White House Finds Trouble Harder to Shrug Off

[Burgold]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301839.html

Analysis
White House Finds Trouble Harder to Shrug Off

By Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A01

MERIDA, Mexico, March 13 -- As President Bush toured ancient Mayan ruins and exchanged toasts with the new Mexican president Tuesday, his aides furiously worked the telephones back to Washington. Another administration official was out, and the attorney general was deflecting calls for his own ouster as well.

The cascade of controversies that followed Bush to Latin America has left a president familiar with weathering crises in uncharted territory. For the first time since taking office, Bush confronts political furors on multiple fronts and an opposition Congress armed with the subpoena power to investigate them.

The response to the dispute over dismissed federal prosecutors underscores the inexperience of a White House accustomed to having its own party in control on Capitol Hill. After first brushing aside suggestions from a Congress that had been reluctant to exercise oversight for the past six years that the firings may have been improper, officials then sought to minimize White House involvement in the mass ouster. Tuesday's release of e-mails documenting the role of key administration figures in the decision to dismiss the prosecutors provoked outrage on both sides of the aisle.

In the past, questions about its actions might have died down without the internal administration e-mails being made public. Now the White House is in the position of explaining why it has repeatedly changed its story.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.), the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Democrats will not let Bush brush aside controversies. "This is going to be a rockier year for the White House because every time there is a perceived mistake, they can fire up an investigation," he said. "It puts the White House on the defensive."

"What you have got is a White House that has become an accountability-free zone that is now facing the reality of checks and balances from Congress," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a member of the House Democratic leadership. "You had a White House that was used to a rubber-stamp Congress for so long that they could get away with anything. This is the kind of stuff that in the past Congress would have put their head in the sand about."

[Burgold]

Gonzales: 'Mistakes Were Made'
But Attorney General Defends Firings of Eight U.S. Attorneys

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031300776.html

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; Page A01

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales took responsibility yesterday for "mistakes" related to the firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year but rejected calls for his resignation from Democrats who accuse him of misleading Congress.

"I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility," Gonzales said. He said he did not know the details of the plan to fire the prosecutors, but he defended the dismissals: "I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision."

The remarks came after the Justice Department released e-mails and other documents showing that, despite months of administration statements to the contrary, the White House more than two years ago initiated the process that led to the dismissals, and that the decisions were heavily influenced by assessments of the prosecutors' political loyalty.

[Burgold]

The loyalty oath thing and hiring or firing attourneys only if they agree completely to support you and your political needs creeps me out.

[stwasm]

What goes around comes around. President Bush, meet Lady Karma.

[twa]

The loyalty oath thing and hiring or firing attourneys only if they agree completely to support you and your political needs creeps me out.

Link?

[Burgold]

Read the full articles posted above.

[headexplode]

What do you expect from George "You can't come to my 'townhall meetings' unless you sign a political loyalty oath beforehand" Bush?

[Burgold]

What do you expect from George "You can't come to my 'townhall meetings' unless you sign a political loyalty oath beforehand" Bush?

Better. I expect better of my President. I want him to rise beyond his limitations and rule with wisdom and nobility.

Well, at least wisdom and fairness...

Well, at least wisdom...

Well, at least common sence...

Well, at least reason...

Well, at least we only have two more years to go.

[headexplode]

Better. I expect better of my President. I want him to rise beyond his limitations and rule with wisdom and nobility.

Well, at least wisdom and fairness...

Well, at least wisdom...

Well, at least common sence...

Well, at least reason...

Well, at least we only have two more years to go.

And then there was Jeb.

Kidding, of course . . .

I hope.

[Buford]

To be fair, every President appoints who he wants at a lot of top jobs. Like JFK giving his brother a sweet gig.

On the other hand, imagine if they didn't flip-flop on the Miers thing and somehow she got through the process to the S.C.. Then this came out that she wanted to fire everyone....or that it happened because of her. Man, that would have been a ****storm.

[headexplode]

To be fair, every President appoints who he wants at a lot of top jobs. Like JFK giving his brother a sweet gig.

On the other hand, imagine if they didn't flip-flop on the Miers thing and somehow she got through the process to the S.C.. Then this came out that she wanted to fire everyone....or that it happened because of her. Man, that would have been a ****storm.

Or at worst a **** tsunami.

[Burgold]

That's fair and I don't really blame Bush for this (although the ultimate buck does stop with him) but he has had a pretty unfortunate cast of characters that he has allied himself to.

