Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8

I feel I should refer you to this article. Even if we accept that Clinton did the same thing (debatable, see below), it doesn't seem particularly germane to whether or not the action by this administration was ethical.

Karl Rove: "When we came in in 2001, we reviewed all 93 U.S. Attorneys and over the course of time, replaced virtually all of them with appointees by the president."

Every president replaces the former president's appointees--just as Bush did in 2001. The difference is that Bush and Gonzales and Rove fired these particular people -- whom he appointed -- in his second term because they were investigating Republicans and because they seemed a little to impartial. That's the difference.

Whether or not the administration was ethical ??? The lefts and MSMs' ethics are situational at best and utterly non-existant most of the time. Any administration can fire anyone at any time for any reason. They don't need the approval or permission of anyone - especially that of a hostile media or a hysterical opposition party lusting for power and hell bent on destroying an administration.

"The lefts and MSMs' ethics are situational at best and utterly non-existant most of the time."

Any proof of this statemnt?
You seem to be generalizing to say the least.

The lefts and MSMs' ethics are situational at best and utterly non-existant most of the time.

Ever hear of psychological projection? Every time a Republican responds to a scandal by saying "The Democrats are a bunch of crooks," that's a good part of what he's doing.

Every time a Republican responds to a scandal by saying "The Democrats are a bunch of crooks," that's a good part of what he's doing.

Or is that what the Dems think because that is what they are? Or is that what I think because, you think, I mean, I think, no, wait, it's gotta be your bull, er...DAMN YOU FREUD!

all presidents when they take office put their own people in there, this was a case where they were not doing what the staff wanted and they removed them, if you go back to 1981 and 2001 you would also find the replacement of 93 attorneys. this was different, and they lied about it like they always do.

No liberal media my great Aunt Petunia!

If this is the best evidence you have, you have gone a long way to demonstrating that yo believe a myth.

Where is the coverage of Bush's firing and resplacement of proscutors in 2001? A lot like the coverage of Clinton in 1993 or pehaps even less so?

Do you not even think about these issues before you leap to such conclusions and yell media bias? Do you really not see that the coverage between Bush and Clinton's handling of the US Attorneys when they came into office was very similar and this is Different not because of bias but precisely because it is different?

Feel free to provide rational and objective distinctions.

is that what the Dems think because that is what they are?

If it weren't for the evidence of so many Republican crooks in leadership positions, you might have something there.

Clinton cleared house

Why did he do it?

Did you know the U.S. Attorney he fired in Arkansas was investigating White Water and the one he appointed was an old student of his? Can you admit that?

Read the article
"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"
1993 was when Clinton took office.
Do you have any proof that he fired them all to get to one attorney who was supposedly investigating White water?

Does anybody know if Bush kept all Clinton's old appointed US Attorneys when he took over in 2001? Because that is the only legitimate comparison. It would very much surprise me if (when a new administration takes power, especially that of a different party) they would keep any appointed posts that they could use as incumbent party-resume building positions.

According to the article he kept them, but got rid of those who would not play his game.

Do Bush apologists bother to do any research or do they just believe (correctly, I'm afraid) that Americans have really short attention spans? And Bodhi, do you just parrot everything you read on right-wing blogs? Carter and Reagan both replaced incumbent United States Attorneys. Even Bush I, who was was succeeding a fellow Republican, replaced many. And as for G.W. Bush:

From the DOJ website:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AGMONDAY, MARCH 14, 2001

(202) 514-2007WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TDD (202) 514-1888

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - 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. Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

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. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

Infohack, you should publish this as a diary. Clinton did not do it too!!

When Clinton took office, he replaced all the Bush I appointed U.S. Attorneys.
When Bush took office, he replace all but one of Clinton-appointed Attorneys.

The only other president to ask for the resignation of his own appointed U.S. Attorneys was Richard Nixon, in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, which he did because the Attorneys (the A.G. and Assistant A.G.) refused to participate in politically-motivated firings. Sound Familiar?

bondibox has it right:

The only other president to ask for the resignation of his own appointed U.S. Attorneys was Richard Nixon, in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre, which he did because the Attorneys (the A.G. and Assistant A.G.) refused to participate in politically-motivated firings. Sound Familiar?

Most new Presidents "clean house", but most Presidents who are on the downside of their second (and last) term do not fire their own appointees.

Tracking back from the article source cited through the whois system to see who owns that domain is interesting... It is owned by an organization in the Washington Beltway called the "Media Research Center".

Looking at the MDC site, it seems that they started in 1987 as a "conservative" voice, presumably reacting against the Clinton administration. It is interesting to notice the lack of statements on the site about who exactly funds them. On the about page they say both that the "MRC, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer." and that they started with a "a $339,000 initial annual budget" (but they do not say where that little-bitty funding start of a third of a million dollars came from).

Looking at the Media Research Center entry on Wikipedia:

Media Research Center and David Thibault have been involved in questioning the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to his criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq

[and] the MRC had complained, for example, that there was more coverage of government death squads in right-wing El Salvador than in left-wing Nicaragua, without mentioning that there were roughly a thousand times more extra-judicial killings in El Salvador.

These people are not exactly neutral players in what they seem to see as the game of politics. They seem to see themselves as involved in a full-fledged culture war, and seem to be willing to say "whatever it takes" to trash their opponents and to blindly support so-called "conservative" leaders.

Sorry for the typo... need more coffee... that should have read:

"Looking at the MRC site"

You're simply wrong. Where did you get this information? Bush cleaned house in 2001--like every president before him. The people he fired in these instances were his appointees. Unfortunately for them they investigated corrupt Republicans or tried to be somewhat impartial. That is the problem. How can you have a Justice Department whose actions are purely politically motivated?

How can you have a Justice Department whose actions are purely politically motivated?

That should be spelled "Just Us."

When the lawyers would not support policy, they were fired. They serve at the leisure of the President, remember?

"When the lawyers would not support policy, they were fired"
Right, and the policy was to make Democrats look bad, because of faltering poll numbers.
They would not play the game so they were fired.
Glad you see the point!

Like I said, if you don't see the difference you aren't really being honest.

Like you said, if you don't see the difference you aren't really being honest.

Why is it that every time someone criticizes Bush, these little monkeys come out sputtering: "but, but, but...Clinton did it too."

Children.

