As far as I'm concerned, the Gonzales vote is the moral equivalent

[Walt Starr]

of the IWR vote, and this time I will give no quarter on it. Any Senator who votes Yes on Gonzales must be defeated in their next election.

[Padraig18]

1. God, yes-- let's defeat every Democrat who votes for Gonzales!

While we're at it, let's just concede every office in 2006! That'll show 'em!

:eyes:

[AntiCoup2K4]

2. Why do you want the confirmation of a fascist war criminal?

Am I missing something here? Since when is this acceptable to allow such a vile pig to be in charge of federal law enforcement?

[Padraig18]

4. Show me that he is....

...a.) fascist, and b.) a war criminal. Your hyperbole doesn't impress me.

[TeacherCreature]

7. Um, Torture Memos? 8 Dems on Committee voted no...

..for that and other reasons.

He's a bad guy. Really.

Are you actually disputing this?

(confused...)

[Padraig18]

9. No, I'm asking for proof.

So far, you've produced none.

[hippiechick]

17. And your proof that he SHOULD be confirmed is ... what ?

:shrug:

[TeacherCreature]

26. So you DO support Gonzales and oppose what the 8 Dems did

On the grounds of insufficient "proof"..

Thanks for clarifying....and just let me say that I find your passionate support for this most compromized of Bush appointees to be a bit surprising..

[TeacherCreature]

30. So now that Obama has announced his "no" for Gonzo-man

Are you angry with HIM too?

[Walt Starr]

3. I'm glad you agree with me

Thanks for getting on board. See, where we went wrong before was letting our pansy assed representatives get away with handing Bush a blank check to go to war at will.

BTW, please re-read my original post. I do not limit this to Democrats.

[rawtribe]

5. Not every Democrat

Just the ones who don't have a problem with torture! Sorry, but torture is unforgivable.

[Walt Starr]

11. Yup, voting in favor of Gonzales is voting in favor of giving Bush

Carte Blanche to torture at will.

[Malva Zebrina]

12. On the other hand

we can give our support to anyone who is obviously a neo con whose mission seems to be in support of the Bush doctrine of neo-con religico domination, pre-emtive attack of everything and anything of the ME by attacking all defenseless small countries who we covet in our greed, by any means possible,-- which the means to do so, the US possesses in every sphere. We are the conquorers of the world and we certainly must support that ambition even if it means we have gone over to the dark side.

Yeah--we MUST support them because it is unprecedented NOT to and because it is idiological, rather than practical political strategy.

That is an old song that has lost it's meaning and impact. It's chords are old, it's lyrics are old, and it is falling into the realm of the antique.

[Wind Dancer]

14. I will repeat this again.

I think you are missing the point.

This isn't about being a Dem or Rep, it's holding people responsible for atrocities committed by our country.

I can't support ANYBODY that endorses this nomination. It would be like saying it's OK to violate human rights, international law and rewrite the Constitution.

This is an extremely important decision for many of us. It makes me wonder what it will take for our reps to WAKE THE F**K UP.

What is it going to take for YOU to stop apologizing for Dems who vote yes to confirm this AG.

If you support them, fine but stop jumping on those of us who don't.

I am extremely proud of the DEMS who are speaking out against AG.

[flamin lib]

6. Not possible to defeat Gonzales, but

we can at least make a strong showing of discontent. Like Condi got more nays than any SoT since 1896 Gonzales needs at least that much of a statement.

Better part of valor to support those Dems that vote for Gonzales than to try to defeat them.

[Walt Starr]

8. He'd need 43 nays to do that

Ashcroft got 42 nays.

[bread_and_roses]

18. Then where do we draw the line?

If we support a Dem who votes yes for torture - because that's what a yes vote is - where do we draw the line?

It is not even good strategy to keep caving in to the Bush cabal, but even if it were,in my ethical universe, a vote for a Representative who votes yes to torture is tatamount to voting yes to torture myself.

Havn't we lost enough elections largely by not presenting a clear and compelling alternative vision to the NeoCon torturers and profiteers? Where is the Dem unity when it comes to opposing these slaughtering, torturing criminals? How can we expect the electorate to vote against them when "the opposition" votes with them? What kind of strategy is that?

The better part of valor is to create such a storm of opposition within the party to any Senator voting yes to Gonzalez that the party will have to put someone else up.

[noamnety]

10. I agree with you in theory

I believe it's the moral equivalent of sanctioning torture, anyhow.