[Buford]

That's fair and I don't really blame Bush for this (although the ultimate buck does stop with him) but he has had a pretty unfortunate cast of characters that he has allied himself to.

Don't get me wrong. You're President, then you get to bring in YOUR people. However, they also better be able to do their jobs. Otherwise, its on you.

[headexplode]

The first glaring mistake I see is that Alberto Gonzales is still in his employ. Hell, he was promoted back in '04.

[Buford]

The first glaring mistake I see is that Alberto Gonzales is still in his employ. Hell, he was promoted back in '04.

Well, who knows? He might go the way of Brownie when the President gets back into the country. There are still a lot of admin folks to throw under the bus before Rove finally gets caught.

[twa]

Read the full articles posted above.

Thought I did, help a brother out :D

[Burgold]

Here's one section... there was more in the physical Post if you get it.

The Justice e-mails and internal documents, which were first reported yesterday by The Washington Post, show that political loyalty and positions on signature GOP policy issues loomed large in weighing whether a prosecutor should be dismissed. One e-mail from Sampson, for example, notes that the appointment of Griffin in Little Rock "was important to Harriet, Karl, etc."

[Larry]

Well, the second article, on page 2, implies that one of the guys was fired because he wasn't prosecuting enough immigration cases.

Me, I'd say that if the administration wants to have a policy of enforcing immigration law, then it's perfectly legitimate to demand that the prosecutor carry out that policy.

Now, it also claims that one of them was fired because the GOP wanted him to hurry up an investigation into some Democrats before an election. That one looks a LOT more fishy to me.

[SkinsOrlando]

This isn't the first administration to can people because of politics, this is nothing new.

[Burgold]

This isn't the first administration to can people because of politics, this is nothing new.

It's nothing good either. We should want better, demand better, even if we never get it.

After all, it's healthy to be bitter and frustrated. ;)

[SkinsOrlando]

It's nothing good either. We should want better, demand better, even if we never get it.

After all, it's healthy to be bitter and frustrated. ;)


Sometimes sure, but this situatio IMO is much-a-do about nothing.

[Buford]

Sometimes sure, but this situatio IMO is much-a-do about nothing.

Unless it was you getting fired for being good at your job, but not a political yes-man.

Its nothing new, I agree. Just seems they take all these things that aren't anything new to a whole different level.

[Burgold]

Sometimes sure, but this situatio IMO is much-a-do about nothing.

If you have one hundred "much ados about nothing" do you have nothing or a very big something?


Surrounding yourself with yes-men and looking through rose colored glasses and nepotism is a part of every administration to a degree. It may simply because this is 2007, but the degree of it seems higher. A little nepotism or giving jobs for favors is fine, but this administration has handed out jobs and titles to people completely unqualified, unprepared, and of the wrong mental make-up at times. Now, fairness says that you never know until you know and that they could have made an innocent mistake, but there is a cummulative impact from all the firings or shady hirings that go beyond this one incident.

[Cskin]

So Clinton can fire nearly seven dozen attorneys during his administration but Bush and his confidants can't fire 8 attorneys who they believe aren't performing to their standards.... whether that's political standards or actual performance. huh?

[Buford]

So Clinton can fire nearly seven dozen attorneys during his administration but Bush and his confidants can't fire 8 attorneys who they believe aren't performing to their standards.... whether that's political standards or actual performance. huh?


ahh, the old change of subject move. Classic.

why were they fired until Clinton?

[Larry]

So Clinton can fire nearly seven dozen attorneys during his administration but Bush and his confidants can't fire 8 attorneys who they believe aren't performing to their standards.... whether that's political standards or actual performance. huh?

From the second quoted article, page 1:


Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

[Kilmer17]

They should have just killed them like the Clintons did.

[Burgold]

So Clinton can fire nearly seven dozen attorneys during his administration but Bush and his confidants can't fire 8 attorneys who they believe aren't performing to their standards.... whether that's political standards or actual performance. huh?

Others already dealt with the timing issue, so I'm trimming my post.

What's alarming is not that they chose to fire someone, but that once again they fired them for seemingly political motives and once again everyone is denying knowledge and responsiblity. Rove didn't know about it despite these emails going back and forth. Gonzales didn't know about it despite it happening in his office and signing off on it. The inability to be accountable points to a much worse issue.

[Burgold]

They should have just killed them like the Clintons did.

You're better than that.

