Gonzales

[Oliver]

Can someone in here sum up the controversy about firing the 26 attorneys?

I don't understand why this is such a big issue after all the other, much bigger scandals that didn't caught such a huge attention.

[fuelair]

Right now, anything we can get the slime in charge for (and hopefully that may lead to an impeachment with full conviction for the slime - in- chief) is worth the effort. The primary aspect of the controversy is that most of the 26 were either going after republics who had their hand in the till or were not going after Democrats who did not - to try to keep them from being elected/re-elected.

[Oliver]

Right now, anything we can get the slime in charge for (and hopefully that may lead to an impeachment with full conviction for the slime - in- chief) is worth the effort. The primary aspect of the controversy is that most of the 26 were either going after republics who had their hand in the till or were not going after Democrats who did not - to try to keep them from being elected/re-elected.


It's hard for me to grasp the two-party mentality. So things like modifying civil liberties isn't an Issue that would be useful to get an impeachment? Or breaching the Geneva-conventions in some "dubious, legal" ways?

[Charlie Monoxide]

Why there are so many presidential appointments is beyond me. Wouldn't a career technocrat be a better choice (chosen by merit for 4+ year terms) than the incompetent party hacks that (typically) end up in these positions? In my little idealistic dream world, public servants should serve the citizens, not the current elected leadership ....

Charlie (TfsmIF, time for a brew) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

Why there are so many presidential appointments is beyond me. Wouldn't a career technocrat be a better choice (chosen by merit for 4+ year terms) than the incompetent party hacks that (typically) end up in these positions? In my little idealistic dream world, public servants should serve the citizens, not the current elected leadership ....

Charlie (TfsmIF, time for a brew) Monoxide

How do you feel about William Casey as CIA director? He was a career man.

How about George Tenet? IIRC, he too was a career man. My friends who were spooks thought he was a breath of fresh air after people like John Deutsch stained Langley with his nonsense.

DR

[Charlie Monoxide]

How do you feel about William Casey as CIA director? He was a career man.

How about George Tenet? IIRC, he too was a career man. My friends who were spooks thought he was a breath of fresh air after people like John Deutsch stained Langley with his nonsense.

DRThose are good examples. Shouldn't the civil service be independent of the current political leadership? I found John Bolton's comments when he was on "The Daily Show" (paraphrasing) that "it's important that the president implement the power and people of the the ones who elected him" ....

Charlie (51% of the country = tyranny of the majority) Monoxide

[peptoabysmal]

Can someone in here sum up the controversy about firing the 26 attorneys?

I don't understand why this is such a big issue after all the other, much bigger scandals that didn't caught such a huge attention.
The controversy is because it was unprecedented. It has happened before, but very few cases. It was made possible by a provision in the Patriot Act that "allows the president to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E1FF73A5A0C758EDDAB0894DF404482)."

It is highly suspect to be politically motivated. U.S. Attorney is a powerful position which can often lead to getting elected to Congress. When you are going into an election year in the US in a certain party and U.S Attorneys are often charged with investigating politicians, do you want them biased toward the opposition or toward your side?

[SteveGrenard]

OP, Oliver writes/asks:

Can someone in here sum up the controversy about firing the 26 attorneys?

I don't understand why this is such a big issue after all the other, much bigger scandals that didn't caught such a huge attention.

There is an editorial in today's (Sat-5/19/07) NY Times that may put this into perspective for you and helps explain why Bush sides with the people he does and that relationship. Basically it says he appoints people who will do what he wants, and when they do that and get criticized for it, he backs them up.

A lot of people myself included thought this was a (misplaced) loyalty thing but it goes deeper than that according to the opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/opinion/19sat1.html?th&emc=th

In March 2004, the acting attorney general distrusted Alberto Gonzales so much that he wouldn’t meet with him at the White House without a witness. Eight months later, President Bush promoted Mr. Gonzales from White House counsel to attorney general, the top law enforcement job in the land. The president is still standing by his man, ignoring Mr. Gonzales’s efforts to mislead Congress, his disregard for the Constitution and his gross neglect of even basic bureaucratic duties.




