ANOTHER MANUFACTURED "SCANDAL"


Democrats have succeeded in manufacturing another non-scandal in Washington. Supposedly AG Alberto Gonzales is supposed to resign because of the firing of some U.S. Attorneys by the White House. These are political positions, folks...they serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire some or all of them anytime he wants. It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton fired all of his ... just when the Whitewater investigations were gaining some steam. Did the mainstream media have a problem with Clinton's totally unprecedented firing of all U.S. Attorneys? Nope .. not a bit. The media was on board.

But ... anytime they can portray the Bush Administration in a negative light, the press is going to be on board with gusto. And to think some people believe there's no such thing as media bias.

So what is all the fuss about? It goes like this: the White House had heard some complaints about certain U.S. Attorneys. Many of the complaints had to do with the failure of these U.S. Attorneys to pursue some voter fraud cases. Eight U.S. Attorneys were fired, and Democrats are whining about how it was handled...saying they were "misled." This is a favorite word of the left when it comes to inventing scandals...just say you were misled.

But when you have a Democratic Party devoid of any real political ideas or solutions and a willing media in need of programming for their 24-hour cable networks, this "scandal" will live on. Perhaps the real scandal here is the question of why some of these now-fired U.S. Attorneys had refused to investigate Democrat voter fraud in their jurisdictions.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031400519.html

If you would like to know who wrote this, just ask. (I'm sure you can guess)

Think carefully now - when is the last time this country had an attorney general worthy of the position and salary? Gonzales is simply the whitest, most conservative beaner the administration could come up with. In him they have a political parrot and token wetback all in one. Any more, and he'd be in a wheelchair or have a service animal. Who knows - maybe he's awaiting transgender status?

Every President traditionally replaces the whole staff, including all the US attorneys, when they come into office. Never before have so many been fired in the middle of the term for such obviously partisan reasons.

When it becomes common knowledge that Gonzo did this with Dumbya's knowledge, and maybe even at his request, you will be hearing a lot more talk about Bush's impeachment. Firing the attorneys for partisan politcal reasons would be a violation of the Oath of Office of the President and an impeachable offense. Firing them to avoid investigations opens up a whole other can of worms that is even worse for the administration.

There are several things that wory me about these firings. First is the fact that Alberto Gonzales found it neccessary to lie about the involvement of the White House in the decision. When he said no one in the White House was involved in the decision, that was a lie, as the e-mails released on the subject prove.
Second, the firings were for failure to pursue vigorously enough prosecutions of Democratic Congressmen with the aim of prosecuting them during the elections. If they committed crimes, they should certainly be prosecuted. The demand for hurry-up prosecutions to benefit the Republicans during the elections without enough evidence to obtain convictions is politicizing law enforcement. That is an abuse of power, and one of the lesser charges on which President Nixon was going to be impeached when he resigned.
Third, was the firing of the attorney who successfully prosecuted Congressman Cunningham for taking bribes. Apparently, it is not OK in the Bush regime to prosecute Republican lawbreakers.
If anyone on the Conservative side thinks this is OK, just remember the next President could be named Hillary Clinton, and she would have the same power to do the same things to Conservatives.
If you support this, you would be hypocritical to oppose her potential abuses directed at you, and you will receive little sympathy. The Patriot Act can be used to invade your privacy without warrants. You can be hauled into court on trumped up charges because of your political views.
If that does not sound like the sort of America you would like to live in, you must oppose this now. What is good to do to one side, is good to do to the other.

Every President traditionally replaces the whole staff, including all the US attorneys, when they come into office. Never before have so many been fired in the middle of the term for such obviously partisan reasons.

When it becomes common knowledge that Gonzo did this with Dumbya's knowledge, and maybe even at his request, you will be hearing a lot more talk about Bush's impeachment. Firing the attorneys for partisan politcal reasons would be a violation of the Oath of Office of the President and an impeachable offense. Firing them to avoid investigations opens up a whole other can of worms that is even worse for the administration.

While I despised klinton, it was obvious from the outset that impeachment was not going to take place. The "wheels of government" ground to a halt during the 2 years that particular fiasco took place.
In light of that, I'm not looking forward to impeachment proceedings of Bush, regardless of how warranted they may appear.

The Congress & Senate can work to get their acts together to prevent more Presidential shenagans during the last 2 years of this administration rather than focusing on something that's probably not going to take place anyway and work on the multitude of other issues facing this country. If Bush is impeached, is Cheney really the one to replace him?

Unless the democrats have a smoking gun, and Bush deserves to get impeached... the only reason they would try is to "get the republicans back" for the Clinton thing.

Every President traditionally replaces the whole staff, including all the US attorneys, when they come into office. Never before have so many been fired in the middle of the term for such obviously partisan reasons.

.

FALSE!!!!
Clintax replaced 93 US attorneys. This has never been done before him, or after him. Please get your facts together.

Clintax replaced 93 US attorneys.

Prove it.

Put up or STFU.

Here is my evidence you are full of shit. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415)

How unusual is it for a U.S. attorney to be fired?

It's very unusual. Richard Nixon fired one when he was in office. [Jimmy] Carter fired a U.S. attorney who was making an investigation of a Democratic House member that he wanted to keep in office. Bill Clinton fired one. But it's really very rare for this to happen.

In this case it was eight attorneys.

That is close to unprecedented. … I did a book on the Justice Department, and I just have never seen something like this.

Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them. And… they are sort of in charge of federal enforcement in each of these districts. And they can be very powerful and influential in deciding which cases are prosecuted and which kinds of cases are not.

Dharm, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Under Bush 8 US attorneys were let go. One of them was from Washington State. (The place where dead people voted in 2004) Bush wanted an investigation, there was no investigation. As a result that US attorney
was let go.

under CLINTON 93 WERE LET GO. THAT IS A FACT.


http://newsbusters.org/node/11396

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305153903AAUfboX

Prove it.

Put up or STFU.

Here is my evidence you are full of shit. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415)

Dharm, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Obviously, I do. You are quite wrong, as I have shown.


under CLINTON 93 WERE LET GO. THAT IS A FACT.

Yes, he did, but as I have already shown, so has every other President at the beginning of their terms. It is nothing unusual.

Bush's firing 8 of them in the middle of his term is very unusual. Especially when the excuse of performance issues holds no water. They fired Carol Lamb after she got a conviction against Duke Cunningham and a glowing performance review.

How unusual is it for a U.S. attorney to be fired?

It's very unusual. Richard Nixon fired one when he was in office. [Jimmy] Carter fired a U.S. attorney who was making an investigation of a Democratic House member that he wanted to keep in office. Bill Clinton fired one. But it's really very rare for this to happen.

In this case it was eight attorneys.

That is close to unprecedented. … I did a book on the Justice Department, and I just have never seen something like this.
Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them. And… they are sort of in charge of federal enforcement in each of these districts. And they can be very powerful and influential in deciding which cases are prosecuted and which kinds of cases are not.