[Kilmer17]

You're better than that.


At issue should NOT be the firing of the people. As pointed out, this happens over and over with every administration.

The issue SHOULD be the apparent lack of any chain of command or responsiblility. I'd have no problem with this whatsoever if SOMEONE would step up and say "Yep, I made that call."

And the Clinton jab was lame. But so is most of the feigned outrage over this.

[DCsportsfan53]

just for a little clarification, democrats have been under investigation 5 times more than Republicans since Bush took office. What is being suggested is that these prosecutors were fired because they wanted to investigate Republicans too, or because they refused to go on Democratic witch hunts. I guess we'll see as more facts come out.

[Burgold]

At issue should NOT be the firing of the people. As pointed out, this happens over and over with every administration.

The issue SHOULD be the apparent lack of any chain of command or responsiblility. I'd have no problem with this whatsoever if SOMEONE would step up and say "Yep, I made that call."

And the Clinton jab was lame. But so is most of the feigned outrage over this.

Then we pretty much agree, since I wrote that right above this quote. Although, the idealist in me finds the practice of only wanting rubberstamping yes-men repugnant. However, I agree that this practice is not unique to politics or this administration.

[Kilmer17]

Then we pretty much agree, since I wrote that right above this quote. Although, the idealist in me finds the practice of only wanting rubberstamping yes-men repugnant. However, I agree that this practice is not unique to politics or this administration.


I find most politicians and politics repugnant.

[SkinsOrlando]

Unless it was you getting fired for being good at your job, but not a political yes-man.

Its nothing new, I agree. Just seems they take all these things that aren't anything new to a whole different level.

Bufford,

Being fired for being good at your job but not being a yes man happens every freakin day. I had it happen to me 5 years ago because I didn't play the company politics right. That's just how it works sometimes, not saying it's right by any means but it's just the way it is.

[headexplode]

First poster: Bush did xyz.

Second poster: Well, Clinton did xyz, so therefore it is okay.

Holy vicious cycle, Batman.

[Burgold]

Tell me about it. I fully expect when I'm dead and buried one of my great grandchildren will be talking about the issues of the day and some conservative will say...

Yes, but 142 years ago, Clinton....

[Buford]

Bufford,

Being fired for being good at your job but not being a yes man happens every freakin day. I had it happen to me 5 years ago because I didn't play the company politics right. That's just how it works sometimes, not saying it's right by any means but it's just the way it is.

so that makes it ok?

As the article says. The timing for this hasn't happened before. As the start of an admin? Yes. In the middle? Nope.

[Mufumonk]

Keep in mind that one of them Frederick A. Black who was leading the charge against Abramoff before Bush put a stop to it.

[SkinsOrlando]

so that makes it ok?




Is firing someone for any reason other than job performance ever "ok", not really for a few exceptions(attitude, co-worker interaction etc.) but it happens all the time. The only reason anyone cares in this instance is because there government employees, well government employees are no different than I or anyone else is, you play your cards wrong, you lose. :2cents:

[Buford]

well, I asked because you sort of wrote it off there as it has happened before. Maybe not in need of being corrected?

Add that with the comments about the FBI living up the laws of the Patriot Act....and the issue becomes magnified. Especially since you can't say previous admins handled it the same.

[Hooper]

More than ever before, political views are trumpeting competence.

It ain't good for anybody.

[Zuck]

This isn't the first administration to can people because of politics, this is nothing new.


Does the Attourney General ussually come out afterwards and write an op-ed piece destroying their careers?

[Kilmer17]

Clinton fired people at the beginning to protect Dan Rostenkowski and his and his wifes behinds for the whitewater mess. To claim that timing is an issue in this is nothing but partisan crap.

[Larry]

Clinton fired people at the beginning to protect Dan Rostenkowski and his and his wifes behinds for the whitewater mess. To claim that timing is an issue in this is nothing but partisan crap.

From the second article linked at the beginning of this thread: (And for the second time I've pointed it out):


Although Bush and President Bill Clinton each dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office, legal experts and former prosecutors say the firing of a large number of prosecutors in the middle of a term appears to be unprecedented and threatens the independence of prosecutors.

[Buford]

I'm wondering why the President is saying he's upset with these firings. He knew nothing?

[Predicto]

I posted this a while back, but I think it is apropos here.

