Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ use Tuesday of the passive phrase “mistakes were made” — about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys — was quite a contrast to the recent head-rolling in Washington, D.C., in the veterans’ health care scandal. Probably most closely associated with Ronald Reagan’s 1986 description of the Iran-contra affair, those three wimpy words are rarely followed by action in the service of accountability. Political observer William Schneider once said: “This usage should be referred to as the past exonerative.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- Politico on Too many exemptions
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
62 Comments
I am sorry but fair or not, moral or not it is the President’s prerogative! This is becoming another bright, shiny object to distract the public with, what is there to win? But my question is, “Why would the Attorney General of the United States need the power to appoint new U.S. Attorneys under the “Patriot act” without the normal Congressional approval process?” That one stumped me, I guess I need to read TPA more carefully.
What many people seem it ignore or forget is that the problem is NOT that they were fired. Clinton, after all fired more than ninety attorneys when he took office.
The complaint with Gonzo and the Shrub is that they lied and caused others to lie under oath to Congress when asked about the why of the firings.
That makes them guilty of perjury, a felony.
When innocent people are killed by gang-bangers’ gunfire you will sometimes see a gang-banger say “I’m sorry people got hurt.” Passive voice, displaces blame. The gang-banger does not acknowledge responsibility. You never hear the gang-banger say “I’m sorry that I murdered those inocent people.”
A similar mindset exists in this White House. “Shit happens but nothing is ever my fault.”
Irresponsibility, thy name is Bush.
Gonzalez wouldn’t have said it if his boss weren’t perturbed with him about the situation.
But it was an empty admission since everyone from the president on down supports the actual firings. And as writerdog points out, it is the president’s perogative.
This is as much of a non issue as were the Scooter Libby trial. Let’s move on to things that matter.
One gets the feeling on Republican Attorney General appointments if it it were somehow possible that President Bush could appoint Robert Kennedy (brother of John F and former AG) that the Democrats would find something to complain about.
Writerdog,
The only bright shiny object here is the pointless wingnut canard of Presidential prerogative. Yes, other presidents (including Clinton!) have hired and fired US Attorneys. Yes, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. These facts are not in dispute and do nothing to address the multiple serious issues at hand. To your credit, you ask one good question. One likely answer is that they needed to bypass the normal process becuase they didn’t want to answer questions about why they were firing these people. Why not? The US Attorney from NM appears to have been pressured to issue indictments against Democrats immediately prior to the 2006 mid-term election. A development such as that might have been helpful to the incumbant Republican in a close race. (And wouldn’t you know it, the US Attorney in NJ made a lot of noise about investigating the Democratic Senate candidate immediately prior to the election. Imagine that coincidence!)
But the true elephant in the room here is the firing of Carol Lam, the US Attorney from San Diego. Lam was in charge of a stunning public corruption investigation that has already led to the resignation and conviction of Congressman Duke Cunnigham. That same investigation has now led to California Rep Lewis, former Chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Appropriations means MONEY. And lots of it. And wouldn’t you know it, both Cunnigham and Lewis are… you guessed it… Republicans. Gosh, I wonder why the Bush Administration would want to fire Carol Lam and then bypass the normal congressional approval process when installing her replacement.
Oh, one more thing. The Attorney General of the United States LIED to Congress about all of this.
This has NOTHING to do with Presidential prerogative. It has everything to do with abuse of power and placing party before country.
Nice commentary Condor and thanks for displaying your “aces” on that hand of political poker.
I think you will see as time goes on in this over-hyped piece of press work, that this is much ado about nothing.
If I’m wrong, I’ll be the first to admit it. If I forget remind me. But if I am right, remember I won’t gloat about it, but remember that I told you so.
As I said it is not the fact that they fired them that is a concern to me, sadly Politics happens!The real concern I have is the allowance of the A.G.U.S. to circumvent the standard protocol of Congressional approval. I can think of some circumstances where the need would arise. Such as a mass killing of a large number of U.S. Attorneys. It would be a mute point to say there could be an emergency of prosecuting terrorism suspects. Since they will not be trial in a court of law in the U.S. the need to replace the U.S. Attorneys on the quick is not apparent. Can anyone else think of there being a reason for such a circumvent of the law placed in the Patriot act?
My Party IS the country! And I AM the decider! Of course I fired them, they were undermining my absolute rule. And I will replace them with ones who will obey my orders!
Don’t you ever misunderestimate my wrath!
One likely answer is that they needed to bypass the normal process because they didn’t want to answer questions about why they were firing these people.
Condor that is plausible, but then this would have meant that this was a plan long running. I do not recall exactly when the Patriot act was renewed and I would have thought that someone would have seen it and pointed it out asking “ What is this?”.
