Posted on 03/21/2007 4:21:43 AM PDT by theothercheek
On the heels of the Senate’s 94-2 vote to pass a bill voiding a provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Reports KDVR-Fox 31 (Denver):
"Gonzales' legacy at the DOJ has been one of misplaced priorities, political miscalculation, and a failure to enforce the laws which he has sworn to uphold," he said. "I think that it is time for him to move on."
Tancredo faulted several Justice Department decisions dealing with border crimes, including the prosecution of two border patrol agents for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler and trying to cover it up.
Tancredo said Gonzales should have overturned local and state "sanctuary" policies, which Tancredo said allow people to help illegal immigrants avoid deportation.
Tancredo also said Gonzales should have gotten tough on nations that resist U.S. attempts to return foreigners who have broken U.S. laws.
Tancredo won’t get an argument on any of this from The Stiletto. However there is a more compelling reason than failure to enforce immigration laws to get rid of Gonzales: His utter indifference towards Sandy Berger’s theft and destruction of documents pertaining to 9/11 from the National Archives and Records Administration.
According to The Washington Post, Paul Brachfeld, inspector general of the National Archives, "wanted the Justice Department to notify officials of the 9/11 Commission that Berger's actions - in combination with a bungled Archives response - might have obstructed the commission's review of Clinton's terrorism policies."
According to the WaPo:
The Justice Department spurned the advice … But more than three years later, as Brachfeld and House lawmakers have pushed new details about Berger's actions onto the public record -- such as Berger's use of a construction site near the Archives to temporarily hide some of the classified documents - Brachfeld's contentions have attracted fresh support.
A [January report] by the Republican staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said for the first time that Berger's visits were so badly mishandled that Archives officials had acknowledged not knowing if he removed anything else and destroyed it. …
[Philip Zelikow, the commission's former executive director] said in an interview … "I think all of my colleagues would have wanted to have all the information at the time that we learned from the congressional report, because that would have triggered … questions we could have posed to Berger under oath." …
Brachfeld pressed Justice Department officials on six occasions in 2004 to make a fuller statement to the commission about Berger's actions, to no avail. He also contacted Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, who organized an April 2004 meeting between Brachfeld and Justice officials that convinced him that "these issues had to go before the 9/11 Commission," according to two people present. …
[W]ell after Berger testified to the commission, "the Department had not yet asked Mr. Berger any questions, as he had not yet agreed to an interview." …
Judge Deborah A. Robinson imposed a stiffer penalty in the case than the Justice Department sought, fining Berger a total of $56,905, canceling his security clearance, and requiring monthly reporting to a probation officer for two years.
Columnist Michael Barone points out that, "Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments that could have looked bad in light of what happened on September 11." Then he asks the $64K question: "Did Bill Clinton ask him to destroy documents that would make him look bad in history? I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I ask that question. But this or something very much like it seems to be the only explanation that makes sense."
To be sure, most of the screw-ups and shoulder shrugging at DOJ predates Gonzales’ tenure. But he could have turned the heat up on Berger from Day One for a full accounting – for instance, why he destroyed multiple copies of the same document - instead of allowing him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in April 2005, and get off with a slap on the wrist. Thanks to Gonzales, the American people, the 9/11 Commission and historians as yet unborn will never know the whole truth about 9/11 and the Clinton Administration’s failure to recognize the grave and gathering threat stalking the U.S.
For that alone, Gonzales must go.
NOTE: In case I did not put all the links in correctly, please see the original source.
the spineless gop often let the dems do their dirty work
whenever they want one of their own to go, rather than courageously confront and lobby for change, they out-source to the democratic party and hide in the caves
the gop party is the party of cowards and fools
I know. As far as I'm concerned the firing of the 8 US attorneys is a bulls**t reason to get rid of Gonzales, but if that's what it takes then so be it. There are so many other reasons, but I do think the Sandy Berger thing is at the top of the heap. I have to think that both Ashcroft and Gonzales were told by Bush to back off Berger. Why Bush wants to protect Clinton's legacy I do not know, but it doesn't matter which party is in power Job One is always to protect the status quo, the elites. If Scooter Libby "lied" about conversations he did not remember having, Berger lied about EVERYTHING!!! At the least he should be up on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. I think We The People have to scream our heads off about Berger and make sure that Gonzales' replacement re-opens the investigation as soon as his buns hit the attorney general's desk chair.
