Johnny Coli Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Welcome to Orwellian Political Discourse 101. Does anyone seriously believe that the firings weren't politically motivated? I doubt it. Yet, you conjure up a conspiracy that because of the administration's public denials that the firings weren't politically influenced, to prove a point that they really were politically influenced is logical acrobatics worthy of a regression to the mean discussion on this board. What is it about the name Rove that sets you people off? Even when he's doing his job - which is to further the policy of the administration. If they believe that US Attorneys, whether appointed by the sitting POTUS or not, are not doing a job consistent with the POTUS's liking, the attorneys can be canned, no questions asked. It's discourse like this that's caused the Dems to lose the last two elections to a moron. To you, the process is more important than the event. As long as Rove's or Cheney's names are attached to an event, there must be some sinister plot to overturn the natural order of mankind, and we can only find solace in the enterprising reporters of Salon or Utne Reader to save the planet. Keep turning those chairs and looking for those vast right wing conspiracies. The more you waste time on that, the better chances you give the GOP to win another election. The Dems won the last election (2006 mid-terms) by a wide margin over the GOP. It's not just about the POTUS.
molson_golden2002 Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 It's discourse like this that's caused the Dems to lose the last two elections to a moron. Oh brother! Don't you think the composition of the Supreme Court and the calling of terror alerts had more to do with it than the way Dem argue? And why did they win in 2006? They started arguing differently?
erynthered Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 How about linking to your source, eryn? That second "source" is loaded with opinion. Why not just quote the unbiased McClatchy piece I already linked to, which repeatedly quotes named sources, and isn't loaded with speculatory opinion like "something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do"? The same info from an unbiased piece of journalism, not opinion. McKay was a Bush appointee. He, and the others got high marks from the Department of Justice. Apparently the people best in a position to evaluate these individuals didn't find their performance questionable. Sorry, thought I did. NY Times. I'll find it again later. Time for lunch.
Johnny Coli Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Sorry, thought I did. NY Times. I'll find it again later. Time for lunch. No problem. Enjoy your lunch.
GG Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 The Dems won the last election (2006 mid-terms) by a wide margin over the GOP. It's not just about the POTUS. Yup, and they are really using the power of the new majority thanks to a centrist platform on which they were elected, to build a solid foundation for the 2008 election and not trying to overturn chairs in search of that vast right wing conspiracy. Or are they? I guess we now have proof that Representative Waxman is a big South Park fan: "It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is out job to determine what went wrong and insist on accountability," (in today's testimony bringing a very photogenic Valerie Plame to the hill) (ps - Eryn's quote was from an opinionjournal article that I think is linked on one of these threads.)
Johnny Coli Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 Yup, and they are really using the power of the new majority thanks to a centrist platform on which they were elected, to build a solid foundation for the 2008 election and not trying to overturn chairs in search of that vast right wing conspiracy. Or are they? I guess we now have proof that Representative Waxman is a big South Park fan: (in today's testimony bringing a very photogenic Valerie Plame to the hill) (ps - Eryn's quote was from an opinionjournal article that I think is linked on one of these threads.) It's called oversight, and I'll pardon you for not recognizing it since we haven't seen any for quite some time.
erynthered Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 No problem. Enjoy your lunch. GG's right. And NOW, I cant find the NYT piece.
John Adams Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 In comparison to President Clinton's firing of all 93 U.S. Attorneys, this is nothing. And there appear to be good reasons for replacing these officials, who all serve at the pleasure of the President anyway. Its the Law. The scandal here is not that 8 U.S. Attorneys were sacked, but that the White House communications operation is still not up to the task of defending its position against political attacks. Here's the issue: Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all whacked all the AGs when they entered office. That is not the issue here. The issue is that these AGs all had stellar reviews and at least several of them (Lam in particular) were pursuing targets friendly to Bush. In pursuing their investigations, they were doing their jobs--jobs that it's important to have some degree of political immunity to do correctly. If an AG can't follow corruption leads that lead to the White House, THAT'S a big !@#$ing problem. Imagine if the president--any president--fired every AG who launched an investigation into their friends? Anyway, it's clear that the pressure to fire these 8 AGs came from the White House--perhaps directly from Rove--and if their firing was a reaction to their White House-related investigations, that's the White House tampering in investigations. There's a huge difference between that and wholesale firings that follow an election. Surely you can see the difference. Gonzo will take the fall this week, as he should. To fire people who are investigating friends of W--at the urging of W--is wrong. The attacks may be political but they are also justified. Further, if the origin of the attacks was politics, realize that a lot of Republicans have joined this feeding frenzy. What's happened here jumps party lines.
