digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gonzales Has Resigned as Attorney General

nytimes.com — Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sacr3dc0w, on 10/10/2007, -20/+6981 prayer answered, 2 more to go.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -9/+209There's a lot more than 3 of them.
      • RoroCo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+49It will take 25% of the US for me.
        • Nicklogan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+121He is going to leave and then show up a day later, people are going to ask,"Didn't you resign?". His response, " I can't quite recollect."
        • all13d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17I hope you guys realize that Congress is about to go into recess. Bush will just perform another 'recess appointment' and get another jackass in.
          • carefreetoast4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Probably why he waited so long to resign in the first place. Him and Bush have been planning this it would seem.
          • Killah_xxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Some snatchy comment to make me appear smart but is actully just a sassy attempt to see how far the rabbit hole goes....
        • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1True, just like how Rummy had a "Transition" office in the Pentagon months after he resigned.
      • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -127/+2You people are so racist its sickening.
        • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+38What?
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40What does race have to do with it?
        • p0s3r, on 10/10/2007, -88/+7Thats what you idiots would be saying if this guy was a Democrat.
          • divrekku, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34um, no. Partisan politics in the DoJ is a no-no. No matter what side of the aisle you're on.
          • divrekku, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Edited for double post.
          • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Sorry, guys. I accidentally dugg him up. It was an accident; he's an *****, bringing race into a story that has nothing to do with race.
        • RoroCo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39This administration's idiocy transcends political affiliation. Race had zero to do with my comment... tool.
        • sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Your username is so appropriate.
        • Btzarro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Replace the p with L
      • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Get those 2 and the rest go as well.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Where the hell did the race issue come from?
    • slayerab, on 10/10/2007, -11/+164Bon voyage *****
    • pdxuser, on 10/10/2007, -5/+415What if he does not recall resigning?
      • joebob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+138Congress: You admit you have resigned your post as Attorney General Mr. Gonzalez?
        AG: I have no direct recollection of me personally resigning as Attorney General of the United States of America.
        Congress: But we have this tape of your voice message to the president, 4 people who were in the room when you left it, a notorized copy of your resignation letter in your own handwriting, and the (----- redacted for your security -----) recording indicating the same. How do you explain all this?
        AG: I am not authorized to comment on all those activities at this time.

        Ahh the memories, we will miss you AG. (And by miss I mean you better hope people have bad aim when they are throwing things at your lying, ass covering, justice bending ass)
      • mango42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11ROFLMAO!
        This is part of a prelude to attacking Iran - decks being cleared. Baggage into the hold.And Cheney's ordered up a battalion of troops to 'defend' DC next month - sheesh - isn't it time we stopped these psychopathic maniacs?
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7has he really? any links to that?
          we all know 9/11 was an inside job. but they've been talking about there could be a terrorist attack within 4 weeks and they already sent 4 carriers and other battle groups to the persian gulf... But whatever...

          We've always been at war with Eastasia.
        • TopherT, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Whoah, you're freaking me out man. Connect that with the ~4.5 billion dollars shifted towards a huge economic collapse we saw on digg not long ago. (Can't find original link but: http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=23547 this will have to do). Cheyney's short selling all sorts of different stocks and investing heavily in gold, ( http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07052006.html ) and you've got a strong reason for many well monied and powerful people to engage in false flag terrorism.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Then we throw him off of a very high building in washington.
    • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -10/+28If he had been convicted of war crimes, perjury and obstruction, I might be inclined to agree.
      • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+52we'll then let's ***** convict him
        • epsilona01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Especially once he's no longer under the cover of 'Executive Privilege' - providing he doesn't escape to Bush's Paraguay retreat.
          • cheesehead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why is it that when high level criminals like Rove and this guy are caught in the U.S. they can just resign and collect their pensions and sit on boards of directors?
          • netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dream on. Anything he did while serving in the White House is EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. There are instances when cabinet position officers may be required by law to transfer certain information to Congress, but even then some information may be covered by the aegis of executive privilege.

            What the president cannot do now is prevent Gonzales from appearing at a congressional hearing, BUT even then Gonzales may withhold information if it properly falls under the purview of EP. I'm not sure if the Congress is authorized to immunize Gonzales's testimony.
      • 3p0cHx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Really what this was all about was Alberto's direct involvement in stifling attorney's who would call him out on his involvement on putting democratic voters on CAGING LISTS (votes that are NOT COUNTED). ***** with people's rights to vote is a serious offense so what he should really go to jail for is this law: National Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The 1982 amendment provided that proof of intentional discrimination is not required. The provision focused instead on whether the electoral processes is equally accessible to minority voters. Please read this book: http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/order-the-book/
      • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0in what court? USA doesn't accept any international jurisdiction, and does have the military to back that decision up.
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24rot in hell gonzales, i hope god punishes you severely
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25I don't like the guy either, but he's resigned, not died.
        • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Yeah, but God could still inflict some sort of divine retribution. I'm thinking ass boils.
          • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15There is no god.
          • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"there is no god"
            pity huh?
          • Scarfy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But it's nice to think that if there is, he might give 'ole Alberto some uncomfortable ass sores.
        • ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1That could be arranged, you know.
          • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I know a guy. *wink* Just give me the word.
          • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not your cousing Vinny! PLEASE!
    • rolosworld, on 10/10/2007, -1/+57oh man.. I can't wait for the Daily Show clip!
      • TrevorBradley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+70They're on vacation for 2 weeks.

        Ever notice the big resignations seem to occur *just* as TDS goes on vacation for a week?
      • davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12wait two weeks. they're both (stewart and colbert) on vacation. i know. bad timing.
        • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6heh I bet they'll come off vacation for this, this is the sort of news they live off of
      • ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26So let's all just watch Olbermann then!
      • millinao, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Bill maher is on, though
    • Trax91, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41Actually 2 prayers answered. Karl was one of mine.
      • fractalman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Lets not forget Tony Snow, I'm sure we're all glad he's gone too.
        • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Not sure Tony Snow matters all that much. Like any press secretary, he's a tool. The next one won't be any different.
        • mateo60, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Actually, i don't think Tony Snow is a bad guy. He's just doing the job that any White House press secretary is supposed to do. He just happens to be very good at it. Remember Scott McClellan? He wasn't as easy to hate because he was so bad at it, hell, I almost felt sorry for the guy.
          • hipnerd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That's because McCellan still had a sense of shame. Snow had his removed years ago.
        • brainster31, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Tony Snow was one of the two guys in this administration that i thought wasnt a scumbag Colin Powell was number 2
          • netant, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Tony, ideologically, is a Republican, therefore he is a scumbag. But I define Republicans as people who voted in 2004 to re-select Bush. So, if you're a registered Republican, you hate Bush as much as I do, I consider you guys Conservatives (non-scumbags).
        • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5From a press briefing:

          Helen: The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis. We have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine. And this is what's happening, and that's the perception of the United States.

