kallend 2,182 #26 March 19, 2007 QuoteQuote Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty defended the firing of seven US attorneys since March, saying they were not political. www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/07/justice_department_official_denies_firings_were_political/ One was fired to make way for one of Karl Rove's cronies, another one was the successful prosecutor of corrupt GOP Congressman Duke Cunningham. "Not political", ...And your insignificant point is??? Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the sitting President. If the Chief wants to sack some of the last President's appointees, that is his prerogative under the law. Klinton sacked EVERY US attorney, and nobody squawked about that, iirc, except the Usual Suspects(tm); e.g., those on the other side of the political aisle. There is a selective amnesia (even myopia) that seems to affect the body politic that extends down to political / news junkies... mh . What part of "deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty defended the firing of seven US attorneys since March, saying they were not political" did you not understand?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #27 March 19, 2007 QuoteQuote When did Bush lie? I think the first one was "I'm a uniter, not a divider" The Bush administration has put together one of the most effective propoganda machines in history. Amazing performances. I'd say they are the best since, . . . . well, . . . . Clinton. My point is that politicians, thru the normal process of learning from those that came before them, are getting better all the time at fucking people over and convincing them it is for their own good. I have no doubt the next administration, regardless of party, stands a good chance of setting even higher standards. I do love the stuff Letterman does on Bush. Hilarious. I wonder if he (Bush) is capable of forming a complete sentence if it is not printed out in front of him?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #28 March 19, 2007 >If the Chief wants to sack some of the last President's appointees, that >is his prerogative under the law. We've gone from "bringing integrity back to the White House" to : "it's really not so bad that the White House outed undercover CIA agents for political reasons; heck, she was barely undercover anyway" "the conviction of White House aides for lying under oath really isn't that big a deal" "well, sure they're dishonest, but they're not much more dishonest than the last guy" How far we've come. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #29 March 19, 2007 Quote>If the Chief wants to sack some of the last President's appointees, that >is his prerogative under the law. We've gone from "bringing integrity back to the White House" to : "it's really not so bad that the White House outed undercover CIA agents for political reasons; heck, she was barely undercover anyway" "the conviction of White House aides for lying under oath really isn't that big a deal" "well, sure they're dishonest, but they're not much more dishonest than the last guy" How far we've come. But, is there a connection between the two? I don't like how many people answer one thing by bringing up another.....drawing a reference point or showing precendence is one thing....but throwing another political volley just to score a point doesn't make much sense to me anymore. I've been watching this whole thing and still can't figure out what the real issue is. It seems the Dem's are lining up whatever ammunition they can for the upcoming election...but it also seems this has surfaced to scare this current Administration. Has it all just been political flexing. As it has been said before, Regan, Bush and Clinton all did the same in the past - why make noise about this? Maybe I haven't paid enough attention to what seems more like a non-issue to me than something worthy of front-page news. Aren't there other issues worth more discussion on? Now, if there is some connection to the Scooter Libby trial then I would have to say the noise is warranted._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #30 March 19, 2007 QuoteAs it has been said before, Regan, Bush and Clinton all did the same in the past - why make noise about this? Timing. Previous presidents did so at the start of their terms, not in the middle of the second term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #31 March 19, 2007 >I've been watching this whole thing and still can't figure out what the real issue is. The real issue is that if US attorneys - the people responsible for prosecuting crimes in the US - can be fired whenever they discover a crime that might hurt a certain political party, then that party will be effectively above the law. That is bad, no matter which side of the aisle it happens on. Imagine the stink if Clinton had had Ken Starr fired before he completed his investigation, and then proceeded to fire/pressure out of office any other person investigating his actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #32 March 19, 2007 > Did anyone make a fuss about whether it was political when Clinton did it? Screamed bloody murder is more like it. Right wingers