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/opinion/19sat1.html?th&emc=th

[corplinx]

They want Rice, Gonzalez, Rove, Bush etc gone. Expect more of the same. Even when they go through thousands of documents and lots of testimony and can't get a shred of evidence, it won't stop them.

Gonzalez and Bush basically rejected the normal "raise a big fuss and get the auto-resignation". So now they are getting really silly and trying to schedule a no-confidence vote and such.

Its like the Whitewater congress except they have a legitimate issue which they unfortunately have overreached on. They got the documents, emails, testimony and still can't support the allegations they want to make. Unfortunately the allegations they can support aren't ones they can force Gonzalez to resign over.

[Oliver]

The controversy is because it was unprecedented. It has happened before, but very few cases. It was made possible by a provision in the Patriot Act that "allows the president to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for an indefinite period without Senate confirmation (http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F20E1FF73A5A0C758EDDAB0894DF404482)."

It is highly suspect to be politically motivated. U.S. Attorney is a powerful position which can often lead to getting elected to Congress. When you are going into an election year in the US in a certain party and U.S Attorneys are often charged with investigating politicians, do you want them biased toward the opposition or toward your side?


To me it's obvious that this was an intention, not a random choice to put it into the Patriot Act. What I don't understand: The outcry should have taken place after the legislation of the Act without anyone actually discussing or reading what they're legitimating in the first place. I wonder how this is possible to pass a law "over night". So I guess there must be something pretty wrong in the system itself.

It's also strange to me that attorney generals are elected by the citizens on state level, but by congress and president on federal level. This alone sounds pretty conflicting to me in terms of neutrality of the Attorney Generals role.

[Oliver]

Why there are so many presidential appointments is beyond me. Wouldn't a career technocrat be a better choice (chosen by merit for 4+ year terms) than the incompetent party hacks that (typically) end up in these positions? In my little idealistic dream world, public servants should serve the citizens, not the current elected leadership ....

Charlie (TfsmIF, time for a brew) Monoxide


That's at least my understanding of a democracy that doesn't support possible threats of corruption and too much power by the leading party.

[President Bush]

They want Rice, Gonzalez, Rove, Bush etc gone.


Thank you for your support. Unfortunately, "they" is beginning to resemble everybody except you and me.

[Oliver]

OP, Oliver writes/asks:

There is an editorial in today's (Sat-5/19/07) NY Times that may put this into perspective for you and helps explain why Bush sides with the people he does and that relationship. Basically it says he appoints people who will do what he wants, and when they do that and get criticized for it, he backs them up.

A lot of people myself included thought this was a (misplaced) loyalty thing but it goes deeper than that according to the opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/opinion/19sat1.html?th&emc=th




Thank you very much for this article, SteveGrenard. :) I understand the controversy itself - but I can't understand why this is more outrageous than the fact that the patriot act passed congress without any resistance and discussions in the first place. That should be a much bigger scandal - because it was the source that lead to the current, relatively "unimportant" scandal.

[President Bush]

Thank you very much for this article, SteveGrenard. :) I understand the controversy itself - but I can't understand why this is more outrageous than the fact that the patriot act passed congress without any resistance and discussions in the first place. That should be a much bigger scandal - because it was the source that lead to the current, relatively "unimportant" scandal.


Without any resistance but for this prick:


Feingold was the only senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act when first voted on in 2001.[37] At the time, Feingold stated that provisions in the act infringed upon citizens' civil liberties.[38] At the time some people believed that Feingold was risking his career by making such a controversal decision. Later, as public opinion turned against certain portions of the Act, his vote became a major selling-point for his re-election campaign.

When the bill was up for renewal in late December 2005, Feingold led a bipartisan coalition of Senators that included Lisa Murkowski, Ken Salazar, Larry Craig, Dick Durbin, and John Sununu to remove some of the act's more controversial provisions. He led a successful filibuster against renewal of the act that ultimately led to a compromise on some of its provisions. This compromise bill passed the Senate on March 2, 2006, by 89-10. Feingold was among the 10 Senators who voted nay, feeling that the bill still lacked necessary protections for some civil liberties.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold

[Oliver]

Without any resistance but for this prick:


Well, I'm still trying to understand the American Way to legislate laws. Here in Germany the politicians are discussing every stupid laws for weeks or months, which is pretty annoying, but also a result of a system that has 13 political parties and therefore much more Opinions than the US-Dems/Reps majority.