My wife works at the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). She has been there since around 1990. The leader of the FDIC when she started was Bill Seidman. Seidman was a true professional who happened to be a Republican Reagan appointee (Bush Senior was in office at the time.) Seidman was brought in to clean up the banks after the Savings and Loan crisis. He was extremely competent and somewhat conservative.

Soon after Clinton was elected, Seidman retired and Clinton put in his own couple of chairmen. They were people with a ton of federal banking regulatory experience. Each was competent, albeit somewhat more liberal than Seidman had been. The key was that they were competent.

In 2001, Bush Jr. is sworn in. Who does he choose? Don Powell. Powell was a small town banker from Amarillo who was known for two things: 1) raising a ton of money for Bush Jr's campaign and 2) utter loyalty to the President. He was an utterly incompetent leader. He knew nothing about bank regulation (except that he didn't like having to deal with bank examiners when he was in his little bank in Amarillo). He completely sucked. On that, both liberals and conservatives who work with my wife in the FDIC agree. Under his leadership, we have cut back on substantive bank examination so far that there is a good chance of another S&L crisis in the next 10 years.

Where is Don Powell now, you may ask? Why, he has been promoted. He is overseeing the rebuilding of the Gulf Region after Katrina. We all know how well that is going.

Cronyism is always a problem in our political system. It is fair, however, to say that this particular administration has raised cronyism to an art form, a level not seen since the corrupt Warren G. Harding Administration.

And no, I'm not just "hating" when I say this. I have seen it over and over with these clowns. Anyone remember the Harriet Meyers appointment to the Supreme Court?

[Kilmer17]

From the second article linked at the beginning of this thread: (And for the second time I've pointed it out):

Yes, Clinton fired people at the beginning of his term for partisan reasons, Bush did it in the middle of his second term for partisan reasons.

Are you really trying to say that the time it happens makes a difference?

[Buford]

pardoned? What are you talking about?

[Larry]

Yes, Clinton pardoned people at the beginning of his term for partisan reasons, Bush did it in the middle of his second term for partisan reasons.

Are you really trying to say that the time it happens makes a difference?

Clinton made political appointments at the beginning of his term. (Remember: This isn't a "pardoning" thread.)

Bush made political appointments at the beginning of his term, too.

And then decided that the partisans he appointed weren't partisan enough.

[Isifhan]

Cronyism is always a problem in our political system. It is fair, however, to say that this particular administration has raised cronyism to an art form, a level not seen since the corrupt Warren G. Harding Administration.


If you want more examples here are some from back in '05:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20050927103057-47920.pdf

In '06

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020801991.html

Time

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1109304,00.html

[Kilmer17]

I fixed it. I meant fired.

The point is this. If you are trying to claim that what Clinton did is different than what Bush did because one happened at the beginning of the term and the other in the middle, then you are showing nothing but a partisan spin.

Both did it for the exact same reasons. Both fired people that disagreed with them and could potentially hurt them and their cause. And then BOTH appointed partisan people sympathetic to their side to fill those spots.

It happens with EVERY administration.

[Mufumonk]

I fixed it. I meant fired.

The point is this. If you are trying to claim that what Clinton did is different than what Bush did because one happened at the beginning of the term and the other in the middle, then you are showing nothing but a partisan spin.

Both did it for the exact same reasons. Both fired people that disagreed with them and could potentially hurt them and their cause. And then BOTH appointed partisan people sympathetic to their side to fill those spots.

It happens with EVERY administration.

Clinton's appointees were subject to congressional review. Funny how that whole Patriot Act works, eh?

[Buford]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html


to Kilmers exact point.


The Clinton Excuse



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


New presidents typically start with a clean slate of U.S. attorneys, appointed by them. That's standard practice.

But from that point forward, the prosecutors are expected to behave with a certain amount of independence.

What's unprecedented about this case is the large-scale purge of U.S. attorneys, in the middle of a presidential term, potentially because they were perceived to be insufficiently partisan.

I've been dumbfounded by all the e-mail I've been getting from people trying to forgive Bush's move by likening it to the generic, whole scale acts of previous presidents. Do people really not understand the distinction?

Well, apparently Bush himself doesn't get the distinction. Or he does, but he's just trying to confuse people.

Early this afternoon in Mexico, Bush repeated this entirely unsupported and disingenuous argument, saying that "there is a lot of confusion about what really has been a customary practice. . . . Past administrations have removed U.S. attorneys, it's their right to do so."

McClatchy Newspapers explains: "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."