I see it being missed the first time around, at that point no one questioned the Patriot act’s need nor scope. But by the renew there had been quite of bit a questioning going on.
Republican,
Thanks for the amicable words. But I just don’t understand how you can acknowledge the strength of my points and then resort back your “nothing to see here” dismissals. During the 90’s all I heard from Republicans was that ours is a country ruled by laws, not men. If someone in the Clinton White House so much as sneezed it invariably led to hundreds of hours of sworn congressional testimony. So forgive me if I’m somewhat bewildered by the confidence Republicans suddenly have in their men and their casual attitude toward laws.
My post above is not political posturing. It’s not a hand of poker. It’s not part of a game. I’m talking about the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States abusing the powers of their offices to subvert the rule of law by pressuring US Attorneys to investigate political opponents and firing those who investigate political allies.
And one final point: The ongoing bribery and corruption case Carol Lam was in charge of involved powerful GOP Congressmen, defense contractors, the Deparment of Defense and the CIA and it is all taking place in a time of war. All Americans should be outraged at the thought that powerful government officials are selling out our nation’s security for a profit. Carol Lam recieved nothing but positive job reviews up until the day she was fired. Think about that and tell me honestly if you still believe there’s nothing to see here.
Beware the Ides of March!!
Much ado about nothing. Once again the democrats who didn’t deliver on their campaign promises to get us out of Iraq (they found this was political suicide) are latching onto anything to shine the light away from that.
Like it or not it is legal. The AG and the prez have now and have always had the right to replace employees. These employees were not delivering the inditements they had been ordered to prosecute. In Carol Lam’s case she did hit paydirt with Duke and I applaud her for that. But on the other hand feet dragging gave some democrat candidates free rein to do as they pleased.
Ain’t politics great!!
Perhaps your assertions are true Condor. Let me comment on your last paragraph.
You say that “Carol Lam was in charge of involved powerful GOP Congressman, defense contractors, the Department of Defense and the CIA and it is all taking place in a time of war.”
Isn’t that outside of venue of Carol Lam? When I watched Carol Lam on CSPAN the other day, she stated she was only the overseer of two or three counties in California.
For one, what law would give Carol Lam to investigate these matters across so many state boundaries, Federal entities and jurisdictional precincts? If anyone was to do this, I would guess the Attorney General, Special Prosecutor or the committees in Congress would have this authority.
Mr. Hubble was also an extremely bright attorney during the Clinton administration. I recall he went to prison though. Do you recall that?
Now if you can specifically point to those bribery charges and corruption violations in Carol Lams precinct, please do expound.
I have no tolerance for these kinds of violation and would be interested in hearing if in actuality there were investigations by Carol Lam or perhaps this might possibly be some Urban myths floating to the top of the News Cycle.
Condor the link I furnished yesterday from the Wall Street Journal pointed out the absurdity of the democrat probe developing in congress now. This is hypocracy at it’s worse. A waste of government time. If the system has a problem, fix it. Don’t try to circumvent the existing law by reading into it powers that don’t exist for either side of the aisle.
Republican,
Sorry for the delay, typepad ate my original response.
The San Diego US Attorney’s office has jursidiction over the ongoing Cunningham bribery case because Cunningham represented California’s 50th Congressional District, including San Diego. After his conviction he agreed to continue helping with the investigation.
As for the question of why the investigation hasn’t been taken up by the Attorney General or someone in Congress, I would think the answer is self evident. The Attorney General just fired her in the midst of the investigation and the people she was investigating were, among other well-connected Republicans, Congressmen. And I think you’ll recall the last Congress was oddly disintrested in using it’s oversight powers.
If you’re concerned Lam’s investigation is an urban myth, I think this wikipedia entry sums up his brazen crimes fairly well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham If wikipedia is too unreliable for you, I encourage you to search the archives of any major newspaper or just read the daily coverage of Lam’s firing.
Finally, I can’t figure out what Hubble has to do with the matter at hand. Yes, it’s true, he was convicted for something involving his handling of the Rose Law firm’s billing records. He served time in jail.
Condor I believe you are right on this. I guess my question would be: Was the direction of her investigation so narrow that she was only looking at misdeeds of one party?
I can see that if there were indeed crimes from both parties but only one side investigated, this might incense the sitting prez.
I welcome the investigation to show the entire situation.
I guess I look at William Jefferson (D) of Louisana who was caught with the COLD cash that he was bribed with and not only was there no investigation he is still a setting congressman and has been elevated to the member of a committee.
For me it is Dems clean your own house before going after the opposing party about the dirt on their floor.
