news.yahoo.com— They're calling the firing of the 8 prosecutors unprecedented, but imagine if the White House had gotten its original wish.
Mar 13, 2007View in Crawl 4
Clinton firing US attorneys is irrelevent. And it does not matter how many Bush wanted to fire. As chief executive, he has the power to run the executive branch how he sees fit. End of StoryMove along people, nothing to see here.
Isn't this exactly what President Clinton did? Didn't he fire ALL of the federal prosecutors when he took office? And he rushed to do it apparently to save Dan Rostenkowski who was about to come under indictment.And those that say it isn't relevant appear to be ignorant of the historical facts.
Investigating Gonzales and Bush for replacing a few U.S. Attorneys is like prosecuting a drug cartel for tax evasion. Apparently the Democrats don't feel they can make a case against the destruction of Habeas Corpus and our treaty commitments under the Geneva Convention, so they pick up on little stuff like this.The big question is, why? Are Dems spineless weasels all, or is this a brilliant Machiavellian power play? Why doesn't our system protect itself against fundamental attacks on the Constitution with more direct measures?
What amazes me about all of this banter back and forth is that those all fired up by these firings are so bothered by the situation because it was politically motivated. Imagine that. Something in Washington DC is politically motivated. Of course it was politically motivated. Everything in Washington DC is politically motivated. If you fire at the beginning of your term or half way through your second term, by nature it is politically motivated. After all, it is the business of politics.All of the investigating and subpoenas that are flying and will continue to fly are politically motivated. It is to smear the current president as much as they can to keep the pressure on for til Nov 08. I have a hunch to start investigating the investigators to see if their reasons are politically motivated.
I thought the problem was that Bush fired them for political reasons. Since Clinton didn't want Republican holdovers... doesn't that make his decision to fire them all political? I'm not clear on the discrepancy between politically motivated and politically motivated.
Give me a break people, according to the e-mails, the appointees in question had already served a full term. Maybe the reason that Clinton let all of his appointees to continue to serve was because after he cleaned house and named his own, he never changed them. This is no big deal at all, according to the e-mail and PDF's supplied by "Parrot Master" f4st4word, they all had passed a full term. He can sh*^tcan anyone he wants. PERIOD.
@billylinnPreach on brother... It would be good if we could look at media with the understanding that it is all biased... now, if I could just figure out my own bias...
Ok...so think this through....The USAs were fired AFTER the election and AFTER all investigations had ran their course. If firing them was supposed to stop any "honest" investigations into Republicans, then why is Duke Cunnigham in prison and why did New Mexico go Democratic in the last election? Ockum's razor says this is just what it appears to be....a botched job of removing political appointees for whatever reason. People see conspiracy's whenever they look through their political lenses. If this was the "evil" White House doing "evil" things, then the Democrats ought to leave those making these kinds of decisions in place...My opinion? Show me the crime. If there is none (and nothing suggests there was), then move on to real business. My prediction is we're going to have two years of "investigations," phony scandals, and political grandstanding...all at a time when we're fighting two wars and a third with Iran is looming....you'd think there would be better things to do.
The most absurd part to me is the whole idea that Congress thinks that the firings were "improper." What's so damn proper about adding pork to a bill to get the votes you need to pass it? Isn't that just institutionalized bribery? In the end, these guys all belong to the same party...Crooks.
deepdooMar 14, 2007
Clinton firing US attorneys is irrelevent. And it does not matter how many Bush wanted to fire. As chief executive, he has the power to run the executive branch how he sees fit. End of StoryMove along people, nothing to see here.
justfactsMar 14, 2007
Isn't this exactly what President Clinton did? Didn't he fire ALL of the federal prosecutors when he took office? And he rushed to do it apparently to save Dan Rostenkowski who was about to come under indictment.And those that say it isn't relevant appear to be ignorant of the historical facts.
digibruceMar 14, 2007
Investigating Gonzales and Bush for replacing a few U.S. Attorneys is like prosecuting a drug cartel for tax evasion. Apparently the Democrats don't feel they can make a case against the destruction of Habeas Corpus and our treaty commitments under the Geneva Convention, so they pick up on little stuff like this.The big question is, why? Are Dems spineless weasels all, or is this a brilliant Machiavellian power play? Why doesn't our system protect itself against fundamental attacks on the Constitution with more direct measures?
ark7Mar 14, 2007
Bill Clinton?
billjacksonMar 15, 2007
What amazes me about all of this banter back and forth is that those all fired up by these firings are so bothered by the situation because it was politically motivated. Imagine that. Something in Washington DC is politically motivated. Of course it was politically motivated. Everything in Washington DC is politically motivated. If you fire at the beginning of your term or half way through your second term, by nature it is politically motivated. After all, it is the business of politics.All of the investigating and subpoenas that are flying and will continue to fly are politically motivated. It is to smear the current president as much as they can to keep the pressure on for til Nov 08. I have a hunch to start investigating the investigators to see if their reasons are politically motivated.
troika37Mar 15, 2007
I thought the problem was that Bush fired them for political reasons. Since Clinton didn't want Republican holdovers... doesn't that make his decision to fire them all political? I'm not clear on the discrepancy between politically motivated and politically motivated.
realisticngreenMar 21, 2007
Give me a break people, according to the e-mails, the appointees in question had already served a full term. Maybe the reason that Clinton let all of his appointees to continue to serve was because after he cleaned house and named his own, he never changed them. This is no big deal at all, according to the e-mail and PDF's supplied by "Parrot Master" f4st4word, they all had passed a full term. He can sh*^tcan anyone he wants. PERIOD.
jorge90Mar 22, 2007
@billylinnPreach on brother... It would be good if we could look at media with the understanding that it is all biased... now, if I could just figure out my own bias...
icbmmnxMar 25, 2007
Ok...so think this through....The USAs were fired AFTER the election and AFTER all investigations had ran their course. If firing them was supposed to stop any "honest" investigations into Republicans, then why is Duke Cunnigham in prison and why did New Mexico go Democratic in the last election? Ockum's razor says this is just what it appears to be....a botched job of removing political appointees for whatever reason. People see conspiracy's whenever they look through their political lenses. If this was the "evil" White House doing "evil" things, then the Democrats ought to leave those making these kinds of decisions in place...My opinion? Show me the crime. If there is none (and nothing suggests there was), then move on to real business. My prediction is we're going to have two years of "investigations," phony scandals, and political grandstanding...all at a time when we're fighting two wars and a third with Iran is looming....you'd think there would be better things to do.
deadboxApr 10, 2007
The most absurd part to me is the whole idea that Congress thinks that the firings were "improper." What's so damn proper about adding pork to a bill to get the votes you need to pass it? Isn't that just institutionalized bribery? In the end, these guys all belong to the same party...Crooks.