Again you are speaking falsehoods!

Clinton was the only president to fire 93.

Stop saying I am full of it. You are wrong.


Obviously, I do. You are quite wrong, as I have shown.



Yes, he did, but as I have already shown, so has every other President at the beginning of their terms. It is nothing unusual.

Bush's firing 8 of them in the middle of his term is very unusual. Especially when the excuse of performance issues holds no water. They fired Carol Lamb after she got a conviction against Duke Cunningham and a glowing performance review.

Why Did Bill Clinton Fire All The US Attorneys When He Took Office?
Was it because some were investigating his various rapes, fraud and coverup murders designated as "suicides" ?

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/m...

Additional Details

1 week ago
Bush has replaced about 5, Clinton replaced ALL 93!

1 week ago
If you doubt Clinton did this I suggest you click my link and read the article.

1 week ago
"Miss Reno suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President ordered it."

1 week ago
Some people just can't accept Clinton's failures, crimes and misdoings, its a shame bordering on a mental disease.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305153903AAUfboX

Clinton was the only president to fire 93.

That is a baldface lie, as I have already shown.




Stop saying I am full of it.

You are absolutely full of shit.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305153903AAUfboX

What makes you think this is a valid source?

Former Clinton Chief Of Staff Rebuts Rove Claim That Clinton Purged Prosecutors Too (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/08/podesta-rove/)

At a speech in Little Rock today, Karl Rove described the Bush administration’s purge of federal prosecutors as “normal and ordinary,” claiming that Clinton did the same thing. “Clinton, when he came in, replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys,” Rove said. “When we came in, we ultimately replace most all 93 U.S. attorneys — there are some still left from the Clinton era in place.”

Clinton’s former chief of staff John Podesta told ThinkProgress that Rove’s claim is “pure fiction.” The Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as political retribution:

Mr. Rove’s claims today that the Bush administration’s purge of qualified and capable U.S. attorneys is “normal and ordinary” is pure fiction. Replacing most U.S. attorneys when a new administration comes in — as we did in 1993 and the Bush administration did in 2001 — is not unusual. But the Clinton administration never fired federal prosecutors as pure political retribution. These U.S. attorneys received positive performance reviews from the Justice Department and were then given no reason for their firings.

We’re used to this White House distorting the facts to blame the Clinton administration for its failures. Apparently, it’s also willing to distort the facts and invoke the Clinton administration to try to justify its bad behavior.
Earlier this week, Mary Jo White, who was U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1993-2002, also stated that the Bush administration’s prosecutor purge is unprecedented in “modern history”:

You serve at the president’s pleasure, no question about that. … However, throughout modern history, my understanding is, you did not change the U.S. attorney during an administration, unless there was some evidence of misconduct or other really quite significant cause to do so. And the expectation was, so long as that was absent, that you would serve out your full four years or eight years as U.S. attorney.

As White noted, attorneys need to serve “without fear or favor and in an absolutely apolitical way.” By firing well-respected federal prosecutors and replacing them with Republican loyalists, the Bush administration has politicized the judicial system.

Dharm, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Under Bush 8 US attorneys were let go. One of them was from Washington State. (The place where dead people voted in 2004) Bush wanted an investigation, there was no investigation. As a result that US attorney
was let go.

under CLINTON 93 WERE LET GO. THAT IS A FACT.

A couple things sisko. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's writing, it's considered good form to give proper credit. BTW, congrats on referring to him as Clinton, and not Clintax. You have no idea how annoying your made-up names are.

Apparently it is somewhat unusual for U.S. Attorneys to be fired in this manner during a President's term. When Clinton removed all of them, their replacements appointed by the President had to be approved by Congress, so the implication that it was done to thwart investigations, or reward political allies is a bit spurious. Under the laws at that time a Presidential appointee not confirmed by Congress would automatically lose his/her position after 120 days, and a new appointee would have to be named and confirmed. This law was changed on March 9, 2006, when President Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005. The new law allows an appointed U.S. Attorney to serve without being confirmed by Congress until the end of the term of the President who appointed them. This, and the fact that the Attorney General told Congress that the White House was uninvolved with the firings when in fact the White House was directly involved, has a lot of Congressmen a little ticked. BTW, apparently there is at least one Republican calling for Gonzales' head in this matter, and the President himself has said he's not happy about the way this matter was handled.

Clinton was the only president to fire 93.You are wrong, sisko.

Reagan did it too, as do most Presidents when they take office.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml

So you are telling me that Reagan fired 93 US attorneys??????


You are wrong, sisko.

Reagan did it too, as do most Presidents when they take office.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml

Dharma, you are absolutely unbelievable on this.
Clinton (Reno) fires 93 and this administration fires 8 and you think this case is worse.

The circumstances in Clinton's case was that an intense investigation of Dan Rostenkowski (D) had started. Pundits (even the NY Times wrote about it) and the attorneys themselves saw the obvious politics in it.

Here's a line showing how the New York Times covered Clinton's firing:
"All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far."
That's a bit of a departure from the way the current firings are being covered.

You made some good points Vile. (see I am fair unlike some)

However, I would like a credible link proving your claim that Clinton need approval from congress.

As I said in the first posting, if you ask I will tell you who wrote it.
(It's probably pretty easy to figure out)

Boortz wrote it.

A couple things sisko. If you're going to copy and paste someone else's writing, it's considered good form to give proper credit. BTW, congrats on referring to him as Clinton, and not Clintax. You have no idea how annoying your made-up names are.

Apparently it is somewhat unusual for U.S. Attorneys to be fired in this manner during a President's term. When Clinton removed all of them, their replacements appointed by the President had to be approved by Congress, so the implication that it was done to thwart investigations, or reward political allies is a bit spurious. Under the laws at that time a Presidential appointee not confirmed by Congress would automatically lose his/her position after 120 days, and a new appointee would have to be named and confirmed. This law was changed on March 9, 2006, when President Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005. The new law allows an appointed U.S. Attorney to serve without being confirmed by Congress until the end of the term of the President who appointed them. This, and the fact that the Attorney General told Congress that the White House was uninvolved with the firings when in fact the White House was directly involved, has a lot of Congressmen a little ticked. BTW, apparently there is at least one Republican calling for Gonzales' head in this matter, and the President himself has said he's not happy about the way this matter was handled.

So you are telling me that Reagan fired 93 US attorneys??????

Approx 90. That is correct. Check your facts.

Dharma, you are absolutely unbelievable on this.

I can't help it that you find the truth "unbelieveable".

Thats your problem.


Clinton (Reno) fires 93 and this administration fires 8 and you think this case is worse.

Yes, because this is very unusual to have it happen mid-term.
Clinton did it the same time all Presidents do, the beginning of their term.


The circumstances in Clinton's case was...

