Pro-Death Gonzales Nominated to be Attorney General

Our Democrats in Congress, many of them now safely re-elected, have already shown the weak-kneed support we can expect from them one week after the election. By already leaking the idea through the media that Alberto Gonzales will be confirmed, because there will be 'bigger fish to fry,' the party leadership has shown that they are not capable of making inroads into Repub majorities by 2006, much less than 2008.

W waited just eight days to show that he doesn't care what anybody else thinks - he will do what he wants - yet Democrats do not want to appear too obstructionist so soon after W's 'mandate.' The Democrats in Congress will apparently not have the guts to do what is right - starting now at the beginning of another disastrous four years of a Bush barbecue.

Every wrong, offending, immoral, and illegal action by this administration needs to be opposed vigorously from the start - starting with Dr. Death Alberto Gonzales. If Democrats are worried that they will be accused of trying to bring government to a standstill, or that they won't be heard when Supreme Court nominations come around (and they will), then we need new party leadership, now. And we need people with the energy and courage to take on this administration while they are busy reading My Pet Goat.

And the party, if it has any chance to survive, even if under new progressive leadership, needs to learn something about strategy and tactics, if not the game of poker. Why do you show your cards to these idiots thinking you will compromise, when they have no intention of compromising?

And we should start with Alberto 'No-One-Leaves-Here-Alive' Gonzales. If John Ashcroft was a driven, paranoid right-wing McCarthy-like ideologue, Mike Malloy shows that Gonzales is a cold blooded nasty killer, an executioner, and an attorney general who would stand alone (with W) in his belief that the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions are minor obstacles to be easily avoided. Are we breeding our own Joseph Goebbels?

Gonzales led the way to the most state executions, by far, as the Bush-appointed Texas Attorney General - highlighted by his same-day-as-the-execution 'briefs' to Bush to present any requested legal challenges. And you know how much time W likely spent reading them.

Then Gonzales advised Bush that certain kinds of torture were OK for 'enemy combatants.' You know who they are - they are the accused terrorists being held at Guantanamo and elsewhere who have no rights and can be treated like animals, a-la Abu Graib, showing our great benevolence in world leadership.

Maybe some of you veterans and active duty folks say 'so what does all this have to do with me?' Read on:

GONZALES ADMITTED HIS VIEWS 'COULD UNDERMINE U.S. MILITARY CULTURE': The 1/25/02 memo shows Alberto Gonzales was aware of the risk that ignoring the Geneva Conventions could create for the military. One concern expressed is that failing to apply the Geneva Conventions "could undermine U.S. military culture which emphasizes maintaining the highest standards of conduct in combat, and could introduce an element of uncertainty in the status of adversaries," which is what happened at Abu Ghraib. Secretary of State Colin Powell strongly warned against taking this decision, as did lawyers from the Judge Advocate General's Corps, or JAG. This week, a federal judge ruled that "President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions" when he established military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to try detainees as war criminals.

Gonzales doesn't care what happens to our GIs sent into combat, and who might be treated exactly the same way by enemies. That's an unfortunate side effect for Gonzales.

It starts now, Democrats. Do you have the guts to do anything at all during the Gonzales confirmation hearings, much less stop it? Or will you start the next four years on a strong note of cowardice?

Because, if so, you don't see another piece of the big picture - Alberto Pro-Death Gonzales, as Attorney General, will, at the earliest opportunity, be nominated for the Supreme Court. And what argument will you have then, when you've already caved into his support to be the attorney general?