The Bush firings have been "blown out of proportion" because:

(a) he fired his own appointees, a majority of which dared to prosecute Republicans (even the obviously guilty ones - see Lam, Carol and Cunningham, Duke) or refused to prosecute Democrats on an election-friendly timetable (see Iglesias, David) which is all highly unusual and at the very least, suspicious;

(b) Bush did it with the help of a heretofore-little-known provision that bypasses Congressional approval of such changes, written into an act of Congress and passed under fast track conditions with the general understanding that the provisions of the bill were for our national security - and by email comments from Gonzales' aide it appears the provision was specifically conceived at the time it was written to be a non-security-related measure with a partisan purpose, to preempt the possibility that appointed attorneys may actually try to handle themselves in a non-partisan way; and

(c) they've been caught lying about their extensive preparations for it. Perhaps even in sworn testimony to Congress. And as we all remember from a certain blue-dress-incident, lying under oath in a statement to Congress is tantamount to a high crime. Even for a sitting President it's an impeachable offense, so it surely must be ample grounds for dismissal from a Cabinet post. Right?

Comsen,

You wrote:

The point is the Clinton firing was essentially ignored but the Bush firing blown out of proportion.

Can you really and trully not understand they are completely different? Bush did the same thing as Clinton when he came into office and it was essentially ignored. You do understand that don't you? Why is this not being ignored? First it is different and fundamentally different from prior practice. Second, the administration misled Congress and the Attorney General gave false information. In recap we have different things treated differently and followed up with false testimony and coverup.

Bohdi,

When the lawyers would not support policy, they were fired.

What "policy" exactly? The administration said they were fired for performance reasons, now it comes out that almost all of them had great performance reviews. The administration said politics had nothing to do with it. It now appears it very much did. The administration said the White House had nothing to do with it. The evidence shows the White House did.

The complaints were about politicians that wanted other politicians investigated and indicted before an election to help Republicans in the election. The complaints were about investigations filed against Republicans that hurt Republicans. The White House says it is NOT policy to do partisan investigations. So far that is the primary complaint. What "policy" did they fail to follow and what evidence do you have that is not just a cover up for the real reason.

They have given repeatedly false statements, why do you believe them now without documentation?

PDF

This is one of the most damning emails from an assistant of AG
and the fact that they often used the rnc email system is at least fishy since it wont be archived for records.

My thoughts:

1. I think we should gum this to death: ask the [Arkansas] Senators to give Tim [Griffin] a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, "no never" (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, ask them for recommendations, evaluate the recommendations, interview their candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in "good faith," of course.

4. The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG's appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ leg[islative] affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House members won't care about this; all we really need is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we'll lose the authority, but if we don't ever exercise it then what's the point of having it? (I'm not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority, but know that getting him appointed was important to [then-White House counsel] Harriet [Miers], [White House senior adviser] Karl [Rove], etc.)

Many thanks to JoulesBeef for posting that link to the source document on the US House Judiciary Committee site. IMHO, pointers to original source documents are A Good Thing.

Putting #2 aside as I'm not that familiar with that part of it...what's the problem? I still don't get the uproar.

Bush is criticized for not firing appointees that Democrats don't like but is chastised for firing appointees (eight in six years) that he himself may have a problem with. How exactly does that sync?

Was it political? I sure hope so. It's about time this administration started being proactive again.

Anyone who denies a liberal/Democratic bias in the media should start wondering themselves. Between Valerie Blame, global warming and now this non-story, I'm amazed that the press just doesn't operate under the DNC banner. All the media has to do is make-up a controversy and then the usual suspects start goose-stepping behind it, parroting and echoing everything they hear.

"If you build it, they will come."

firing appointees (eight in six years) that he himself may have a problem with

Why did he have a problem with them?

Killfile, according to NPR, all of them were Bush appointees.

That's why the whole "Clinton did it" shtick is simultaneously laughable and tiresome. Yes, Clinton put in a big batch of new prosecutors. So did Bush, when he took office. And Bush Sr. And Reagan, and Carter, and so on....

Pretty much EVERY president appoints new prosecutors when they come into office.

It's not an issue, it's a diversionary tactic meant to make the sheep look away.

Why did he have a problem with them?

Hasn't anyone made it clear yet? Let's ask those who leapt onto the 'blow everything out of proportion' bandwagon who obviously know.

OttO: I guess answering the question would have made defending the indefensible a lot harder, wouldn't it?

Otto -- it's really very simple.

1 - It's perfectly normal to replace the outgoing president's crop of attorneys with your own. Happens all the time.

2 - It looks very suspicious when your own appointees are dismissed for political reasons. Why were they dismissed? What was the falling out you had with them that was so severe you needed - not to wait for their term to expire - but to fire them?

As was pointed out above, this isn't a common thing, historically speaking. The last time it happened was under Nixon when he was trying to get someone sympathetic to his... indiscretions. When Bush starts doing this people ask "why" and the answer to "why" seems to be that the Bush Administration was trying to use these attorneys as personal attack dogs against political opponents.

In short - Bush was trying to use the federal courts to crush political opposition. That is why the left is so indignant about this.

1 - It's perfectly normal to replace the outgoing president's crop of attorneys with your own. Happens all the time

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Clinton administration was the first to do 'clean sweep' in one fell swoop and replace the entire lot. It's been the norm to leave at least some in place to ensure a semi-smooth transition.

2 - It looks very suspicious when your own appointees are dismissed for political reasons. Why were they dismissed? What was the falling out you had with them that was so severe you needed - not to wait for their term to expire - but to fire them?

Not as suspicious, as say, firing someone like Jay Stephens, the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, who was investigating President Clinton's Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (who was eventually convicted [and then pardoned by President Clinton]).

These firings happened because the White House was unable to pressure these eight attorneys into doing its bidding -- much of which was legally questionable.

Much was questionable? Here's the lowdown on the majority of them:

• U.S. Attorney John McKay - who was given no reason for his firing, failed to investigate the Governor's race decided by 129 votes that included deceased voters, voters residing in storage facilities, and still other voters who were convicted felons. Regardless of the election's outcome, those findings alone warrant an investigation.
• U.S. Attorney David Iglesias - fired for not fully investigating voter fraud in New Mexico where the head of a democratic voter registration group refused to answer questions about his group illegally making copies of voter registration cards where the election was decided by fewer than 900 votes. Also cited was his tendency to delegate too much authority to his assistant.
• Paul Charlton, former U.S. Attorney for Arizona - fired for differences of opinion regarding the death penalty.
• Carol Lam - U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California - fired for low numbers of illegal immigration and gun prosecutions (two things you might expect to be priorities in Southern CA? Her office ranked 91st out of 93 in gun prosecutions)
• John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington - apparently cited for spending too much time vying for approvement for some kind of new system in his office and not enought time prosecuting.
• Daniel Bogden, former U.S. Attorney for Nevada - fired for not doing a good job.

A fired attorney who's disgruntled? who'da thunk! Was it poorly handled? In some cases, yes. Can they be fired for no reason at any time? They serve at the pleasure of the President.