have a very selective memory when it comes to their own actions. ------------------------------- Washington Times, March 26, 1993 Senate and House Republicans yesterday blasted the White House and the Justice Department for giving pink slips to virtually all 93 U.S. attorneys, a move Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole called the "March massacre" . . . . "Nearly 20 years ago, when Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Eliot Richardson were fired from their posts, the press railed about the so-called 'Saturday-night massacre,' " said Mr. Dole. Texas Rep. Dick Armey, chairman of the House Republican Conference, and about a dozen freshmen colleagues accused Attorney General Janet Reno of bowing to White House political pressure. "During her confirmation, Miss Reno assured senators that she would 'keep politics out of what I do,' " Mr. Armey said. "Less than a month later, she fired all the U.S. attorneys in a very political fashion . . . one that reeks of politics, undermining the public's confidence in the Department of Justice." -------------------------------- UPI, March 26, 1993 Senate Republican Leader Robert Dole asked the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday to investigate the mass firing by Attorney General Janet Reno of all 93 U.S. attorneys. In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a "severe blow to the administration of justice in this country." He said, "The American people deserve a Justice Department that takes a back seat to politics and one that functions efficiently." -------------------------------- Associated Press -- March 31, 1993 Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said President Clinton's "political - and, yes, impatient - desire to select his own U.S. attorneys will force much of the department's important work to come to a screeching halt. Justice will suffer." --------------------------------- Washington Times Editorial, March 28, 1993 All of the U.S. attorneys have important cases and investigations pending. . . Now, as it happens, we know little of how the decision to ask for the immediate resignations of the U.S. attorneys was made. We do know it was a co-production of the White House and the Justice Department - including, presumably, a murky role for the murky Webster Hubbell, Hillary Rodham Clinton's former law partner, who occupies an office at the Justice Department in the hitherto unknown and constitutionally dubious capacity as "liaison" to the White House. . . . Meanwhile, a House committee has taken up the reauthorization of the independent counsel law, which expired in December. Wouldn't it be delicious if the first use of a revitalized law were to look into the propriety of the Clinton administration's decision to fire the U.S. attorneys? -------------------------------- AP March 25, 1993 President Clinton rejected Republican complaints Thursday about the demand that all presidentially appointed U.S. attorneys resign. He called it less political than replacing them one by one. "All those people are routinely replaced, and I have not done anything differently," Clinton said during an Oval Office photo session. "... I think the blanket decision (for resignations) is less political than picking people out one by one.". . Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., issued a statement criticizing Attorney General Janet Reno for a "March Massacre" and comparing her actions to those of President Nixon during Watergate. ----------------------------------------------- Rush Limbaugh March 25, 1993 LIMBAUGH: (Voiceover) ...The New York Times had an editorial, 'Janet Reno Starts Badly.' And they go on to talk about all of the--the possible conflicts, or the appearances of impropriety that the--clearly exist here. Now do you remember something, folks? Remember when Richard Nixon issued a sweeping order for a bunch of people to got--to be gotten rid of? They called that, back then, 'an obstruction of justice.' Remember that? Remember Watergate--that Saturday night massacre? 'Why, he can't do that. Why, that's an obstruction of justice.' And this may end up being the same thing. But what are they calling? Hey, it's just politics as usual. Hey, don't bother us about it. It's our right. We're the new administration.' But it is suspicious; very suspicious looking. 'The appearance of impropriety;' remember, that's what a bunch of people said is all we needed to get rid of Ed Meese. Well, my friends, ever since that happened, when he was attorney general for Reagan; the appearance of impropriety--that's all you need. They always say, the attorney general; that's a s--that's a different standard than any other Cabinet post, because that's the administration of law and order. Number one law enforcement official. 'All we need,' they said back then, did the liberal Democrats, 'was the appearance of impropriety.' He's disqualified. I think we have it here. I think we have a pretty huge appearance of impropriety, and I just want to call your attention to it, show you the double standard which exists. Nobody except me, and--well, what an alliance--the New York Times... ------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