          Tony Snow: Well, thank you for the Hezbollah view

          -- Real stand up guy, there. I can see why you guys like him.
      • treehugger87, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Mine won't be answered until they're all in jail
      • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I have to say, I think Rove resigned on his own (he wasn't under as much scrutiny as Gonzales), and he's clearly smart enough to know he better get out of the way before the attention focuses back onto him (give him credit: he's a great manipulator and assessor of situations). Gonzales? No one could save his ass, even Rove, so of course he HAS to resign before Bush loses any more credibility (as if that's possible)

        Either way, Gonzales' resignation (more than Rove's) is a definite victory for most of us
    • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Finally, a story that deserves BREAKING: in front of the headline, yet, an opportunity lost. The rats are jumping ship folks!
    • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -58/+3He resigned. I wouldn't crow about it. He didn't commit any crimes - he wasn't removed. But, feel free to continue being "appalled" by people with an R after their name. You whined about Ashcroft too, yet somehow I'm sure Reno was rock star in your eyes.

      My prediction : Bush will name a successor, and you'll flame on that person in a month. Hell, might as well start now before you even know who it is.
      • ViktorVaughn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28"He didn't commit any crimes"

        Now how do you know that? I think there's still more that needs to shake out before you can equivocate like that.

        Reno sucked too. I'm sure you've heard of the Branch Dividians in Waco. That was on her watch.

        Not everything is a simple as this side vs that, as comforting as that world-view might feel. If you'd stop rooting for your team long enough, you might realize there's more to life than blaming the other side for everything that goes wrong and actually looking for solutions.

        Chertoff is on the short list, that's the rumor anyway. He helped write the Patriot Act. I'm sure he'll have no problem picking up where Gonzales left off politicizing the justice department, obfuscating legislative and judicial review, and chipping away liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
        • boonesfarm, on 10/10/2007, -14/+0Again, I'm curious, what can you no longer do as a citizen of this country that you could do ten years ago. If you think your rights are being chipped away, you clearly don't read about what happens in other places around the world.

          As far as Gonzalez: one of HIS rights is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. If he's convicted of a crime, censured, or whatever, fine - then he's a bum. But, having seen leftists crying wolf about everybody in the White House except the cook, I'm skeptical of most of ***** that is steadily hurled at the administration on a daily basis.
          • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Call abroad without worrying that the NSA may be listening in without a warrant.

            Go to the Library, and not have to worry that some FBI schmuck wasn't trying to profile me as a terrorist for the books I checked out.

            Didn't have to worry which country my gov't would invade next on false premises.

            Yep, ten years that's was before our gov't jumped the shark! Ever since the Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying about a blow job this country started going down hill.
          • ViktorVaughn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5How does the saying go?

            If you aren't outraged, you're not paying close enough attention.

            Add to kurttrail's list the writ of habeus corpus, an quaint little idea that originated with the Magna Carta and is the bedrock of 6th amendment.

            I hate that argument. "You think it's bad here, check out these other ***** holes." With out a doubt, yes, there are places in the world where it is far worse to be a free thinking individual. There are also places where it is a lot better, like the Netherlands or the US ten years ago. They didn't have "free speech zones" a decade ago. Last time I checked, the entire US was a free speech zone.

            Just because things are worse in China or sub-Saharan Africa or Saudi Arabia doesn't mean they can't be better here or that they can't get worse. There will always be a constant battle maintain our liberty from those who would take it. When they do try to take it, it won't be all at once, but in small increments.
          • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Could you name a single time that the "leftists" have cried wolf about this administration? I'm trying to think of any criticism that has been made that was disproven. Most of the criticisms have stalled in the legislative process because Bush officials have refused subpoenas. Maybe you consider Republican stonewalling just part of the legal process.
      • MaxUdargo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19I'll agree with you on this point: I'm sure that whoever Bush appoints to replace Gonzales will be as big a piece of *****.

        You seem to think the people's constant griping about the Bush administration is in no way connected to the constant, relentless, inexcusable *****-ups of the Bush administration. I guess we should all take a deep breath and remember how tolerant, patient and understanding the right-wing was with the Clinton administration. Why can't we be more like you guys?
      • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18"He didn't commit any crimes - he wasn't removed." He wasn't removed because he resigned before the process for removal could even begin. It's not like he was acquitted of anything.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Saying he didn't commit a crime is like saying Bush isn't a war criminal.
        It requires a significant amount of obfuscation and mental gymnastics...but it can be done.
    • ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26::sniff:: You neocons hurt my sensitive liberal feelings.