2 - The documented paper trail of these firings implicates Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a possible perjury incident. If the AG lied to Congress in sworn testimony that is a problem

If he lied to Congress in sworn testimony, that is a problem.

the idea that the administration "snuck" the amended legislation through is crap. Read the damn bills before you pass them and that won't be a problem.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

McKay:

U.S. Attorney John McKay - who was given no reason for his firing, failed to investigate the Governor's race decided by 129 votes that included deceased voters, voters residing in storage facilities, and still other voters who were convicted felons. Regardless of the election's outcome, those findings alone warrant an investigation.

Was McKay ousted over 2004 election?

One of the most persistent rumors in Seattle legal circles is that the Justice Department forced McKay, a Republican, to resign to appease Washington state Republicans angry over the 2004 governor's race. Some believe McKay's dismissal was retribution for his failure to convene a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of voter fraud in the race.

McKay was appointed by President Bush in October 2001.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed a formal complaint with U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in 2005 about what it considered McKay's lax oversight of the election, in which Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes. Many influential Republicans publicly criticized McKay.

But a Justice Department official on Thursday rejected the idea and said Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has repeatedly insisted politics did not influence the controversial firings of McKay and six other U.S. attorneys in December.

But the system he pushed?

Inside Bush's prosecutor purge:

John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington - apparently cited for spending too much time vying for approvement for some kind of new system in his office and not enought time prosecuting.

In Seattle, John McKay's record as U.S. attorney has left many observers baffled by his dismissal. The raison d'être of the Bush White House is supposed to be the war on terrorism -- and McKay, by many measures, was an invaluable lieutenant in that battle.

McKay was appointed by Bush shortly after terrorists struck the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Over the next five years, in a major port city and a border region critical for antiterrorist operations, he personally handled high-profile prosecutions, including that of Ahmed Ressam, who had driven across the Canada-U.S. border with plans to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium. In 2004, at a time when poor coordination among law enforcement agencies had been judged at least partly to blame for the 9/11 attacks, McKay developed an innovative data-sharing system that continues to be rolled out today in law enforcement offices nationwide.

Maybe it was "performance" then?

Just over five months ago, on Sept. 22, 2006 [note by spiffie: Notice that this is a year and a half after the 2004 governor election, and nearly as long as the early 2005 complaint by the state Republican party], the Justice Department completed a comprehensive evaluation of McKay's office, filled with high marks on both criminal and counterterrorism matters, including McKay's efforts to build greater cooperation among law enforcement agencies in both the United States and Canada. McKay "has been responsible for major advances in a cooperative cross-border effort," the report said. "All involved in these efforts pointed to U.S. Attorney McKay as the individual most responsible for the dramatic increase in cooperation."

"The report says nothing about me with regard to management or policy differences," McKay said in an interview last week. "Counterterrorism was our No. 1 priority, and I put an enormous amount of my personal time into it." He added, "If there were performance issues of any kind, they didn't tell me about it, and to this day I'm unaware of any."

"This is a huge loss," said Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's chief of police. "I've worked with a lot of U.S. attorneys in my time and John is absolutely at the top of the ladder, not only on issues of terrorism but on law enforcement in general. I can tell you that if they're saying John's dismissal was performance related ... I find that almost inconceivable." Kerlikowske noted that McKay had crucial perspective, having served as a White House fellow at the FBI. "He knew how tough the barriers could be between law enforcement agencies, and he really helped break down those walls with information sharing."

"He was a champion with all the federal law enforcement agencies, but especially with ATF," said Kelvin Crenshaw, a 19-year veteran of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the special agent in charge of the Seattle field office. "He's one of the best U.S. attorneys I've ever worked with."

Bogden:

Daniel Bogden, former U.S. Attorney for Nevada - fired for not doing a good job.

5 ousted U.S. attorneys received positive job evaluations:

Performance reviews of U.S. attorneys are conducted every three to four years by a team of experienced Justice Department officials, who interview judges, staff members, community leaders and federal agents. In some of the five cases, the reviewers made recommendations for improvements, but overall their assessments were positive, Justice Department officials said.

For instance, Daniel Bogden, the U.S. attorney in Nevada, was described in his last job performance evaluation in 2003 as being a "capable" leader who was highly regarded by the federal judiciary and investigators.

"He didn't get any dings," said a Justice Department official with knowledge of the review. "The overall evaluation was very positive."

6 of 7 Dismissed U.S. Attorneys Had Positive Job Evaluations:

Five of the dismissed prosecutors -- Bogden, Charlton, Cummins, Iglesias and McKay -- told reporters that they were not given any reason for their firings and had not been told of any performance problems. Only one of the fired prosecutors, Ryan in San Francisco, faced substantive complaints about turnover or other management-related issues, officials said.

Justice Department officials in recent days have sought to clarify the performance comments, saying the dispute is mired in "semantics." The officials said McNulty was referring to policy differences between the Bush administration and some of its employees.

Just sayin'.

The provision was placed in teh bill in confrence commity by "The Hammer". No Democrats were in this commity as was the practice of the Republicans back then.

probably because the "but but but....9/11" shtick isn't working anymore.

oh, you mean the "TERRA TERRA OMFG TERRA!!" ploy? Yeah they haven't done that one since I don't know when.

oh, you mean the "TERRA TERRA OMFG TERRA!!" ploy? Yeah they haven't done that one since I don't know when.

Well actually...

This may be the longest string of CoH violations I have seen. Ever.

I am new here, but after reading through the Code of Honor, I don't see these violations.

Bodhi-- the CoH says nothing about satirizing a political position (in this case, the Republican party). The only thing close to it is CoH#1, but agio, chindi, and WebWeasel were not attacking a person, they were attacking (rather, making fun of) a political position.

If those comments violate the CoH, then I don't think I've ever seen a thread that hasn't violated the CoH.

Actually, I was thinking of #2.

Before you write, seed, or comment, ask yourself if your contribution increases the strength and virtue of the community.

What does any of this add? If you say humor, I guess I can see that, but either I wasn't feeling like a laugh then, or just did not find it funny.

I have had some things I wrote collapsed as inflammatory that I didn't think were. It's subjective I think. No worries. I didn't flag it or anything, just thinking out loud.

I don't see these violations.

That's because you don't have Magic RepubliVision, which can see the tiniest mote in another's eye, through the huge log in their own.

That's because you don't have Magic RepubliVision, which can see the tiniest mote in another's eye

And don't forget it can see into a person's heart, too. RepubliVision is great at divining whether a world leader is a "good man" or not after a single meeting.

"Magic RepubliVision"

I like that. Thanks!

Really? At the heart of this issue is provision in the March 2006 Patriot Act renewal that allowed the White House to circumvent both legislative and local controls on U.S. Atty appointments.