Feingold seems to have read and understand the Act. But what happened to the other Members of Congress? And how was it possible to pass this Act in such a rush? Blind trust? :confused:

[gnome]

Thank you very much for this article, SteveGrenard. :) I understand the controversy itself - but I can't understand why this is more outrageous than the fact that the patriot act passed congress without any resistance and discussions in the first place. That should be a much bigger scandal - because it was the source that lead to the current, relatively "unimportant" scandal.

A personal scandal always gets more resonance than a scandal over a legislative nuance. Sure, it's a damn important nuance, but you need to understand the propensity of the average American to start snoozing when people try to explain anything more complicated in politics than "terrorists bad" "taxes bad" "poverty bad" "racism bad" "recession bad" "recovery good" "security good" "prosperity good"...

Tell em someone slept with someone and lied about it, or fired people and then lied about it, or got caught with their hands in the cookie jar... and they'll take note. They hate politicians and it feels good to see them, any of them, get taken down a peg. Or, they take note because these are situations they find themselves in as part of their own life and can relate to it.

On second thought, maybe it's not just Americans.

[gnome]

Well, I'm still trying to understand the American Way to legislate laws. Here in Germany the politicians are discussing every stupid laws for weeks or months, which is pretty annoying, but also a result of a system that has 13 political parties and therefore much more Opinions than the US-Dems/Reps majority.

Feingold seems to have read and understand the Act. But what happened to the other Members of Congress? And how was it possible to pass this Act in such a rush? Blind trust? :confused:

Not trust... it's because they knew if they stalled in passing the PATRIOT act they would immediately be politically eviscerated by the opposition in their area. That's why it passed so fast, because the authors knew that few would dare delay and appear unpatriotic in the wake of 9-11. It made no difference the details of what was actually in it. The political reality of it forced their hand.

[Oliver]

Not trust... it's because they knew if they stalled in passing the PATRIOT act they would immediately be politically eviscerated by the opposition in their area. That's why it passed so fast, because the authors knew that few would dare delay and appear unpatriotic in the wake of 9-11. It made no difference the details of what was actually in it. The political reality of it forced their hand.


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't someone else involved in setting up the Patriot Act instead Gonzales?

Or was he also Attorney General back then? I mean the people who wrote the Act and passed it to congress also should have known what this Act is actually about.

In which case you're implying that the Bush-Regime already had control over the former Attorney General/Department of Justice.

[SteveGrenard]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't someone else involved in setting up the Patriot Act instead Gonzales?

Well, not exactly. See below.

Or was he also Attorney General back then? I mean the people who wrote the Act and passed it to congress also should have known what this Act is actually about.

No, but he was very much involved in crafting the bill along with the NSA which falls under White House control.


In which case you're implying that the Bush-Regime already had control over the former Attorney General/Department of Justice.

Yup. Ashcroft was appointed by Bush also but he later quit, opening the door for Gonzalez to step into the job.

And Gonzalez was AG when it was re-authorized and in fact lobbied it to the extent he wrote an article in the Washington Post pleading for its re-authorization. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301476.html

The Act was originally signed into law on October 26, 2001. Thus, the White House including Gonzalez was very much involved.

Here’s an excerpt from his bio off the White House website:

Prior to serving at the Department of Justice, he was commissioned as White House Counsel to President George W. Bush in January of 2001. Prior to serving in the White House, he served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. Before his appointment to the Texas Supreme Court in 1999, he served as Texas' 100th Secretary of State from December 2, 1997 to January 10, 1999. Among his many duties as Secretary of State, Gonzales was a senior advisor to then Governor Bush, chief elections officer, and the Governor's lead liaison on Mexico and border issues.

Bush and Alberto are old buddies from Texas.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

Gonzalez’ hand was very much a part of crafting the bill and ferrying it through congress, that's now pretty clear.

