Ashcroft will not be part of Bush’s second term.

They say that every rain cloud has a silver lining and the first bit of good news to come out of Bush’s reelection is word that Attorney General John AsshatAshcroft has announced his retirement:

“Yet I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration,” said Ashcroft, whose health problems earlier this year resulted in removal of his gall bladder.

“I believe that my energies and talents should be directed toward other challenging horizons,” he said. Ashcroft’s letter was dated Nov. 2, Election Day.

Chief among those challenges will be an attempt to join the 21st century along with the rest of us. Good riddance.

To say that I did a little happy dance at this news is probably an understatement. A lot of folks think I hate Bush in particular, but the truth is I dislike his administration as a whole more so than simply having it out for Bush personally. Public enemy number one as far as I was concerned was John Ashcroft; a man who lost his reelection bid to the Senate to a dead guy. When the people of your State say they think a guy killed in an airplane crash could do a better job of representing them then you are then you should really probably consider a new career outside of politics, but Bush swooped in and handed him the post of Attorney General where he’s been able to wreak havoc on civil liberties and freedoms ever since.

I realize it’s entirely possible he could be replaced with someone who’s even worse, but it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible. Perhaps now the statue known as Spirit of Justice can have the curtain removed from her that Ashcroft put in place because he was offended by her one naked breast. You can see a pic of him explaining his objection to having his picture taken in front of a statue with exposed breasts in the picture in the upper right here. Not sure if he thinks her tits are too big or not big enough.

31 thoughts on “Ashcroft will not be part of Bush’s second term.

  1. Ashcroft is the most loathesome of the bunch, but we still need to be rid of, well, the rest of them…


  2. Les, did you see this quote?

    Ashcroft, in a five-page, handwritten letter to Bush, said, “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.”

    I was boggled when I saw it.

  3. My first reaction was “YAY!!!”…then it dawned on me that someone has to replace him…hopefully you guys come out of this ok.

  4. Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight!

    But yeah, I am knocking on wood.  Who knows who he’ll dredge up from the sewers!

  5. John Ashcroft’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in December 2001—during which he declared that his critics “only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve”—was despicable. And not just for the obvious reasons.

    Ashcroft was the last person who should have beeen accusing others of undermining a war effort, given his own sorry performance during the Vietnam War. While attending Yale and then the University of Chicago Law School in the 1960s, Ashcroft repeatedly sought and received student deferments from his local draft board in Springfield, Missouri.

    In this, Ashcroft was hardly unique. But, as The Boston Globe reported in January 2001, when Ashcroft graduated from law school in 1967 he took the far less common step of seeking an occupational deferment granted to those who hold critical civilian jobs. (Out of 35 million men registered with the Selective Service in 1967, only 264,000 received occupational deferments.)

    The “critical” job in question? Teaching business law to undergrads at Southwest Missouri State University—an assignment he lined up with the help of a family friend. Although Ashcroft’s draft board had already earmarked him for induction—indeed, Ashcroft had already passed his pre-induction physical—the board reversed itself and granted the deferment, and Ashcroft spent the rest of the Vietnam War in Missouri, safe and sound. And quiet: Although Ashcroft was clearly eager to avoid going to Vietnam, he never protested the war.

    At least those people Ashcroft has branded traitors have the courage to voice their dissent.

    I am very curious to see his replacement…

  6. Heh…

    I wrote some pithy comments about this last night – was gonna cross post them, but life happend.

    My biggest question out of this, other than can we now uncover the Statue of Justice’s tits is who will replace him?

    This may be a devil you know vs. the devil you don’t know kinda thing…

    Rumor is it may be Rudy Guilianni, and the scary thing is that it may be the best option we get from the Shrub. Don’t get me wrong, I am a NY’er and I have more viceral hate for Rudy’s tenure as Mayor than of Bush’s [mis]Administration, but Rudy is about as centrist a person Bush is likely to appoint.  We may get someone alot worse than Asshat was 🙁

  7. I realize it’s entirely possible he could be replaced with someone who’s even worse, but it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible.

    Alberto Gonzales is the current front runner. He is notable, as Counsel to the President, for writing the torture memo(s) and, during Bush’s term a Governor, for advising Bush on death penalty appeals. In the latter role he seldom if ever presented exculpatory evidence.

  8. Not entirely sure about Alberto Gonzales.. he is also rumored as a possible replacement for any SCOTUS openings – doubt they would want to confirm him twice.

    I doubt that the right would let Bush nominate Guilliani, but they may use him as a sacrificial lamb

  9. Dave,

    Depends if the Dem’s show that they have not yet been gelded… as a block (with a few moderate Republicans—Chaffey, Snow, etc) tehy could easily fillibuster the nomination until Bush gives in and picks another…. hopefully after a serious ass reaming during the confirmation proceedings.

    Time for Dems to start showing they still have a pair and stand up against the far right—with moderate Republicans …

  10. I worry that ashcroft would be available to serve on a Federal court Bench or maybe replace Renquist on the Supreme Court. After all Bush does have a Man Date to fill. I hope the Democrates fillibuster the shit out of the Rethugs from the git-go on Gonzales nomination. A lawyer who advises a Governor on Life and death issues who tilts the issue towards death, and then rips up the only worthwile document to come out of the horror that was WWI, The Geneva Convention, does not pass. I got my letters in the mail already.

  11. Hey asswipes, lets count the attacks on us here after 9/11.  ………..Gee, not a one. John Ashcroft had a large role in that. Thank your lucky stars that adults are in charge of this country.
    Keep stewing, I love it.

  12. What cracks me up about folks like MM is the fact that they so love to draw simplistic conclusions based on facts that may or may not have any direct correlation to each other so long as it supports their biased point of view. Supporting arguments for his conclusion? He doesn’t need them for he feels those conclusions are obvious.