According to MSNBC, during the 3/8/2007 Senate Panel hearings:

Democrats felt the administration had taken advantage of a change in the Patriot Act that took effect a year ago, which lets the attorney general appoint federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.

Gonzales has denied that was his intent and said he will submit the names of all appointees to the Senate approval process.

I'll concede that this issue has become confused by media coverage of partisan bickering. However, rather than pointing to the fallback assertion by conservatives that it's proof of 'the liberal media conspiracy, I would suggest that the media simply feel that the drama of a political showdown makes for a better story than the dry technicalities of a constitutional fight over executive privilege.

Funny thing is, Congress isn't asking about the replacements, just the ones that were fired.

And only Paul Krugman has taken up the notion of investigating the attorneys who were not fired. You know, the ones doing a magnificent job? Now there's some job performance worth reviewing...

investigating the other 86

I'm suggesting it for a crowd-source project.

I remember that brewhaha. It was one of the first attacks from the Arkansas Project.

It's also about what the attorneys were fired for. If they'd been stumping for Womens Rights or some-such I can see how Bush might want to fire them and it would certainly make the whole issue less significant.

But many of these guys refused to pursue blatantly partisan prosecution agendas and as a consequence are looking for jobs. It is not ok to use your ability to appoint federal prosecutors to send the federal court system on a partisan witch hunt.

It's about that too.

And that perjury thing. It's about that, too.

Carful guys... Don't throw to much at the Bushies at one time.

That is right folks... this is about the attempt at avoiding confirmation by the senate... that is ALL it is about.

This administration has been very aggressive in it's attempts to expand the power of the executive branch. I'd say it's more of a cynical attempt to use the Patriot Act provision to further erode the separation of powers.

So what is it that Democrats want here?

1. An honest explanation for why seemingly exemplary USAs (in at least two of the cases) were dismissed. The public record so far doesn't support the "performance issues" red herring. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president. Why is it necessary to lie and/or dissemble about it? I don't pay taxes to be lied to.

2. A repeal of the provision of the Patriot Act that allows indefinite appointments of USAs without Senate confirmation. This is an unacceptable abdication of a Constitutional duty by Congress, and should be re-assumed as soon as possible.

3. A commitment to continue the ongoing investigations of public official corruption begun under some of the USAs. It's important for the health of our system of government that there not even be the appearance that attorneys were removed as a result only of pursuing investigations related to corruption of officials in the president's party.

I'd also like an investigation of those US Attorneys who didn't get fired. Using the DOJ for partisan purposes strikes me as an impeachable offense.

Spiffie - pleasure to see you by the way :)

My notes on your items below:

1. I don't really see how this matters. If it does, then this requirement should be in place at all times not just when it's a way to run Bush over the coals some more. That includes replacing attorneys from your predecessor - that's political too and not performance based in any way.

2. I have no problem with this - but it's a separate issue in my mind. And if the Democrats want to address this issue they are certainly free to do so.

3. One could also carry the argument that they must, in turn, begin any prudent cases of corruption against the President's political enemies - even if their predecessor's chose not to do so. I'm all for getting rid of corruption - but on both sides.

Regardless, this seems to be a very puny issue. Certainly not worth all the press coverage it's continued to garnish. To me, why bother having a Congress if they are going to continue to ignore our nation's major problems in lieu of political gain. Because you have to admit, that is indeed the driving force behind this issue.

Because you have to admit, that is indeed the driving force behind this issue.

Yeah, a Republican would think that way.

Actually, I tend to agree and I'm not a Republican. But I don't believe that Democrats hold some kind of moral high ground when it comes to political partisanship.

Bottom line, they tried to abuse the Patriot Act provision and got caught. Priveleges revoked - it must be changed. I doubt they can force a resignation from Gonzales, and even if they did, they'd probably just get someone equally as bad. I'm not sure who is worse, Ashcroft or Gonzales. At least Gonzales doesn't sing.

There are other issues more important than this. So many investigation, so little time....Democrats should prioritize.

Hey I've got no love lost for Gonzales trust me. I'd probably be happy to see him go. I'm just trying to look at this thing for what it is. Is it an issue? Not really. US Attorneys are political appointees. Their selection is political, their replacement is political. If you don't agree with the measures included in the Patriot Act regarding US Attorneys then move to get that stipulation changed or removed. But either way, I don't see how this is really worth our time. Certainly not worth all the hype.

What you are ignoring is the reason why they were fired.

No, Bush did not do anything wrong as far as the law is concerned, it was his right to have them fired, but the reason behind the firings was the criminal act: they were fired for not playing ball.

Politics will always have some role in these appointments, and there's nothing wrong with that, so long as no one is improperly influencing criminal cases.

From this article. It's a good read and pretty much reflects my perspective on this.

I think it would be prudent at some point for Gonzales to step down or be fired by Bush. I just don't have the confidence that he is competent for the job. I think Bush can find someone better suited to the position.

What you are ignoring is the reason why they were fired.

Chindi- the reason that novanglus is ignoring the reasons behind the issue is that they present evidence that is contrary to his belief that the (p)resident has the best interest of the nation in mind.

hence a lame defense in the form of an "article" from the national review. sheesh.. maybe LGF might provide a less tainted point of view.

what we really have here is the right ignoring half the facts in the case because they either don't want to know or don't care enough to see that w is trying to do two things that are very bad for the nation.

1. he is trying to consolidate power in the executive branch by underhandedly cutting the responsibility of congress to oversee his actions and,

2. he is doing all he can to use the us attorney's office as a political tool to use the application of the law of the land in a manner that takes into account NOT the will of the people and the spirit of the law, but rather the will of the republican party and their goals and desires of consolidating the their own hegemony.

there are actually intelligent conservatives out there who are furious at the actions of bushco in this scandal and rightfully want some heads to roll. the smart ones know that there is enough support for the removal of the GOP from power and with the executive power consolidated and congressional oversight eliminated, once another party seizes power, the gop may not get it back for a long time when their own "tools" are used against them.

Chindi- the reason that novanglus is ignoring the reasons behind the issue is that they present evidence that is contrary to his belief that the (p)resident has the best interest of the nation in mind.

That's pretty low to put those kinds of words in my mouth tschrek. If you want me to value what you have to say, please refrain from attacking me personally like that and stick merely to the subject matter at hand.

If you don't agree with the points made in the article, then address them.

if you take the time to read what i wrote, you'll notice that i don't attack you personally at all.. i did try to explain your actions..

do you have some other excuse?

it may clear up a few things if you would address the real questions rather than the standard "they serve at the pleasure of the president" bs reply.

everyone knows this, and ignoring the meat of the matter only serves to make you seem a little less smarter than you probably are.

is there some other reason that you can articulate that explains these unethical circumventions?

let's hear it!