WASHINGTON -- Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and several other top Justice Department officials nearly resigned in March 2004 after President Bush reauthorized a warrantless surveillance program even though the department said it was illegal, the Senate was told Tuesday.

and it get’s better:

In testimony before the Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey recounted rushing to Ashcroft's hospital room on March 10, 2004, in order to prevent White House officials -- including Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel -- from taking "advantage of a very sick man" by pressuring him to approve the program.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/315868_wiretap16.html

Gonzalez and Andrew Card tried to pressure Attorney General Ashcroft to approve the constitutionally illegal surveillance program that was ajudged to be allowed under the Patriot Act by Bush and Co. While he was sick, in the hospital, recovering from surgery. They failed but it didn't make any difference witness the following:

Unable to persuade Ashcroft, who was recovering from surgery, Gonzales and Andrew Card, then White House chief of staff, advised Bush to let the program go forward, Comey said. Bush reauthorized the program without Justice Department certification that it was legal.

[Oliver]

Well, not exactly. See below.

No, but he was very much involved in crafting the bill along with the NSA whch falls under White House control.

Yup. Ashcroft was appointed by Bush also but he later quit, opening the door for Gonzalez to step into the job.

And Gonzalez was AG when it was re-authorized and in fact lobbied it to the extent he wrote an article in the Washington Post pleading for its re-authorization. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/13/AR2005121301476.html

The Act was originally signed into law on October 26, 2001. Thus, the White House including Gonzalez who was the President’s Counsel at the time was very much involved.

Here’s an excerpt from his bio off the White House website:

Bush and Alberto are old buddies from Texas.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html

Gonzalez’ hand was very much a part of crafting the bill and ferrying it through congress, that's now pretty clear.

and it get’s better:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/315868_wiretap16.html

Gonzalez and Andrew Card tried to pressure Attorney General Ashcroft to approve the constitutionally illegal surveillance program that was ajudged to be allowed under the Patriot Act by Bush and Co. While he was sick, in the hospital, recovering from surgery. They failed but it didn't make any difference witness the following:


I've read the washington post article you mentioned about reauthorizing the Patriot Act. But I really don't understand the fuss.

Before 9/11, all that was nessesary to prevent the Attacks was one single call from the CIA to the FBI. They failed to do so - but all these acts are sounding paranoid to me. And dangerous in terms of political dominance. At least they have potential to misuse them.

...

Wow. These are indeed some pretty shocking details. Can I define this as corruption? No kidding, if this wasn't true, I really would think someone is talking about a soap-opera. The Justice Department really should be independent from the White House. So I guess it would be a good Idea to keep the President out of the decision who is actually running the justice department or who's it's Attorney General.

Do you think there will be some regulations to avoid this kind of influence in the future?

[Skeptic Ginger]

They want Rice, Gonzalez, Rove, Bush etc gone. Expect more of the same. Even when they go through thousands of documents and lots of testimony and can't get a shred of evidence, it won't stop them.

Gonzalez and Bush basically rejected the normal "raise a big fuss and get the auto-resignation". So now they are getting really silly and trying to schedule a no-confidence vote and such.

Its like the Whitewater congress except they have a legitimate issue which they unfortunately have overreached on. They got the documents, emails, testimony and still can't support the allegations they want to make. Unfortunately the allegations they can support aren't ones they can force Gonzalez to resign over.This see no evil position is incredible.

Anyone who watched Gonzales testify and still believes there isn't some serious $h!+ going on here is in some serious denial.

Tell me, why after testifying before both the Senate and the House has Gonzales been unwilling to explain why these guys were fired? What is he hiding if everything was just a matter of a few loyal Republican Bush appointed attorneys turning out to be a little disappointing? Simple adjustments, nothing more?

Of course they haven't found much yet, Gonzales is obstructing the investigation. Refuses to turn over emails, says he doesn't know why the attorneys were fired, who put them on the list to be fired, but he's sure there was nothing sinister. Well could he maybe ask around and find out who does know? He's not sure who to ask. And this is just no big deal you say?

Right.

Well let's just see what we find out from Monica Goodling on the 23rd. Maybe a Born-Again lawyer from Pat Robertson's Regent Law School who earlier plead the 5th and now has immunity will say. Maybe having a few hundred God fearing lawyers doesn't seem like such a good idea after all. That is if it turns out they are unwilling to lie like the good Bushie Gonzales did.

What are the possibilities that Goodling felt the need to plead the 5th for if no crime has occurred? After all, those lawyers "serve at the pleasure of the President".