I already posted several links and quotes talking about it. You have obviously read none of them.


Here's a line showing how the New York Times covered Clinton's firing:
"All 93 United States Attorneys knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican holdovers, and 16 have resigned so far."
That's a bit of a departure from the way the current firings are being covered.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me. What Clinton did was normal. What Bush has done is not.

Please provide a credible link to prove this. I could be wrong, but I really don't think your claim is true. I think the more true number for Reagan is 1.

The burden of proof belongs to you and Sedan. (again I admit I could be wrong)

Approx 90. That is correct. Check your facts.

1. Yes, because this is very unusual to have it happen mid-term.
2. Thanks for illustrating my point for me. What Clinton did was normal. What Bush has done is not.1. Are you asserting that if the firings occur at the beginning of the term, in the middle of an investigation, it can't be political?

2. My point was how differently the NY Times covers the stories differently depending on the parties involved.
This is so routine that you didn't even spot it.

We all know that Dharm and Freefarter strongly believe that the media was a severe conservative slant. (they are blind)

1. Are you asserting that if the firings occur at the beginning of the term, in the middle of an investigation, it can't be political?

2. My point was how differently the NY Times covers the stories differently depending on the parties involved.
This is so routine that you didn't even spot it.

We all know that Dharm and Freefarter strongly believe that the media was a severe conservative slant. (they are blind)
when you're that far south, everything is "up north".

1. Are you asserting that if the firings occur at the beginning of the term, in the middle of an investigation, it can't be political?

No, I am stating that replacing the attorneys at the beginning of a term is normal. Replacing them in the middle of the term is very unusual.


2. My point was how differently the NY Times covers the stories differently depending on the parties involved.
This is so routine that you didn't even spot it.

That is because the stories are very different.

when you're that far south, everything is "up north".

Since when is Michigan "south"???

Since when is Michigan "south"???
it's a matter of perspective, which you apparently have lost.

I would still like that link proving that Reagan fired 90 US Attorneys.

Are you a Red Wings fan? Did they get in the playoffs yet?


Since when is Michigan "south"???

it's a matter of perspective, which you apparently have lost.

It's called "Geography".

Educate yourself.

:rolleyes:

I would still like that link proving that Reagan fired 90 US Attorneys.


Too lazy to use google yourself?

I already showed you that your Clinton tirade was a lie.

Why are you still trying after you have already lost?

geez debating with dharma is like debating with a brick wall... too much ego, can't allow himself to be told new information by other people.. programming won't let him.

Of course dharma's claim of "very unusual" is objective...

can't allow himself to be told new information by other people

Not when I have proof the claims of other people are false.

As is the case now.


Of course dharma's claim of "very unusual" is objective...

It isn't my claim. Read the quotes I posted.

when two people have "sources" that say different things.. whose is right? I'm sure its always YOURS... right dharma? :rolleyes:

when two people have "sources" that say different things.. whose is right?

The first thing to do would be to examine both sources in context and see if they still say different things.

So far I have not seen any differing sources, only unsubstantiated speculation.

However, I would like a credible link proving your claim that Clinton need approval from congress.Every President needs congressional approval for his appointments, not just Clinton. Do you honestly need a link to understand this?
Please provide a credible link to prove this. I could be wrong, but I really don't think your claim is true. I think the more true number for Reagan is 1.I did. Didn't you read it?The burden of proof belongs to you and Sedan. (again I admit I could be wrong)Here, I'll underline the relevant parts for you:

March 14, 2007


So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not?
Posted by Brian Montopoli

(CBS)
Last night, Fox News' Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993."

This argument has been making its way around the conservative echo chamber. Wrote Brent Baker: "The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the 'controversy,' fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006."

In light of all this, I thought it was important to compare the two cases.

The Washington Post laid it out like this: "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."

Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile, wrote that it "is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind." (Hat tip on this and the Post piece to TPM.)

David Burnham told NPR that what happened this time around "is close to unprecedented." He added this: "Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them…And they can be very powerful and influential in deciding which cases are prosecuted and which kinds of cases are not."

McClatchy explained it like this: "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."

They added: "Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term."

And here's CBS legal expert Andrew Cohen:

"It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week’s testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml


Does that help?

I wonder how many times we will have to present this same information before it sinks in?

SEDAN:

The Washington Post is clearly wrong when it said that Bush Dismissed NEARLY all sitting US Attorneys upon taking office.

8 is no where near 100 or 93.

I can't find a single link that supports Reagan fireing more than one US Attorney. I believe the WP article is clearly wrong on it's facts regarding this subject.

I will continue to look for a link that proves me wrong. If you find it before me, please post it. If I find it first, I will post it. (credible link please)




Every President needs congressional approval for his appointments, not just Clinton. Do you honestly need a link to understand this?
I did. Didn't you read it?Here, I'll underline the relevant parts for you:

March 14, 2007


So Is This U.S. Attorney Purge Unprecedented Or Not?
Posted by Brian Montopoli

(CBS)
Last night, Fox News' Brit Hume kicked off his show by criticizing the media for "news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country [that] failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993."

This argument has been making its way around the conservative echo chamber. Wrote Brent Baker: "The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the 'controversy,' fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006."

In light of all this, I thought it was important to compare the two cases.

The Washington Post laid it out like this: "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."

Former acting attorney general Stuart Gerson, meanwhile, wrote that it "is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind." (Hat tip on this and the Post piece to TPM.)

David Burnham told NPR that what happened this time around "is close to unprecedented." He added this: "Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them…And they can be very powerful and influential in deciding which cases are prosecuted and which kinds of cases are not."

McClatchy explained it like this: "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."

They added: "Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term."

And here's CBS legal expert Andrew Cohen:

"It is true that Janet Reno, as her predecessors before her had done, asked for the resignations of U.S. Attorneys. This is standard operating procedure designed to allow the President to have in place his own federal prosecutors. What is different about this current episode is that a Republican White House sought to replace Republican-appointed federal prosecutors mid-stream who were by all accounts doing precisely what they had been asked to do. We now know, from last week’s testimony, why in some cases this was so and the answers we got make it clear that the reasons were not high-minded or lofty."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/03/14/publiceye/entry2571144.shtml


Does that help?

The Washington Post is clearly wrong when it said that Bush Dismissed NEARLY all sitting US Attorneys upon taking office.

8 is no where near 100 or 93.


Apparently you don't grasp the difference between "upon taking office" and the middle of Bush's second term.

I would like a credible link proving your claim that Clinton need approval from congress.

It seems I erred when I wrote that a US Attorney must be confirmed by Congress. Apparently they must only be confirmed by the Senate.

The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States[1] for a term of four years,[2] with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate.

By law, "[e]ach United States attorney is subject to removal by the President."[3]

The procedure for appointment of Interim U.S. Attorneys is governed by Section 546 of title 28, United States Code.[4] Section (c) states:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the earlier of (1) the qualification of a United States attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title; or (2) the expiration of 120 days after appointment by the Attorney General under this section.

