Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'll play along. This thing has been bungled from the start. Yes. Bush can fire his own appointees. However, as the article reports here: "Democrats have accused the Justice Department and the White House of purging the prosecutors for political reasons. The Bush administration maintains the firings were not improper because U.S. attorneys are political appointees." The answer the Adminstration gived for the firings is non-responsive. When asked why they did it, saying "because we can" is not an answer to the question and they know it. It begins to tick people off when they have to further say "no, why exactly did you fire these eight people, and don't say because you could." When you tell a child not to eat the cookies because it's close to dinner, and the kid eats one anyway, when you ask he did it you don't want to hear "because they taste good", you want to know why he disobeyed. Here's another disturbing pattern: "Gonzales has said he relied heavily on his former chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to orchestrate the dismissals. E-mails show Sampson, who resigned under fire March 12, considering whether prosecutors were "loyal Bushies" as one factor in demanding their resignations." Sound familiar? Cheney threw his chief of staff under the bus, too. Doesn't anyone take responsibility in the Bush White House? Even when Bush took the blame for Katrina, he still ragged on the military at the same time. U.S. Attorneys shouldn't be evaluated on their "loyalty to the president". They have an obligation as lawyers to do what's proper under the law, and to prevent abuse of the power of their office whenever the need arises. We've all been through this exercise before. It's no accident Pete Dominici called one of the attorneys in his state around election time. He doesn't deny calling and he doesn't deny the essentials of the comversation. Someone like Dominici wouldn't even know to make that call unless he was asked to do so. Who would make such a request? Three guesses, and the first two don't count. This bit about subpoenas is also just making an ugly situation worse. It's hard to say the Democrats aren't grandstanding a little, but then again, what choice do they have? The Justice Department (read Gonzales) has been caught with its pants down. This can also be traced to at least Harriet Miers, another legal genius, and Rove's stench is everywhere too, because the accusations are being made that these attorneys were asked to indirectly affect the latest elections. Whenever there's hard core dirty election strategy, there's Rove. And so now, we all know that Gonzales wasn't as in the dark about this as he first claimed. His impromptu press appearance last week was a stuttering, stammering mess in which he contradicted himself. He was involved in politically motivated firings and he knows it. To try and color this as job performance issues is to pile one lie on top of another one. History has shown us whenever something like this breaks no good ever comes from it, and our government becomes more tainted. There are intelligent people in this Administration, somewhere, I think. Why none of them have learned from history and/or then done something about it is a mystery. I just cannot fathom why anyone would take a career bullet for this Administration at this stage of the game.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The answer the Adminstration gived" gived?????? "when you ask he did it" why why why "of the comversation." conversation The King of Typos is in full bloom this morning.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/26/navarrette/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/ 26/navarrette/index.html</a> One of Gonzales' defenders in the media is reassessing his position. He sees the contradictory statements, and says Gonzales should apologize and testify truthfully once and for all.
Originally Posted By DAR I'm going to make a bold prediction here. Whoever gets elected in 08 will also fire some US Attorney's. And the opposite party will very likely make a fuss about pretty much nothing. Sorry but it wasn't a big deal when Clinton fired all 93 and the 7 that Bush got rid of is no big deal either.
Originally Posted By jonvn There probably won't be a fuss if they get fired. There is a fuss now because there was evasion and dishonesty, and that came about because the firings were politically motivated, it seems right now.