Writerdog,
In a long overdue answer to your questions about the Patriot Act. The reauthorization was signed into law in March, 2006. Section 502, the provision allowing the administration to sidestep the normal approval process for appointing US Attorneys, was slipped in at the last minute during the conference committee by then Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp109WW2yG&refer=&r_n=hr333.109&db_id=109&item=&sel=TOC_186480&
And you’re right, there was quite a bit of questioning going on during the reauthorization process, but the warrantless wiretapping issue got all the attention. Apparently no one but Specter and the GOP conference committee members knew about Sec 502. Bills of this sort are often hundreds of pages long filled with dense legal language. It’s sadly not unusual for such things to be voted on without anyone knowing they are in the bills.
Well ksgrm, we just might find out:
Panel OKs subpoenas in attorney probeLAURIE KELLMANAssociated PressWASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday cleared the way for subpoenas compelling five Justice Department officials and six of the U.S. attorneys they fired to tell the story of the purge that has prompted demands for the ouster of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/breaking_news/16904314.htm
No more rubber-stamp congress willing to roll over for Bush!
Condor,
Back at after some time delay, my apologies.
First forgive me for the shot fired across your bow on Hubble. I suppose my intention was to make you aware of Mr. Hubble and his appointment as the third associate Attorney General in the Clinton Administration. President Clinton described Mr. Hubble as his closest friend. Mr. Hubble was in the Rose Law Firm with Senator Hillary Clinton back in the day. Hubbell pleaded “guilty” to tax evasion and mail fraud in the Rose Law Firm affair. Prosecutors said he had bilked his former clients and the law firm out of more than $480,000. Hubbell spent 16 months in prison.
I will address the Carol Lam situation next.
Hard truth I am all for the truth. But as i said before if we are only going to look at one side of the aisle we will still have the problem. Leahy says he wants all to come voluntarily to the committee and I hope this happens. I just get a feeling that the probe is politically motivated.
Hope I am wrong.
“look at one side of the aisle” is what has been going on for 6 years. Now, for the first time in a long time, we will start seeing the other side. The Republican Congress will no longer be able to cover it up.
“I just get a feeling that the probe is politically motivated.” Yes, the firings WERE politically motivated.
Carol Lam,
I quote this from:Greg Moran and Onell R. SotoUnion-Tribune Staff Writers, San Diego
In regards to the Duke Cunningham case:
“A San Diego grand jury issued subpoenas to Congress last month, indicating that the investigation continues. The subpoenas would be unaffected by a change in the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.” (Meaning Carol Lam’s departure would not affect the subpoenas.)
Concerning some of the reasons Carol Lam may have been let go. Apparently Carol Lam had set priorities of going for the high profile cases (quality) instead of the many and perhaps more insidious cases (quantity) of criminal behavior especially those dealing with Border violations and smuggling of illegal aliens.
From the start, Lam said she would put more focus on white-collar crime cases, which can be more complex and take more time and resources.
An independent research organization based at Syracuse University analyzed prosecution data and concluded that between 2001, before Lam took over, and 2005, prosecutions in San Diego declined to 3,261 from 5,266, or 38 percent. More recent statistics are not available.
But even in that area (Border and illegal immigration transport,) the number of cases went down. In 2001, according to the Syracuse study, there were 142 white-collar crime prosecutions. In 2005, the number was 82.
The result was predictable. Statistics show that prosecutions fell during Lam’s tenure.”
It appears that Carol Lam refuse to prosecute the “Coyotes” that were taking illegal immigrants across the border. She went after the so-called ring leaders of illegal immigrants,which is a harder and much more expensive case to prove. Besides, even if she did prosecute the ring leaders of the Border Smuggler Kings, someone else would have stepped in from the “Coyote” crowd and taken their place. It is after all, a crime of illegal profits.
By letting all these “Coyotes” go, Carol Lam made life unbearable for Border Agents stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.
While it may be good to get a high profile case under your belt, if you ignore the pleadings of the Border Patrol agency and only prosecute those cases so as a US Attorney you can get more reputation and fame, then you are defeating the purpose and goals of the office.
This in my opinion, (the Border Patrol Issue and the fact that Subpoenas from the Jury) is the reason Carol Lam was let go.
She had decided the path of the cases she hand picked was more important than the people dealing with the actual problems. She was going for glory, not justice.
Now, you can accuse me of being bias, but the meat of the argument was ferreted out by local reporters in San Diego, not some vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I think the local reporters in San Diego got it right; Carol Lam was all about Carol Lam, not the priorities of the Justice Department.
Republican,
Congratulations! You’ve identified one Democrat under a legitimate ethical cloud! Can you name any others? Seriously. Anyone?