      Please, take it and shove it. There's a difference between not being the best, and being an incompetent lying criminal.
    • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I would've thought Rove would have been the first prayer answered.
    • Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes! :D Excuse me for yes *another* comment about this, but I am here, jumping for joy! Nearly wanting to wake my mother up outta bed, and she's quite apathetic about such things.
    • Sinistocrat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Why hate the man? Hate the position. It's not like now that Gonzales is gone, things will be all better. He's going to get replaced by some prick that's just as bad.
      • netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The position is a necessary component of gov't. It is also empowered to protect our consitutional rights. No, hate the Republican, and his replacement.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And I thought Digg was Athiest. Huh.
    • khfn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Prolly the only reason he was still around for this long is because someone was having trouble finding another yes man to take his place =)
  • onwardknave, on 10/10/2007, -12/+309Going...going...Gonzo!
    • tical2756, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Good. Maybe now we can restore some dignity to the attorney general's office and get a classy singer-songwriter type like John Ashcroft
    • Harbinger67, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Gone for a few days, sure. He'll probably show up to work on Wednesday as normal, and someone will go "hey, didn't you quit?", to which he will respond, "I can't recall".
    • sctwp09, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I see what you did there...
    • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Your next Cheney!
  • veritas22, on 10/10/2007, -10/+215I'm concerned about the possible replacement Michael Chertoff - he isn't the "ideal" candidate for what the Justice Department needs. He's just another Bushie who will cater to Bush's ignorant and self-centered interests. Granted it's Bush's decision, but let's not forget what the Bushies are notorious for - destroying the US Constitution, dismantling civil rights under the guise of "national security", ignoring subpoenas and claiming they are all part of the Executive branch when it suits their needs.
    • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Well how much worse than Gonzales could he be?
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47Famous last words.
        • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3A hypothetical. Besides if he ***** up too, impeachment may become unavoidable.
          I look forward to that day
      • jspegele, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Hoinah in 2004 - "Let's all just vote for Bush. How much worse could he be the second time around?"
        • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1haha if only, I abstained from voting in 2004, in my state blue always wins. for the record I'm awaiting Puff Daddy to show at my doorstep any second now.
        • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1mind you I abstained from voting because I didn't like Kerry, im no conservative
          • netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Mind you, I don't like Kerry, but I voted for him because the alternative was GWB. By not voting, you still made a selection.
      • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19READ THIS:
        "Chertoff is the co-author, along with Viet Dinh, of the USA PATRIOT Act, signed into law October 26, 2001. As head of the Justice Department's criminal division, he advised the Central Intelligence Agency on the outer limits of legality in coercive interrogation sessions"
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff#Public_service
      • CompIsMyRx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Doesn't matter how bad Chertoff is, Bush's appointment would still have to go through the Senate anyway for approval, and there's no way in hell Chertoff would get approved.
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3There's no way in hell Chertoff wouldn't get confirmed. He's already been confirmed to a Cabinet-level position, and he's got a really impressive resume. He's totally qualified to become the next AG, and the Democrats in the Senate know that if they oppose him on purely personal grounds, their already craptacular approval rating will fall even further, seriously hurting their chances of keeping a majority in 2008.
          • Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Dems could get a lot of mileage out of taking any partisan candidate and dragging them through the mud. They don't have to let anyone through that smells Republican. Repugs are screwed here.
          • freff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeah, because Chertoff did such a great job when he was Director of Homeland Security with the whole Katrina thing, right?
      • quisph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Until 2004, I never thought anyone could be worse than Ashcroft...
        • razor150, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Isn't that sad? Compared to Gonzales, Ashcroft comes off as a civil rights activist.
        • netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, what shocked me was that Ashcroft actually had some conception of principles. What surprised me about Gonzales was how thoroughly incompetent as AG. A good AG should have been able to get away with 80% of everything Gonzales did without leaving his fingerprints.
    • cptbarkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Chertoff is a great apologist, whether he has any legal skills remains to be seen.
      • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Lack of demonstrable skill didn't stop Gonzo.
    • bightchee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8"The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know"
      • jstohler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20I hate that saying. It's just an excuse for never making changes.
    • passive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Actually, it's not Bush's decision. Bush nominates AGs, but congress has to confirm them, or they don't get the job. (Except for recess appointments, which I hope to god doesn't happen here)
      • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Which could be the exact reason Gonzales resigned now. Congress is at recess right now. Now, I don't know the details of how a recess appointment happens but I wouldn't be shocked at all if he used the next few days to push Chertoff into position.
        • fredricko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think he would have to at least nominate someone and give congress the chance to approve him/her before he slipped someone in the back door. Although, I am no legal expert and stranger things have happened...
        • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He'll be on the job until September 16, by which time the Senate will have been back in session for nearly two weeks. No recess appointment here.
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6After his STELLAR performance during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the democrats will be climbing all over themselves to confirm his appointment!
    • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why would you EVER make the assumption that anything Bush has ever done has EVER put anything except himself first? i.e. ***** the [ state of texas | united states | constitution | iraq | environment | afghanistan | planet earth ] , it's time for Bush to make some money!
      • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How else are you going to please your masters the Saudi Arabians, if not by making them assloads of money?
    • gummih, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Chertoff would be a HORRIBLE replacement.
      1. The Co-author of the PATRIOT ACT
      2. Advisor to the CIA on the extent of US law when it come to interrogations
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff#Public_service
      • peevegrider, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The fact that Gonzo left when he did is very sneaky in and of itself. Because congress will not be meeting the entire month of August, this opens up a potential recess appointment, meaing congressional approval is not required.
        • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1glad to see you monbats are working out your conspiracy theories. it's always good to throw in the word "sneaky" to start the ball rolling. I hear the Carlyle group will be making the selection.
        • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I fail to see the conspiracy behind this posters statement. What he mentioned (the opening for a recess appt.) is good political strategy, not conspiracy. And yes, secrecy and surprise are a strategist's greatest weapons. Perhaps you should l2p before you start bandying about the term "moonbat." What's that? Oh, it's your mom calling you from upstairs - she made pizza for dinner, you should run along now.
      • rkiga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+43. Chertoff was FEMA chief who was in charge of handling the management of the Katrina aftermath
    • qbqb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's unlikely Chertoff would be nominated or confirmed after bungling of Katrina while in homeland security. That would be too big of a fight for the White House at this point.
    • kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He can't use executive privilege anymore :)
    • Bcodms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Chertoff killed the Ptech investigation. Which should be reopened immediately if not sooner.Putting Chertoff back in at DOJ is bad bad news for truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_HHNtXqes
  • nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -13/+106Gonzo and Rove: "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"
    • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think they didn't want to go home, I believe they had to resign in order to get the Death Star powered up before Nov 2008. I'm sure they're performing last minute launch checks before Lord Cheney shows up. And they needed Tony Snow so they could communicate their world domination plans.
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"Lord Cheney", classic.
        • netant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Lord Cheney? I thought it was Darth Cheney. Perhaps Emperor Cheney would be more appropriate.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Sith always come in 2s. Lord Cheney and his underling, Darth Incompetus.
        • Caffeinate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You win teh internets. That is absolutely the best name for Bush yet, and I love UitS's "Lord Cheney".

          Always 2 there are. Lord Cheney and Darth Incompetus.
    • BobOki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Its called CUT AND RUN!!!!!!
      Now that they are out of office, charges shoul be brought.
      • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Its funny you say it like that.

        I remember that getting out of Iraq is cutting and running and cowardly. Its funny how when its in their best interest its ok.
  • cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -14/+266The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
    • Retnuh730, on 10/10/2007, -41/+3By sinking ship you mean term ending? Then yes, the 'ship' is 'sinking'.
      • skinjob1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+45No, I think by "ship" he means the worst presidency in modern history. And by rats he means republican scum like yourself and all the other bush sheep.
        • didiman, on 10/10/2007, -39/+1haha worst president in modern history? I guess you forgot about the previous administration.
          • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -1/+54Would that be the Bush administration of 2000-2004?
          • jspegele, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I would really, really, REALLY love to hear you back up that statement. And facts please, not some Fox News inspired opinion.
          • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Forgotten? We're nostalgic!
          • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Yeah I know those budget surpluses are a bitch, good thing that was one of the first things Bush got rid of. And that Kyoto protocol the previous administration managed to help engineer, I'm sure glad this current administration trashed that, I mean WTF cares about the environment. Yea that previous administration sucked.
          • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6but.. but.. but... CLINTON!
          • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Ah, right didiman, those days of peace, economic prosperity, and budget surpluses really sucked.
          • GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1@wholly2b:
            So if someone says the current administration is the worst, you're not allowed to compare it to previous administrations because you're just going "but but Clinton?" How exactly are we allowed to respond?
          • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@GiggleStick: You don't. He's joking. Obviously.
          • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4@GiggleStick

            With an actual argument based on facts.

