if giuliani wins the Presidency, he should immediately fire every single attorney to avoid this problem in the future.
--- Robert Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2007, at 7:34 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > > > On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:45 PM, David Crooks wrote: > > > >> -- In what can safely be termed a total departure > from the > >> definition of > >> resignation, Dubya explains the firing of 8 U.S. > Attorneys by the > >> Attorney General. White House, Mar. 20, 2007 > > > > And, of course, the Attorney General testified > before Congress that > > there was no political motivations behind the > firings, just before > > the email records showed that exactly the opposite > was true. > > It was stupid to suggest politics wasn't behind it. > But it's just as > stupid to insist it's some kind of exception to the > rule that they > are political motivations. After all these are > political positions. > > > So if it > > wasn't the blowjob, it was the lying under oath > that Clinton was > > impeached for, then I guess it wasn't the firings, > but the lying > > under oath that Gonzalez should be charged with. > > One man's politics is another man's policies. > > This whole so-called 'scandal' is ridiculous. If > "politics" is a > scandal in "politics" then the real scandal going on > now is using a > defense spending bill as an omnibus bill, in an > effort to bribe > congressman into voting to stab our troops in the > back and declare > unilateral defeat. > > After all, they couldn't get the votes to cut and > run unless they add > endless pork riders to the bill to twist even > Democrats who wouldn't > vote for defeat on its own "intellectual" terms. > > Surely, you don't think it's "right" for Pelosi > (already!) to be > doing what you accused DeLay and others of > doing---strong arming > members into voting for that which they would never > otherwise vote > for, using such pathetic tactics as earmarks etc. > (which, > incidentally, the Dems pledged to do away with, > being, as they are, > dedicated to 'truth in advertising' and 'honest > debate')? > > Nevermind. > > </rhetorical-question> > > > > > I guess I can see why they don't want anyone else > to testify under > > oath. They'd actually have to consider telling the > truth for once. > > Oh, and the Dems are always so honest---like Al > Gore, lecturing the > nation about over-consuming as he himself in his > mansion gobbles up > 20 times the energy of the average american > household, even as recent > scientific evidence about the sun's gravitational > field throws > everything scientists think they knew about the > sun's role in our > atmosphere into unexpected new light---yet he claims > the debate is > "over". > > It's amazing, your sense of "integrity". A professed > man of "science" > no less. > > - Bob > > > > > -- Ed Leafe > > -- http://leafe.com > > -- http://dabodev.com > > > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