You tried to explain my actions in a way that was derogatory and not based off of anything I specifically said. You simply tried to assert things that were not indicative of my personal position on this matter. Again, not a polite way to argue your case. Nor does it bear any intellectual significance to the argument at hand. Basically it's simply a rhetorical attack lumping everything I say into the category of "Bush sympathizer" and therefore irrelevant to the actual "facts" in your opinion. A position that has to essentially ignore most of what I have said over the last several posts.

But casting that aside...

I've laid out my argument pretty thoroughly over the past several posts. And I pointed to an article that articulated my sentiments regarding this issue pretty well. I don't see why I have to restate points that I've already made. Did you read any of what I said? Or the article? Because you would probably be asking more specific questions or refuting specific positions I've postulated regarding this instead of basically telling me to start from scratch once again. But I'll endulge your request regardless. I'm honestly growing weary of belaboring this issue for as many posts as this is turning into. Not that I mind engaging in intellectual discourse over an issue, but I hardly think this has become intellectual discourse.

I'm almost sorry I bothered saying anything here at all.

Basically, my position is this:

To me, all appointments, removals, firings, whatever label you want to use of US Attorneys by the Executive branch are always political in nature. The process of appointing them is political, the process of removing them is political. Complaining that this bout of firings was political is a bit rhetorical to me. They've always been political. They will always be political. Gonzales couldn't have screwed up more completely in how this was handled though. And I think it's fair to criticize him and subsequently the President for the way these were handled and explained. The President should have simply fired these guys - their 4 year terms were up and he was free to replace them anyway. No explanation should have been necessary.

nice-

it took you all those words to not answer the questions posed..

:-)

have a nice day.

"The President should have simply fired these guys - their 4 year terms were up and he was free to replace them anyway"
So you think it's OK that they would be replaced only because they would participate in the smear campaign the Republicans wanted done on political rivals.

When I look at this, I see politics. Nothing more. Nothing less. Business as usual in Washington. Again, all US Attorney firings, replacements whatever are political. They all are.

Claims against any President can be made regarding the nomination or removal of any US Attorney as politics. I don't share in any concern over this. I expect any Democrat in office to do like every other President has and nominate and fire Attorneys on the basis of political will as well.

I've read through the supposed political reasons for the firings but I really don't see how it amounts to a smear campaign on political rivals. Perhaps I'm missing something. Some of those seem like they might have been legit issues regarding voter fraud etc. I mean, maybe there wasn't voter fraud I don't know. But some of the claims would seem to validate a grand jury investigation in the least. I guess in the end, I really don't see anything that jumps out as "ok that's certainly a problem". I'm all for calling for justice if wrongdoing has occurred regardless of who the culprit is. I just don't see evidence to make me believe that some great conspiracy is going on here outside of the usual humdrum politics of Washington. You are free to correct me on that if you have some kind of evidence that proves me to be wrong on that point however.

And I have stated several times now that I don't think Gonzales is fit for the job and should be let go or should step down.

And to those criticizing the provision regarding the appointment of US Attorneys in the Patriot Act, by all means follow through with your Senators and Representatives to remove that provision or alter it if that's how you feel about it. I have no argument there.

Novanglus-

maybe you missed Spiffie's comment above

and then after you read that one, take a look at this one about david iglesias and why his name was added to the list to be canned..

keep in mind his testimony was under oath..

where there is smoke, there is fire.

Like I said, politics were likely involved. Were they being asked to conjure up allegations for something that didn't exist? No. They were being pressured to push forward where there did indeed appear to be corruption in these examples. I had already read these posts prior to writing the information above.

Regarding Mr. Iglesias, I don't know if the administration believed that he intentionally delayed the corruption investigation or if they were simply caving to political pressure from Sen. Domenici. Who's to say. And does it matter? The administration can fire him regardless. It's politics. They didn't like him for whatever reason and he was fired. Just because he was involved in these discussions with Domenici and Rep. Wilson doesn't mean he now has immunity from being fired. The administration still has the ability to fire him (as well as every other US Attorney) regardless. I see no incredible wrongdoing on the part of the administration here. I think it's valid to investigate Domenici and Wilson should Ethics committees deem there were violations. To me that's a fair thing to assert.

Regarding McKay, if he didn't investigate allegations of voter fraud such as were reported then that's absolutely grounds to fire him. And again... does it matter? The administration was not breaking the law by firing him even without these claims.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful or pigheaded about this. I just see no reason to condemn the administration for their actions here. They are entitled to these powers as part of politics just as every other President. I will reiterate that I think Gonzales really fumbled bad on this and should be replaced though. I think the way this issue has played out is proof he's not really up to snuff for the job.

Business as usual in Washington.

This is exactly what is wrong with Republicans. They see the Department of Justice being used to advance the interests of a particualr party, rather than to protect the citizens from criminals, and they say, "Oh, business as usual, nothing to see, move along now."

Had Bill Clinton done the same thing, I for one would not have said, "Yawn, whatever."

A case that parallels the Domenici/Wilson interference:

CREW REQUESTS INVESTIGATION INTO REP. DOC HASTINGS AND TOP AIDE

Mr. Cassidy's call to Mr. McKay -- at Rep. Hastings' behest -- violates chapter 7 of the House ethics manual, which prohibits members from contacting executive or agency officials regarding the merits of matters under their formal consideration. House rules also state that if a member wants to affect the outcome of a matter in litigation, the member can file a brief with the court, make a floor statement, or insert a statement into the Congressional Record. Directly calling officials to influence an on-going enforcement matter is not an option.

The actions you term "a discussion" were violations (at the least) of the House ethics rules.

I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding terming a discussion over McKay. I don't recall saying anything like that but regardless - if investigations are necessary due to probable inappropriate behavior then by all means I support investigating those claims. I'm not a bigot for the Republicans.

Regarding the comment about the Justice Dept, politics has been a part of our departments of the Executive Branch going all the way back to Pres. Washington. This is not a case of Republicans are political and Democrats only look to do the good will of the people. They're both political and always have been. I wish it weren't so. I too yearn for a Justice department that is free of politics and looks only to serve the people. While certain administrations may indeed get close to that on certain levels, realistically that type of utopia is probably a stretch. There is simply too much at stake and people will inevitably abuse their power - even if those at the top have the best interests of the public in mind. This is government and you have to take the good with the bad. A good administration will look to control these abuses of power and act quickly to deal with people in their administration who overstep their bounds or fail to live up to the expectations of their office. This is one of the main criticisms I have of the Bush administration. He seems reluctant to let people go and when he does - he screws it all up. Or he continues to hold on to someone who clearly is in over their head (Gonzales). Which by the way, I hear rumblings that Bush is quietly looking for replacements for Gonzales. Which is welcome news to these ears.