But I still prefer to put my efforts - all my efforts - towards defeating republicans. I might vote one way or another in the primaries, but when it comes down to it, donations go to getting the party of greed out of office. Without them, we wouldn't even be having to vote on the likes of Gonzales.

[Walt Starr]

13. I make no party distinctions on this one

Republican and Democrat alike, a vote for Gonzales is a vote to give the federal governmetn carte blanche to torture at will.

[katinmn]

15. Dayton said he will vote against

I agree with you, Walt. There is no excuse for any senator who claims to be a Democrat voting for someone who re-interprets the law to allow torture. And as Sen. Dayton points out, the abuse of Abu Ghriab prisoners may cause our own soldiers to be tortured in the future. (I think the beheadings were a direct result of Abu Ghriab. Violence begets violence.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=160x6860

[leftofthedial]

16. I agree.

voting for the torturer (who also is a demonstrably incompetent attorney) as Atty Genl is like voting most favored nation trading status to Nazi Germany



er, kind of like Grandpa Prescott.

[Dr Fate]

19. I agree- we dont need pro-Bush Democrats. n/t

n/t

[Anakin Skywalker]

21. I Agree as Well.

Do we really want more Zell Millers?

[katinmn]

20. Looks like "up to 40" Dems may vote against Gonzales

We need to keep contacting senators.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=17

[murray hill farm]

22. Will any republicans vote against him?

what would be needed in the way of votes of no..is it majority or what?

[WI_DEM]

23. I'm with you Walt, this is a moral vote all the way

We need to take a stand against torture. I was surprised that Kerry didn't make the prison scandals and torture more of an issue in the last campaign. I'm delighted he voted against Condi and is against Gonzales. This to me should be an easy call for any sensible representative. I hope that a few Republicans (Chafee, Snowe?) will also join in. Heck I believe even Feinstein is voting against him. Anybody know what Lieberman is doing?

[ewagner]

39. Well said

The Dems have absolutely NOTHING TO LOSE by voting against this guy.

[Supersedeas]

40. Absolutely, Repub, Dem or Independent--this is a moral issue

[goobergunch]

24. No objection on this one. (n/t)

:kick:

[genius]

25. As far as I'm concerned the 100 Senators who backed the consent agreement

are out when it comes to higher office. I might revise that if they can't get 41 votes on Friday.

[incapsulated]

27. I've got to agree on this one

Rice was one thing, but even nominating this guy was an outrage.

NO on Gonzales.

[G_j]

28. agreed, agreed

strategy? we don't want this international scoff-law as the chief law enforcement officer of OUR country.
If they can't draw the line at torture and war crimes, then they are obviously incapable of safeguarding the Constitution, human rights or any commitment to international standards, laws and treaties. Our world, our country, our families are not safe in the hands of these people. Yes, if they can't say no to Gonzales they should be removed from office.

[Q]

29. I admire your resolve, Walt...

...but the writing is on the wall. The Democratic party sold us out four or more years ago and there is no going back. They can't take back their enabling, cooperation and collusion with the corrupt Bush government. The ONLY way they could try to make up for their own corruption is to vote against every Bush nominee and policy for the next four years. But it's clear that's not going to happen because the party is now controlled by the New Democrats and they will make sure Bush gets what he wants...even as they put up a mock fight and 'complain' about it.

The problem seems to be that there are just as many rank and file in the Dem party as the GOP willing to vote for politicians that betray our country and Constitution for the sake of 'winning'. Democratic and Republican politicians alike won't stand up against Bush as long as this remains the case. They know they can vote any way they like or support Bush's horrible agenda and STILL STAY IN OFFICE.

[LittleClarkie]

31. So how do we view those who vote nay now and voted yea on IWR?

Does this vote put them on the road to recovery? Obama is voting no. Are we all better in regard to him now? Feingold is voting no. Are we still going to be calling for HIS head?

So far, I think Salazar is our only nay. I'm very proud of those who've spoken so far.

[Walt Starr]

32. Things are definitely better for those who vote nay on this one

Salazar is looking piss poor. Let's see if he remains in lockstep on the Broker Security Scam.

[Laurab]

33. I agree - if they vote "yes" they are not a democrat

There is really NO excuse, from what I've seen, to vote yes. I believe I actually saw several rethugs who spoke yesterday defend torture. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, because prior to that, they had pretty much stuck with Gonzalass's life story, and the unfair partisan attacks. When they literally defended torture, it made me sick to my stomach - but then, watching most rethugs usually does that. There's no excuse for rethug's voting yes, either - are they all missing a conscience?