However, on March 9, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005[5] which amends Section 546 by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection:

(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a united States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.

This, in effect, strikes the 120 days limit on interim U.S. Attorneys, and effectively extends their term to the end of the appointing President's term, which circumvents the U.S. Senate confirmation process.

The United States Senate is currently investigating this revision to the U.S. Patriot Act.

Here's my source. You'll have to decide for yourself if it's credible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney


As I said in the first posting, if you ask I will tell you who wrote it.
(It's probably pretty easy to figure out)

Boortz wrote it.

I figured sisko. May I say that it's difficult to debate Boortz because he doesn't post here, and I'd like to see you post more of your own thoughts.

I don't see it as a huge event... so he fired people mid-term... so what? Some of em probably were in scandals and had to be let go to save face. I can't recall them now that i think about it.

I don't see it as a huge event... so he fired people mid-term... so what?

Good thing you have no responsibility. Perhaps you will learn why it is such a big deal if you pay attention.

Some of em probably were in scandals and had to be let go to save face. I can't recall them now that i think about it.

I am sure that no matter what happens you will find a way to dismiss it with made-up scenarios of what "probably" occured.

Good thing you have no responsibility. Perhaps you will learn why it is such a big deal if you pay attention.

Its a big deal because other presidents didn't do it... wow.



I am sure that no matter what happens you will find a way to dismiss it with made-up scenarios of what "probably" occured.

Just like you undoubtedly will automatically attribute it as a negative occurance even though there really are no harmful effects from the mid term releases.

Look Dharm: It's not hard really it's not. The article states that Bush and Clinton fired NEARLY ALL US ATTORNEYS. This is clearly false false false.

It also states that Reagan did the same thing. That is fales aswell. (in my opinion, because I can't find it anywhere else)

All I can find on Reagan is that he fired ONE us attorney.

That is a far cry from 93.

Bush's 8 is a far cry crom Clintons 93.



Apparently you don't grasp the difference between "upon taking office" and the middle of Bush's second term.

Look Dharm: It's not hard really it's not. The article states that Bush and Clinton fired NEARLY ALL US ATTORNEYS. This is clearly false false false.

It also states that Reagan did the same thing. That is fales aswell. (in my opinion, because I can't find it anywhere else)

All I can find on Reagan is that he fired ONE us attorney.

That is a far cry from 93.

Bush's 8 is a far cry crom Clintons 93.

Try this article.

"Stuart M. Gerson, assistant attorney general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush, observed, "It is customary for a President to replace U.S. attorneys at the beginning of a term." Gerson added that "Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150001

No, I am stating that replacing the attorneys at the beginning of a term is normal. Replacing them in the middle of the term is very unusual.
Whoa dharma. Normally your points are a tad trivial, but this is an incredible discovery you've made. Are you sure you want to go out on a limb like this?

'Course it'd be nice to hear your take on the legality of this, but I'm not optimistic.

Normally your points are a tad trivial, but this is an incredible discovery you've made. Are you sure you want to go out on a limb like this?

If you can't handle a statement of fact, for which I have already posted numerous links as proof, then you should just get off the message board because it is clearly above your level.

Very unusual does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.
Is it either one of those things?

Very unusual does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.
Is it either one of those things?

That is for the court system to decide.

Very unusual does not make it illegal or unconstitutional.
Is it either one of those things?

It may or may not be, but I think it's undesireable regardless.

hey dharma.. what are the negative effects of bush firing mid-term?

Decka,

It undermines the American Justice system by politicizing it.

1. Attorneys who refused to speed up investigations of Democrats in order to make politcial issues out of them before the november elections, like John McKay, were punished for not being partisan enough.

2. Attorneys who did their jobs well, like Carol Lam, who successfully prosecuted Duck Cunningham, were punished for not being partisan enough.

The original excuse was that these people were fired for "performance issues" but it has come out in the senate investigation that most of them had recently received glowing performance reviews from their superiors. The only common factors in all their cases is that they either prosecuted Republicans or refused to prosecute Democrats as quickly as the Republicans wanted.

The real kicker about this is that so many Rightwingers are claiming they don't see a problem, but if it was a Democratic administration doing this they would be joining me in complaining about it. I would criticize any President who did this, but this is unprescidented.

It is another example of Republicans putting party above country, as usual.

Why Were These U.S. Attorneys Fired? (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597085,00.html)

As political appointees, they serve "at the pleasure of the President," and can be replaced, at least theoretically, at any time for any reason.


No rule broken, just different than how other presidents do it.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.. if you have a problem with it, complain about the law. Bush deserves lots of criticism, but people like you cry wolf on every issue.

The firings might never have happened if not for a little-noticed clause slipped into the Patriot Act last year. That provision, promoted by the White House, permits the President to appoint "interim" U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation for an indefinite period. The White House successfully pushed the measure because it regarded the previous law (which allowed unconfirmed U.S. attorneys to serve for only 120 days) as an undue limit on the prerogatives of the President. Living within those limits, however, might have been easier for Bush to endure than the controversy the firings have now embroiled him in.

I think most Americans will agree that polticizing the justice system is a bad idea all around.

Obviously Decka, people like you prefer partisan justice over fair and impartial justice.

I think most Americans will agree that polticizing the justice system is a bad idea all around.

Obviously Decka, people like you prefer partisan justice over fair and impartial justice.

Why is it that you always exaggerate what people say and go on the offensive, labeling them... are you making up for some sort of deficiency?

I just don't see how a president appointing new attorneys hurts anyone.. does it matter WHEN its done? So most presidents do it at the beginning of the term.. so what? They ARE the ones in charge, if they aren't satisfied with the attorneys, they can "hire" new ones. And considering that Bush has only changed 8 of them, compared to other presidents... it makes you look as if you are splitting hairs, desperately trying to pin anything negative on our current prez, who deserves criticism but not the 100% negative skepticism you and others emit...

I haven't exaggerated anything Decka. You are the one who started the "people like you" stuff so quit your pathetic whining. It just makes you look like a sore loser.

Of course it matters when it's done because it has a serious effect on ongoing investigations. Thats why no other President has ever done this before. It isn't technically illegal, but then again it has never been done before either. It clearly isn't right to fire attorneys just because they aren't doing partisan work. They aren't supposed to be doing partisan work! They are supposed to be independant of partisan politics!

Clinton dismissed the attorneys when he took office and that is considered customary.

Bush fired the attorneys half way through his term and only fired the ones that did not toe his line of agenda.

Abu-Gonzales is as good as gone and they have the emails from Rove so he's history too.

Looks like the republics are tossing all of them under the bus ... now you're seeing how it all started for Nixon.

Good ridance republican party.

I haven't exaggerated anything Decka. You are the one who started the "people like you" stuff so quit your pathetic whining. It just makes you look like a sore loser.