Anyway, I appreciate your comments Jimmy.

politics has been a part of our departments of the Executive Branch going all the way back to Pres. Washington.

Which Democratic President fired prosecutors because they wouldn't use their offices for partisan purposes?

I wish I had more time to address to this thread, but I really don't. However, I'll leave it with some thoughts:

There is nothing illegal about the president asking for the resignation of his USAs for any reason.

However, it is a valid concern that the DOJ, the agency dedicated to upholding justice is this country, could become too politicized to adequately pursue its mandate. In this light, the DOJ as an institution serving the American people, if it is to retain its credibility on the pursuit of justice, (arguably) deserves to be protected from gross exercises of political power.

Will there always be a political component to appointments in the DOJ? Absolutely. USAs and the AG are political appointments. Is it a valid criticism by one side against the other that overly politicizing the DOJ jeopardizes the department's abilities and credibility? Yes. That's what this debate is about.

I fully admit that this is politicking about politics. But we have a political body considering politics in an institution headed by political appointees. Of course it's about politics. The point is that we are asking how much politics is too much politics?

Jimmy - I wasn't implying anything specific, only stating that politics has always been a part of the departments of the Executive branch. Well, honestly ANY branch of government for that matter. Whatever iterations those politics take is completely situational. Prior to 1993, no President had simply fired all 93 US Attorneys all at once. While nearly every President replaced them over time (as Bush did) none had done so in such a sudden manner. And the Republicans cried fowl and screamed politics and the whole nine yards. But again, it was Clinton's prerogative and completely within his powers do so. I would go so far as to say that if the House and Senate would have been in Republican control during that time, you can bet you would have seen similar investigations and politics afoot regarding that situation. A lot of the very same arguments used against the Bush administration could very well have been used in the Clinton example. But alas, Democrats controlled the House and Senate and eventually the issue died.

Spiffie - great comments as usual

In all honesty Spiffie - I completely believe that what we've seen with this issue is absolutely what always goes on behind the scenes. It's just that in this instance we're catching a glimpse of that world that is normally well hidden from the public view. I have a feeling that all future administrations will have to deal with these types of issues on a much different level than previous administrations. It's a sign of the changing times and technologies. And I think it's sort of a revelation to people how dirty politics really is. Imagine if you could see all the emails passed by your Senators to other members of their caucus behind the scenes?

Politicians would be wise to watch their step and keep their dealings on the up and up. Emails and such are bound to find their way into the public at some point anymore. I think we are many, many scandals away from seeing that sink in though. Politicians, that is Congresspeople and administration officials and so on, seem to think they live in a separate world than the rest of us. It always surprises me how bold they can be in certain behaviors - as if the regular rules don't apply to them. Again - this to all politicians regardless of party.

I wasn't implying anything specific, only stating that politics has always been a part of the departments of the Executive branch.

In other words, you're just indulging in ignorant reflex cynicism. This firing was done specifically to punish members of the DOJ who refused to either go easy on Republicans, or to use their authority to smear Democrats. You don't know of any other time that was done, but that doesn't stop you from pretending this is just business as usual.

This firing was done specifically to punish members of the DOJ who refused to either go easy on Republicans, or to use their authority to smear Democrats.

And that sir, is politics.

And that, sir, is why Republicans so reliably elect crooks. They see no difference between criminal behavior and politics.

I don't see that as solely a Republican issue. It's a political issue and has more to do with government and power than a particular party. But that's probably another discussion. There have been just as many Dems who've abused their power as Republicans. And I'm not a Republican apologist. I'm barely a Republican anymore to be honest. The thieving bastards.

There have been just as many Dems who've abused their power as Republicans.

You keep saying this, and yet you can't find a single equivalent instance to the present case. Your handlers tell you that everyone is a criminal, you believe them, and you vote for criminals.

There are corrupt Democrats, I don't deny that, but Democrats don't put crooks in charge of their party.

Oh holy crap Jimmy fine - Democrats have never done anything wrong. There the truth is out.

Sure they have -- Novanglus just isn't up to snuff on his history.

Look into the Keeting Savings and Loan scandal.

I specifically didn't say that. I specifically said something completely different from that. But if that's how you want to read it, then there's no way to stop you.

Jimmy, this is specifically for you :)

Wow, they really had to dig deep to find that! A good week's worth of effort, and a story that's almost 70 years old is all the oppo could come up with. I guess you're right, the Democrats are just as dirty as the Republicans!

Read the article. There's more :)

And the "two wrongs make a right" argument comes back. This action is either right or wrong no matter what Democrats have done in the past. I expect both sides to point out when the other side does something wrong. I don't expect either side to be trustworthy. You shouldn't either.

For once can we please stop turning everything into a "Democrat vs. Republican" issue? Can we please stop justifying unethical actions just because someone else did it too? This argument is ridiculous.

The fact is they fired attorneys for political reasons. Either that's right or it's wrong. Make your argument without referring to what other people. It would also be useful to make it based on whether it's ethical, not legal.

Quit being partisan tools, people. When you justify it for one side you're justifying it or all sides, and guess who loses. We all do!. The public is best served when both sides are held to same high standards, not the same low standards.

...others....

Yeah, one more that's not even close to a parallel. And a vague allusion to others which is just as credible as your claim that it's just politics as usual. You are so usable.

The public is best served when both sides are held to same high standards, not the same low standards.

Exactly.

Well I do certainly agree with the points made that two wrongs don't make a right. And for God's sake, lets have some higher standards in both parties. I'm not sticking up for any wrongs committed by people in the Bush administration. If they BROKE THE LAW then they need to be dealt with. And I have no sympathy for them... Rove, Cheney, whoever. But I'm not signing on to well - ok no laws have been necessarily broken but we don't like things and we're going to do everything we can to find some way to put people in jail anyway. I mean that's the real goal here right? Get Rove? Get Cheney? Get the President if possible?

Like I've said however many times at this point, I really don't think Gonzales is fit for the job and should be tossed - now!

But at the same time, the Democrats are absolutely playing politics with all this. You guys will never convince me otherwise. And THAT I am equally tired of.

I really could care less what excuses people offer up for Democrats at this point, I'm tired of the games. It's all politics. Jump on every piece of news for political gain. Destroy the President at all costs. Discredit every Republican lie. At what point do they actually do their job? Let's get some work done and prove that they can run Congress better than the Republicans did. I'm all for that.

But this? This only proves to me that they're no better than the "get Clinton at all costs" Republicans.

This only proves to me that they're no better than the "get Clinton at all costs" Republicans.

Except for the small detail of actual wrongdoing.

Well you and I clearly have a difference of opinion on that then.

Firing attorneys is legal - no matter what the reason. Perjury is not.

