoint]

5. I've spent spare time yesterday and today --

-- emailing all the senators who have web forms or email, asking them to oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales for Atttorney General.

My letter is short:

===
Alberto Gonzales recommended criminal acts regarding detainment and torture of human beings. He expressly recommended that tenets of the Geneva Convention be ignored.

I do not find Mr. Gonzales' defense of his recommendation to the President of the United States to be ethically tenable.

Other nations will not wonder why the Senate confirms a man who provided the legal rationalization for Abu Ghraib.

I don't want anyone like that anywhere NEAR the Attorney General's office.
====

If you have a spare moment, please contact some senators and urge them to oppose this man for the nation's highest justice job.

[Been Fishing]

12. A good letter

I've e-mailed my senators to oppose Gonzo's appointment. More than once.

I'll be watching their votes. If they don't oppose him, :grr:

[saltpoint]

16. Hi, Been Fishing. Thanks for throwing in on --

-- letters to senators.

I'm with you -- we have to keep a watchful eye on the voting roster when the Gonzales nomination comes up.

Appreciate what you're doing. Thank you.

[lastknowngood]

6. No he will soon be using the same techniques on us remember

torture is just quaint to him. He will be bringing his great ideas home to America after testing them on the Iraqis.

[InvisibleBallots]

10. I won't vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican, who votes for him

ever

[Disturbed]

13. Rethugs are already a disgrace to Democracy.

Any Dem that votes for Gonz will be a disgrace to Democracy and not
deserving to be in Congress.

[proudbluestater]

17. I don't really understand what happened to the Democratic party.

How could anybody with a conscience consider voting for this poor excuse of a human being? HOW?

I would like to ask each senator to search his conscience before voting. How would they explain their decision in front of the United Nations? Yeah, well, sure he likes torture and thinks it a-ok. I don't go along with that, but sure, I voted to confirm.

Have the Dems lost their conscience along with the Rethugs?

The other day they were interviewing the prospective secretary of commerce, the CEO of Kelloggs. Now THERE is a man I could support.

What is so hard about voting YES on the good ones and NO on the bad ones? If they vote for Gonzalez they are COMPLICIT in condoning torture.

[KlatooBNikto]

18. To understand what has happened to the Democratic Party, you must

first understand the impact of the PNAC on both parties.It is the Elephant in the Room that nobody talks about.That notorious pack of liars led by Bill Kristol, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have recruited many Senators, Democrats and Republicans to their way of thinking, offering the New Pearl harbor, 9/11, as their justification.

The PNAC has two key tenets that have found approval from both sides.First is American Global Hegemony which appeals to the fascist Republicans.The second is the Security of Israel.To accomplish the latter, the Senators, many of them Democrats, have decided to cast their lot with Ariel Sharon.He is not content with the demonizing of the Palestinians but wants to demonize all Arabs.With 9/11 and the fraudulent invasion of Iraq as a retaliation for that event, all our Senatorial appeasers of Sharon, have decided that when it comes to torturing Arabs, international norms can be set aside.That is the motivator for these traitorous and criminal bunch.That attitude reminds me of the time when I have heard how blacks should be treated for rioting in Los Angeles and Newark.The same attitude is easily noticeable in this case.

We must declare a No Compromise Zone on Alberto Gonzalez.If we don't we are dead.

[KlatooBNikto]

21. I would like to know where Kerry and Edwards stand on this nomination.

After receiving our support on their election, they have an obligation to stand for the principles of the party.If they do not unequivocally condemn this guy, it would make me think again about voting for them even for dogcatcher of Massachusetts or North Carolina.

[Swamp Rat]

29. PNAC lizards

[RBHam]

25. Complicit in treason...

Since they need torture to manufacture support for the 9-11 official story and to deflect any real investigation into who was really behind this updated "Reichstag Fire" or "Operation Northwoods"...

Treason...

Plain and simple.

[CoffeeAnnan]

27. Let us just recall Justice Robert Jackson's words at Nuremberg:

Aggressive war, as in Iraq, is a crime;so is the torture of prisoners.We sent the Nazis to the gallows for these crimes. Goering, Himmler,Frank,Hess,Streicher,Jodl, Keitel and numerous others.And here we are debating whether the chief apologist for the torture of innocent Arabs/Muslims who had nothing to do with 9/11 should be confirmed.

This pathetic group of Democrats belong in the Weimar Republic's appeasers of Hitler.They have bought the PNAC plan, hook, line and sinker.After receiving our total support during the elections, the least they can do is to stand up gainst torture.If they sign on to endorse this monster, they should be expelled from civilized humanity, let alone the parties.

[CoffeeAnnan]

30. What amazes me is that there are people even on DU who perform

cost/benefit analysis with a moral issue as clear cut as torture.

[Vadem]

32. I'm with you!!!! n/t

[ElectroPrincess]

35. Yes, this is a battle that is worth it ... torture is wrong!

No matter what the so call enemy does, how "savage" and ruthless EVERY enemy is described from the beginning of time to condone torture for JUST this one group of barbarians, TORTURE IS MORALLY WRONG! All these so called Christians can NOT support administering torture without hypocrisy.

This is truly a moral "no brainier." Torture is wrong!

I want to know all the names of our so called Democratic Leaders in the Senate who vote "yes" to confirm Gonzales so that I know NOT to ever trust (or support) them again in the future.