Comments on: The Unfair Vilification of Alberto Gonzales

By: mhr

mhr — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:54:43 +0000

Anyone who observed the way liberals in congress and in the media treated Clarence Thomas is not suprised at the liberal Democrat assault on Gonzales. Each of these men is a member of a minority group that liberals have dubbed “people of color.” “People of color” belong on the liberal political plantation- that plantation assures Democrat electoral wins. Anyone who belongs on the Democrat plantation who associates with the other party is an enemy of the people and must be destroyed. It’s as simple as that. When Democrats celebrate “diversity” they mean a system in which people of all colors vote Democrat. They assuredly do not approve of people thinking for themselves-especially “people of color”- that kind of freedom is not valued by liberals.

By: JackT

JackT — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:59:57 +0000

This guy should never have been appointed AG, period.

By: Marc Malone

Marc Malone — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:51:00 +0000

See what happens, Navarette, when you do some actual journalism? 4 interviews and 24 other direct contacts. Suddenly, you see that the media lied. Oh gosh, really? Careful. Next thing you know, you’ll become a conservative. And they’ll cancel your subscription to Socialism Today.

By: David S

David S — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:19:11 +0000

What, exactly, is unfair about pointing out what Gonzales did wrong? And why should we forget to mention the torture memos? Mr. Gonzales did a disservice to his country, and what vilification he receives is mostly well earned. Peace. DS

By: locomotivebreath1901

locomotivebreath1901 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:12:18 +0000

“According to the narrative spun by the Bush haters, Alberto Gonzales — the former White House counsel and U.S. attorney general — was the mastermind and majordomo of the Bush administration’s torture policy.”

It’s been my experience with liberals that they can’t particularly be bother with facts. The ‘narrative’ is the center of their community based reality.

That includes such misrepresented terms as ‘the Bush administration’s torture policy’, as well.

Mr. Gonzales is an honorable man. He’s a 2nd generation Hispanic American, a Harvard graduate, a successful private attorney & conservative Republican who’s industrious intelligence paid off at the highest levels in a president’s administration.

But he’s a brown skin who didn’t march lock step with the La R@cist squater’s dogma. That makes him a high value target in the Left’s war of personal destruction on the battle field of group identity politics.

And like a dog with dried bone, the liberals can’t let go of the judiciously fired federal attorneys bzzness, either.

Bottom line: Liberals don’t like brown people. It’s the only explanation.

By: Lynn B.

Lynn B. — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:08:16 +0000

Daniel @ #10;
I actually feel sorry for you. You still don’t have a clue. There was a ship filled with yellowcake uranium taken from Iraq to Canada for safe keeping, 500 tons to be exact, in 2008. Proves what the Bush White House said all along. Also, Gonzales was railroaded into resigning. Anyone who bought into the Dem lies should be sent to a re-education facility due to their complete lack of intellect. Don’t bother calling me a neo-con, I’m a Democrat and disgusted with my party at this moment in time. the only war crimes I saw committed was by Saddam Hussein and his minions. HE was the monster, not Bush or his staff.

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:58:54 +0000

So, in summary:

1. America doesn’t torture
2. Even though we don’t torture, we should torture if we have a really good reason?
3. Such a good reason should be described as a “ticking time bomb”, like they have on 24.
4. EVERY prisoner should be treated as a “ticking time bomb”
5. Even though we released some prisoners without charging them with anything, it was probably good that we tortured them (even though we don’t torture), because they were a “ticking time bomb”. That is, until we decided that they weren’t.

By: jerryofva

jerryofva — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:46:38 +0000

Daniel:

I actually agree with you. It is a time honored tradition in the military for an officer to request a court martial to clear his name. I think it would be grand for President Bush et. al. to request, no demand, a trial at the Hague. They would call the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as defense witness to lay out the crimes of the Baathists and the Taliban. I am sure that the President would be vindicated and those who opposed his actions be seen for what they are: apologists for fanatics and mass murders.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:02:53 +0000

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, James Baker, and Karl Rove = should ALL be tried for WAR CRIMES in the Hague!

By: Meryl

Meryl — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:28:48 +0000

Isn’t it interesting how many facts and realities are being dragged in to the light these days.

The media (a portion of) has apparently finally gotten shaken enough that some are starting to put in print what many have known for a very long time.

So that’s good, I suppose.

However, it may be way too late to do any good, because the liars are in power. And one of the sparkling truths about committed liars is that exposure of the truth does not effect them, either in the short run or long run, especially when they are in power and are no longer compelled to twist the truth. Once in power, they can literally look at the truthteller and say,”SO?”

Thanks a lot, media.