Also, I think you’ll recall that just as many Congressional Republicans were howling about the FBI raids on Jefferson’s office last year. So it’s not as though the Democrats are entirely alone in coddling their corrupt Congresional bretheren.
Quick Quiz: In just the last 18 months the following individuals resigned from Congress due to political scandals ranging from corruption to child pornography: Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. What political party do they represent?
Don’t be suprised if Rep Wilson and Sen Domenici join those four. They’ve both implicated in the US Attorney firing scandal we’re discussing in this thread.
I’m sorry for my sarcasm, and I appreciate your civil tone and willingness to condeed some of the points I’ve made in my previous points. But the implication that Democrats have anywhere near the ethical problems that Republicans do right now is frankly unsupported by even the briefest review of the facts.
Posted by: Condor | March 15, 2007 at 12:49 PMQuick Quiz: “In just the last 18 months the following individuals resigned from Congress due to political scandals ranging from corruption to child pornography: Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley. What political party do they represent?”
With the exception of Duke Cunningham, these incidents have nothing to do with the thread of this topic.
I would, however be willing to discuss them on the open thread.
Republican thanks for taking the time to research this. This is more in keeping with what I have seen up to this point.
Yes hard truth it is political. But as your name implies you are interested in the truth at any cost.
I have a hard time believing in the pure motives of the democrats when they haven’t yet dealth with the problems such as William Jefferson and Sandy Berger.
Democrats are all over the news yelling for Gonzales to resign. It just reeks as business as usual.
JaneNobody lied.You can have several reasons for firing.It appears the biggest reason might not have been announced: Most of these US Attorneys refused to investigate voter fraud!
As was noted in a link yesterday Justice Departments lied under oath to Congress about White House involvement in the firings.
And ksgrm – when you say “Democrats are all over the news yelling for Gonzales to resign” are you referring to this?
“”I think the president should replace him,” Sununu said in an interview. “I think the attorney general should be fired.”
HardNot exactly.Bush has said that he complained to the AG about voter fraud cases not being investigated.That is a far cry from Bush ordering the firing.Bush more than likely gave the AG the Green Light and told him it was his call.You cant have it both ways.You cant say Bush is both asleep at the wheel and micromanaging.If Bush decided to delegate HIS decision to Gonzales:END OF STORY!
By the way, there are confidentiality questions and issues here.Any employer is at a disadvantage when a disgruntled, fired employee complains.The Employee can say anything.The Employer, even the President, CANT!
Didn’t say Bush, I said White House. In fact, it looks like Rove:
“WASHINGTON – The White House acknowledged on Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove served as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors as House investigators declared their intention to question him about any role he may have played in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Rove relayed complaints from Republican officials and others to the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office. She said Rove, the chief White House political operative, specifically recalled passing along complaints about former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias and may have mentioned the grumblings about Iglesias to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/16885509.htm
Also other White House officials:
“Internal memos between the Justice Department and the White House show that administration officials were determined to bypass Congress in selecting replacements for eight U.S. attorneys who were forced to resign. The memos include a five-step plan for executing the dismissals and dealing the anticipated political firestorm.
“We’re a go for the US Atty plan,” White House aide William Kelley notified the Justice Department on Dec. 4, three days before seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were told to step down. “WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes.”
“WH leg” refers to the White House legislative affairs office, which works closely with members of Congress.”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/16899560.htm
Speaking of Congressman William Jefferson, outrage over anything else will pale as long as this man is on the Homeland Security committee. How could Ms. Pelosi put a man with his record and for sale sign be on such a critical, sensitive committee?
I hope the FBI is keeping him under close watch. Maybe they can catch him on tape taking a bribe. What, they already have? Hmm….
So HardTruth,
Is it okay for Carol Lam to go for the high profile cases for her own name recognition than to prosecute the meat and potatoes of what her predecessor did?
Carol Lam’s case count has dropped 38 percent. If I was her employer(and in a way we all are), I would certainly ask why and when I didn’t receive a satisfactory answer, Ms. Lam would have to find her way to the nearest exit.
Loss of productivity in any environment is certainly cause for termination.
Hard Truth I was actually refering to Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid.
If that had been the case then her reviews would have reflected it. No, numbers going up or down can simply reflect going after difficult or easy cases. She went after the difficult ones.
The hard truth is that it isn’t how your co-workers precieve your output but how the top honcho see you. Her production was found to be lacking. Hence she is gone. Trying to make a crime when non exists is a waste of time and money for the taxpayers.
HardTruth,
Not just difficult, but high profile. High Profile mean that more news stories may be printed about it and more notoriety for Carol Lam.
She refused to prosecute “Coyote” cases which was and is causing huge problems for the San Diego area. While she was putting on her high profile case “tuxedo” hundreds of prosecutable cases went untouched.