            Oops, I forgot! You kool-aid drinking Bushies are incapable of backing up your Clinton Derangement Syndrome with reality. Sorry.
      • kjizzle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Wow. You're dumbass.
      • cyberdork, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8By rats I mean Bush's and Cheney's henchmen, the likes of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzales.

        And by sinking ship I mean the administration which not only lost support of congress last fall, but also is at it's lowest level of approval by the population. What is it now, 29%?
        And don't let us forget the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter how deep you dig to find positive news, the negative developments are just overwhelming (already forgot the suicide bombings of last week leaving 572 people dead? 572 in a single event! That's more than the victims at the Pentagon and all four 9/11 flights combined).

        With everything spiraling down for the current administration, wouldn't you call it a sinking ship?
      • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The proverbial ship is proverbially sinking.
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10too bad we weren't able to keep the ship from sinking
      • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Pfft, I wish the whole damn ship would have sunk years ago.
      • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean too bad they were able to keep the ship from sinking...?
    • noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3You mean the ship every American is going to ride to the depths? There is nothing to celebrate here.
      • OHiggins, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The ship is in regard to the Administration, not the the country. People like you seem to forget how resilient our country can be.
    • Ansible, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I believe that ship is the Bush administration. May its demise be ugly enough to serve as a warning to others.
    • Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I find that comment offensive to rats.
    • johngr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1How original.
  • pjs1840, on 10/10/2007, -11/+290YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! What a great way to start the week.
    • sathias, on 10/10/2007, -0/+42People were excited when Ashcroft resigned too, then Gonzales got the position. I'd expect the next guy will be just as bad.
      • AaronS2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Supposedly Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary.
        • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Good luck getting him through the Senate.
          • anonym41414, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0They already got him through the Senate. If he's the nominee, his confirmation will be a breeze. There's no legitimate grounds to oppose his nomination. (Hint: "We don't like you" is not legitimate grounds.)
          • freff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"They already got him through the Senate. If he's the nominee, his confirmation will be a breeze. There's no legitimate grounds to oppose his nomination. (Hint: "We don't like you" is not legitimate grounds.)"

            I guess the fact that he was in charge of the criminal division at the Department of Justice *during* 9/11, led the Department of Homeland Security during it's inept response to the Katrina disaster, not to mention his role in formulation of the Patriot Act and his "advisement" to the CIA to the extent at which they are allowed to demean and coerce it's prisoners isn't enough for him to be scrutinized a bit closer in a bid to become the NATION'S TOP ENFORCER OF THE LAW.

            p.s. Digg's commenting feature sucks now. I had to reply to chicofaraby's comment because it wouldn't let me reply to yours.
          • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually, not liking a candidate is all a Senator needs to vote no. That said, I think incompetence is a very good reason not to hire Mr Chertoff as AG.
        • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Now they give these high profile jobs to the secretaries?!?

          That's just WRONG!
    • toxicshok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4looks like Rove was the linch pin of the Bush administration. When he goes the whole thing falls apart
      • sapped, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Actually, I think Rove was the lynch pin of the Bush administration. (and still is in an unofficial capacity)
  • rcomegys, on 10/10/2007, -7/+281I bet Jon Stewart is going to have a party on the next Daily Show.
    • DrunkenSavior, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34They started a 1-2 week break today. :(
      • freff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40I'm really starting to believe that they intentionally wait to do stuff like this until TDS and TCR go on their vacations.

        An odd thought, but I'm sure that the last time there was a week long break, the Administration busted out with some other noteworthy item, that I can't recall right now. Weird.
        • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2you take the Daily Show much too seriously
          • fasda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And you don't take it seriously enough its the number one source of fake news surpassing even Fox News.
        • davidrools, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Don't worry. As soon as they get back they'll be more than happy to get caught up on the jokes/poking fun at ;) That's what they did last time...
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Actually, yeah. Bush commuted Libby's sentence on July 2, the first Monday after the Daily Show took a break on June 28.
          • freff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3DING DING DING!!! Give this man a prize!
        • tHePeOPle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6That's not an odd thought. This is the most manipulative, media savvy administration in history. They know exactly what they're doing, and there is NO announcement that isn't timed and planned. It all happens for a reason, even if we don't know what that reason is.
          • matrixbandit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hahahahaha. Manipulative, yes. Media savvy? HahahaHAhaha. Look, having Rupert Murdoch in your back pocket doesn't make you media savvy, it makes you lazy and worst of all absolutely corrupt. When the government no longer fears scrutiny by the people via free press, they are free to abuse the very people they claim to represent. EVEN with that being how things are, we are still keenly aware of their malintent. That awareness alone proves how much they've been jerking off right in out faces for almost 8 years now, and making no intelligent (effective) attempt to hide it.
        • DrunkenSavior, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Heh c'mon guys. The Bush administration isn't afraid of the Daily Show. The people who watch TDS and Colbert (like me) already disapprove of the way this administration has used the Executive Branch. The larger press (CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Reuters, and AP) hit WAY more people and those guys don't take breaks. This isn't a conspiracy, it's just a missed opportunity for "SEE!"s this week.
      • detro1tjok3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9And Stephen Colbert is going to throw a temper tantrum on the next Colbert Report.
      • Drexus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I bet (and this would be the funniest thing this year) that Gonzo/Bush waited for John Stewart to go on holidays to make the announcement.
    • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't know what he's going to do, but his ratings are going to skyrocket, I'm looking forward to tuning in for both Stewart and Colbert myself, you know it's going to be hilarious.
    • matrixbandit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4lol, Jon will have a party and get drunk, Stephen will probably have some kind of solemn mock funeral where he breaks down in mock tears and gets angry, shouting for Gonzales return.
  • MeMongo, on 10/10/2007, -17/+17w00t!
  • CloakandSwagger, on 10/10/2007, -6/+41@veritas22,
    Chertoff is a concern, as is the supposed 'temporary' replacement, Solicitor General Paul Clement (AP reports).
    It's silly to see people get so excited over Gonzales' departure, as if they'd replace Gonzales with somebody who isn't tightly knit into the Neoconservative framework.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Clement#Legal_career
    "He has argued over 25 cases before the United States Supreme Court, including McConnell v. FEC, Tennessee v. Lane, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, United States v. Booker, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Gonzales v. Raich, Gonzales v. Oregon and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. He also argued many of the key cases in the lower courts involving challenges to the President's conduct of the war on terrorism."


    • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12That's absurd (as I mention below). Any new AG will have to be approved by the Democratically controlled congress. Considering how big this issue became in Congress, there's no way they'd allow another partisan/Bush crony to be approved. Look to Bush's only major appointment under the Democratic Congress for proof of this prediction. Robert Gates, replacement Secretary of Defense following Donald Rumsfeld (neocon and longtime Bush family crony), was a surprisingly bipartisan nominee. He was a member of the Iraq Study Group which recommended a drawback from Iraq.
      • phunlee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14It's very hard to say "never would appoint a crony" w/this congress. We've yet to see any sign that they have any balls. Fingers crossed, of course.
      • ProgressBar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Executive privilege anyone?

        /sarcasm
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Seriously, what good has the Democratic Congress done? None. Why should we expect anything different this time?
    • thekms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you want to REPLY to someone's comment, use the REPLY feature...
  • Killmaster, on 10/10/2007, -9/+75He came to the Macaroni Grill that my friend works at. She didn't serve him, but apparently he's a lousy tipper.
    • clyde2801, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36neocons and working people don't mix
    • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3Contrary to what you may see in pay-as-you-go cellular phone advertisements, you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17A man is visiting his son at Harvard, and desperately needs to use the bathroom. He approaches a student and asks, "Excuse me, where's the bathroom at?". The student can barely disguise his disgust as he says, "Sir, around here we do not end sentences with a preposition." The man blinks, thinks for a moment, and replies, "OK, where's the bathroom at, *****?"

        Seriously, though, there's no rule that says you can't end a sentence in a preposition. And, similarly, there's nothing really wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction.
        • usrlocalbin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Don't feed the troll.
          • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5He wasn't. He was amusing the ***** out of me!
    • cesig, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Is this guy good any ANYTHING?
      • zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He's good at forgetting important details.
    • Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18And he kicks puppies! I saw him do it!
      • spinchange, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just the ones the prosecute Duke Cunningham, etc.
      • Deodrus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1are you from bishop's?
        [/insidejoke]
    • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2lol macaroni grill
    • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I LOVE Macaroni Grill.
    • sittered, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wonder what he drew on the table?
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You should have pissed in his food...
    • djtansey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's because Macaroni Grill gives 100% of their campaign contributions to republicans... (From the Blue Book)
    • TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, might be because he doesnt have a job ;)
    • TitaniumJackal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's "Scooter" Libby who's the big tipper
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Government expense procedure dictates you're not supposed to expense more than 15%. I mean he COULD have given out of his own pocket beyond that, but that's typical procedure.
    • Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It would have been the perfect time to spice up his meal with cyanide.
  • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -92/+7Wow, must be a slow day, Only 10 hate bush comments (and no love bush comments)

    Hey you 10...SHouldn't you be working or something. You can hate bush all you want but 2 simple facts remain...

    1) He'll be your president for the next 17 months
    2) He won't win the next presidential election...

    So is your life so devoid of useful content that you talk this crap with it having no effect on your daily life???
    • westhe32nd, on 10/10/2007, -22/+1Well at -14 diggs (as of now), it seems the Bush-haters have worked their magic on you already.
      • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Yeah stupid Bush haters and their passion for the American way of life. All they care about is their country. Pathetic.
    • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Meh. I freelance. As a result, my normal working hours are noon to whenever I'm done.

      So, yeah. I like posting some researched information with my opined conclusions thereof in the mornings. Gets my brain up into gear for the stuff that takes some real thought.
    • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11So your logic is, "YES he anally *raped* the country and the planet without lube. But you shouldn't worry about it, he'll only be in charge for another year!"
    • kreneskyp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1considering my work involves sending email im quite concerned whether my privacy has been breached
    • lbmouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What?!? Dubya is the supreme court's pick for president in the 5 to 4 decision of Bush v. Gore in 2000. Dubya is the president of the people behind all the scandals in the 2004 election. Dubya is definitely not MY president. Never was and never will be.
    • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Face facts - The vast majority of the world hates Bush. You're in the small minority of morons who are still making excuses for this incompetent nitwit.
    • rockforever, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry we don't all live in your time zone moron.
  • mrmworth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17nananana,nananana hey hey hey goodbye.
    couldn't have started my week off better then reading this news.
    that's one for the good guys.
    • sleepwalkers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And your week will end horribly when you learn who Bush will be appointing as his replacement.
      • mrmworth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0too true. i bet whomever is hired will be a graduate of pat robertson's regent university school of law
  • brooklynboy, on 10/10/2007, -66/+7Ok Dems, you win. And you have no idea that Chertoff - even more conservative than Gonzalez - is going to replace him, correct? Silly silly democrats.

    You got your wish and have no idea what you're so happy about.
    • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Any new Attorney General will have to be confirmed by the Democratically controlled congress. The nominee certainly won't be ideal, considering our President, but there's no way he could push through another crony. William Gates, the replacement for neoconservative and long-time Bush family chum Donald Rumsfeld, was impressively bipartisan.
      • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -24/+3Oh, so they are going to make another bash bush spectacle? THey know that is political suicide going into an election season with a 15% approval rating of congress.

        Of course brooklynboy (and me) are going to shortly be dug down by this wonderful free speech crowd where free speech is only free if you are a lib...
        • fictionalOne, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Dumb ass, you have the right to free speech here. You can post whatever bush loving comment you want. It is just great the you are now in the minority and will be dugg down. Don't be pissed just because people of both parties are realizing what a horrible president we have.
        • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17What is political suicide? You're making no sense whatsoever. Preventing Bush from nominating another ideologue, one who either committed perjury, or is so grossly incompetent and unfamiliar with the daily happenings of the Justice Department that he was never included or aware of any discussions relating to an unprecedented mid-term round of attorney firings? The man who circumvented acting attorney General Comey, while still a White House political staffer, rushed to the hospitalized bed of Attorney General Ashcroft to force through the President's terrorist surveillance program, then mislead Congress about his involvement?
        • Apokalyps2547, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10If your speech wasn't free, you'd be banned.
          But as sure as I'm typing this, I know you're still out there, Digging and commenting. You have a flawed concept of "free" versus "unpopular".
        • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Heh, sorry. I didn't know you were restricted from posting on Digg.

          Speech is free here - although, it's free to the point where the world can basically say, 'Yeah, you're a ***** moron' with a single click.

          Mind you, I Digg only up; otherwise it's difficult to track my own comments. As a result, I actually have to *call* you a ***** moron and back it up with things like, oh, I don't know, the fact that you don't even know what freedom of speech is.