Of course it matters when it's done because it has a serious effect on ongoing investigations. Thats why no other President has ever done this before. It isn't technically illegal, but then again it has never been done before either. It clearly isn't right to fire attorneys just because they aren't doing partisan work. They aren't supposed to be doing partisan work! They are supposed to be independant of partisan politics!

I agree they are supposed to be independent of partisan politics... but if that is so, why do people like Clinton dismiss all 93 of them? Bush only dismissed 8... It really doesn't matter WHEN they are dismissed... you are complaining that Bush is getting rid of 8 attorneys mid term.. meanwhile your boy Clinton got rid of 93 of em, all to probably do his bidding.

So hey, i don't agree with attorneys being puppets.. but its been going on for awhile now, why bring it up now to try to smear bush? Oh wait... i forgot who i was talking to.

And you absolutely DID exaggerate me, you told me what i "prefer"... because you would know something like that?

I agree they are supposed to be independent of partisan politics... but if that is so, why do people like Clinton dismiss all 93 of them? Bush only dismissed 8... It really doesn't matter WHEN they are dismissed... you are complaining that Bush is getting rid of 8 attorneys mid term.. meanwhile your boy Clinton got rid of 93 of em, all to probably do his bidding.Perhaps you missed the link Vile posted earler:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

GW Bush dismissed the US Attorneys he inherited from Clinton, just as Clinton dismissed the ones he inherited from GHW Bush, just as Reagan dismissed those he inherited from Carter.

One thing you guys never get tired of spouting off are incessant variations of "Clinton did it too!" whenever your beloved President Bush is criticized (and spare me the "I'm no fan of Bush" crap you throw around here -- you never fail to defend him when his detractors are Democrats). This time around it's "Clinton did it too only ten times worse!" Never mind that the facts show otherwise, those can only get in the way of your irrational need to blame Clinton for everything, or use him to justify anything Bush does.

Perhaps you missed the link Vile posted earler:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

GW Bush dismissed the US Attorneys he inherited from Clinton, just as Clinton dismissed the ones he inherited from GHW Bush, just as Reagan dismissed those he inherited from Carter.

exactly.. everyone does it.. its the norm.

One thing you guys never get tired of spouting off are incessant variations of "Clinton did it too!" whenever your beloved President Bush is criticized (and spare me the "I'm no fan of Bush" crap you throw around here -- you never fail to defend him when his detractors are Democrats). This time around it's "Clinton did it too only ten times worse!" Never mind that the facts show otherwise, those can only get in the way of your irrational need to blame Clinton for everything, or use him to justify anything Bush does.

oh pleeease spare me the garabage!

Beloved Bush??? LMAO

The only reason it appears that way is because there are people on here who HATE him so much that they spew crap all day and all night about him... and some of it is true. The only reason I "defend" him is because of the obvious agenda against him on this board... call me "devil's advocate".. because that is what i merely do.

And meanwhile... Clinton is much more "beloved" on this board by most liberal posters on here. The man can seem to do no wrong.

oh pleeease spare me the garabage!

Beloved Bush??? LMAO

The only reason it appears that way is because there are people on here who HATE him so much that they spew crap all day and all night about him... and some of it is true. The only reason I "defend" him is because of the obvious agenda against him on this board... call me "devil's advocate".. because that is what i merely do.There are many partisan members here, both on the right and the left -- but you're the only one who pretends not to be. You might even believe, in your own mind, that you are some kind of "devil's advocate" but the record is clear. You are as stubborn in your defense of Bush as a mother bear is of her cubs. Remember when it took me 3 days and 12 posts to get you to admit Bush is a liar? You often claim to 'see both sides' but the truth is you see things from one side only and we all know which side that is.And meanwhile... Clinton is much more "beloved" on this board by most liberal posters on here. The man can seem to do no wrong.In this instance Clinton didn't do anything wrong, any more than Reagan did. Yet for the past two days all I've heard from you and Rush and Hannity and Sisko is this "Clinton did it too and 10 times worse" crap that has absolutely know basis in fact. And at least Sisko has had the decency to check his own version of events. That puts him a leg up on you (something I thought I would never hear myself say).

There are many partisan members here, both on the right and the left -- but you're the only one who pretends not to be.

I don't see where whether someone is partisan or not makes any difference. Argue with whatever he says, but not with who he is.

but if that is so, why do people like Clinton dismiss all 93 of them?

By "people like Clinton" I have to assume you meant Presidents of the United States. Bush dismissed 93 of them when he first took office too. Just like Clinton. (http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm)

The firing is only half the story. The other half is why he is replacing these people with that he didn't want to have to get approval from the Senate on.

The people he just fired mid-term for not doing partisan work were replaced by cronies like Karl Rove's protoge in Arkansas.

Lets be honest. The article states that they offered their resignations.

It does not state that they were replaced. No one has established that they

actually packed up and left their positions.


Perhaps you missed the link Vile posted earler:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

GW Bush dismissed the US Attorneys he inherited from Clinton, just as Clinton dismissed the ones he inherited from GHW Bush, just as Reagan dismissed those he inherited from Carter.

One thing you guys never get tired of spouting off are incessant variations of "Clinton did it too!" whenever your beloved President Bush is criticized (and spare me the "I'm no fan of Bush" crap you throw around here -- you never fail to defend him when his detractors are Democrats). This time around it's "Clinton did it too only ten times worse!" Never mind that the facts show otherwise, those can only get in the way of your irrational need to blame Clinton for everything, or use him to justify anything Bush does.

\No one has established that they

actually packed up and left their positions.

Except the USDOJ. :rolleyes:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

There are many partisan members here, both on the right and the left -- but you're the only one who pretends not to be.

I openly admit i am a conservative

You might even believe, in your own mind, that you are some kind of "devil's advocate" but the record is clear. You are as stubborn in your defense of Bush as a mother bear is of her cubs.

On certain issues? yes... like i said before, saying Bush lied and all is too cliche these days. It's the cool, pop rock thing to say... you are "hip" if you hate George Bush. I just think there is no way of knowing for sure if bush lied.. because of all the other reasons i mentioned. Now dharma said he had something that he had posted "multiple times".. perhaps i missed it. If the evidence is out there, i want to see it.

Remember when it took me 3 days and 12 posts to get you to admit Bush is a liar?

the thing is, it took you 3 days and 12 posts to ACTUALLY GIVE ME GOOD EVIDENCE. The first initial posts by you labeling Bush a liar were vague, terrible resources. If you had shown me the last few links at the beginning, the process might have been alot shorter and less painful. On that issue i now know that Bush lied. So he goes on record as a liar. Does that hurt his credibility? Yep... Does it mean that he lied us into Iraq? I surely hope he didn't, but if he did i'll be real pissed.

You often claim to 'see both sides' but the truth is you see things from one side only and we all know which side that is.