This is not a debatable fact -- even within the Bush administration. As Gonzales's former chief of staff Sampson explained to White House lawyers in an Jan. 9, 2006, e=mail: "In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose four-year terms had expired, but instead permitted such U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision.'"


Some other funny/sad things that were said yesterday.


Dana Milbank of The Washington Post examines some of the contradictions:

"'Mistakes were made,' he said in fluent scandalese, but 'I think it was the right decision.'

"'I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice,' he posited, but 'I . . . was not involved in any discussions about what was going on.'

"'Kyle Sampson' -- Gonzales's chief of staff -- 'has resigned,' he said, but 'he is still at the department.'

"And, finally, 'I believe in the independence of our U.S. attorneys,' Gonzales maintained, but 'all political appointees can be removed . . . for any reason.'

[Kilmer17]

Clinton's appointees were subject to congressional review. Funny how that whole Patriot Act works, eh?


You mean the Dem controlled House and Senate? Im sure they were put through the ringer.

[Kilmer17]

Down to the real issue.

Are you on the left up in arms because he fired people for political purposes? Or upset because he did it in the middle of his term?

[alexey]

Predicto's post (46) is very telling. All things considered, there clearly was a "waterfall effect" of incompetence and, I'm sure in some cases, illegal activity. All or most appointed positions were filled without consideration for anything other than relationship with the Administration. This was the case for everything from internal stuff to Iraq reconstruction. We are in the 3rd months of the new Congress and there's already so much stuff coming out. Without a doubt this will be an interesting couple of years. History will not be kind to this administration.

Thanks for the earlier reference on Frederick A. Black and Abramoff connection, found some interesting info on that.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_A._Black

Acting U.S. Attorney in Guam Frederick A. Black was unexpectedly demoted and removed on November 19, 2002, by President George W. Bush from the office he had held since 1991. The federal grand jury criminal investigation Black had been conducting regarding Jack Abramoff was shut down and Black was given "a subsequent order barring him from pursuing public corruption cases." [1]

No further action on the Abramoff case followed until August 2005 when Public Auditor Doris Flores Brooks initiated a new investigation of the Abramoff contract. "The new Guam inquiry remains open."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/08/bush_removal_ended_guam_investigation/

In 2002, Abramoff was retained by the Superior Court in what was an unusual arrangement for a public agency. The Los Angeles Times reported in May that Abramoff was paid with a series of $9,000 checks funneled through a Laguna Beach, Calif., lawyer to disguise the lobbyist's role working for the Guam court. No separate contract was authorized for Abramoff's work.

Guam court officials have never explained the contractual arrangement. At the time, Abramoff was a well-known lobbying figure in the Pacific islands because of his work for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Saipan garment manufacturers, accused of employing workers in what critics called sweatshop conditions.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum said the lobbyist ''has no recollection of his being investigated in Guam in 2002. If he had been aware of an investigation, he would have cooperated fully." Blum declined to respond to detailed questions.

The transactions were the target of a grand jury subpoena issued Nov. 18, 2002, according to the subpoena. It demanded that Anthony Sanchez, administrative director of the Guam Superior Court, turn over all records involving the lobbying contract, including bills and payments.

A day later, the chief prosecutor, US Attorney Frederick A. Black, who had launched the investigation, was demoted. A White House news release announced that Bush was replacing Black.

[alexey]

Down to the real issue.

Are you on the left up in arms because he fired people for political purposes? Or upset because he did it in the middle of his term?
Chuck Schumer may be able to explain this well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKSDKr3LFY

[Buford]

I think if this were an isolated thing. Then it would be a much smaller issue. But now its just another thing to add to the list of things they kept getting caught doing.

Whether its if the info they used for War was tainted. and/or if they knew this but went with it because they wanted war.

Or if its the President learning the details about katrina days later from watching it on T.V.

Or if its the President saying they had nothing to do with Plame. But later saying they did, but he declassified it in a retroactive way

Or if its the NSA and FBI getting caught breaking their own rules when it comes to taping phones

The Clinton admin was filthy. But compared to this one, you'd think they were all good clean people.

[alexey]

Here is another speech by SChumer on the issue, dated 3/12/2007. It's about 22 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5p3S3zAt54

[Kilmer17]

I think if this were an isolated thing. Then it would be a much smaller issue. But now its just another thing to add to the list of things they kept getting caught doing.

Whether its if the info they used for War was tainted. and/or if they knew this but went with it because they wanted war.