          Good love of America there. I'll defend to the death your right to be a ***** moron. That doesn't mean I won't call you on it.
        • fractalman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Free speach means having the right to say what you want, It does mean that you have a right to be heard. Read the constitution.
        • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Do not confuse your right to speak with a REQUIREMENT for everyone else to listen.

          The first is a right, the second is *not*.
    • usrlocalbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Not everyone who hates Bush and his dumb ***** administration are Democrats. Pull your head outta your ass.
      • lbmouse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Exactly... many Reps I know strongly supported Dubya in 2000, were mildly optimistic about him in 2004, but now are devastated by what this dumb-***** of a retard is doing to our country.

        About the only support he has anymore is from the fascist ultra neo-cons and the religious-cult right.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The group of people opposing Gonzalez wasn't doing so because he was conservative. He's not conservative, he was a political hack. I'm a hardcore liberal and even I won't equate the conservative ideology with appointing political hacks. But as unconservative as Gonzo was, Bush was even less conservative. But you don't even realize this do you? Silly silly moron.
  • Hoinah, on 10/10/2007, -5/+49I cannot wait for Jon Stewart to get his hands on this story, its gonna be spectacular.
    Also, its about goddamn time.
    • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2yay...and exactly how is a comedian going to change your life. Or are you just pissed that John Kerry lost the election???
      • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Get back under your bridge, bitch.
      • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Those of us who are less jaded than yourself enjoy a humorous take on the days events.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21) Like any comedian, he will run with it, and it will be hilarious. A bit of off the cuff, flippant humor is really, REALLY needed in times like these
        2) I'd have been fine with Bush - if he didn't come off as an imperialist prick with a facade of moron. No, seriously. Better handling of Iraq (possibly not even going into the country), reigning in of the Fed, better choices on healthcare, and you'd find moderates like myself not hating him.
      • fractalman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3WTF does John Kerry have to do with this???? Stay on topic dumb ass.
      • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe he'll pop a cap in your ass!
    • JamesTorrence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2daily show is vacationing this week right?
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah. It's really a shame; I wonder what else will happen in the next two weeks to make TDS unable to comment, for the sake of larger matters.
      • Plinkotic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yessums.
      • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2ah, that's right. Way to pick the week. Gonzo timed it right...mutter...
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0True. And Bush commuted Libby's sentence last time they were on break. Coincidence? Totally. Convenient. Yessir.
  • Rumple4skin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5awesome news .... this will help the Monday blues
  • scanman20, on 10/10/2007, -4/+242I swear I'm not guilty of anything...but just for the hell of it I think I'll get the ***** outta here
    • neoform, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1That's probably the main reason he didn't want to leave. Doing so would make him seem more guilty.
      • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15you're still under the assumption that people in the administration can be punished
        • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8As long as you believe that they can't, they really can't. The fact is there are a handful of ways these people can be served justice, but their best effort will be to diminish the number and make you believe they don't exist.

          In America, jokes about Soviet Russia are on you.
          • freff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6God, that's by far and away the best use of the In Soviet Russia meme that I've ever seen. Kinda sad though.
          • viper565, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0agreed.
    • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It's exactly that kind of doublethink that helps the 20% of Americans still supporting Bush maintain their programming.
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So um, what exactly is he guilty of? I've seen all these news shows, hearings and such, and seen him stonewalling about everything, but I'm still completely confused as to what exactly he has done wrong. I'm not defending him or anything, I just honestly want to know. I heard he fired a bunch of people, but correct me if I'm wrong, firing a subordinate isn't illegal last time I checked... ? Fill me in here, what am I missing?
    • viper565, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0no.
  • wattznext, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63Tumbling like a house of cards. Bush has always maintained that history will be the true judge of his administration. He is absolutely correct, Just not in the way he intended...
  • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Let me guess, they are going to get away with their crimes against humanity, right?
  • theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+48Too bad he'll be replaced with an equally ineffective crony.
  • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Here's a great compilations of mistruths/lies from Alberto Gonzales, including that late night hospital visit to the ailing Ashcroft's bed to force through the President's terrorist surveillance program.
    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003920.php
    • siliconflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Seriously Gonzo, if you are going to fool the American people at least make the lie convincing, at least then I can ignore you.
  • reuscel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31And the country takes one more step towards sanity. Only about 4,000,000,000 steps to go.
  • jstohler, on 10/10/2007, -5/+34Will the last rat to abandon the ship please turn off the lights?
  • kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -6/+102now time to arrest his ass
    • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -25/+3Arrest him for what? WHat crime was committed. I've yet to heard one comment from an intelligent (or non-intelligent person) as to why it's ilegal to filre people? All presidents do it... As long is it isn't for race, sex or creed, these guys all know what the term "at will" does.

      Now if you libs are at your job typing this stuff, you better learn what "at will" means or you may have alot more free time on your hands to take more government handouts from me...
      • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8If you've yet to hear an intelligent explanation of the issue, it's because you weren't listening.
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12What crime? Are you serious or are you just incompetent? How's Perjury for starters? This guy had shown how much of an amateur Slick Willy was and Congress called him on it all the same. He's lucky that he resigned, because if he didn't he'd be the first one to boil when they get back in session. As it stands, Congress has other fish to fry now more important than an ex-AG, but don't worry, I'm sure this won't be the last we hear of Gonzo.
        • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Then why hasn't congress done anything about it?
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The justice commission in the House was riding Gonzo's ass up until they took a vacation. They'll be returning to Capitol Hill around Labor Day.
      • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16let's ask all the people being tortured in secret CIA prisions around the world and our prisons in the middle east as well as gitmo ... let's ask all the people being held against their will without EVEN BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME for undetermined amounts of time.... let's ask them what crimes are being commited.

        jesus mchinksy, read the ***** constitution. what founded our country is being flushed down the toilet because people like you don't know any better.
      • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Lying to congress IS a crime. And it's been proven that he has done that.
        • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Clinton lied under oath, and many on digg are fine with that - whats the difference then?
          • fivefootfour, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Nobody died as a result of Clinton's lie.
          • PhoenixAvatar2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2No one's said they're fine with it, but in Clinton's case, he actually did some good with everything else he did.
          • Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He shouldn't even have been asked the question, it's nobody's business but his, Lewinsky's and Hillary's.
          • tigerpaper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12 wrongs != a right
          • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wasn't fine with it back then with Clinton, and I'm not fine with it now with Gonzo. Seriously, people need to expect more out of their politicians. If they let you down, replace them.
    • Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It's more of a civil case, not a federal one.
      • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Perjury before Congress is, in fact, a federal crime. The investigation was about a civil matter, and they were attempting to determine whether Gonzo was directly responsible so they'd have someone to hang when the civil suits came in - but Gonzo hung himself by lying to Congress repeatedly during that investigation.