A witch hunt (Monica) is a witch hunt (US Attorneys).

If we can't find a crime (Whitewater), we'll create one (Monica/perjury).

If we can't find a crime (US Attorneys), we'll create one (hopeful perjury as a result of sworn testimony).

You're probably not going to be able to convince me that somehow Bush broke the law in firing US Attorneys. I'm just telling you not to waste your breath on this. Save it for another argument or something.

It took five years of unrelenting effort to squeeze Clinton into the perjury trap. $60+ million dollars of our tax money down the drain to get him to lie about adultery.

When the Whitewater story first broke, I was deeply disappointed. I had thought that Bill Clinton was same as the old boss, but there it was, he had abused his position as Governor to for the sake of money. But as I read the details, I started to see that 1) he'd been a victim of the fraud, not a perpetrator, and 2) he hadn't abused his position at all. The whole thing was crap, and even though it was obviously crap, we had to suffer through having it wrung out and wrung out, with Ken Starr replacing Robert Fiske after he had the temerity to stick to the facts (my, that's familiar, isn't it?), trying and trying to find something, anything, to pin on Clinton, and no matter how hard they tried, a hundred lawyers working sixty hours a week couldn't find one damn thing. But they kept it going until Lewinsky shot her mouth off to their mole, and then they finally had a chance...although it wasn't a crime yet, they'd have to figure out some way to ask Clinton about her under oath.

My buddy put it best, he said, you owe it to your wife to lie under those circumstances. You don't tell the whole world that you've cheated on her, no matter what the cost to you. It's a matter of honor.

In contrast, what we have here is a group of DOJ attorneys being punished for not abusing their power, which implies that at least some of those who weren't punished did abuse their power (I know of one, Ed Kubo). There's a vast chasm of malfeasance between that and lying about where your pecker has been.

Firing US Attorneys is accepted as a political move when you first come into office... firing your own appointed attorneys because they were not prosecuting democrats (when they did not have a case) or because they were prosecuting republicans, IS a problem.

Guess who was the only other president to have done this.... NIXON!!!

The response from the right will still be: "Bush did nothing wrong".
I guess its nice to go through the world with no grounding in reality.LOL

First of all, yes it's legal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be pissed off about it. I expect Democrats to raise a fuss every time Republicans do something unethical, and I expect Republicans to do that same. I'm tired of hearing excuses like "they do it too".

Second, this administration changed the law to allow replacement of attorneys without confirmation, and now they're abusing that. That makes this more unethical.

Well you guys are free to have it your way. But I don't see how the public is best served by this show of politics. You make it sound like US Attorney appointments have never been political tools of the Executive branch until the Bush Presidency.

Just remember that at some point in the future, your guy (or girl) will be in the White House and you'll be defending them from Republicans hounding every single thing he or she does like it's the worst thing ever. Finding a way to turn everything he or she does or says into a political scandal.

I would honestly join each and every one of you in calling for impeachment or investigation for anyone in the administration if there were ever to be some major wrongdoing. I honestly would.

We'll be having these kinds of discussions about everything Bush does. It's always going to be wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal, whatever. I don't see how anyone can ever have an intellectual discussion about anything he ever does or says with you guys. Your position on next month's scandal - whatever it may be - is carved in solid stone already. Bush F'ed up - again. Anyone who tries to defend him will be chided as a Bush sympathizer who choses to defend Bush to the end even when he's dead to rights wrong (as you guys see it - and no other opinions are valid or truthful of course). Any argument anyone brings out that might refute the claims made will be tossed aside for a variety of petty reasons.

I'd rather just distance myself from that nonsense. I make my own opinions. I have often been very vocal about things the President does I don't agree with or think are mistakes. I thought Harriet Miers was one of the worst nominees for Supreme Court that I've seen in my life. I disagreed strongly about Dubai Ports. I am almost 180 degrees from the President on his position on illegal aliens. I strongly believe Gonzales is over his head as Attorney General and should be replaced. I wish Bush wasn't such a pushover when he is attacked. I think he's a horrible public speaker. etc etc etc

But I simply don't sign on to the Bush scandal of the week because I don't like him and it happens to fit my world view. I look at the claims and I make my own opinions. I think Bush's administration (particularly the DOJ here) really muffed this US Attorney thing up. Was it illegal? No it wasn't. But I still think Bush should take action within his own ranks to hold those responsible accountable to their actions. Firing Gonzales would be a good step towards that for me.

But you guys go ahead and have your fun. Your day will come and you will be defending your guy against every silly political scandal Republicans can drum up.

Just remember that at some point in the future, your guy (or girl) will be in the White House and you'll be defending them from Republicans hounding every single thing he or she does like it's the worst thing ever. Finding a way to turn everything he or she does or says into a political scandal.

We've already been there, it was called the Clinton administration.

We've already been there and I was the one who made that point thank you. I'm saying that this behavior - will (and already is) become the norm towards future American Presidents. And you guys will be the ones trying to defend the attacks from the other side - again once your guy is in office. This isn't solving anything and it's not good for the country. Despite however much fun it might be for the other side. Republicans had their fun. Democrats are having theirs. And so it will continue because I don't see either side letting up at this point.

"Just remember that at some point in the future, your guy (or girl) will be in the White House and you'll be defending them from Republicans hounding every single thing he or she does like it's the worst thing ever. " I doubt it; we will never have as corrupt a White House as we have had with GW Bush.

everything Bush does. It's always going to be wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal, whatever.

Nope: http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov/

On the other hand, when he does something wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal, yes, we will pitch a fit,no matter how often you tools repeat "It's just politics as usual." It's not our fault Bush does so much that's wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal. That's entirely on your head.

You make it sound like US Attorney appointments have never been political tools of the Executive branch until the Bush Presidency.

I havent read anyone saying that. It sounds like you are hearing things so you can find something to disagree with. Of course, there is a very broad spectrum of how badly the DOJ can be politicized. To some degree it will be, that doesnt excuse politicizing it farther. Again and again the Bush administration pushes the boundaries of ethics and appologists want to pretend nothing is different or that bad to begin with.

Dont you agree that new or not, its bad for the Executive Branch to make US Attorney positions conditional on pleasing politicians of your party and bringing more indictments against the opposing party?

Even if you assume that some critics of the President are being hypocritical that doesnt mean they are wrong about Bush. Arguing hypocrisy or other people do it, is not a justification to harm our nations judicial system.

Why do you spend so much time apologizing for it?

"Just remember that at some point in the future, your guy (or girl) will be in the White House and you'll be defending them from Republicans hounding every single thing he or she does like it's the worst thing ever. "

A. How do you purport to know this? Is this how you approach these issues and you assume everyone else does as well or are you assuming that no one who disagrees with you could possibly be principled?

