January 26, 2005

No On Gonzales

A lot of people have signed on to support saying no to the Gonzales nomination, not least because he's a liar and is on record softpedaling and rationalizing torture.

If you haven't already, please go at once to Congress.org to write your representatives. Entering your ZIP code will bring up both your Senate and Congressional representatives, merely select your Senators from the list and commence writing your message through their submission form. It's easy, it's free, and it's important. Feel free, while you're at it, to request that your Senator vote no on Condoleezza Rice and explain why.

My letter was probably the shortest one I've ever sent to my legislators. It doesn't take more than a couple paragraphs (and I'm kind of long winded, so you might do it in less) to say that Gonzales should be opposed because doing otherwise legitimizes Abu Ghraib, and that Rice should be opposed because she lied to the American people about life or death issues. In a sane world, those two facts would keep them far away from public office for the rest of their lives.

Posted by natasha at January 26, 2005 12:03 AM | US Politics | Technorati links |

In general, your 'letter' to your legislator will be read by a staffer, who will mark you as 'for' or 'agin'. And that's pretty much all you need to tell them, is whether you are for or against the subject under discussion.

If you want them to read your thoughts on the matter, get a letter published in your local paper. Trust me, they read those.

Posted by: serial catowner at January 26, 2005 06:13 AM

I got this email about this subject:

Payback for covering up Bush's DUI?

Yesterday we alerted you to a short piece in Newsweek regarding Alberto Gonzales' role in helping George W. Bush dodge jury duty in a Texas drunk-driving case back in 1996. By not serving, Bush was able to keep secret his own record of a DUI conviction. The Newsweek report keys off of Alberto Gonzales' nomination by Bush for U.S. attorney general -- he's expected to be confirmed this week -- but back in 2000, Salon first broke the story regarding the cover-up of Bush's DUI.

Gonzales, who served as then Gov. Bush's general counsel, asked the court to excuse Bush from the case because of the possibility that Bush might eventually be called on to pardon the accused. As reporter Robert Bryce wrote in 2000, Travis County attorney Ken Oden called Gonzales' request an "unusual" argument. "In 20 years of prosecuting in a town full of government officials," he said, "I'd never heard that position before."

Bush was excused from the case as a "courtesy" to the governor, but the defense attorney in the case, P. David Wahlberg, agreed with Oden, telling Salon that Gonzales' argument about a possible conflict over a pardon was "laughable."

Less amusing now is the payback that Gonzales, with his disturbing record {http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/01/06/torture/index_np.html} on torture, has coming from Bush. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzales denied dealing to get Bush out of jury duty in 1996, and the White House (see the Newsweek piece) continues to back him up. Just something to chew on as the Senate mints Gonzales the next U.S. attorney general in the days to come.

Posted by: tabs at January 26, 2005 12:20 PM

Dis-bar Gonzales.


Update: The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint today with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas regarding Gonzales' testimony on this issue. (Hat tip to John Byrne of Raw Story, who reports that Gonzales continues to stonewall Senate Dems on a variety of subjects.)

"CREW's complaint alleges that by misstating the facts surrounding the conversation in the judge's chambers Gonzales may have violated 18 U.S.C. 1001, which makes it a federal crime to make false statements to a congressional committee. The complaint further alleges that Mr. Gonzales has violated two Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure: 8.04(a)(2) which prohibits lawyers from committing crimes that reflect adversely on their honesty or trustworthiness; and 8.04(a)(3) which prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."

"The marked contrast between the version of events Mr. Gonzales provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the version told by the three other individuals involved -- the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge -- is enough to require the State Bar of Texas to investigate this matter," said CREW executive director Melanie Sloan. "Violations of the bar rules can lead to disbarment. The Senate should delay voting on Mr. Gonzales's nomination until this matter is cleared up or face the prospect of having an Attorney General who has lost his bar license."

Posted by: tabs at January 26, 2005 12:21 PM

Unfortunately, Patty and Maria already caved on Condi's nomination. Maybe they'll be stronger with Gonzales, but I don't see how you can justify voting for either of them.

Which is more reprehensible -- lying incompetence by a national security expert fomenting an unnecessary war, or lying disregard for human decency and the rule of law by a former judge and presidential counsel condoning torture and depraved cruelty?

The correct answer, I believe, is both.

Posted by: N in Seattle at January 26, 2005 03:56 PM

I went to both websites to register my hope that they'll vote NO on Gonzales.

It was there that I read Sen. Murray's cave in on Condi Rice. Her statement was almost obscene in its naivete'. She said "I hope that Dr. Rice will reflect on the valid concerns raised during her confirmation hearing and will adopt a more open style that welcomes all views, particularly those that she and the President do not already hold."

Sen. Murray expects that Dr. Rice will, by receiving a substantial 'yes' vote, be humbled, and in her dealings with the president, stand firm and forgo any of the things she has done in the past.
Sen. Murray feels that Rice deserves a 2nd chance!

What is going on here?
What part of Rice's record of the last four years showed that she would, in any way, challenge the president?
And why, after the way she has run the National Security office and all the horrible things she's allowed to happen in that time, does she deserve any consideration?

Dr. Rice, in her testimony here and during the 9/11 Commission has shown a pattern of deception and lies. She is fiercely loyal to the President and will not, in any way, contradict him. She will be the worst Secr. of State in history and our Senators are now on record approving of her.

Sen. Murray has a lot to atone for here. The Democratic Party went to bat for her against Nethercutt and she triumphed. Why do I feel she has taken the first opportunity to abandon us?
The Dems have a very slim opportunity to show some backbone and stand up to Bush and his egregious nominations. Capitulation is no longer in our vocabulary. Compromise was at one time, but those times are gone.

How can I support these lawmakers if they insist on playing political pattycake with the Enemy?

Now, we either fight together or we fall apart.

Posted by: David Aquarius at January 26, 2005 05:44 PM