Thursday, March 15, 2007

News flash! More U.S. attorneys fired!

News flash ... to all the hyperventilating democrats who are beside themselves with indignation at the routine firing this week of eight U.S. attorneys ... Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he entered office. Janet Reno is on record saying it is a normal procedure when moving from one administration to another ... but the democrats will do anything, say anything against the Bush Adminstration to misinform the American people. For the libs, it's politics first, country last.

Where is the MSM to bring the "fair and balanced" look at this issue? When the dems started yelling about the Bush administration firing attorneys, the media's job was to say, "Look, this is normal, Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he entered office."

Now the democrats wants Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign. Janet Reno, Clinton's AG, was not fired and did not resign. AG Gonzales should not resign or be fired either.

Democrat ... thy name is hypocrisy.


Jackson Landers said...

No one denies that. What is odd is removing them from office mid-term because the WH has a political problem with the decisions they are making. 'Odd,' but not illegal of course.

As usual, the big problem emerging is not so much the actual removal of the attorneys mid-term (which is the President's prerogative, even if not traditionally exercised), but rather the fact that administration and Justice Dept. officials lied the reasons at first. Assuming that Gonzales is candid and truthful from this point onward and does not follow through with his threats to block staff from obeying subpoenas, this whole thing should blow over in a month or so.

Unknown said...

More semantics? U.S. Attorneys are political appointees and Presidents have for as long as I can remember accepted their resignations when the President comes into office so he can replace them with his own appointees. It was done before Clinton and your beloved George Bush did it also. That was different, it's how new administrations work. But Bush's actions are unprecedented and improper. Why defend everything the man does? He's incompetent--time for you to admit it.

Anonymous said...

Spin much? Or are you really that uninformed?
Reagan fired all of the previous administrations attorneys upon his election, GH Bush fired all of those upon his election, Clinton followed the practice, and then so did lil W.

What makes this siginficant is that Bush fired his own appointees after glowing reviews and only after they refused to play politics. The public statements versus the private e-mails and documents very clearly illustrate the orchestrated efforts to purge the attorney's for purely political motives. Then it was lied about.

Is this the kind of governing and conduct you approve of, or again are you spinning or just uninformed?

Bush and Gonzales have admitted to it. But you deny it? Wow.

Anonymous said...

heh..."News Flash" from someone so misinformed. Why don't you actually read a news story about the issue rather than spin?

Phriendly Jaime said...

Holy CRAP, Swac Girl, are you allowing anon comments?

NICE. Keep it up. :)

Oh, and yes; this is unprecedented, and your spin won't make it what you want it to be.

Still, though, good on you; you can take crap, as I have proven I can too. At least you don't have people calling your job.

Lynn R. Mitchell said...

Jaime, I'm allowing anonymous comments as long as they are clean. We'll see how it goes....

I see from all the comments the talking points have been issued and everyone is on task. Good try, folks, but I have just one question to ask: Did you approve of Bill Clinton firing 93 attorneys? Your spin is just that: spin. It doesn't wash here.

Minnesota Central said...

Questions: Are US Attorney’s still appointed to a four year term? As far as I can recall (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton) incoming Presidents have routinely replaced at least some US Attorneys – albeit some may have been allowed to complete their term. Comparing what Clinton did at the start of his term to what Bush did at the 6-year mark is inappropriate. A valid comparison would be: of the Clinton-appointed US Attorneys, how many US Attorneys did Clinton fire versus GW Bush ? Bush wins with eight. (Hint : Only three US Attorneys have been fired in the past 25 years.)

Comment : Let’s take the Party-blinders off --- you wouldn’t be comparing Bush’s action to Clinton, if the action could be justified on its own merits. What is the message that is being sent to the other US Attorneys ? Will qualified people want those jobs or will only party-hacks (regardless of which party is in power) be employed regardless of their qualifications?

The real problem is that the change in the Patriot Act provides for that US Attorneys do not have to be confirmed by the US Senate. It’s the advice and consent provision that is missing. This is just another shift of power to the Executive Branch. After this past November’s elections, I would think that Republicans would appreciate protecting minority rights and oversight as important functions in a democracy. Republican Senators seem to like the 60-vote majority rules today, a whole lot better than when they were as the majority in the 109th Congress. Imagine if a Democrat was in the White House and Dems controlled Congress --- oh, yeah, that is what it was for the first six years of Bush’s term.

FYI – Your site was mentioned in an article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune newspaper.
My blog is MinnesotaCentral.