    Had there been another attack since 9/11 he’d use that as proof of why people like John Ashcroft were needed in the positions they were in and if there aren’t any further attacks then that’s proof that John Ashcroft was needed because he played a large role in preventing them. It’s a win-win outlook for him.

  13. Yes, please, let us now uncover the statue.  What an appalling embarrassment.  Can you imagine if Michelangelo’s David were in this country?

    It appears that MM could be one of those glassy-eyed, blind-faith followers that can do no more than parrot-back what’s been jammed down their throats.

  14. Na Na Na Naa Hey Hey Hey Gooodbyeee….
    Now we are about to get the lap dog Alberto Gonzalez as AG. I wonder if he’ll try to argue that Bush as commander in chief should be able to declare himself the second coming of Jesus and that we should all get on our knees in order to recieve his 2.5 inch communion. All you torture-sadists out there should be very encouraged and happy!

  15. Hey Cindi MM does’nt have to have it jammed down his throat. He eagerly drinks the poisoned kool-aide. I live in the south and people like MM are everywhere, blissfully living in ignorance, until something untoward happens to upset that bliss and then you know what its all our fault(liberals or non GOP types).
    Maybe this mindless drone should drink the drink and rid us of his dolefully ignorant presence.
    Like a good Christian though, I love him, or is it as a good christian I’d love to burn him at the stake?

  16. Just to lower the tone right down smile

    That hand gesture he’s making is a little *suggestive* is it not?

    Has the Spirit of Justice had a “wardrobe malfunction”?

  17. So funny….  Ashcroft had NOTHING to do with the statues ( and you have nothing to do with truth.

    Let’s see:
    200 terror convictions, Violent crime WAY down, the only AG to aggressively go after those corrupt CEOs, etc…, 57% INCREASE in weapon convictions (that should make you happy). Also——there are not hundreds of people dead (children included), killed because of their religion (Waco & the Davidians).

    He may be ugly, you may not like his style, but he did a decent job and didn’t kill Americans over their religion.

  18. It’s certainly true that the DoJ claims Ashcroft had no part in the decision to cover the statues with a curtain, but there is still some debate on how true that claim may be. Some valid points as to why the explanation provided by the DoJ doesn’t wash have been raised and, as far as I’m aware, Ashcroft himself has never chimed in on the issue in public.

    It’s definitely the sort of thing that I wouldn’t put past someone such as Ashcroft, but beyond being something to rib him about it’s not the sort of thing I would demand his removal from office over. The reality is that it doesn’t really matter if he had a hand in it or not as it’s really the least of his transgressions during his time in office.

    How much of a hand he had in any of the rest of the claims you make in your comment are easily as debatable as how much of a hand he had in the decision to hang the curtain. What isn’t debatable is the damage he’s done to civil liberties while in office.

  19. Of course DOJ denies he had anything to do with covering up the statue.  On an unrelated note, if you have some time this Sunday morning, go visit your local Assembly Of God church.  You’ll find it an eye-opening experience.  (Ashcroft’s father and grandfather were Assembly Of God ministers.) 

    Then ask yourself if it is coincidence that the statue was uncovered until Ashcroft became AG. No, you wouldn’t remove someone from office for that.  But it does provide a window into his mind.

    As for violent crime being down; many other countries that imprison a much smaller proportion of their citizenry than we do, have lower violent crime rates.  I’m not sure throwin’ a bunch of people in prison is the determinate variable.

  20. 200 terror convictions, Violent crime WAY down, the only AG to aggressively go after those corrupt CEOs, etc…, 57% INCREASE in weapon convictions (that should make you happy).

    Terror convictions

    I’m not familiar with that particular statistic. I did a search on “200 terror convictions” and came up empty. When I dropped the 200, I got many hits discussing DOJ’s mishandling of the Detroit Case. Isn’t it true that, with the exception of Richard Reid, DOJ has not made any of its high profile cases? Does the 200 number conflate violation of immigration law with terrorism?

    Violent crime.

    Administrations and thiner supporters tend to take credit for good things that happen during their tenure and try to blame the other side when things don’t go well. Here are some other explanations for the lower rate of violent crime that, singly or in combination, IMHO are more plausible than Ashcroft being a hotshot AJ.

    1. The Brady bill.

    2. Clinton’s Community Police Program

    3. Aging of the baby boomers. The following quote is from a March 2001 article in Reason Magazine titled
    The bum rap against TV violence.

    But Centerwall’s intriguing data are more readily explained in terms of a factor he chooses to slight: the unanticipated surge in births between 1947 and 1964 (peaking in 1957) known as the baby boom. Murders are disproportionately the handiwork of young males, and throngs of them were maturing in the 1970s, producing unusually high homicide rates. It was shrewd of Centerwall to select Canada as his other test case because Canada and the United States were among the very few countries to experience a postwar bulge in birth rates. South Africa, with its low pre-1975 murder rates, did lack television, but more significantly it lacked a baby boom.

    When America’s violent crime statistics are extended beyond Centerwall’s cutoff date of 1975 and beyond the dates of his publications, the weakness of his causal argument becomes clear. Violent crime in the 1980s remained high, but as the baby boom cohort members aged past their 30th birthdays in the l990s crime began to decline. FBI statistics show that from 1991 onward the violent crime rates have decreased each year. Moreover, rates for property crimes have been decreasing since 1980. Thus, as more entertainment violence has become available on television, crime rates in the United States have been decreasing.

    … only AG to aggressively go after those corrupt CEOs

    Yeah, given the magnitude of the Enron debacle the administration could ill afford to do otherwise – particularly with the long history of Bush (41 and 43)/Ken Lay cronyism. When the relationship became a potential liability, Bush 43 clained he hardly knew one of his largest donors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.