I agree with you and pantehrmom. There's much more to this than we are being told. I have to admit, I can't wait to see the back of Bush, already, and thank G-d Cheney is not running. Otherwise it would be more of the SOS.
"Doing right by the People" is a matter of individual perspective. To some, national health care would be doing right by the People. To me, it would not.
In matters of conscience reasonable people may reasonably differ.
the reason you don't fire gonzo is because the dems will be emboldened if you do
The Dems have been emboldened by keeping him. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that gave up on the GOP because of the Berger amnesty.
We would not be having this discussion were RUdy president now. Nor would we be having one about Mel Martinez at the RNC.
I am getting real sick and tired of the so called WAR ON TERROR. What an insult to the men and women who are laying their lives on the line. The hypocracy of these people! Yeah, lets send our military over to Iraq to fight but, lets leave OUR BORDERS OPEN, even though we were attacked on our own soil. Yeah, really it was no big deal that Sandy Berger stole those documents, I mean, it was all in the past, don't ya know. It really doesn't matter because he was part of the Clinton administration and we all know the attack occured while Bush was in office. All those previous attacks really weren't all that important, not enough people died. In the meantime, us poor citizen's would be doing jail time for the things this justice department is allowing everyone else to get away with.
We would not be having this discussion were RUdy president now. Nor would we be having one about Mel Martinez at the RNC.
There's nothing about Rudy that indicates he would go against the powers that be. He wouldn't cave to criticism like Bush often seems to, but I'm not sure that there isn't more going on.
bush is protecting clinton because he is one of the family
dad said so!
I dont agree. I have felt Gonzales sucked from the beginning.
I dont believe he should be replaced because he fired the Attorney Generals however, he does need firing.
This may be bad timing but Gonzales sucks.
I guess I'm one of them. Though for me, it was more like giving up on Bush - a process that started with the Harriet Myers fiasco (I don't know who would have been a more incompetent Justice her or Gonzales), continued with the border patrol agents fiasco (prosecuting the agents for the cover-up is one thing, but giving amnesty to an illegal alien drugs smuggler to bring the case against them is a whole 'nother thing) and was completed with the Berger fiasco (we're fighting them over there without ever being able to find out what they were up to over here).
BARF!!!
Another pile-on. And I'm sick of it.
Why can't we focus (and why can't the administration) publicize) the good things that have come out of the Justice Department under Gonzales????
For me, the rounding up of THOUSANDS of internet predators and Kiddie porn perps is the number 1 reason I stand behind him. How about the arrest of shild prositiution traffickers? Show me any similar success from the 'other side'. Show me where any other governemnt has even taken on such a task. We need to concentrate on accomplishments, not failures or misteps, real or perceived.
Or are we another 'when i do right, no one remembers..." The firing of the justices is a NON-issue. Period.
I guess I'm one of them. Though for me, it was more like giving up on Bush - a process that started with the Harriet Myers fiasco (I don't know who would have been a more incompetent Justice her or Gonzales), continued with the border patrol agents fiasco (prosecuting the agents for the cover-up is one thing, but giving amnesty to an illegal alien drugs smuggler to bring the case against them is a whole 'nother thing) and was completed with the Berger fiasco (we're fighting them over there without ever being able to find out what they were up to over here).
It's been the same with me. It's hard to support your President when you can't be sure what side he's on.
The firing of the justices is a NON-issue. Period.
Agreed.
The democrats know that a lot of us want him gone too and are just manufacturing a scandal to go with it. That way they can show their slack jawed supporters how effective they are.
Until yesterday, I was considering supporting Tom Tancredo for President. I favored Duncan Hunter, and two or three other candidates I could at least consider holding my nose and voting for.
Now, Tancredo is OFF my list. He appears to be a political opportunist at the expense of the current administration. Bush and Co. have been far from perfect, but to use an absolutely fake scandal created by Democrats as a political weapon to promote his own campaign is repugnant.
President Bush should tell Congress where to stuff their subpeona's -- and he should reserve especially potent venom for the likes of Tancredo.
Geez, what is it with Republicans anyway!?!
I am not a big Gonzales fan either, but you don't fire him when the Democrats tell you too. That only serves to empower the little weasles and encourage even worse behavior. After being driven over numerous times by the Democrats, it is a bit late for Bush to finally make a stand, but better late then never I suppose.
"whenever they want one of their own to go"
Gonzales may be one of your own, but he dam sure isn't one of mine.
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.