Or if its the President learning the details about katrina days later from watching it on T.V.

Or if its the President saying they had nothing to do with Plame. But later saying they did, but he declassified it in a retroactive way

Or if its the NSA and FBI getting caught breaking their own rules when it comes to taping phones

The Clinton admin was filthy. But compared to this one, you'd think they were all good clean people.

As usual, it all depends on which side of the aisle you sit on. They didnt get CAUGHT doing anything wrong, illegal, etc here. It's par for the course in politics. But as usual, the left is here trying to claim their own ***** doesnt stink.

[Kilmer17]

Chuck Schumer may be able to explain this well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKSDKr3LFY


Yes, amazing that a Dem calls for the GOPer to be fired.

Im curios, can we find any evidence of his outrage when Clinton fired US Attorneys? Or is it limited to this because (gasp) it happend in the MIDDLE OF THE TERM. Which somehow in the eyes of the left is a problem. Not the firing itself, just the timing of it.

[Mufumonk]

Down to the real issue.

Are you on the left up in arms because he fired people for political purposes? Or upset because he did it in the middle of his term?

It's that he's the one that appointed them in the first place. And when he realized that they weren't going to be the unethical cronies he had envisioned he wanted them gone. Then he proceeded to use the the Patriot Act to bypass his new appointees being reviewed by the Senate. How shady does this administration have to get before you all decide to flip on the lights?

[The Evil Genius]

As usual, it all depends on which side of the aisle you sit on. They didnt get CAUGHT doing anything wrong, illegal, etc here. It's par for the course in politics. But as usual, the left is here trying to claim their own ***** doesnt stink.

...as much.

And you know what...those little nuances are killer.

[Buford]

Clinton fired ONE mid-term. So, the hit-list thing doesn't apply here. Same for Reagan. Why aren't you comparing this to Ronny?

[alexey]

Yes, amazing that a Dem calls for the GOPer to be fired.

Im curios, can we find any evidence of his outrage when Clinton fired US Attorneys? Or is it limited to this because (gasp) it happend in the MIDDLE OF THE TERM. Which somehow in the eyes of the left is a problem. Not the firing itself, just the timing of it.
It's funny because I just watched the whole video and did not hear a single reference to Clinton. It does talk a lot about how the firing itself is the problem, and timing was only brought up as an issue because of events that happened right before those USAs got fired. You know, events like starting investigations that Administration wanted canned, or refusing to start investigations that Administration wanted started. I know you have a brain, please turn it on now.

By the way, where the heck is the "liberal media"?? One would think they'd be all over this.

[Kilmer17]

Because your taking the most minor part of the whole ordeal (the timing) and extrapolating it out to be the greatest misdeed of all time.

How many did Clinton fire overall?
That's the comparison that needs to be made. Not the timing. But when compared in context, the left loses their talking point for the week. And THAT is the real important issue.

Bottom line, nobody REALLY cares that he fired anyone. All the left is interested in is bashing the President. And this minor issue can be exploited by the media.

[Kilmer17]

It's funny because I just watched the whole video and did not hear a single reference to Clinton. It does talk a lot about how the firing itself is the problem, and timing was only brought up as an issue because of events that happened right before those USAs got fired. You know, events like starting investigations that Administration wanted canned, or refusing to start investigations that Administration wanted started. I know you have a brain, please turn it on now.

By the way, where the heck is the "liberal media"?? One would think they'd be all over this.


You must not watch too much TV. It's been the lead story on every news show for days.

[Mufumonk]

Because your taking the most minor part of the whole ordeal (the timing) and extrapolating it out to be the greatest misdeed of all time.

How many did Clinton fire overall?
That's the comparison that needs to be made. Not the timing. But when compared in context, the left loses their talking point for the week. And THAT is the real important issue.

Bottom line, nobody REALLY cares that he fired anyone. All the left is interested in is bashing the President. And this minor issue can be exploited by the media.

Timing and reasoning. They were too ethical for his liking.

[Isifhan]

Bottom line, nobody REALLY cares that he fired anyone. All the left is interested in is bashing the President. And this minor issue can be exploited by the media.

Just like nobody REALLY cared that there weren't WMD's in Iraq, just like no one REALLY cared that he was briefed on the N.O. leveys...all just minor issues exploited by the media. They don't mount up to much....

What does it take?