Sorry, but I don’t buy into any of this conspiracy stuff.
Carol Lam did not achieve results that local conditions demanded she meet. That is, she allowed illegal Border crossings aided by Coyotes to go without prosecution.
You think this is unimportant, then explain that to the Mexican citizens who suffocate in cattle trucks or the ones who are killed in overcrowded vans.
Carol Lam didn’t seem to care about this, she wanted her name in lights.
I don’t know, ksgrm, from what I have read on this subject, sure sounds like SOMETHING that requires a little further investigation – the thing that bothers me the most isn’t the firings, but the fact that the White House LIED about it’s involvement in said firings (and yes, we know they lied, as we have their statement to the press during the initial fall out and then the release of emails from White House employees to Justice Department employees – evidence enough there – no reading between the lines necessary) is what concerns me the most – and picking on one attorney and saying “well her productivity went down, doesn’t matter how good her reviews were” is just patently ridiculous and does not uphold your argument, for several reasons – A) are you an attorney, or have you been an attorney that you can say that the decline in her “productivity” is due to anything other than difficult cases that were time consuming coming her way during her time as US attorney B) who are you to say which cases are the most important and whether or not she should be pursuing them – do you have facts on the cases she did prosecute and the ones she didn’t to PROVE that she failed to follow up necessary crimes or that she was doing anything less than what she felt was in the best interest of her district and C) when employers who are in charge of employees that they do not deal with directly on a daily basis, is it any less than good business practice to consider ALL things, including performance reviews in which the employee is given good feedback, before firing? There are certain things where QUALITY is so much more important than QUANTITY, and I would venture a guess that this would be one of them… any lawyers care to shoot out their opinion on this?
Speaking of political motivation …
“GOP chair urged attorney firingNew Mexico Republican party chairman Allen Weh said he asked top White House officials to fire U.S. Attorney David Iglesias.”
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/nation/16879274.htm
ksgrm,
I can’t BELIEVE you’re arguing this is a waste of time and money for the taxpayers. I just can’t. It’s beyond belief. Have you contributed anything on this thread that wasn’t a kneejerk appology for the administration?
Lam was leading the investigation into one of the most stunning and sweeping public corruption cases in memory. This is a case where it has already been proven in a court of law that a Congressman accepted millions of dollars in bribes from a defense contractor in exchange for steering no-bid contracts to certain companies. If the bribes amounted to milions of dollars, how much do you suppose the contracts were good for? As with most white collar crimes, this is undoubtably a very complex case requiring a great deal of Lam’s time and budget to pursue. Maybe the answer to this problem is to give the San Diego US Attorney’s office a bigger budget so they can hire more staff. I’m sorry. For a moment there I used my brain. No, the wingnut answer, of course is to stop prosecuting white collar crime. Anything else is a waste of taxpayer time and money. (never mind all that taxpayer time and money being wasted by corrupt white collar criminals)
It’s also interesting to note your immediate and enthusiastic adoption, with almost no factual evidence, of the notion that Lam was some sort of showboating egoist, not truly concerned with anything but her own reputation. Wingnut arguments like this are always magically self-correcting. Duke Cunningham, powerful Republican Congressman, is suspected of being stunningly corrupt. Lam investigates the allegations and discovers that Cunningham is, in fact, stunningly corrupt. This fact gets widespread media coverage, because people generally like to know when their elected leaders are found in a court of law to be stunningly corrupt. The fact that Lam was in charge of the investigation that got a lot of media attention means that Lam is a showboating egoist. She cares for nothing but seeing “her name in lights.” Why, not only was Bush right to fire her, he should have her arrested. Because Carol Lam is directly responsible for poor mexican’s suffocating in vans! or something.
Anyway, nothing to see here. Move along. LOOK! Some guy we’ve had in jail for five years admitted to being connected to 9/11!!!!
This just in… Carol Lam hates puppies and ice cream! WHY DOES CAROL LAM HATE FREEDOM?
ksgrm, your arguments are comedic gold.
Condor – WELL WRITTEN!
Condor,
The prosecution and administration of cases in the Southern District of California does not cease to flow because Carol Lam has exited.
Take a look at the Website for the Southern District of California. You will find it is an organized and complex entity of Assistant Prosecutors and administrative specialists who mind the store for Southern California’s Federal district.
I find the term Wingnut and the comment “This just in… Carol Lam hates puppies and ice cream! WHY DOES CAROL LAM HATE FREEDOM?ksgrm, your arguments are comedic gold.”
irresponsible and it adds nothing to a so far constructive debate.
If you wish to discuss the conditions of the release of Carol Lam in an adult manner, then by all means let us hear from you.