B. Assuming its true about some people, is this really a justification to defend Bush here?

Just remember that at some point in the future, your guy (or girl) will be in the White House and you'll be defending them from Republicans hounding every single thing he or she does like it's the worst thing ever.

As if giving Bush a pass on this would stop that from happening. Reagan and Bush1 got a pass on Iran/Contra, and that didn't stop your asshats from hounding Clinton.

the Bush administration pushes the boundaries of ethics and appologists want to pretend nothing is different or that bad to begin with.

This is exactly how Republicans treated Clinton and how they ragged his supporters. They claimed that Clinton had done all he could to "degrade" the office of the Presidency. And scoffed at his supporters who came to his defense. Everything he said and did was lies or was politically motivated and people that came to his defense were lumped as "apologists" who supported lies and immorality and did not respect the Office of the Presidency. To me that was all wrong. And so is what is happening today.

"It's just politics as usual." It's not our fault Bush does so much that's wrong, unethical, immoral, illegal. That's entirely on your head.

Unless you are coming from the position that Presidents just don't bring politics into the selection and removal of US Attorneys, how does this carry any meaning? You're going to have a hard time convincing me that President's prior to Bush weren't influenced by politics in the hiring and firing of US Attorneys. A very hard time indeed.

My problem is that Bush is apparently being held to a higher standard than any other President and when he fails to meet that standard he's thrashed like "we will never have as corrupt a White House as we have had with GW Bush."

It's easy to say that well he's playing politics and that's wrong. And expect him to be held to a standard that the other Presidents before him couldn't meet.

Dont you agree that new or not, its bad for the Executive Branch to make US Attorney positions conditional on pleasing politicians of your party and bringing more indictments against the opposing party?

Look I am all for getting a lot of the politics out of Washington, but why does Bush have to be the guy that changes this? I wish he was that guy. I'd put him on pedestal for the rest of my life if he was. I don't see how he's supposed to avoid playing politics when he's been completely engulfed in constant political attacks since before he even took the oath in 2001. He'd have to be a friggin saint to be able to not be affected by all that.

Look, I will stand right there with you guys in making strides to help push some of the politics out of not only the Office of the Presidency but also the various departments and Congress as well. I think that would be an awesome thing for this country at this point. But if attacking all the time is your only tool for accomplishing that then you're going to be sadly disappointed in your results. There are better ways young grasshopper. We can all come together on issues like that and I would fight alongside you for those kinds of changes. I can even say with some level of certainty that many of my Conservative friends would join in as well. But attacking and, in my mind, overblowing every little thing out of the White House is only going to increase the distance between us and I don't think it will yield very positive results. Only defensiveness. As we've seen.

Despite everything that's been said here, I don't think we're any further along than when we first started. I've really endulged you guys for a very long time in this conversation because I wanted to try and find some middle ground here. I thought maybe for this issue that might be possible. But I don't think there is any at this point. Bush is apparently a criminal regardless here and I'm apparently a protector of said criminal regardless of however many miles of turf I cover to show that is not necessarily the case.

Not to say that I feel this effort was wasted. It was a good discourse all things considered and I appreciate the time spent here by each of you in stating your cases. I sincerely do. Jimmy, I have a new respect for you sir :) And I mean that. I'll let you guys have the last word here and I look forward to seeing you all around the Vine.

My problem is that Bush is apparently being held to a higher standard than any other President

Your standard seems to be particularly low. Perhaps that's why you find a standard based on ethics to be so high.

I'm on a Republican Party mailing list, so they send me all the talking points, in case I don't know what to say for myself. Look what I just got:

There is no question that U.S. attorneys, like all political appointees, serve at the pleasure of the President. That was true when Bill Clinton's Justice Department replaced all 93 U.S. attorneys, and it remains true today. The Democrats may feign outrage to distract from their discord on the serious issues our nation faces, but sooner or later they will have to face the real responsibilities of governing.

Doesn't that seem familiar, somehow?

Novanglus wrote:

This firing was done specifically to punish members of the DOJ who refused to either go easy on Republicans, or to use their authority to smear Democrats.

And that sir, is politics.

And that sir, is wrong. Congress should exercise its oversight responsibilities to uncover what is wront. The public should criticize the President. The media should cover such wrongful conduct whether its legal or not. Do you honestly disagreee?

My problem is that Bush is apparently being held to a higher standard than any other President and when he fails to meet that standard he's thrashed like "we will never have as corrupt a White House as we have had with GW Bush."

You have failed to document your subjective belief that Bush in any way is being held to a higher standard. In fact you contradict yourself in the same comment: "This is exactly how Republicans treated Clinton and how they ragged his supporters." First you fail to prove your claim. Second, you fail to provide what exactly would be wrong to holding our President to higher ethical standards. Bush himself said he would hold his administration to the highest standards - you have a problem with holding him to his word?

You also wrote:

you. I'm saying that this behavior - will (and already is) become the norm towards future American Presidents. And you guys will be the ones trying to defend the attacks from the other side - again once your guy is in office. This isn't solving anything and it's not good for the country.

Who is "you guys" and if you are wrong then whats your point? You certainly seem to be paving the way for this to become the norm. This is reinforced with your later point.

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that President's prior to Bush weren't influenced by politics in the hiring and firing of US Attorneys. A very hard time indeed

. Why does anyone need to convince you of that? Why do they need to convince you of anything other than what the Bush adminisration has done in this case is wrong? Your prescription for analysis if adopted is guaranteed to reinforce an ever spiraling worsening situation. That others have may done bad things in the past and gone unpunished simply is not a valid reason to permit bad things to happen now and in the future.\

Your whole system of analysis if adopted invites exactly what you say is going to happen. Bad behavior has always been and will continue to expand. Your approach attacks anyone who tries to reverse the process. Your approach invites the steady worsening of politicalization. Your approach empowers apologists.

Why exactly do you want to do that? What purpose do your comments serve?

Look I am all for getting a lot of the politics out of Washington, but why does Bush have to be the guy that changes this?

Why do equate holding Bush accountable for actions that you say yourself should not happen with requiring him to be a saviour? You do understand that holding someone accountable is not the same as requiring them to be a model of perfection, so why do you pretend they are the same.

Your comments that any attempt to hold any Presient accountable is unfair. Why is that? If that isnt what you are saying the come out and explain. If you are merely saying we should not expect Bush to be the guy who corrects all wrongs, you are truly tilting at stramen. I certainly dont expect him to be the guy who stops all poltiicalization. He did promise to reverse it, he did promise to be a force for positive change. He has not only failed to keep his promises but he has continued to push the limits. Your analysis tends to apologize and support his abuses of power. Why does seeking accountablity rub you the wrong way. You claim we are seeking too much accountability, but so far how much has there been?