        Just lettin' you know.
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For what? What law(s) has he broken? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just honestly don't know what he did...
  • nullx42, on 10/10/2007, -9/+610 bucks says the next guy is going to be barry bonds.
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7another one bites the dust
  • OJdidntdoIT, on 10/10/2007, -7/+25Call me when its Bush or Cheney.

    Then and only then will I be satisfied.
    • Coltb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You mean bush and Cheney lets not let cheney take office i dont want to become a nazi
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Then we get pelosi.
        For about the time it takes to put a bullet in her head.
      • bizchris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And Pelosi's been bad for this country too, though I think more from incompetence and bad judgment than any nefarious plan.

        Removing her from office solves lots of justice barriers - her "off the table" stance, the fact that there might be a better alternative as third in line if the top two were to go down, etc.
    • pkonink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Call me when campaign funding has been reformed and the executive branch has had its powers cut back to a reasonable level. Until then we can only expect more of the same, just different faces.
  • oboredone, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Thing is, they're talking about replacing one incompetent person with another(Chertoff, jerkoff, however you wanna spell it), so in the long run we're really not getting anywhere yet...
    at least thats what I hear thus far...
  • Wizardtb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21Bush staff: "ABANDON SHIP! ABANDON SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIP!!!!!!"
    Soon, it'll just be him and Cheney manning the White House- scary thought- he'll have nobody to read him his pop-up books.
    • iDragonFly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Don't think for a moment that Bush and Cheney are the last mites on the mattress.
      • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2last mites on the mattress... i like that. dugg.
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This usually happens late in an administrations lifetime.
    • omenmedia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"he'll have nobody to read him his pop-up books"

      Dude LOL, thanks for that, made my day.
  • Gir9000, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5about time!
  • TaLoNxNL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19He should´ve been fired instead of a resignation.
    • sahersos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0may be
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You don't know that he wasn't "asked" to leave.
    • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, it's not too late for that. Congress had impeached an attorney general back sometime after the Civil War. The guy announced his resignation, and Congress slapped an impeachment on him right before his resignation took effect.
    • mabhatter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1resigning wouldn't protect him from being prosecuted for lying to congress anyway. Now they can go after him without executive privilege getting in the way!
  • cindylauper, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10...and the world wept in joy
  • delrin500, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22I guess the impeachment plans were really building some steam. Now get the war crimes charges going!!!
  • SwampYankee, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7Hmmmmm. Let me see how this will play out. Bush will appoint an intrem AG and them nominate a long line of folks who have no chance in hell of being confirmed. He claims congress is stalling whilst he runs out the clock. just another tactic. the only way around this for congress to do NOTHING until a suitible replacement is confirmed. Lets have the showdown.
    • jocknerd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Come on, do you really think Bush can come up with this idea? I'm sorry, but Bush hasn't been in charge since the day he took office. Why do you think he took so many vacations? Because those in power didn't want him to get in the way. Folks like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld. Of course most of them are gone, but the real leader behind all this is still in power.
      • jakeson2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2An entirely uninformed comment.Merely a stupid reply to a nothing post. Neither of you understand anything about the functioning of the government.
        • wholly2b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2can you explain a little bit about the functioning of the government then? I'd love for them to be wrong, but, well -- I don't think they are.
      • freff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Hmmmmm. Let me see how this will play out. Bush will appoint an intrem AG and them nominate a long line of folks who have no chance in hell of being confirmed. He claims congress is stalling whilst he runs out the clock. just another tactic"

        Yeah, that's pretty much how this will probably play out. Bush picks a recess appointment (Chertoff?), trots out a line of guys that Democrats wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole, claim that "partisan politics" is poisoning the Democratic Congress, in the hopes that it can be made into a big enough issue to win back the House in '08. All while running out the clock on the most disastrous American Administration this side of the 20th Century.
  • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -28/+8Yea, guilty according to chucky boy schumer...Meanwhile, they had their 100 hours, and now 150 days...and all the democratic congress has to show for it is a .5/hour minimum wage increase (that we all get to pay for in the price of our big macs...).

    Next election is going to be fun considering Bush's approval rating is twice as high as the democratic congresses, and that is sad considering 90% of the press that the public reads has had it in for the guy since he took office

    • jocknerd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10You never took government in high school did you? You do realize that Democrats have 50 seats in the Senate followed by 49 Republicans and 1 Independent. Do you also realize it takes 2/3 of the Senate to pass something? That means for anything to pass in the Senate requires 67 votes. So its kind of hard to pass anything when most Senators toe the party line.
      • Chakat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're almost correct. The big issue isn't the number it takes to pass anything. The issue is the fact that senate rules dictate that you can filibuster your brains out unless there are 60 votes to close an issue and force a vote. So what the republicans are doing is leaving issues open and forcing them to die that way, not through out and out vetos.
    • godzillaWax, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6@jocknerd - Ummm....no. Its takes a majority. The two thirds is for overturning a veto.
      • Verchiel77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or for ending debate to bring a measure to a final vote. The formerly "up or down" GOP has been staedfastly filibustering legislation left and right, forcing a defacto 2/3 vote to do anything.
        • kurttrail, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Need 60 votes to end debate, not 2/3.
    • MJG2007, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Actually, if you look at the numbers, while congress overall has a low approval rating, the democrats in congress have a higher approval rating than that of the president. It appears the obstructionist republicans are bringing the overall numbers down.
      • YZBot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The last poll breakdown I saw, despite the democrats having a higher approval than the republicans, they were still rated poorer than the president.

        http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937

        The difference between the dems and repubs is bordering on statistically insignificant. 27% versus 24%.

        The latest presidential approval poll sets the president at about 32%.

      • TheKorn2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Don't worry, I'm sure The Wall Street Journal will promptly print that God has annointed Bush for a third term, and the entire South will promptly vote for him again!
  • AaronS2000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13The trolls are out in full force this morning.....
    • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3case in point
    • YZBot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Which ones?
    • cbuddha42, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The anti-Bush ones. I'm pretty sure pro-Bush trolls won't poke their head above ground in this thread.
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2They're at work.
        You've heard that word before? Work?
    • TBagwell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1yeah, and the S2000 is a POS
      • siliconflux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0now thats funny....I dare you to post that on s2ki.com or templeofvtec.com
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Meh. You essentially have to take one of two sides if you comment on Digg. Both sides will always attack their opposing sides and label them trolls. Eventually the popular opinion dominates the discussion.