[alexey]

Bottom line, nobody REALLY cares that he fired anyone. All the left is interested in is bashing the President. And this minor issue can be exploited by the media.
I'd appreciate it if you could back this up by taking any of the points made here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKSDKr3LFY
or here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5p3S3zAt54
and showing how it does not indicate a real problem that should be investigated.

I suspect that your avoidance of any and all specifics of this case is not accidental.

[Burgold]

Because your taking the most minor part of the whole ordeal (the timing) and extrapolating it out to be the greatest misdeed of all time.

How many did Clinton fire overall?
That's the comparison that needs to be made. Not the timing. But when compared in context, the left loses their talking point for the week. And THAT is the real important issue.

Bottom line, nobody REALLY cares that he fired anyone. All the left is interested in is bashing the President. And this minor issue can be exploited by the media.

Boy, you're really stretching today, Kilmer.

The why doesn't matter, the who doesn't matter, the what doesn't matter, the when doesn't matter, the where doesn't matter... non of the W's matter. The only thing that matters is the H... How many?

[Hooper]

Being partisan is one thing. Consistently appointing underqualified and often flat-out incompetent people because they 100 percent agree with you is another. That's one of my biggest problems with this administration.

[Kilmer17]

I'd appreciate it if you could back this up by taking any of the points made here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdKSDKr3LFY
or here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5p3S3zAt54
and showing how it does not indicate a real problem that should be investigated.


Again, show me where Chuck and Company cared about this BEFORE when it happened, and I'll be happy to change my mind. Until then, their hypocrisy outshouts their vitriol.

[Kilmer17]

Being partisan is one thing. Consistently appointing underqualified and often flat-out incompetent people because they 100 percent agree with you is another. And sadly, that will be part of Dubya's legacy.


Should we make a list of all of the underqualified and incompetent people every other President has appointed as political payback? It all depends on the side of the aisle in which you sit.

[Larry]

Down to the real issue.

Are you on the left up in arms because he fired people for political purposes? Or upset because he did it in the middle of his term?

Me?

I didn't know that wholesale firings were common. No, I'm not in favor of it. I don't think we want federal prosecutors to be political.

OTOH, I don't think we want lifetime appointments, either.

If you read my previous posts, the article mentions two prosecutors who were targeted.

One was because they wanted him to prosecute more immigration violators. That strikes me as a legitimate use of executive oversight.

The other was because the GOP wanted him to hurry up an investigation of two Democrats, right before an election.

I'd say my opinion of their firing depends on why they were fired.

(Now, the fact that the White House has responded to the allegations by a) denying it b) disavowing their subordinates c) releasing half-true spin to try to claim it's routine, and d) smearing the paper that published it, makes me conclude that the thing involves dirty politics. But maybe it's just a Bush administration reflex is to act like they're covering up dirty politics even when they're not.)

[Mufumonk]

Should we make a list of all of the underqualified and incompetent people every other President has appointed as political payback? It all depends on the side of the aisle in which you sit.

Does that mean it should never stop?

[Johnny Punani]

All of this is a joke.

[Kilmer17]

Does that mean it should never stop?

It means it never WILL stop.

[Mufumonk]

It means it never WILL stop.

And it's because of that line of thinking.

[alexey]

Again, show me where Chuck and Company cared about this BEFORE when it happened, and I'll be happy to change my mind. Until then, their hypocrisy outshouts their vitriol.
This will always be the case if one turns a deaf ear to "vitriol" and puts on hypocrisy-colored glasses. :laugh:

I'm having a hard time seing your point. Perhaps you could explain how what happened before is like what happened now?

[Larry]

Yes, amazing that a Dem calls for the GOPer to be fired.

Im curios, can we find any evidence of his outrage when Clinton fired US Attorneys? Or is it limited to this because (gasp) it happend in the MIDDLE OF THE TERM. Which somehow in the eyes of the left is a problem. Not the firing itself, just the timing of it.

No. There was no outrage when Clinton fired attorneys at the begining of his term.

None for Bush 1. None for Bush 2. None for Reagan. (Noticing the pattern here?)

When Bush 2 decides to to something unprecedented, there's outrage.

(And all your efforts to claim this isn't something new, aren't going to get any traction, no matter how many times you repeat them.)

[Kilmer17]

No. There was no outrage when Clinton fired attorneys at the begining of his term.

None for Bush 1. None for Bush 2. None for Reagan. (Noticing the pattern here?)

When Bush 2 decides to to something unprecedented, there's outrage.

