Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 19, 2007.
click through to the piece to get to the links i didn't bother recreating.
Zim- stop being a partisan hack. Presidents can fire whatever US attorney they want for any reason- just ask obeygiant and Swarmlord.
IMPEACH BUSH NOW.
Yeah, really! Your hatred for this administration is starting to become funny.
Here is a nice little article in Time magazine about how Jimmy Carter zeroed in on U.S. attorneys who annoyed the democrats.
The Carter Admin fired U.S. attorney David Martson for investigating a Democratic Congressman.
So Bush fires prosecutors for what they weren't investigating (supposedly) and Carter fired them for what they were investigating.
Things that make you go, Hmmmm.
So, are you standing up for Carter now? All that proves is that both Carter and Bush are/were shi**y Presidents- a fact that isn't lost on anyone here. Your logic is what's getting funny obeygiant.
i've never understood why yesterday's injustice is a call for today's inaction.
That's why I stick to my Macs
So you can sit there and tell us this isn't partisan politics?
You like the Bush Administration but you're so caught up in doing the right thing for the country that this U.S. attorney thing just can't be overlooked. Is that it?
The reason why Clinton and Carter and probably others in the past are brought up is because this is how it works in politics. Do you think it doesn't? If you hire a lawyer do you just want him to prosecute the law or do you want him to do what you want while prosecuting the law? Do you think that this flap over the firings is going to change the way a president hires and fires in the future? No, it won't. All this is, is something that takes the media attention from something else. And with a presidential election around the corner you can bet the farm that there will be more fake-issues like this in the news media.
And what exactly would this be taking our attention from? I think it's just more kindling for the fire personally. Add this to the list of crap Bush continues to pull.
At least it's being questioned by Congress now. I think the administration was operating under the old method of doing business when the AG's office lied about the attorneys being fired for "performance" instead of political reasons and disavowed any White House involvement. I suspect they thought the entire matter would just fade away. They didn't anticipate the Congressional investigation.
Everything already being said, I agree that AG's job is in serious trouble.
I'm saving this for posterity, and so we can have a talk about how wrong you were later.
Would you have said anything if Clinton had been able to fire Starr just as his investigation was heating up? Or would you have just shrugged and said "oh hell, JC did it too"?
Again, if what we suspect actually did occur, we're talking about obstruction of justice.
Wrong about what? That this is partisan politics or that presidents have been using the USAs to do their bidding since George Washington.
I thought Ken Starr was an independent council not a U.S. Attorney.
What is it that we suspect again?
That this is a non-issue.
Right, but I'm saying reverse the situation. Clinton fires a prosecutor who appears to be getting close to his White House, and obeyg shrugs his shoulders and says "well JC did it too", or does obeyg get upset?
I'm just saying to use your imagination. I'm not saying that Clinton had the power to fire Starr. I'm saying WHAT IF Clinton had the power to fire Starr and did it. Would you have had the cavalier attitude that you have right now?
I (and others here I would imagine) suspect that these USAs were fired because they were treading too close to the WH and other prominent Republicans with their investigations. If that happened, would you not agree that an obstruction of justice charge would be warranted?
I thought that the Clinton deal of accepting the pro-forma letters of resignation from ALL attorneys of the prior administration was wrong. But, they serve at the pleasure of the administration; that's just the deal. And, an incoming new broom often sweeps clean, as the old cliche goes.
But firing somebody who's been kept on, and kept on for six years of apparently-adequate performance until now, hey, that's suspect. And firing one because that person is "getting close" to some political ally is crooked.
Public hearings are Good Things.
Well that's just because, as we all know, you're a partisan liberal. Just like former (Republican) Congressman Joe Scarborough. And everyone else who can tell the difference. Or just gets that neither Clinton nor Carter are President anymore, and even if they did it, wouldn't make it right. That seems to be the only thing they can do, is try to say it's no big deal. At least, while it's a Republican. Or are they trying to say Clinton and Carter were bad, because wouldn't that make Bush guilty too?
Make up your mind you moderates! They're all bad, or it's no big deal? Well, whatever, here are some links proving why this is a problem and why we're angry, no matter what 2 people who aren't president anymore did or didn't do that no one is arguing is right if they did the same thing.
Republicans angry when Clinton did it who are saying it's ok now, even though it's worse.
Why it's worse.
Yet another person saying Al lied.
Bush saying he doesn't think they should have to testify under oath (whatever happened to, "if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"?).
The Senate, saying no one should be able to do this.
Dems threatening subpoenas.
There are more if you would like them, but I'm afraid I'm preaching to the choir and the people who really need to read this stuff won't.