[Spacejet]

34. Oh please

I heard this so much between 2002 and 2004. SO many people claimed they wouldn't accept anyone that didn't oppose these people. Then all of a sudden they got cold feet and they became ABB as the election came closer. That applied to just about every other race too.

The fact is you're not going to throw away your vote on a 3rd party, or stay home. So I'd wish the "I swear I'm not voting democratic anymore! (Until the election gets close that is)" people would spare us the drama.

[G_j]

35. doesn't it just bug you

when people get dramatic about torture, war crimes etc.?
:wow:

[Spacejet]

36. No

But it DOES bug me when they threaten to let fascists who commit those crimes get in to power because they don't have the maturity beyond "I'm voting for Nader!"

[G_j]

37. guess I missed that part

I thought the original post stated,

"As far as I'm concerned, the Gonzales vote is the moral equivalent
of the IWR vote, and this time I will give no quarter on it. Any Senator who votes Yes on Gonzales must be defeated in their next election."

[Spacejet]

38. Are you for real?

I am. And I know most of the dems in the senate will probably be voting for him.

According to you we should defeat MOST dems in the senate because they don't pass your little 100% purity test, and then have 90+ fascists in control of the senate. Great plan. Have you forwarded it to the DNC? I'm sure they'll give you an award.

[G_j]

42. actually it looks as if

all but one will be voting no

[Walt Starr]

43. Actually, you're wrong. Most Dems in the Senate are voting AGAINST

Gonzales. In fact, it is extremely likely all Dems EXCEPT Salazar will vote against him.

[Spacejet]

44. We'll see

given recent performance it will be quite a surprise if they do maintain unity.

Regardless, as soon as the next vote on X thing comes up there will be another group of people with a purity test saying it's the last straw and we need to vote them out. (which can only mean in favor of a fascist)

[G_j]

47. not a purity test

in this case it could more accurately be called drawing a line.
If one is incapable of drawing a line anywhere, then the door is wide open to the fascism you mention.


edit:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0202-01.htm

Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle

Gonzales OK Could Be Seen as OK for Torture Rules

by Robert Collier

After a year of near-constant revelations and allegations, the controversy over the use of torture in the war on terror is reaching its crucial moment in the Senate debate over whether to confirm Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. If Gonzales is confirmed, which appears likely, the Bush administration is likely to claim that Congress has given a firm mandate for its interrogation policies, just as President Bush said his re-election victory in November was a new mandate for his policies on Iraq.

"People who wanted a public discussion of this issue of interrogation methods have had it, for almost a year now," said John Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor who played a key role in helping craft the administration's policies on torture when he was a Justice Department official from 2001 to 2003.

"There has been debate, press leaks, hearings. Sen. (John) Kerry could have attacked President Bush on torture during the election campaign, but in fact, he tried to outflank the president on the right on terrorism. Congress could have expanded the statute on terrorism to tighten interrogation rules, but it hasn't. The election and the confirmation of Gonzales are a sign of general support of the administration's anti-terrorism policies, which include interrogation and the Patriot Act."

<snip>
"It would send the wrong signal, it would say that Abu Ghraib-style abuses are to be winked at," said Avidan Cover, a lawyer for Human Rights First, a New York legal group, referring to the Iraqi prison that sparked worldwide outrage when abuses there were revealed last May.


..more..

[Walt Starr]

45. You've o0bviously not been watching the debate

Do try to keep up if you are going to engage in these threads.

The ONLY Democrat to come out in favor of Gonzales was Salazar.

Please, keep up with the times.

[Spacejet]

46. Give me a break walt

I'm so sick of these purity tests. If it wasn't for the 100% purity crowd bush never would have been able to get off the ground in 2000.

So we should defeat salazar then? OK, according to you it's only going to be ONE dem (we'll see) who votes for confirmation. Ok, so should we start the campaign to defeat Salazar now? Maybe we should notify Rove so he can pick an appropriate fascist to replace him at election time.

So what about the next vote? If another dem isn't pure enough should we vote him out also? What about the vote after that? And the next one?

It's going to add up Walt. Too bad some people can't see the big picture.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Some of those sellouts would vote for Himmler if the polls said they shoul

After all, some "moderates" might be offended if they didn't support torture and war.