NationStates Jolt Archive

Well isn't this interesting.

The CEO of Kellogg is going to be our new secretary of commerce and this man, Alberto Gonzales, is to be our new attorny general.

All I've heard is that Gonzales was justifying the horrendous treatment of prisoners in Iraq. And some other negative stuff. Also, that this is allowing him to gain support for a push to the supreme court nomination. Bush supports his moves obviously.

As for Kellogg's man? Mixed feelings; the CEO of a company is an interesting idea for the secretary of commerce, as this person would really know what they were talking about. But this just ties in with Bush and his love with corporations. Could go either way.

The Gonzales guy; seems really really sketchy if I must say.

I definitely agree....just think what the next four years could bring. UGH. :headbang:

All I've heard is that Gonzales was justifying the horrendous treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
He thinks the Geneva Convention is outdated and inconvenient. That's more than enough for me to loathe him.

As for Kellogg's man? Mixed feelings; the CEO of a company is an interesting idea for the secretary of commerce, as this person would really know what they were talking about. But this just ties in with Bush and his love with corporations. Could go either way.
Well, I wonder whose interests our next Commerce Secretary will have in mind?

An interesting assesment of Gonzales I read said he's the perfect immoral attorney. You give him a desired outcome and he's highly effective at figuring out how to achieve it, no matter what it is. Pretty scary when you consider what Dubya could have in mind as an outcome.

Mixed feelings about the Kellogg's CEO... like the original poster said, he'll know what he's doing, but he'll obviously have a bias.

About Alberto Gonzales, I don't know much about him, but speaking from what you guys have said, I do agree with him to an extent. I do agree that the Geneva Convention is a little stupid, I mean obviously PoW deserve some level of civility, but honestly the Geneva Convention takes it too far.

Then again, I do NOT agree with what some American soldiers did to certain Iraqi prisons. I do not believe degradation is a punishment suitable for regular enemies captured in war, especially not of a sexual nature.

I don't know too much about him though, so I'm just going by what others have said here about him.

I thought it was kinda ironic that Bush was considering putting a new sec. named Spellings to the education dept. You know spelling and education. anyway not particularly funny I know, but its either really late here or really early depending on how you look at it.

Gonzales deserves to be shoved in Guantanamo Bay for a few months. Then will see what he thinks of the Geneva Convention.

Those darn Cubans again
and this from a native Cuban,

actually as a native Cuban
I am very proud of the choice.

Oh well some of you might say.

President Bush seems to be making
a lot of Presidential first appointments,

An African American male Secretary of State,
an African American female National Security Advisor,
followed by an African American female
Secretary of State the same one,
a Cuban American hispanic Secretary of Housing,
a mexican American hispanic Attorney General,
a Cuban American hispanic Secretary of Commerce,
interesting.

An interesting assesment of Gonzales I read said he's the perfect immoral attorney. You give him a desired outcome and he's highly effective at figuring out how to achieve it, no matter what it is. Pretty scary when you consider what Dubya could have in mind as an outcome.


democartics are just as low on the moral scale as he is. we need me as the president

About Alberto Gonzales, I don't know much about him, but speaking from what you guys have said, I do agree with him to an extent. I do agree that the Geneva Convention is a little stupid, I mean obviously PoW deserve some level of civility, but honestly the Geneva Convention takes it too far.


The Geneva Convention is international law. We can't just say it's a little stupid and decide to follow the provisions we like. Otherwise, who is to say which provisions are appropriate and which are not. It is not our decision. It was the decision of the framers of the treaties, and we can't ignore parts of it because we find it inconvenient given our current war. To anyone who believes that because the war on terror is a new kind of war, and that that fact makes Geneva obsolete, I point out that it is an ongoing conflict, not one that will be over in a year or two. Consequently, we should view it as less of an emergency than a normal war, at least in the sense of temporarily discarding rights we hold dear. We won't get them back. If you think America is great for our values of freedom and justice, how can you condone forgoing freedom and justice in an open-ended conflict?
Considering the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and non-applicable does just that.