(And all your efforts to claim this isn't something new, aren't going to get any traction, no matter how many times you repeat them.)


And no matter how many times you try and make this a big deal, you're still feigning outrage over the TIMING of the firing. IE- You're looking for reasons to be upset about nothing.

And not just the timing, but the timing and the number of firings. Clinton fired one midterm. No outrage about the timing or the fact that he fired one (as it should be).

It's so partisan and such crap Im amazed that the left is even doing this. Then again, Im not.

[Kilmer17]

This will always be the case if one turns a deaf ear to "vitriol" and puts on hypocrisy-colored glasses. :laugh:

I'm having a hard time seing your point. Perhaps you could explain how what happened before is like what happened now?


Presidents fire and hire people for political payback all the time. That's all that happened here.

[alexey]

Presidents fire and hire people for political payback all the time. That's all that happened here.
This is like saying "Congress is always reluctant to investigate same party Presidents, there is nothing special about the 2002 - 2006 Congress"... or like saying "All Presidents used signing statements"... :)

Talking about it in such general terms is misleading, or at best meaningless. Clearly you are reluctant to discuss any specifics, so let's just sit back and wait until more information comes out. Soon enough it will not be so easy for you to do what you're doing here ;)

[Buford]

its called a cop-out. Even after its fact that this specifically hasn't been done like this before, and on this scale. As an earlier after that was posted said. You can have your own opinion, but not your own fact.

a hit list for those who don't tow the line enough?

[Sarge]

If Bush had had balls he would have fired all the left over Klinton appoontees as soon as he became president

[Buford]

If Bush had had balls he would have fired all the left over Klinton appoontees as soon as he became president

Didn't he?

[Sarge]

Didn't he?

Nope. There are so many judges and others at the State Department that are Klinton holdovers

Hell, it took him four years and a war to get rid of Tenant

[Sarge]

A little Blast from the Past


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently."

[Larry]

A little Blast from the Past


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently."

And he was correct.

And the pattern was continued under Bush 2.

But keep spinnin'.

[Hooper]

If Bush had had balls he would have fired all the left over Klinton appoontees as soon as he became president

Klinton with a K? That's cute.

Seriously though, should he have fired all of them because they were incompetent or because they weren't hardcore, tow the line conservatives?

If it's an idealogical thing, then should the next democrat in office fire every previously appointed republican he can, no matter how good they are at their job?

I know it happens too much on both sides of the aisle and it always will, but it doesn't make it right. That's how you get guys like Michael Brown in charge of FEMA.

[alexey]

It will be interesting to watch them wiggle and squirm as new info comes out, people get indicted, etc :)

Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBlpm0HQ2I

[Burgold]

Ugh. Remember the conservative spin on New Orleans. The Federal Government did absolutely everything right. There was no way that the federal government could have anticipated that the city of New Orleans might need additional support. Sure, New Orleans called for help, but they filed the wrong form. There was nothing the President and Congress' hands were tied. They could not legally mobilize or help. Besides, no one knew that Katrina had caused any significant damage. It was only months after that anyone realized that the people of New Orleans needed help.

And then afterwards, how all the money was so well spent and how everything was really done so effectively... even up to today. But that's a different thread.

[Sarge]

And he was correct.

And the pattern was continued under Bush 2.

But keep spinnin'.

Hardly spin. Bush got rid of what, 8 attorenys and the libs are going nuts. Klinton got rid of 93 all at once and backed the judiciary up for years

[Larry]

Hardly spin. Bush got rid of what, 8 attorenys and the libs are going nuts. Klinton got rid of 93 all at once and backed the judiciary up for years

Bush got rid of 8 attorneys and Clinton got rid of one.

When they took office, Bush got rid of virtually all of them. And so did Clinton.

But yep, if you put Clinton's apples in one hand, and Bush's oranges in another, then Clinton's apples are a really big pile.

(And the judiciary got backed up for years because Congress decided not to vote on about half of his judicial nominees, since you've decided to try to bring pears into the discussion, too.)

Care for some bananas?

[Burgold]

The question I always end up with in these threads is "Why?"

Why were they so afraid of objectivity in analysis of criminal actions?

Why do they deny any involvement when there's a paper trail that shows them to be liars?

Why are our fellow posters so determined to defend them at all costs, especially when their defense is an admission of wrong doing? If the defense is... your guys did it too... that's an acknowledgement.

Why do you defend something that you believe is wrong?