      Sounds like the US Congress.
  • joe573, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15The thing that kills me is that he and his buddies, the president included, honestly think he has been treated unfairly.
    • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7No they don't. That's just what they needed you to think. And I'll tell you what. Unless these people serve the rest of their lives in prison, they will be "reincarnated" faster than you can believe.
      • jakeson2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2They don't think they are treated unfairly, they actually have been treated unfairly, both my those hate filled democrats and the big liberal media. This war would be over and WON if the democrats and their socialist followers had not joined the terrorists in fighting our President Bush. Too bad too, since many soldiers died because of the democrat greed for power.
        • joe573, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Exactly! Those damned democrats. They started this war. They didn't provide our soldiers with adequate armor. They lied about the connection of Iraq and Bin Laden. They cut health care funding to veterans....o wait....I think that was actually a republican president and the republican led congress. The democrats have been trying to bring our soldiers home. How dare they!
  • ren1999, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25I am so very thankful. But Let's hold Gonzalez accountable for his lies before the highest court and the people. Rove too. Bush and Dick n' Rice too!
    • mchinsky, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Yea, arrest them all since you can't win an election....Only reason the dems won last time was the perfectly timed news leak of the Florida congressman and his paige. They also won playing on the declare failure in Iraq and surrender message...Which so far, they haven't had the balls to do anything about.

      Go ahead get, cocky, meanwhile the republicans are going to win the next presidency, especially if you nominate Billary, and likely take back congress as well.
      • fictionalOne, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Sounds very similar to impeaching for a blowjob because you lost an election. Republican for president next term very unlikely.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's a funny post.
      • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You mean the perfect timing of the Republicans who tried to keep Mark Foley's predatory page hunting ways secret? Yeah... keeping a predator concealed for years to maintain party strength... PERFECT!

        Die in a fire, you sleazy *****.
      • sctwp09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2lmfao, look at the political projections, the dems have the next election in the bags, on all three accounts, house, senate, and presidency. People are tired of neocon ***** like yourself.
      • sommervr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Repugs are going to lose hard in 2008. Once Americans finds out what has really happened since 2000 we won't hear from republicans for a decade after that.
  • smacksaw, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19I guess I'll pick up the slack since everyone assumed someone else was doing it:

    ***** BUSH
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Yeah that makes you so courageous, you know, bashing bush on a heavily liberal website.
      • sommervr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2people with enough brain cells to operate a computer are overwhelmingly liberal.

    • sommervr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ever wonder why digg, youtube, google, wikipedia etc etc are so liberal? In 15 years of computer programming I have never worked with a conservative.

      The internet is a meritocracy and conservatives lose.
  • lopla, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Bush's statement regarding the resignation:

    "well, heh, heheh, it's just me and barney now.."

    -George W. Bush
    • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Barney uses his teeth though. Gonzo swallowed. He was the best!
  • Condottieri, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8It's about time.
  • Blitzenn, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Wahoo! I say we make it a National Holiday!
    Bush hasn't a chance (I hope) off getting another one confirmed that will tow his law bending policies. Pelosie better tow the hard ine here instead of knealing down as she did on the wiretapping issue. People are getting pissed off now.
  • bigbooger, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Praise the man Jesus. Hahaha FAH-Q Gonzalez.. you pendejo!
    • Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I barely understood that, but I lol'd anyway.
  • Mworthin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Ding dong the witch is dead, the witch is dead, the witch is dead...

    This particular ding-dong should have done the right thing and resigned months ago. Of course, in spite of all the Christian rhetoric, this administration has a pattern of not doing the right thing.
    • jakeson2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1like for instance, selling missile secrets to the Chinese for campaign money??
      • chicofaraby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No, we're talking about reality, not oxycontin inspired goofy nonsense.
  • hangtown2004, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8All Gone Bye Bye Poo Poo ! Good ! Now lets get rid of the rest of the Bush administration
  • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I love the quote from Bush - he doesn't even sound good on paper!
    “We’re watching a political exercise,” Mr. Bush said. “I mean, this is a man who has testified, he’s sent thousands of papers up there. There’s no proof of wrong.”
    No proof of wrong, indeed.
    • jakeson2, on 10/10/2007, -19/+2Indeed there IS NO PROOF OF WRONG. The fired attorneys work at the PLEASURE of the President. He can fire any or all and any time. Clinton fired all 93 when he took office and you did not say a word. WHY???
      • andrgo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2'Cause Clinton was the best president ever, duh.
      • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6First, I don't even care about the attorneys at this point - perjury transcends that one. Second, we didn't have this conversation in 1992 because DIGG DIDN'T EXIST THEN, genius.
      • omnithought, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7This has been explained pretty much everywhere but on FOX (which may be why you haven't heard it). See, when a NEW President takes office, it is very common for him to replace most if not all of the administration. However, Gonzalez's firings didn't happen at such a time and everything points to it being purely a political act. There still needs to be accountability when people are fired. The President serves at the PLEASURE of the PEOPLE, after all. He's not a king that anyone serves.
        • hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0these attorneys were lucky THIS president was kind and compassionate enough to let them continue their employment until he could see for himself if they were worth a sh!t or not. Kinda like you when a new owner takes over the local McDonalds. He waits to see if you're a fvck up and then gets rid of you before you burn the place down. Hope I didn't hit too close to home. I think walking in a firing everyone is MORE politically motivated. Most sane people would think the same. Have a nice day.
      • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Can you show me where there is a time limit on when he can fire them?







        No? The shut the ***** up.
      • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Nope - but I *CAN* point you to the DOJ rules that forbid firing of AGs for political reasons which Gonzales and his lackey both admitted to doing. So YOU shut the ***** up, partisan-mouthepiece-moron.
      • webcite1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you wonn;t go after the Dem's. .......then you are fired! There is the case!
  • snullbug, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Countdown to presidential pardon "just in case" 5..4..3...
    • mirunit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2There is nothing to pardon. In your idea of reality there is, and many people here - but where decisions are really made there is nothing to pardon.
      • Delphium226, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I guess in your reality Bush is king, the constitution just an annoying bit of paper, and you're the biggest patriot there is.

        *yawn*
    • Zackypooh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1you have no idea what pardon means, do you?
  • seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There will be "Gonzales presser at 10:30 . . . President to speak at 11:30 . . . "
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051617.php
  • SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Bush's legal protector gone? YIPPEE!!!!! Congress needs to go directly after Dick Cheney's ass now, before he convinces Bush to start another needless war with Iran. Bush probably won't be impeached because there isn't enough time to do it, but we at least need to get rid of Cheney!!!!!
    • jakeson2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0At least Bush knows what the meaning of is is!
  • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Chertoff isn't very different. The celebration won't last long. My eyes are on the democrats for what is next.
    • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0whatever it will be you can rest assured the it will be off the table!
  • EarlOfLade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2One idiot resigns, another idiot will be appointed.... status quo!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.