Ummm can someone back me up here? Of course i see things through a conservative point of view.. thats how i am. However, i think democrats and republicans are corrupt, and i'd overhaul the whole damn system if i had the power... does that sound like a flag-waving bush lover to you?

YOU are on the attack here though Sedan.. YOU have called me an extremist radical, pretty much, by saying "but the truth is you see things from one side only and we all know which side that is."... and i think anyone with half a brain who doesn't dislike me for my political views can see that I am in no way a radical conservative.

In this instance Clinton didn't do anything wrong, any more than Reagan did. Yet for the past two days all I've heard from you and Rush and Hannity and Sisko is this "Clinton did it too and 10 times worse" crap that has absolutely know basis in fact. And at least Sisko has had the decency to check his own version of events. That puts him a leg up on you (something I thought I would never hear myself say).

Don't lump me with Rush and Hannity... those guys NEVER admit that ANY republican did ANYTHING wrong.. and even when one DOES, they turn your attention to when a democrat did something worse.

As for who i am a "leg up on"...that really doesn't bother me.. I don't need to be atop the "allforums power rankings"... cause if i were i would know i need to get out more LOL

Dharm: You didn't read my post. It does not prove that they actually left their positions. It seems if they did, we would be hearing about that and not the most recent 8.


Except the USDOJ. :rolleyes:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

Dharm: You didn't read my post. It does not prove that they actually left their positions. It seems if they did, we would be hearing about that and not the most recent 8.

Sisko, if you won't believe a DOJ press release that says:

"Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys."

And,

" Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year."

What's the point of asking for proof if you disregard it when it's offered?

Of course they left their positions. It's standard practice for a newly elected President to appoint a new batch of U.S. Attorneys. Reagan did it, Bush senior did it, Clinton did it, and Bush junior did it. I know you won't hear Rush or Boortz talk about it, but it's true nonetheless.

It may or may not be, but I think it's undesireable regardless.Maybe. Illegal or unconstitutional though

Abu-Gonzales is as good as gone and they have the emails from Rove so he's history too.
Rove was already gone from Plame...wait.... he was one of 100,000 who drowned in Louisiana....no.... he blew up the World Trade...... no, he aaahhhhhh, I've been Dopped......

Sisko, if you won't believe a DOJ press release that says:

What's the point of asking for proof if you disregard it when it's offered?

Wait, I think I have a solution:

Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year.

- by Boortz

LOL...why didn't I think of that?

ANOTHER MANUFACTURED "SCANDAL"


Democrats have succeeded in manufacturing another non-scandal in Washington. Supposedly AG Alberto Gonzales is supposed to resign because of the firing of some U.S. Attorneys by the White House. These are political positions, folks...they serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire some or all of them anytime he wants. It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton fired all of his ... just when the Whitewater investigations were gaining some steam.
Bullshit (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703150001)! :rolleyes:

*

"For example, on the March 14 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace linked the two cases: "[H]ere's a fact you probably don't know because it hasn't been reported very -- did you know that Bill Clinton, when he came into office in 1993, fired every U.S. attorney except one?" Wallace claimed that "there were no congressional hearings" and that "it wasn't this kind of storm of protest and that ... had not happened before." But while both Clinton and Bush dismissed nearly all U.S. attorneys upon taking office following an administration of the opposite party, The Washington Post reported in a March 14 article that "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."

*

Face it......Ratt Sludge is lying-to-you. :rolleyes:

FALSE!!!!
Clintax replaced 93 US attorneys. This has never been done before him, or after him. Please get your facts together.
....And, your bullshit-factoids come-from-where?? :rolleyes:

Bush's firing 8 of them in the middle of his term is very unusual. Especially when the excuse of performance issues holds no water.
.....ESPECIALLY when "Speedy" was included in those investigations (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/16/gonzales-implicated-in-another-scandal/)!!!

*

"Yesterday, Murray Waas reported in National Journal that it was Alberto Gonzales who advised the President to deny those clearances even after Gonzales "learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the investigation." The investigation which they blocked "would have examined Gonzales's role in authorizing the eavesdropping program while he was White House counsel, as well as his subsequent oversight of the program as attorney general."

....And, your bullshit-factoids come-from-where?? :rolleyes:
In other words he is lying, according to you, but you don't produce counter evidence.

I would think it would be easy enough to find out how many Clinton replaced.

But either you are too lazy or you fear he may be on the mark. If the former you should not have said anything, if the latter, your response was damned dishonest.

In other words he is lying, according to you, but you don't produce counter evidence.
What.....that Clinton's firings weren't initiated "just when the Whitewater investigations were gaining some steam."?????

Lemme guess......you've got some kind o' reading-comprehension problem, right?? :rolleyes:

What.....that Clinton's firings weren't initiated "just when the Whitewater investigations were gaining some steam."?????

Lemme guess......you've got some kind o' reading-comprehension problem, right?? :rolleyes:

Again you are being less than honest; it seems he was telling the truth about the numbers Clinton replaced and about the fact that these people serve at the pleasure of the President.

You accused him of posting bullshit. It seems not. At best an exaggeration, although you have not yet provided any evidence for the assertion that the firings weren't coincident with the scandals; since these went on almost all of Clinton's term, even there it doesn't sound like "bullshit."

(Your little effort of accusing me of not reading was only an effort to distract from your effort to discredit another poster you disagreed with. Man I live in a country where the propagandists are a lot better at it than you are, and I know it when I see it.).

Again you are being less than honest; it seems he was telling the truth about the numbers Clinton replaced and about the fact that these people serve at the pleasure of the President.

You accused him of posting bullshit.
Exactly.........right after gmsisko1 said:

ANOTHER MANUFACTURED "SCANDAL"


Democrats have succeeded in manufacturing another non-scandal in Washington. Supposedly AG Alberto Gonzales is supposed to resign because of the firing of some U.S. Attorneys by the White House. These are political positions, folks...they serve at the pleasure of the president. He can fire some or all of them anytime he wants. It wasn't a big deal when Bill Clinton fired all of his ... just when the Whitewater investigations were gaining some steam.

......which IS Bullshit!!!

*

"The story begins in March 1992 (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/02/cov_24news.html), when the New York Times reported that Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton and wife Hillary had invested in rural development land with James McDougal, owner of a failed savings and loan."

*

Now......WHEN were Clinton's firings??????????? :rolleyes:

In other words he is lying, according to you, but you don't produce counter evidence.

what is your problem thislin???

Follow the thread.

Sisko has been beaten over the head repeatedly with the proof he is wrong, but he continues posting the same lies over and over anyway in the hopes he can fool someone like yourself who will come along and read only the last post.

I'll pay you five dollars if you'll remove that irritating cartoon from your sig, dharmabum.

Really.

Dharm: You didn't read my post. It does not prove that they actually left their positions. It seems if they did, we would be hearing about that and not the most recent 8.

