From Think Progress, we have a late morning addition for B’Man’s Sabbath Watch. You know you must be hated when, as the President of the USA, you hold a big shindig in honor of someone who refuses to attend the honor dinner… with no rationale as to “why”.
I have some very good ideas as to “why” and they have a lot to do with “anti-Christs” and staying away from evil…
Raw Story reports, “The White House has scheduled a dinner next week in honor of Pope Benedict XVI’s first visit to the United States, but one guest will be conspicuously absent from the proceedings: the pope himself. There are no competing events listed on the pope’s schedule, and the White House was unable to explain Benedict’s absence from the dinner.” During Friday’s White House press briefing, press spokesman Scott Stanzel was stumped in explaining why the Pope would not attend:
Q: I’m sorry, the Pope doesn’t attend a dinner in his honor?
MR. STANZEL: No.
Q: How does that work?
MR. STANZEL: He doesn’t come into the building.
Q: But then it’s not a dinner for the Pope, is it?
MR. STANZEL: It’s in honor of his visit. There will be leaders from the Catholic community from all over the country who are in town for that visit.
Q: Is there a reason the Pope doesn’t attend the dinner?
MR. STANZEL: I don’t know. I don’t have the full extent of his schedule.
VIDEO UPDATE: The Catholic Church: The Bear Stearns of Pedophilia?
I’m sure there is plenty of hush money available to him, but you know its gotta hurt when every law firm you approach sends you a rejection letter, especially if you were once the lead attorney in America.
According to the New York Times, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales can’ find a job after been rebuffed by law firms who are not eager to add a name now synonymous with incompetence and blind partisanship - not to mention torture. Still, these would be some interesting “ding letters”: “Dear General Gonzales, our lawyers were very impressed with your interview and resume. However, every year our firms receives countless applications from former attorney generals . . . .”
Generally, attorney generals clean up in lucrative deals with firms or businesses. However, Gonzales was not only viewed as incompetent but untruthful in his performance as White House Counsel and Attorney General. He left amidst calls for his prosecution and impeachment, click here. Moreover, he appeared to create a Justice Department in his own image — bringing in incompetents like Monica Goodling and others.
Of course, John Ashcroft was able to make a killing, but did so by creating his own firm and securing controversial deals some other subordinates still in government, as discussed here.
It is probably too much to hope that law firms will continue to refuse Gonzales. Yet, to add Gonzales, is to embroil a law firm in on-going criminal investigations and controversies. It is also a strange image-boasting decision: associating your firm with a man who was widely viewed as a mere shill and empty suit.
In the meantime, Gonzales is not starving. He is making money through speeches. The New York Times reports that “Washington University in St. Louis, Ohio State University and the University of Florida have paid him about $30,000 plus expenses for appearances” while business groups are also filling his cup. Pomona College had the sense to decline such a speech. It is not I believe that universities should only hear from majoritarian “approved” or popular figures. Yet, Gonzales is accused of being more than a partisan hack, which he demonstrably was, in office. He is accused of lying under oath, facilitating torture, supporting unlawful surveillance and a host of other bad acts. I would have considerable concerns about my school giving such a man $30,000 to hear his “views.” I would have no problem with his appearing on campus without such a fee from the school, of course.
This has been all around the tubes, but I find it hilarious. Of course, the water balloons were enough to piss someone off, but do these folks NOT get the hint?
I challenge any of these religious fanatics to debate me over their beliefs, especially when it come to proselytizing me.