You might just be right with your assertions, none of us really know now do we?
What we are doing on this blog is discussing the issue. If the Senate finds out something different in its own investigation and you were right, I’ll be right back here saying I should have listened to you.
Just pretend this is like opening arguments in a court case. Nothing is decided and no testimony has been heard.
Let’s keep it civil. Ok?
Apologies to everyone for the over the top nature of my previous message. Suffice it to say I’ve reached my limit of listening to kneejerk defenses of this administration on this issue. (and most other issues, for that matter) This issue is very much like the Berlin Wall. If you watch it long enough you realize that the VAST majority of people are crossing it in one direction. In this case, the vast majority of the initial skeptics are now coming around to ask questions of their own.
But for some, like our friend ksgrm, we must never question our all knowing, incorruptible GOP Overlords.
Brace yourself ksgrm. Soon a Democrat will be elected as President and you’ll find your knee jerking so fast in the direction of questioning everything the President does that you may lose your footing entirely.
Republican,
As you were posting your call for civility I was posting a note taking a slight step back from the tone of my mocking of ksgrm.
But I just have to note here that wingnuts (and I use the term advisably) routinely lob absurd arguments that basically amount to “Carol Lam wants Mexicans to suffocate in trucks” and no one questions their civility.
Republican, I appreciate your willingness to look at this issue thoughtfully. But I don’t have time for ksgrm and his ilk anymore.
(nods to Condor) Understand and let’s hope we can get through all of this without nary a paper cut. :)
Condor I am not very familiar with you or your background but I find it a little absurd that after reading one post you were able to jump all over me and my opinion. If you really look you will find that this morning I have lambasted Bush for his handling of the spending, Brownback for his position on immigration, Newt for his hipocracy in his handling of Bush – I don’t have heros but I do have a sense of justice in how different parties are handled in the press.
You knee-jerked so quickly I wonder who you have been hanging out with lately. Might be some we are very familliar with here.
Wendy I have never said this shouldn’t have been investigated. It should see the light of day. What I have commented on is that Delay and many others stepped down at the behest of their brothers in the party. William Jefferson and others under a severe cloud are not only still in congress but were elevated to positions of power.
This is my point. I want all criminals out of power positions. I don’t care if they are republicans or democrats. I sometimes feel that some read only selective posts and then reply without the benefit of all the facts.
Sorry Condor and Wendy that you don’t agree with my opinion but I am entitled to have it am I not?
Never said you weren’t entitled to have your opinion, but may I remind you that YOU were the one saying this was a waste of time and money? What is that to mean if it does not mean that they should investigate? All the same, on the other side of the shoe, aren’t we allowed to have our own opinon as well?
And, rereading my earlier comments to you, I don’t believe on touched on any of the ongoing criminal issues with government – but if you are going to go that far, perhaps Bush should bear some scrutiny as well?
Wendy, NO President should be above scrutiny…but they need to be scrutinized for REAL things, not just fabricated stuff.
Take this attorney-firing issue. If, as has been stated, the US Attorney’s serve at the PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT, then they can be hired and fired for ANY reason. In fact, GWB just might not like the size of one’s ears, and the guy can legitimately be fired.
If it is NOT true, and the US Attorney’s are protected under some law – I want to hear it.
Yes, scrutinized the President – but do so over legitimate matters. Not convoluted ones.
I know those who hate the Republican Administration, want so desperately to find something, anything, to stir the pot over, but this kind of stuff seems silly.
At least it does to me.
I would rather we discuss the guy who just confessed to masterminding the 911 attacks.
Because, guess what? If he did – then bin Laden was never the big guy on the totem pole.
But this guy was washboarded – does anyone think that is actually a type of torture?
I would like a torture thread.
I hope the WEPowers come up with one.
…hint…hint
Wendy you certainly have the right to your opinion.
“I don’t know, ksgrm, from what I have read on this subject, sure sounds like SOMETHING that requires a little further investigation – the thing that bothers me the most isn’t the firings, but the fact that the White House LIED about it’s involvement in said firings (and yes, we know they lied, as we have their statement to the press during the initial fall out and then the release of emails from White House employees to Justice Department employees -”
Sure sounded like an opinion to me. You sure are quick to jump. Maybe you’re not that middle of the road afterall. I don’t profess to be – that is the difference between us I guess.
Did you know Kansas is a right to work state? What that means is that a business owner, owns the job and he can offer it or take it away on a whim. He doesn’t have to justify himself to anyone. Only if bias can be proved based on protected conditions, age, etc. would there be a court case.
As for lying to Congress: Congress really had no business looking into this in the first place. The jobs were extended at the pleasure of the prez and can be taken back in the same way.