Obstruction of justice, for one, if it turns out any of them were removed to prevent a powerful Republican from being investigated for corruption.

And the second possibility is that despite the fact these guys are Bush appointees, that doesn't make them Bush's henchmen. So if Bush was attempting to use them as henchmen, it is indeed illegal. Think about it. And read the following discussion of the concept by Judge John E. Jones III, who decided the Dover-Kitzmiller case in Kansas, aka ID vs Evolution case:

Speech by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to the Anti-Defamation League; National Executive Committee Meeting; Palm Beach, FL, February 10, 2006 (http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp)...Accordingly, and in that vein, I found it notable that among those who disagreed with my decision was one Phyllis Schlafly. I'm sure that you know who Ms. Schlafly is and I’ll not try to characterize her beyond saying she is a conservative columnist and pundit. I don't know Ms. Schlafly and I assume based on her résumé that she's a fine person. However, under the banner "Judge's unintelligent rant against design," Ms. Schlafly authored a January 2006 column and within her column she noted that, and I'm quoting here, that I "owed my position as a Federal Judge entirely to the evangelical Christians who pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2002" and that I, I'm still quoting here, "stuck the knife in those who brought me to the dance in Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District." ...

...But the way that she conducted her analysis is instructive, and points out a problem which is pervasive and therefore threatens to, I think, tear at the fabric of our system of justice in the United States. Ms. Schlafly's column makes it clear that she views me as an activist judge of the very worst kind. Yet in her column and within other criticisms directed at my opinion, time and again writers would omit to note the role legal precedents play as they relates how judges decide cases that come before them. That is, as a trial judge, I must follow the law as previously established by the higher courts and in particular by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The premise of Ms. Schlafly and some others seems to be that judges can and should act in a partisan matter rather than strictly adhering to the rule of law. Now, to those who believe that judges must cast aside precedents and rule as according to an agenda, let me say that I believe that the public's dependence upon the impartiality and the integrity of judges is absolutely essential to its confidence in our system of justice. It is especially important for our citizens to understand that judges must be impartial and that the independence of the judiciary is premised on a judge's pledge of freedom from partisan influences. So those of you dismissing this incident as no crime, no big deal, nothing to see here, move along....are truly in denial as to the significance of this matter.

[Skeptic Ginger]

To me it's obvious that this was an intention, not a random choice to put it into the Patriot Act. What I don't understand: The outcry should have taken place after the legislation of the Act without anyone actually discussing or reading what they're legitimating in the first place. I wonder how this is possible to pass a law "over night". So I guess there must be something pretty wrong in the system itself.

It's also strange to me that attorney generals are elected by the citizens on state level, but by congress and president on federal level. This alone sounds pretty conflicting to me in terms of neutrality of the Attorney Generals role.The system does have serious problems which are not helped when people seek the loopholes and use them in corrupt ways. In this case what occurred in the middle of the night was inserting a tiny clause in a very big bill and keeping it quiet.

But that clause in the USA PATRIOT ACT has been rescinded and the thieves with their hands in the cookie jar got slapped when they were found out. And after reading Judge Jone's speech above, it really restored some of my faith in the legal system. But we do have to be sure things like Bush and his group trying to hijack the judiciary branch of the US government do not get away with it.

Hijacking the Judiciary Branch has been one of the publicly stated goals of the religious right wing movement since the Reagan era. They make no effort to conceal the hope they can replace the Supreme Court judges with ones who will overturn Roe V Wade. This affair with the federal attorneys is just an extension of that belief, that it is OK to turn the judicial branch of the US government into a political branch. It isn't OK. Ignoring it as just the Dems looking for dirt on the Reps is foolish.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Without any resistance but for this prick:Because you like having your civil liberties taken away????

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I'm still trying to understand the American Way to legislate laws. Here in Germany the politicians are discussing every stupid laws for weeks or months, which is pretty annoying, but also a result of a system that has 13 political parties and therefore much more Opinions than the US-Dems/Reps majority.

Feingold seems to have read and understand the Act. But what happened to the other Members of Congress? And how was it possible to pass this Act in such a rush? Blind trust? :confused:9/11 is what happened, and unfortunately Bush exploited it instead of addressed it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

Wow. These are indeed some pretty shocking details. Can I define this as corruption? If you aren't a complete idiot you can.