Wacka Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Here is the issue: The President (all of them) can fire any of the US Attorneys anytime they want for any reason. This is purely political and a total waste of time.
John Adams Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Here is the issue:The President (all of them) can fire any of the US Attorneys anytime they want for any reason. This is purely political and a total waste of time. So you see nothing wrong with a sitting president firing any AG who investigates allegations of corruption in his admin or investigates a presidential friend?
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Included in those firings were the ones investigating Dem House of Reprensentative power broker Dan Rostenkowski and the one investigating the Clintons' involvement in the Whitewater land scandal. Long before the the Clinton administration introduced the phrase into the popular lexicon - "I have no specific recollection". Riiiight. See: Ronald Reagan.
KD in CA Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Here is the issue:The President (all of them) can fire any of the US Attorneys anytime they want for any reason. This is purely political and a total waste of time. Come on...it's been a long six years for the Dems. You didn't really expect them to not find something worthy of 'investigation' did you? Kinda sad that this is the best they can come up with.....but it's gonna be tough getting those impeachment hearings going in the next 20 months at this rate.
PastaJoe Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Come on...it's been a long six years for the Dems. You didn't really expect them to not find something worthy of 'investigation' did you? Kinda sad that this is the best they can come up with.....but it's gonna be tough getting those impeachment hearings going in the next 20 months at this rate. The Dems have only been in the majority for a few weeks, and look at all the problems already uncovered by turning over a few rocks that have been left alone for the past 6 years. Imagine all the issues about this administration's actions that will be brought to light by next year.
ieatcrayonz Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 Welcome to Orwellian Political Discourse 101. I had not seen that theory before. I have also not seen pictures of the fired attorneys. Were ALL of them fat? If they were, it is too much of a coincidence to be ignored.
erynthered Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I had not seen that theory before. I have also not seen pictures of the fired attorneys. Were ALL of them fat? If they were, it is too much of a coincidence to be ignored. They were fired because of their Canadian ancestry.
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 The Dems have only been in the majority for a few weeks, and look at all the problems already uncovered by turning over a few rocks that have been left alone for the past 6 years. Imagine all the issues about this administration's actions that will be brought to light by next year. Yeah, that's why this is an issue. A Democratic House.
RI Bills Fan Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I'm just wondering what "Talking Points" will be used to discredit these articles. Firing urged during probe... Prosecutor's expertise praised by Justice Dept. I already know that many of the "fair and balanced" centrists on this board consider the Washington Post to be a... shall we say less than centrist... newspaper, so that particular TP can be left unsaid...
John Adams Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I'm just wondering what "Talking Points" will be used to discredit these articles. Firing urged during probe... Prosecutor's expertise praised by Justice Dept. I already know that many of the "fair and balanced" centrists on this board consider the Washington Post to be a... shall we say less than centrist... newspaper, so that particular TP can be left unsaid... It's getting hard for them but here are the current talking points: (1) This is politics. (2) Clinton fired AGs. (3) AGs serve at the leisure of the president. Rings hollow to me too. Gonzo will be gonzo by Friday. He'll take the fall for this latest gaffe.
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 I'm just wondering what "Talking Points" will be used to discredit these articles. Firing urged during probe... Prosecutor's expertise praised by Justice Dept. I already know that many of the "fair and balanced" centrists on this board consider the Washington Post to be a... shall we say less than centrist... newspaper, so that particular TP can be left unsaid... Business as usual... I find it sad that people think this is strictly partisan.
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2007 Posted March 19, 2007 So far Ive heard these firings called all KINDS of things. But one thing I HAVENT heard them described as... A crime. Was this "wrong"? Maybe. But even the leftard stalwarts have to admit...this is pretty thin. And watching people like Leahy feign outrage is kinda funny. Even the MSM is starting to bail on this story. Leahy's huffing and puffing got pushed off the front page by a big plane landing, fer crissakes. Because it isn't a crime. Prosecutors serve at the discretion of the President. He can fire all of them, whenever he wants, for whatever reason, and it's not a crime. I did have someone try to tell me today that it IS in fact a crime, because even though it's not against the law it goes against the "unrwitten rules" of hiring and firing prosecutors, therefore it's illegal. People just want it to be a crime, because Karl Rove's name got thrown into the story somehow (I don't know how, I don't even care how. It's a nothing story.) I'm still not seeing how "it was wrong" in this case isn't equating to "they're Republicans".
Recommended Posts