Sisko you are just embarressing yourself.

I read your post. You are just being silly. you sound almost as silly as Brooks trying to defend Ann Coulter.

The DOJ document and the numerous articles I have posted all say the same thing, every president replaces all 93 when they first come in office. That is all Clinton did, which is the same exact thing Bush did when he first took office.

This firing of 8 attorneys is significant because it happened in the middle of his term. That is unprescidented.

If you can find me proof that Clinton ever fired 93 attorneys in the middle of his term then you can talk. Until then, do yourself a favor and STFU.

I'll pay you five dollars if you'll remove that irritating cartoon from your sig, dharmabum.

Really.

No thanks. It makes an important point. I will take it down when I either find a better one or when the rightwingers on here seem to have learned the lesson it teaches.

It’s not the content or the message implied in the cartoon that irritates me, sir.

It’s just the way the lady judge is drawn by the cartoonist.
The character reminds me strongly of an actual person that I once knew.
She was pompous, judgmental, delusional, alarmingly unintelligent for someone who drew such a handsome salary from the US Government, and in short, irritating.
It's personal, really.

So OK then. Ten dollars.
Ten dollars cash to remove that cartoon from your sig.

what is your problem thislin???

Follow the thread.

Sisko has been beaten over the head repeatedly with the proof he is wrong, but he continues posting the same lies over and over anyway in the hopes he can fool someone like yourself who will come along and read only the last post.

I read what was posted and saw someone accused of lying without a shred of proof. That state remains, in spite of the weaseling I now see. In fact by omission it seems what he said was really true, since now all I am getting is hair splitting.

If this is an example of "beating someone over the head with proof," it seems the exact opposite is more likely.

I read what was posted and saw someone accused of lying without a shred of proof. That state remains, in spite of the weaseling I now see.
Ah, yes......we wouldn't want to get too specific.

How would your rhetoric handle that?!!

The fact remains.....Clinton's firings preceeded The Whitewater Inquisition......unless you can prove otherwise.

You're on-the-clock.........

Rove has no friends left in the republican party since he totally f'd up the '06 elections and cost them both houses. Anyone remember him saying, paraphrasingly, "I have my own numbers and we will hold both houses" ... LOL.

And Abu-Gonzales has a constituency of one (Bush) and even his own people are calling for him to be tossed under the bus.

Let's hope Bush decides to keep both Gonzales and Rove right up til the '08 elections ... ROTF -- that ought to cost the republican party a few more seats ... geeesh ... didn't this administration learn anything from the '06 elections and not letting Rummy go when they should have?

Go neocons -- you're brilliant ... brilliant I tell ya ... ROTFLMAO.

I read what was posted and saw someone accused of lying without a shred of proof.

you are either woefully ignorant or just plain lying.

There is plenty of proof to go around.

You are just not clicking on it again.

the thing is, it took you 3 days and 12 posts to ACTUALLY GIVE ME GOOD EVIDENCE. The first initial posts by you labeling Bush a liar were vague, terrible resources. If you had shown me the last few links at the beginning, the process might have been alot shorter and less painful.First of all, Decka, the President's own words made the lie self-evident to anyone who is reasonably well-informed. That it took any supporting evidence to convince you of this was astounding in itself. The resources I provided were quite sufficient for anyone with a smattering of critical ability to understand. Your failure to comprehend a simple argument doesn't make the argument poor -- it reflects poorly instead upon yourself for being a thickheaded obstinate-beyond-belief die-hard Bush supporter.YOU are on the attack here though Sedan.. YOU have called me an extremist radical, pretty much, by saying "but the truth is you see things from one side only and we all know which side that is."... and i think anyone with half a brain who doesn't dislike me for my political views can see that I am in no way a radical conservative.No, that doesn't make you an extremist radical in my book. But I do think you are a right-winger, just as you believe I am a left-winger. The point of my attack is that for three days now I have heard repeatedly the claim that "Clinton fired 93 US Attorney's and Bush only fired 8!!". I have seen it here and heard it over and over on talk radio. Chris Wallace leveled the same charge on TV. The problem with this claim is that it is horribly and demonstrably false. The link Vile provided proves conclusively that Bush fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term ... just like Clinton did!! And yet I hear you and sisko and all the callers on talk radio repeating this stupid canard over and over and it makes me sick. Don't you people ever question the crap these guys feed you? And I've no doubt at all that Rush and Hannity and Wallace and Boortz all know the truth about this perfectly well. They know that Bush did it. They know that Reagan did it too. But do they care about telling you the truth?? Hell, no!!! They care about propping up their man GWB, and if that means only telling you half the story and leaving you with a false understanding of what's going on here then so be it. Those guys are manipulating you, plain and simple. So yeah, I'm on the attack because crap like this pisses me off. And it ought to piss you off too, seeing as how you're the one they're taking advantage of. :mad:
:rant:

And it ought to piss you off too, seeing as how you're the one they're taking advantage of.

Clearly, he's too dense to figure that out.

The point of my attack is that for three days now I have heard repeatedly the claim that "Clinton fired 93 US Attorney's and Bush only fired 8!!". I have seen it here and heard it over and over on talk radio. Chris Wallace leveled the same charge on TV. The problem with this claim is that it is horribly and demonstrably false. The link Vile provided proves conclusively that Bush fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term ... just like Clinton did!! And yet I hear you and sisko and all the callers on talk radio repeating this stupid canard over and over and it makes me sick. Don't you people ever question the crap these guys feed you? And I've no doubt at all that Rush and Hannity and Wallace and Boortz all know the truth about this perfectly well. They know that Bush did it. They know that Reagan did it too. But do they care about telling you the truth?? Hell, no!!! They care about propping up their man GWB, and if that means only telling you half the story and leaving you with a false understanding of what's going on here then so be it. Those guys are manipulating you, plain and simple. So yeah, I'm on the attack because crap like this pisses me off. And it ought to piss you off too, seeing as how you're the one they're taking advantage of. :mad:
:rant:

Well said sedan.

The point of my attack is that for three days now I have heard repeatedly the claim that "Clinton fired 93 US Attorney's and Bush only fired 8!!". I have seen it here and heard it over and over on talk radio. Chris Wallace leveled the same charge on TV. The problem with this claim is that it is horribly and demonstrably false. The link Vile provided proves conclusively that Bush fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term ... just like Clinton did!! And yet I hear you and sisko and all the callers on talk radio repeating this stupid canard over and over and it makes me sick. Don't you people ever question the crap these guys feed you?

No, they don't.

It is incredible to hear the Rightwing cheerleaders nattering on and on and on about ""Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!, Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!, Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!""........yet when you provide them indisputable evidence that Bush and Reagan (and virtually all other presidents before Clinton) did the SAME thing, they begin to obfuscate and look the other way and do anything in their power to ignore the truth.