The waste in my opinion is that this is another dog chasing his tail and we are paying the price.
Personnel matters cannot be discussed in public. No questions about why someone was fired are acceptable. Try calling someone for a reference on an employee that worked for them and now wants a job with you. You will most likely be told the dates they worked – period. This is because legally you can’t say more.
That is what I meant by a waste. MOHO
You all are getting off easy here.
I know 3 posters who could have taken this thead to 200 posts and better. And 190 of those posts would have been you flailing your arms and rebutted with reasoned response.
I’m not up on this issue. I DO know that yes these folks serve at the pleasure of the President.
BUT there are procedures for dismissing them. In this case these were apparently circumvented. And NOW or rather several hours ago, comes the breaking news that this starts in the White House with KKKarl Rove.
Ya know? I’ve posted before and I’ll say it again.
I think one of the secrets of this administration is that there is SO MUCH corruption that one scandal gets forgotten because of the emergence of another. Interesting strategy?
Nah, corruption and incompetence.
JR what I am seeing here is that there was indeed discussion on dismissing some but not all. It isn’t unusual for this to happen in any organization. If they were underachievers then they should have been dismissed. If they weren’t then they could still be dismissed and the reason didn’t have to be discussed with the public or congress.
This is the law and it is disengenious to assume that Clinton’s firings were righteous when they were all fired and the department was thrown in disarray for months, and to call the Bush administration before congress for doing it on a much smaller scale. I hear that it had never been done before and I really don’t know about that but I do know that what Clinton did had never been done before.
Where is the corruption? Who broke the law and what law did they break? I really want to know.
Rove sees hypocrisyEarlier Thursday, Rove said the removal of prosecutors was based entirely on policy and personnel matters at the Justice Department.
In an appearance Thursday morning at Troy University in Troy, Ala., Rove said the dismissals were no different than ones in the Clinton administration, and he questioned why the Bush administration’s action is drawing “super-heated rhetoric” while the dismissals during President Clinton’s terms did not.
Rove’s comments were not true. For one thing, the Clinton firings, just like the Reagan ones before him and the Bush 2 ones after, were the traditional ‘house-cleaning’ of an in-coming administration. These were not; these are 6 years in. This is unprecedented.
It is not surprising that Rove is trying to deflect. Justice Department officials testified under oath that it had been internal Justice Department; it has subsequently come out that it came from the White House – specifically Rove.
Post Counts eh J R?
Wow, I didn’t know this Blog was about post counts…
I bet 189 of those posts would have had been composed with one or more instances of reich wing, moron, dumb ass, idiot, clueless, the shrub, preznit, bushdabum, your choice of body orifices, phallus projections, homophobia references, heheheheheeehheee, republican is a hider nic stealing troll who is (insert 1001 names here), re-posts from other parts of the Blog that are totally irrelevant to the current topic, I kicked your ass remarks, flatulent remarks, copulation remarks, incest remarks, bestiality remarks, your mom remarks, your lack of size in mental ability, are you prejudiced remarks, you are prejudiced remarks, mammal doing acrobat remarks, reptiles doing mammals, something about birds and where they should fly into what orifice in what direction, carnal knowledge of metal instruments, analogy akin to metaphysical organ shrinking, pig saddling, unique horse mounting techniques, armadillo rodeoing, carpentry using sadistic masochistic techniques and blueprints, wild dolphin orchestra singing, mouthwash yodeling, television re run comparison as it has to do with bowling ball juggling, knife throwing, dart throwing, baseball umpire eye gouging and dirt kicking, hockey jersey grabbing techniques, face guarding, ear pulling, tattooing by ink jet printing and ice picks, toliet bowl diving, not now I’m washing my one hair technique, samurai ice dancing, sumo wrestling ballet, gumball chewing and sticking under your seat methods, vomiting, spitting, hacking, lugie tossing, ring tone commentary utilizing bob dylan lyrics, yo mama, his mama, their mama, my mama, sky diving from three foot altitudes, diving for apples, belly flopping, belly dancing, navel infatuation, navel lint collection methods, what planet are you from, what rock did you crawl from under, who appointing you king, queen, prince, princess, duke, lord, god, etc, you don’t know jack squat (insert word of choice), you can kiss my (insert word), you lie, you’re a liar, your a known liar, you always lie, you would probably lie, you are lying right now, you wouldn’t know the truth if…, various ways of smoke come in and out of your orifices and the list could go on and on…
Yeah (cough) reasoned response (cough.)
My my, it sure has been pleasant around here the past couple of days. :)
Khan!!!! Right on! That is SO true.
I get the impression you don’t know where “Khan!!!!” comes from. If not, it is from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. In the movie Capn Kirk yells “Khan!!!” It is a rather famous line in the geek world in which I reside.