Do you think there will be some regulations to avoid this kind of influence in the future?
I don't know about regulations but the pendulum swings back and forth on a regular basis. We survived the McCarthy era and it looks like we are passed the hump on this one. That is unless the 08 election goes the wrong way. And with the uneasy state of the world, anything is possible.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's the Conspiracy Theory angle thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82360) on this topic. Forget abut the "again" in the topic title, I've duly noted the objections and mentally withdrawn it for the sake of keeping the thread on topic. :D

[SteveGrenard]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2007/05/may_20_gonzales_likely_to_resi.html?hpid=topnews


May 20: Gonzales likely to resign before no-confidence vote

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is likely to resign before the Senate takes up a no-confidence resolution, according to Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. A vote on such a measure could come as early as this week.

"I have a sense ... that before the vote is taken, that Attorney General Gonzales may step down" because of the likelihood that such a resolution would pass, Specter said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "It is a very forceful, historical statement. ... And I think ... that he would prefer to avoid that kind of an historical black mark."

The post blog goes on to report that the issue of he and Card trying to pressure his predecessor in his sick bed in the hospital and other excesses will continue to be explored and investigated. One commenter calls him a "fake amnesia fascist." Sen. Schumer says the only person who still wants Gonzo to be AG is the president.

[pgwenthold]

I have to admit, I don't blame the President for not wanting AGAG to resign. Given the current makeup of the senate, he'd never be able to get anyone anywhere close to AG as the new AG. As long as AG doesn't resign, he is still an AG that will support the initiatives of the president. If he has to be replaced, the senate is never going to approve anyone like AG.

[Tony]

http://www.weirdspace.dk/Looney%20Tunes/Graphics/Speedy%20Gonzales.jpg

[Oliver]

http://www.weirdspace.dk/Looney%20Tunes/Graphics/Speedy%20Gonzales.jpg


hm-EemHYwZQ

[Charlie Monoxide]

hm-EemHYwZQIs this an allegory on the Border Patrol vs the Beaners?

Charlie (funny and relevant cartoon) Monoxide

[Oliver]

Is this an allegory on the Border Patrol vs the Beaners?

Charlie (funny and relevant cartoon) Monoxide


I have no clue what "Beaners" are - but the video is pretty funny if you keep current political issues in mind. Especially the border and Gonzales... :D

[Charlie Monoxide]

I have no clue what "Beaners" are - but the video is pretty funny if you keep current political issues in mind. Especially the border and Gonzales... :DYou need a good dose of Carlos Mencia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Mencia). I never heard of the term before him.

Charlie (Beaner = Latino immigrant, usually illegal) Monoxide

[Darth Rotor]

You need a good dose of Carlos Mencia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Mencia). I never heard of the term before him.

Charlie (Beaner = Latino immigrant, usually illegal) Monoxide

First time I heard the term spoken was in a Cheech and Chong movie, circa 1978. (Up in Smoke or maybe the first Cheech and Chong movie. It was part of a lyric by Chong accompanied by a guitar riff.) Beaner was apparently a common epithet about as early as 100 years before that, in the West, referring specifically to people of Mexican origin.

Beaner
(U.S.) term widely regarded as derogatory, that refers to people of Mexican descent or, more broadly, Latinos.[16][17][18] The term originates from the prevalence of frijoles pintos and other beans in Mexican food.[18][19]
According to The Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the word was first seen in print in 1965, although the term has reportedly been in use at least since the 1940s (perhaps having evolved from previous slurs such as "bean-eater" and "bean-bandit" that were in use since as far back as the 1910s.) [16]
Although the word is generally considered pejorative, its usage is not always overtly offensive and can be fairly benign depending on the context (similar to the term "frog" for a French person.) Though perhaps once considered strictly offensive, it appears that the term may be going through a phase of melioration, where the negative connotation of an ethnic slur is "reclaimed" by those it is directed against and used in a neutral or even positive manner. [16]

I first read the term in a well researched story, "The Cowboys" which took place in the 1870's or 1880's in the West on a cattle drive. (John Wayne later starred in a movie of the same title, nowhere near as good a story as the book. )

ETA: Correction, "bean eater" was the epithet from the book.