They are so thoroughly infused with intellectually dishonesty there is little point trying to talk sense to them.

________________________

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim”. ____Gustave Le Bon

The point of my attack is that for three days now I have heard repeatedly the claim that "Clinton fired 93 US Attorney's and Bush only fired 8!!". I have seen it here and heard it over and over on talk radio. Chris Wallace leveled the same charge on TV. The problem with this claim is that it is horribly and demonstrably false. The link Vile provided proves conclusively that Bush fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term ... just like Clinton did!! And yet I hear you and sisko and all the callers on talk radio repeating this stupid canard over and over and it makes me sick. Don't you people ever question the crap these guys feed you? And I've no doubt at all that Rush and Hannity and Wallace and Boortz all know the truth about this perfectly well. They know that Bush did it. They know that Reagan did it too. But do they care about telling you the truth?? Hell, no!!! They care about propping up their man GWB, and if that means only telling you half the story and leaving you with a false understanding of what's going on here then so be it. Those guys are manipulating you, plain and simple. So yeah, I'm on the attack because crap like this pisses me off. And it ought to piss you off too, seeing as how you're the one they're taking advantage of. :mad:
:rant:

Very well said. I think most of these guys also know perfectly well they are telling half truths and they are purposely ignoring everything except their talking points, no matter when evidence they are shown. I mean, if an official Dept. Of Justice document isn't enough for them, then nothing will be. They will stick to their talking points dispite reality. Thats how it filters down, the spin doctors decide how to spin, the talking heads disseminate the information and the peasants cling to those talking points like a pit bull to a leg, no matter what anyone says.

There was a quote from one of the neocons from around the 2000 election that said they believe they can "make their own reality". I think this is an example. These people are putting their partisan adgenda above everything else, including the truth and reality.

First of all, Decka, the President's own words made the lie self-evident to anyone who is reasonably well-informed. That it took any supporting evidence to convince you of this was astounding in itself. The resources I provided were quite sufficient for anyone with a smattering of critical ability to understand. Your failure to comprehend a simple argument doesn't make the argument poor -- it reflects poorly instead upon yourself for being a thickheaded obstinate-beyond-belief die-hard Bush supporter.

Yes yes yes.. of course.. it's ME who is the problem.. and your labeling of me is laughable... why the need for me being a Bush supporter? The only reason im called one is because i don't call for his hanging.. i look like one compared to the radical lefties on here.

No, that doesn't make you an extremist radical in my book. But I do think you are a right-winger, just as you believe I am a left-winger. The point of my attack is that for three days now I have heard repeatedly the claim that "Clinton fired 93 US Attorney's and Bush only fired 8!!". I have seen it here and heard it over and over on talk radio. Chris Wallace leveled the same charge on TV. The problem with this claim is that it is horribly and demonstrably false. The link Vile provided proves conclusively that Bush fired 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his term ... just like Clinton did!! And yet I hear you and sisko and all the callers on talk radio repeating this stupid canard over and over and it makes me sick. Don't you people ever question the crap these guys feed you? And I've no doubt at all that Rush and Hannity and Wallace and Boortz all know the truth about this perfectly well. They know that Bush did it. They know that Reagan did it too. But do they care about telling you the truth?? Hell, no!!! They care about propping up their man GWB, and if that means only telling you half the story and leaving you with a false understanding of what's going on here then so be it. Those guys are manipulating you, plain and simple. So yeah, I'm on the attack because crap like this pisses me off. And it ought to piss you off too, seeing as how you're the one they're taking advantage of. :mad:
:rant:

um, i havn't really repeated it "over and over".. i think i said something about the 93-8 ratio once... and again you try to lump me with Rush and Hannity... I don't even listen to either of them once a week on average.... what is your agenda with labeling me sedan?

um, i havn't really repeated it "over and over".. i think i said something about the 93-8 ratio once...

Do you admit that the 93-8 argument is a load of crap or did you completely miss the point of Sedan's post?

Yes yes yes.. of course.. it's ME who is the problem.. and your labeling of me is laughable... why the need for me being a Bush supporter? The only reason im called one is because i don't call for his hanging.. i look like one compared to the radical lefties on here.I call you a Bush supporter because you are one. It would not bother me in the least if you called me a Clinton supporter for the simple reason that I take his side far more often than not. Just as you do with Bush. The difference being that I don't pretend to be something I'm not. You do.um, i havn't really repeated it "over and over".. i think i said something about the 93-8 ratio once... and again you try to lump me with Rush and Hannity... I don't even listen to either of them once a week on average.... what is your agenda with labeling me sedan?There are only a few possibilities here. One is that you remember 1993 like it was yesterday and knew all about Clinton firing 93 US Attorneys without having to hear about it on the radio or the TV or reading about it on the internet. Given your age it's pretty safe to assume you heard the "Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys and Bush only fired 8!!" claim from one of those other sources. I doubt very much you made it up on your own. So when you posted it here you were repeating a claim that others have made. When you and others repeat the same claim is when I hear it "over and over". And I'm not kidding; I've heard it at least 20 times over the last few days on the radio alone. But what really set me off is that you posted it after I had linked articles showing otherwise and after Vile had proven beyond all doubt that the claim is specious. To me this is just one more example of your knee-jerk Bush/good Clinton/bad approach to arguing politics, that you would blindly accept and repeat a false claim in the face of already presented incontrovertible evidence.

If I have an agenda with you, Decka, it's that I'd like for you to think more critically the next time someone chimes in with the "Clinton did it too!" and "Everything is Clinton's fault!" garbage that has become the mantra of the right-wing these past six years. And while I won't hold my breath in expectation of this I will say that in my opinion you're not as bad as you used to be -- you even make good points from time to time. This probably sounds condescending as all hell, but I think there's still some hope for you. :)

As some would agree: I posted legit info.


Sisko you are just embarressing yourself.

I read your post. You are just being silly. you sound almost as silly as Brooks trying to defend Ann Coulter.

The DOJ document and the numerous articles I have posted all say the same thing, every president replaces all 93 when they first come in office. That is all Clinton did, which is the same exact thing Bush did when he first took office.

This firing of 8 attorneys is significant because it happened in the middle of his term. That is unprescidented.

If you can find me proof that Clinton ever fired 93 attorneys in the middle of his term then you can talk. Until then, do yourself a favor and STFU.

No, they don't.

It is incredible to hear the Rightwing cheerleaders nattering on and on and on about ""Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!, Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!, Clinton fired 93 US attorneys!""........yet when you provide them indisputable evidence that Bush and Reagan (and virtually all other presidents before Clinton) did the SAME thing, they begin to obfuscate and look the other way and do anything in their power to ignore the truth.

They are so thoroughly infused with intellectually dishonesty there is little point trying to talk sense to them.

________________________

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim”. ____Gustave Le Bon
I think Clinton's firings are brought up because the left is now trying to make it sound that Bush is evil for firing eight.