Originally Posted By gadzuux This situation isn't comparable to a new administration clearing the decks for their own hires. In this case, they hand-picked eight (not seven) attorneys, and asked for their resignation after evaluating them from a political perspective. If that's all they did, that would've been the end of it. But instead they smeared these attorneys and said that the cause of termination was due to poor performance and for just cause. That's just not true. They lied - and they lied about their own colleagues that had earlier been appointed by them - and in the process reduced the stature of these people - for their own political purposes. As others have pointed out, these attorneys bear the responsibility for law enforcement, and a level of impartiality is required. We don't want the justice department going after people and corporations just because they've been instructed to do so by the white house. The bush administration wanted to turn the justice department into their own private pit-bull that could be sic'd upon anyone who was out of their favor. The constitution is a doormat to these people.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sorry but it wasn't a big deal when Clinton fired all 93 and the 7 that Bush got rid of is no big deal either." You're kidding, right? No big deal? The AG has already been caught telling contradictory stories about this, and members of both parties want his head not only because of that but also because this is appearing more and more to be apurge of attorneys who wouldn't use their office to help Republicans get elected. This definitely is NOT the same as Clinton bringing in his own people, or any other president before that.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors</a> And now Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings, is going to plead the Fifth at upcoming Senate hearings. Yeah, they all got nothin' to hide.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Don't be so hard on yourself, Mr. King of the Typos. Post #160, typos and all, is a harsh but fair assessment.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Don't be so hard on yourself, Mr. King of the Typos. Post #160, typos and all, is a harsh but fair assessment." Well, thanks. Even some of my corrections were off, but what the heck. What kills me about this entire episode is that this was entirely their own doing. You'd like to believe, want to believe that the reported arrogance of this group is somewhat overblown, but this type of thinking and behavior boggles the mind. This was wrong from its inception through its completion, and no one apparently thought enough to stepped forward and stop it. So far, there are two things that make this especially bad for me. One, I could tell Gonzales was not forthcoming during his Q+A last week. He's a horrible liar. When that happens, you just know nothing good is going to come from it. It's like a slow suicide. Two, in the grand scheme of things, they took a relatively routine practice and botched it royally because of their imperialistic nature, giving their critics all the ammunition they need to say that they can't be trusted on anything. To paraphrase Casey Stengel, can't anybody here play this game? Are they that insulated from reality to think they can continue to function like this? The war has been a disaster since after Year One, public approval continues to erode, they lost both houses as a result, and yet they don't have the foresight and gumption to 'fess up when it is obvious they've been snared? Whoever is calling the shots in this scenario needs to remove themselves from the process, because nothing is working.
Originally Posted By DAR <<You're kidding, right? No big deal? The AG has already been caught telling contradictory stories about this, and members of both parties want his head not only because of that but also because this is appearing more and more to be apurge of attorneys who wouldn't use their office to help Republicans get elected. This definitely is NOT the same as Clinton bringing in his own people, or any other president before >> Sorry I just find the whole thing to be a little boring. I just can't muster up any excitement or outrage.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Sorry I just find the whole thing to be a little boring. I just can't muster up any excitement or outrage." That's really scary.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Just to throw a little kindling on the fire, there are those who say that when Clinton fired all 93 attorneys, it was not to clean house, but to make it appear as if he wanted to clean house, when he was actually targeting just one or two of all those attorneys - for political purposes. But we're never supposed to bring up Clinton, so never mind. (-;
Originally Posted By gadzuux There are those who say? Well yeah, there are those who will say any manner of vicious and unsupported gossip about the clintons, taking joy in vilifying them, whether or not it has any truth to it. It's practically a bloodsport in GOP circles. Remember the rumors about clinton at the end of his second term defiling 'air force one'? Pulling the "W" keys off of the white house computer keyboards? Murdering ron brown and vince foster? It's the hand of the "architect" - karl rove - serving up lies for the faithful. Don't be so easily misled. >> giving their critics all the ammunition they need to say that they can't be trusted on anything. << Why would nnybody trust them on anything? That's not partisan politics, it's just common sense. >> "I just can't muster up any excitement or outrage." << Our nation's top law enforcement official is lying to congress and the american people. Now they're pleading the fifth amendment to keep from either incriminating themselves or perjuring themselves. Just another day in the republican party zeitgiest I guess.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Remember the rumors about clinton at the end of his second term defiling 'air force one'?<< Now, now, let's keep all the unsubstantiated rumors straight, shall we? >>Pulling the "W" keys off of the white house computer keyboards?<< That was said of Al Gore's bitter staff. >>Murdering ron brown...<< THAT was Bill. >>...and vince foster?<< That was Hillary. Remember? But then, it really cuts both ways, doesn't it? There are those who will say any manner of vicious and unsupported gossip about the Bush administration, taking joy in vilifying them, whether or not it has any truth to it. It's practically a bloodsport in Dem circles.
Originally Posted By DAR <<That's really scary.>> Like I said I really wish I could care about this and I know it's something that I should care about, but I just can't.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Like I said I really wish I could care about this and I know it's something that I should care about, but I just can't." With all due respect, you should. It's tantamount to not caring about the system of checks and balances inherent in the three branches of government.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Actually, DAR, no one can make you care or get excited about all this; but you really should at least understand why this situation and Clinton (or Reagan or the majority of incoming presidents, including George W. Bush himself) replacing attorneys at the beginning of their terms are not comparable situations, as you seem to imply in #163.