DR

[Skeptic Ginger]

You need a good dose of Carlos Mencia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Mencia). I never heard of the term before him.

Charlie (Beaner = Latino immigrant, usually illegal) MonoxideActually, I grew up with the term, beaners, in LA. It's an old slang term for Mexicans but not necessarily illegal immigrants. Cheech and Chong (http://www.cheechandchong.com/) would be typical beaners as well as Mencia.

Edited to add, I just read DR's post above. Clearly Cheech and Chong are indeed the classic beaners.

[hgc]

Actually, I grew up with the term, beaners, in LA. It's an old slang term for Mexicans but not necessarily illegal immigrants. Cheech and Chong (http://www.cheechandchong.com/) would be typical beaners as well as Mencia.

Edited to add, I just read DR's post above. Clearly Cheech and Chong are indeed the classic beaners.


Cheech yes. Chong no. Chong is Canadian Chinese.

[bozothedeathmachine]

Chong is Canadian Chinese.

Those are the people we really have to watch out for.

[ambrose]

If you need additional confirmation that there's some foul play going on here, keep in mind that at least three individuals in the AG's office have resigned since the investigation began.

Oh, and millions of whitehouse emails suddenly (and quite conveniently) went "missing." I can't post URL's yet, but if you do a google search for "missing emails rove", there's a good CNN article. (7th link down)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cheech yes. Chong no. Chong is Canadian Chinese.
Doesn't matter, Chong didn't imitate an ethnic Chinaman did he?

From the WA Post in an article on Mencia and the B word (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701875.html)On his new television show, "Mind of Mencia," funnyman Carlos Mencia is just loving the B-word. He calls himself Comedy Central's "resident beaner." He does bits along the line of "You know you're a beaner when . . ." He has a routine called "Out the Beaner." [snip] The first printed use of "beaner" that the editors of the Historical Dictionary of American Slang could find was in 1965, which would make it relatively recent, as slurs go (its predecessors being "bean-eater" from 1919 and "bean bandit" from 1959). The slang dictionary lists the word as "usually considered offensive." Vernacular language often takes years to find its way from the spoken to the written word.

Those who grew up in the 1970s might remember hearing the term in a stoned-out Cheech and Chong song. Many Latinos in California and the Southwest can recall hearing the word on the streets and schoolyards back in the 1940s, and its use is probably even older...

Born in (the) East LA (http://www.lyricsdownload.com/cheech-marin-and-tommy-chong-born-in-east-la-lyrics.html)(Cheech: )
Took a walk to the corner store
Just to buy a loaf of bread and a box of s`mores
Up pulled a guy in a yellow van
Shiny gold badge flashing in his hand

(Chong: )
He said, alright all you mojados down here
I want you all to hit the floor
I got one thing to ask you and nothing more
So answer in English, if you can
Where were ya born, man

(Cheech: )
Next thing I know, I`m in a foreign land
People talkin so fast, I couldn`t understand
There was nobody there to lend a helping hand
I was cold, it was dark where is a burger stand

I want to go back to East LA
I wish I was back in East LA
I don`t belong here in downtown T.J.
Cause I was born in East LA, ole

I crawled under barbed wire, swam across a stream
Rode in six different trucks packed like a sardine
Walked all day in the burning sun
Now I know what it`s like to be born to run

Up ahead was the promised land
Shining like a star just beyond my hand
All I could see was a golden door
I looked up, a sign said five billion sold

And I was back in East LA
Yes, I was back in East LA
You know I`m never gonna stray
Cause I was born in East LA, oh LA Ah yes, memories of the good ol' days....

[Skeptic Ginger]

If you need additional confirmation that there's some foul play going on here, keep in mind that at least three individuals in the AG's office have resigned since the investigation began.

Oh, and millions of whitehouse emails suddenly (and quite conveniently) went "missing." I can't post URL's yet, but if you do a google search for "missing emails rove", there's a good CNN article. (7th link down)Did you mean this WA Post article? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202408.html)Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, accused the White House of lying about the matter. He was joined by the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), in calling on the White House to join Congress in setting up a "fair and objective process for investigating this matter."

"You can't erase e-mails, not today," Leahy said in an angry speech on the Senate floor. "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes."