[stupendousman]

Clinton fired THEM ALL. Picked every single one by hand. Not a single one for competence reasons.

I don't hear ANYTHING about this on the news. They are acting like there is no precedence for President allowing the prosecutors. I'm not sure it's a GOOD thing that they can and do do it, but it's not unusual and I don't remember any of the Democrats calling for heads when Clinton cleaned house and kept an incompetent AG on for more years than he should.

Of course, I know I'm not MISSING anything. It's simple more of the hypocrisy that most of the media allows to go forward in order to help with their goals of helping the left win battles they otherwise couldn't if the rest of the country knew the truth.

Sad.

[Atheist]

You might want to include some sort of reference in your post... there may be others like myself that haven't a clue what you are talking about.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

You might want to include some sort of reference in your post... there may be others like myself that haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Have you not cracked open a newspaper or watched the news today?

There's a hoohaw because a few of federal attorneys, who serve at the will of the President, where let go because they were ignoring violations of campaign election laws. The "stink" is being spun that it's unusual for the White House to direct firing, or somehow dirty dealing, of these appointed positions when in fact Clinton fired every single one at one point.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Have you not cracked open a newspaper or watched the news today?

As is typical with many Americans... you forget there is a world outside our borders. I don't live in the U.S. And although I am an American, I'm not always up to the minute with what's going on back home.

[Face Ache]

When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.

It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

[OldManMac]

Yes, you are missing something, or you're conveniently ignoring it. Prior to 9/11, the prosecuters served at the president's will and could be fired. However, their replacements had to be confirmed by Congress, within 120 days.

After 9/11, they still serve at the president's will, but, due to a provision in that wonderfully named Patriot Act, the president can just conveniently name whomever he wants, and they don't have to be approved by Congress.

Now you don't think old George would just be doing this to get his own cronies in there, do you? Nah!

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Yes, you are missing something, or you're conveniently ignoring it. Prior to 9/11, the prosecuters served at the president's will and could be fired. However, their replacements had to be confirmed by Congress, within 120 days.

After 9/11, they still serve at the president's will, but, due to a provision in that wonderfully named Patriot Act, the president can just conveniently name whomever he wants, and they don't have to be approved by Congress.

Now you don't think old George would just be doing this to get his own cronies in there, do you? Nah!

[macintologist]

All your lies and distortions have been corrected here

Daily Kos: Clinton Did It Too, and Other Lies Exposed in the Purge Files

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

As always, your deep insightful and well researched conclusions are always welcome here, even when the truth hurts you.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

As always, your deep insightful and well researched conclusions are always welcome here, even when the truth hurts you.

I don't how you live with yourself KarlG

[OldManMac]

Quite well, and thanks for your concern.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

All your lies and distortions have been corrected here

Daily Kos: Clinton Did It Too, and Other Lies Exposed in the Purge Files

I looked, and I don't see a single place where it uncovered a "lie" on my part. Your false accusation is noted.

[subego]

I also seem to recall something about Rove being the clearinghouse for complaints about prosecutors.

That's certainly odd.

[tie]

Besides abusing the Patriot Act (again), the administration also lied to lawmakers in both parties about the dismissals. Of course that's par for the course for this administration, but it seems the Democrats are going to be more aggressive about trying to stop it. I think Gonzalez will have to resign, since he still seems to be, at best, avoiding telling the truth.

For example, here is a direct quote from Issa, a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee:

Both the House and the Senate were deceived by individuals who were given bad information and sent down to literally say what others, including Kyle Sampson, knew was not true. That kind of hubris by this administration has to be cleared up, and everyone responsible has to be held accountable.
...
I can't speak to every one of these U.S. attorneys, but I do expect this administration to give us now the details of the process, not because they owed it to us initially, but they owe it to us now because we've been deceived and, in our oversight, we have a right to know how we got told things which were not true.
...
So let's not mix whether or not these people should have been let go or the president had a right to do, with the fact that all of us want to know who led Congress astray. The House and the Senate were lied to, not by the people that were sent to the Hill, but by the people who sent them there. And every one of those people owes us a resignation.

And that's the difference, perhaps, between what the Democrats are walking around. If someone led us astray, they should resign. And I don't care how high it is: Anyone involved with this cover-up of giving us the truth needs to step down.
...
I'm including anybody who would mislead, deliberately mislead the Congress, and the senator is absolutely right. Resigning doesn't change the fact that we're going to get to the bottom of who knew and failed to let us know what -- well, members of the government were being sent to us to give us false information.

That's not tolerable ever, by either party, because we have an obligation. We were simply using our legitimate oversight responsibility in the House and the Senate. And then we were lied to by well-meaning young men who came up to give testimony, that they were given false. And that irritates us beyond belief.

And if it's the attorney general who had a hand in it, then he will have to step down. It certainly included Kyle Sampson, and he has stepped down.

And the senator is right: We're not going to quit until every one of these people has testified and we know the whole truth about the failure to be candid about these firings.

(link)
There are similar quotes from other Republicans, and also from Democrats.

[macintologist]

Bush is definitely turning out to be the worst president of this era (post WW2)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Bush is definitely turning out to be the worst president of this era (post WW2)

If the standard is who he replaced, he's got a long ways to go. Seriously. Not that I think that the guy who he replaced was that bad if you overlook his complete and total lack of ethics. Bush has a long way to go before he sells out our country to China and Indonesia, encourages our enemies to think that they can attack us without serious retribution, turns an entire government agency into a branch of his political party for financial gain, and gets himself impeached for blatantly lying under oath.

Really. Some perspective would be great.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Bush is definitely turning out to be the worst president of this era (post WW2)

LAWL! The desperation of the anti-bushies is humorous.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

LAWL! The desperation of the anti-bushies is humorous.

Including those Republican anti-bushies

[:dragonflypro:]

The only thing they (R) did wrong was try to conceal the firings when they didn't need to. Other than that they did nothing wrong.

When Reno was appointed in 1993 she dismissed all but one U.S. Attorney and all of them were Republican appointees (Bush 1).

There is a non-issue story.

[tie]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

The only thing they (R) did wrong was try to conceal the firings when they didn't need to. Other than that they did nothing wrong.
...
There is a non-issue story.

Perhaps, but lying to Congress to cover something up is pretty serious.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Perhaps, but lying to Congress to cover something up is pretty serious.

Well, given that Bush himself had nothing to do with it, it's again a moot point in bashing him.

Every President up until Clinton gradually replaced the attorneys. Clinton, since himself and several friends where under investigation for criminal behavior, axed them all once getting into office. Now Hillary complains. Some balls on that brawd!

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Well, given that Bush himself had nothing to do with it, it's again a moot point in bashing him.

I'm not sure what your point is. Gonzales is the one being bashed. How soon do you think before he is gone, with this and the FBI problems? I guess within the next two weeks.

Bush comes into it because once again he has incompetent and dishonest officials at the highest levels.

[kobi]

The bottom line is that these Prosecutors were fired because they weren't useful to the Bush administration any longer. Plus at least one was investigating Bush's buddy Jack Abramoff. One of the now fired Prosecutors in Guam was investigating Jack Abramoff and his White House connection in 2002, he was then fired and the new prosecutor didn't continue the investigation. (Link to story is below)

Seriously now, how many times does Bush get to screw up before he is impeached?

It's going to interesting to see Gonzales crawfish in front of Congress.

Story Link
Bush removal ended Guam investigation - The Boston Globe

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm not sure what your point is. Gonzales is the one being bashed.

From this thread...

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Bush is definitely turning out to be the worst president of this era (post WW2)

Bush comes into it because once again he has incompetent and dishonest officials at the highest levels.

And Clinton didn't? Gonzales looks like Supreme Court material next to Janet Reno.

[malvolio]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Really. Some perspective would be great.

Here's some perspective for you:

From time to time, after hours, I kick back with my colleagues at Princeton to argue idly about which president really was the worst of them all. For years, these perennial debates have largely focused on the same handful of chief executives whom national polls of historians, from across the ideological and political spectrum, routinely cite as the bottom of the presidential barrel. Was the lousiest James Buchanan, who, confronted with Southern secession in 1860, dithered to a degree that, as his most recent biographer has said, probably amounted to disloyalty -- and who handed to his successor, Abraham Lincoln, a nation already torn asunder? Was it Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, who actively sided with former Confederates and undermined Reconstruction? What about the amiably incompetent Warren G. Harding, whose administration was fabulously corrupt? Or, though he has his defenders, Herbert Hoover, who tried some reforms but remained imprisoned in his own outmoded individualist ethic and collapsed under the weight of the stock-market crash of 1929 and the Depression's onset? The younger historians always put in a word for Richard M. Nixon, the only American president forced to resign from office.

Now, though, George W. Bush is in serious contention for the title of worst ever. In early 2004, an informal survey of 415 historians conducted by the nonpartisan History News Network found that eighty-one percent considered the Bush administration a "failure." Among those who called Bush a success, many gave the president high marks only for his ability to mobilize public support and get Congress to go along with what one historian called the administration's "pursuit of disastrous policies." In fact, roughly one in ten of those who called Bush a success was being facetious, rating him only as the best president since Bill Clinton -- a category in which Bush is the only contestant.

The lopsided decision of historians should give everyone pause. Contrary to popular stereotypes, historians are generally a cautious bunch. We assess the past from widely divergent points of view and are deeply concerned about being viewed as fair and accurate by our colleagues. When we make historical judgments, we are acting not as voters or even pundits, but as scholars who must evaluate all the evidence, good, bad or indifferent. Separate surveys, conducted by those perceived as conservatives as well as liberals, show remarkable unanimity about who the best and worst presidents have been.

Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about "the current crop of history professors" than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing. But if historians were simply motivated by a strong collective liberal bias, they might be expected to call Bush the worst president since his father, or Ronald Reagan, or Nixon. Instead, more than half of those polled -- and nearly three-fourths of those who gave Bush a negative rating -- reached back before Nixon to find a president they considered as miserable as Bush. The presidents most commonly linked with Bush included Hoover, Andrew Johnson and Buchanan. Twelve percent of the historians polled -- nearly as many as those who rated Bush a success -- flatly called Bush the worst president in American history. And these figures were gathered before the debacles over Hurricane Katrina, Bush's role in the Valerie Plame leak affair and the deterioration of the situation in Iraq. Were the historians polled today, that figure would certainly be higher.

Source

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

FOXNews.com - Attorney General Gonzales: I Acknowledge Mistakes Were Made in Firing of U.S. Attorneys - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

In case anyone missed this key line from the quote posted by Face Ache, I will post it again.

It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.

Yes, it is normal for a President to fire all the US attorneys when he takes office and replace them with his own appointments. No, it is not normal for the same President to subsequently fire a bunch of the ones he appointed. That latter fact, coupled with reports that the current round of firings were motivated by political decisions coming from the White House, is what makes this story significant.

In simpler terms, a President does something that most President's don't normally do--fire a bunch of US attorneys he himself had appointed--and when the press queried the responsible oversight agencies discovers that there is a high probability that these firings were retaliatory, punishments as it were. That is what makes this story news-worthy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

LAWL! The desperation of the anti-bushies is humorous.

How many do you think were really worse? Truman? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Ford? Carter? Reagan? The other Bush?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by malvolio 

Here's some perspective for you

An article quoting sources from higher education, which studies have shown doesn't have a politically diverse population (IOW, are liberally biased), is perspective? Next time, just tell me what your local Democrat chairman thinks. I'd never expect the two perspectives NOT to be the same.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In case anyone missed this key line from the quote posted by Face Ache, I will post it again.

So could you tell me why Bush would have CHOOSEN a Democrat who decided not to persue investigations into democratic voter fraud as a US Attorney? He's one of the guys ousted after all.

Again...much hullaballoo over nothing.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How many do you think were really worse?

Truman? No
Eisenhower? No
Kennedy? About the same
Johnson? Worse
Nixon? Worse
Ford? About the same
Carter? Worse
Reagan? No
The other Bush? No

[kobi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again...much hullaballoo over nothing.

Right that is why Congress is getting involved because this is nothing.

Subpoenas were just approved, it looks like Rove will get one after next weeks vote.

Also it looks like Gonzales might be the card to bring down Bush.

Shortly before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush last year on whether to shut down a Justice Department inquiry regarding the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation, according to government records and interviews.

Bush personally intervened to sideline the Justice Department probe in April 2006 by taking the unusual step of denying investigators the security clearances necessary for their work.

It is unclear whether the president knew at the time of his decision that the Justice inquiry -- to be conducted by the department's internal ethics watchdog, the Office of Professional Responsibility -- would almost certainly examine the conduct of his attorney general.

That my friends is what is called Obstruction of Justice. It's going to interesting to see how this is spun.

Link to article: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0315nj1.htm

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Right that is why Congress is getting involved because this is nothing.

Right. Glad you agree. Who is it that controls Congress these days, anyways.

Also it looks like Gonzales might be the card to bring down Bush.

You BushHaterz™ get funnier by the minute. I guess per desperation does that to you. If Clinton couldn't be brought down by directly LYING under oath in a legal preceding, it's going to be tough to bring down Bush when he didn't do anything illegal or improper. GOOD LUCK though! When the next election comes up, the Democrats can crow about how much important work they did looking for jaywalkers and gossipers during their term in office. It ought to work wonders!T

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

An article quoting sources from higher education, which studies have shown doesn't have a politically diverse population (IOW, are liberally biased), is perspective?

"Studies have shown..." ???

Sounds academic to me. I wouldn't trust studies.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Right. Glad you agree. Who is it that controls Congress these days, anyways.

It is bipartisan. x2

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

It is bipartisan. x2

Wow...there are co-speakers and co-chairmen? Whodathunk!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

"Studies have shown..." ???

Sounds academic to me. I wouldn't trust studies.

They weren't opinion polls taken of pretty clear partisans, so I'd say there's at least something to be said of it. Oh..doh! Actually it was. Polls where taken from a representative sample of those working in higher education, and an obscenely lopsided ratio of professors, administrators, etc. were either Democrats or considered themselves "liberal".

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Wow...there are co-speakers and co-chairmen? Whodathunk!

No, but see my earlier post, which included quotes from a Republican. Read a newspaper if you want more quotes from Republicans criticizing the administration on this issue and saying that Gonzales should resign. This makes it bipartisan. By and large, the Republicans are in agreement with the Democrats on this issue.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They weren't opinion polls taken of pretty clear partisans, so I'd say there's at least something to be said of it. Oh..doh! Actually it was. Polls where taken from a representative sample of those working in higher education, and an obscenely lopsided ratio of professors, administrators, etc. were either Democrats or considered themselves "liberal".

Are you suggesting that intelligence = liberalism?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Are you suggesting that intelligence = liberalism?

No. Inferred elitism = liberalism.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, but see my earlier post, which included quotes from a Republican. Read a newspaper if you want more quotes from Republicans criticizing the administration on this issue and saying that Gonzales should resign.

A small handful, playing the game. You had democrats saying the same about Reno. For the most part, it's a tiny power play, trying to show the executive branch whose boss.

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A small handful, playing the game.

Do you have quotes to back this up? I haven't seen them.

Interesting quote from the NY Times:

Former Justice Department officials expressed surprise that some United States attorneys received inquiries from Republican lawmakers about corruption investigations or voter fraud prosecutions aimed at Democrats. It is a practice that Mr. Gonzales should make clear is unacceptable, several argued, by repeating a directive that went out in the Carter administration.

“That is not done — it is a terrible practice,” said Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. “It is just highly improper.”

[subego]

Anyone catch how Mr. Loyalty threw Harriet Miers under the bus in an eyeblink?

What a gentleman.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

Interesting quote from the NY Times:

I agree. I think that members of Congress should stay out of it. Still

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree. I think that members of Congress should stay out of it.

So you basically agree, but have nothing to add to this thread besides obnoxious smileys?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

So you basically agree, but have nothing to add to this thread besides obnoxious smileys?

It was I that asked for others to add. I already admitted that all I had was the snoozing smiley.

I still haven't found anything that's much more than a little bad decision making on how to do something 100% legal.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I still haven't found anything that's much more than a little bad decision making on how to do something 100% legal.

So anything's fair as long as it's "legal"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I still haven't found anything that's much more than a little bad decision making on how to do something 100% legal.

Well, if you consider perjury to be only a "little" bad decision, feel free to perjure yourself and see if the court agrees with you.

When will people learn that perjuring yourself about the most insignificant thing gets you in a ridiculous amount of trouble.

[HackManDan]

Sen. Feinstein's take:

Why Democrats are raising a stink - Los Angeles Times

"U.S. attorneys...are responsible to the people of the United States — not just the president — and they must be independent and objective."

[OldManMac]

Stupendousman (now there's a moniker for you), if you had checked any other sources besides the ones which are favorable to your point of view (in other words, those that keep bringing what Clinton did wrong, so they can forget about what Bush is doing wrong), you would have found that George Bush fired almost all the prosecutors when he came into office in 2001. It is also highly unusual for any president to fire a number of them at near the end of his term/s in office. But, don't let any facts get in your way, and don't forget to remind us that Bill Clinton was a bad boy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

So anything's fair as long as it's "legal"?

How old are you?

Before Bush came in, it was "it doesn't matter if it's fair or legal, just as long as they can't prove it in a court of law, regardless of what that takes".

I've become numb to complaints that things just aren't "fair" after we had 8 years of "no controlling legal authority". Sorry. That's what dumbing down standards does.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

When will people learn that perjuring yourself about the most insignificant thing gets you in a ridiculous amount of trouble.

Well, they really didn't feel that during the past 8 years. Otherwise, Clinton would have gotten more than a slap on the wrist for his perjury. If Bill Clinton can lie under oath while in office, I don't have much worry that Bush himself (who didn't) is in much hot water, despite the desperate caws from the far left.