Oh yeah, I remember that now. Wasn’t that from like one of the early Star Trek movies?
That super human guy Khan, Ricardo Montob err.. forgot the name and spelling.
Yeah, that was from the original Star Trek crew and was their second movie. Right, Khan was a a super-human villian of the movie played by Ricardo Montalban. You know, same actor that played Mr. Roarke from Fanatasy Island. Khan was badass.
As long as we’re quoting geeky movie dialogue, how about this one?
“These aren’t the droids we’re looking for. Move along.”
All I know, is I’m not the Stormtrooper in this scenario.
Here’s a question for ksgrm, and anyone else who finds themselves defending the Bush administration on this issue. Imagine for a moment – just ONE SECOND – that this exact scenario had happened under the Clinton administration. I’m not talking about the routine changing of the guard among US Attorneys that happened at the beginning of the last several administrations. Yes, yes, yes. They serve at the pleasure of the President. For the billionth time, they serve at the pleasure of the President. Does that mean there is NO situation under which we might wonder if the President is abusing his authority in hiring and firing members of the front line of the Justice Department of the United States? Please, for ONE SECOND, imagine Bill Clinton had appointed these people. That members of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY had made phone calls to these various US Attorneys about pursuing investigations of Republicans immediatly prior to a pivotal mid-term election. That one of these US Attorneys was leading an investigation into an unprecedented AND ONGOING war-time profiteering and bribery scandal. Imagine for ONE SECOND that Bill Clinton had a political strategists on the order of Karl Rove and that person was found to have been directly involved in the decision to fire these US Attorneys. Imagine, PLEASE, for ONE FRIGGIN SECOND that you hadn’t already drunk so much of this administrations Kool-aid that you don’t know your own elbow from another part of your own anatomy. And tell me, please, if you would grant Bill Clinton the same deference in hiring and firing US Attorneys you’re willing to grant George W. Bush.
And with that, I’m sure I’ve worn out my welcome here. But at least I can sleep at night knowing I’m not mindlessly devoted to defending the worst administration in the history of our great country.
Buckle up, kids. Because this is finally the issue that’s going to give you a bumpy ride. Dana Frigging Rohrbacher is calling for Gonzo’s departure, for heaven’s sake.
Yes, Kennedy appointed his brother as AG. Congratulations! You get a gold star for meaningless rhetorical regurgitation! Yes, they seeeerrrvvvee at thhhhhhhheeeeeeee ppppppppllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeearrrrrrrrrrruuuuure….. I can’t even get through that phrase again. CAN THE TALKING POINTS AND WAKE UP! What happened to urgent concern over the rule of law during the late 90’s? HONESTLY? I know this is a fairly emotional rant and that may have turned some of you off pretty quickly. But if you’ve read this far and you’ve bothered to replace the name George W. Bush with Bill Clinton in this exact same scenario and you aren’t troubled by what’s going on here, then I really don’t understand how your brains work.
PS: Pardon my lack of civility. I shudder to think how many delicate flowers are wilting as they read my previous post.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Then you probably don’t how reasonable brains work.
- I don’t believe in conspiracy theories unless they are in a book or a movie. Every thing has a place and every place has a thing.- Rhetoric painted with hyper-ventilation over the blind following of what some Congressman or Senator might say is the last thing I want to do regardless of who the President is.
You want a head that belongs to George W. Bush, then go and try to take it.
But please, stop all these wheezing about who did what when and why without a drip of proof.
There have been no investigations from either side, including what I posted about the San Diego Attorneys.
All of this is bloviating from both sides.
And lastly, stop taking this so seriously, people get fired every day for lots of reasons.
As I said before, if you are right or anyone supporting the lopping of heads from Gonzales or Bush is right I’ll give you your due and acknowledge my myopia.
But come on, nothing has been proved or even remotely said, indicated or otherwise put out officially for anyone to make any kind of accurate statement.
ThisisanopinionBlog
These are opinions
Nothing is written in stone here.
Okay, I’m done for the night. :)
Not a drip of proof, you say. If only the proof of the last three months reportage on this issue had dripped on a blue dress… For three months people like you have been saying there’s nothing to see here. And every day the evidence mounts. Dana Friggin Rohrbacher now wants Gonzales to resign. That’s about as bizarre a bipartisan scenario as I could ever imagine.
Sleep well knowing that by reserving judgement until all the facts are in, that you’re implicitly supporing the biggest bunch of partisan hacks and incompetent clowns ever to run our country.
Yes, Dana “who came to the defense of disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff in the Washington Post and saying he’s a good person who’s been unjustly criticized Rohrbacher?”
That Dana Rohrbacher?