Bush is so very weak. Clinton really knew how fix the judicial system.

Bush is also an ignoramus who depends on his yes-men (& women) to tell him what he wants to hear, or on Cheney (enough said on that right there); the one thing he DOESN'T do is listen to those who give him honest but difficult or distasteful advice - witness his reaction to his own recent Homeland Defense Committee's study. Bush has never been forced to face or handle anything difficult or distasteful to HIM in his entire spoiled rich boy's life. He certainly won't start now.

IMO Congress should ignore this Nixon wannabe,do what they must to get evidence, & go straight to impeachment for crimes against the people of the US, betrayal of his presidential oath, & crimes against humanity, should the Hague have enough guts to indict him. He should hang right along with his buddy Hussein.

Bush is also an ignoramus who depends on his yes-men (& women) to tell him what he wants to hear,

If Bush's yes-men tell him what he wants to hear, that suggests that he already has an idea of what he thinks should be done, which suggests that he has actually thought about the issues and made a decision and is therefore NOT an ignoramus.

You can't have it both ways. Either he's a willful tyrrant surrounded by yes-men to support HIS decisions, or he's an ignorant fool who just does what his handlers tell him. He really can't be both at the same time.

Dave

Bush was chosen precisely because he looks like a deer caught in the headlights.

He is trying the same bullsit that he got away with in the 9/11 hearings--no oath, no transcript, Cheney running everything....as always.

The bottom line is: complared to the CRIMES against humanity of this administration, the firing of the attorneys is just a tiny distraction.

But it's easier to take the bait on something that's fairly inconsequential than take on the bastards for the REALLY bad stuff they've done.

The firing of these attorneys is in no way illegal. They serve at the president's leisure and he can have them for any reason he so sees fit.

"Johnson get in here........I don't like the tie you're wearing today....you're fired." Simple as that.

I know partisan [Edited] like Moonraven find a conspiracy under every rock but there is none here. Nothing illegal was done.

then why is the administration being so secretive? why can't they just take an oath and testify in public? (obviously, there is more to this than presidential perogitive.)

for Arch...

here's the link with all the Story

there's so much more to this than just the fact folks were fired...but a clue to this Administration, if you are going to get rid of someone from your own team for your own purposes, best to not try and cover it up...but even better...don't lie and say it was because of "poor performance"...tends to piss folks off

read the info, Arch...because your lightweight talking points on this topic just don't cut it

This is from the link I posted above:

"Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons."

Yeah, Maurice, I read the Opinion Journal article. It gets a few facts wrong. For example, that "Clinton's firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was unprecedented."

It was not. Despite what the Opinion Journal thing says, Ronald Reagan also asked for the resignations of every sitting U.S. attorney in 1981. At least, that's what Bush 41's DOJ Civil Division chief says. Reagan eventually renominated at least one of them, but all were forced to resign first.

Likewise, when the current president came into office in 2001, he kept exactly two holdovers. Ninety-one were asked to resign.

Firing U.S. Attorneys en masse is neither illegal nor, by itself, unethical. Nor is using the appointment of those attorneys for political spoils purposes. That's not the issue here.

Michael: Then what IS the issue?

In my opinion, the issue is the totalitarian administration.

Someone said Arch has talking points? I have never seen any in the close to 6 months I have visted this forum. They must be invisible....

All I have seen is fascist foolishness.

Apropos the current Bush Gang bullshit:

Question: How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to
change a light bulb?

Answer: TEN.

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for
changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness;
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a
new light bulb;
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and
standing on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished";
7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush
was literally "in the dark" the whole time;
8. Another one to viciously smear #7;
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along;
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between
screwing in a light bulb and screwing the country.

And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never
actually managed to change the light bulb.

The issue, Moonraven, is the reason that the attorneys were dismissed. Some may have been fired because they were initiating charges against Republican politicians. Others may have been dismissed not so much because they weren't pursuing indictments, but because they weren't doing it fast enough to affect the 2006 Congressional elections. And one seems to have been resigned to prevent her from following through on her intention to subpoena the third-ranking CIA official.

We've already seen one serious ethics violation in Sen. Domenici's interference with Iglesias's federal corruption investigation and demands to the Justice Department that he be fired.

But lately, it does seem to be developing into an issue of an Administration that believes it is above being challenged or examined by the Congress.

(obviously, there is more to this than presidential perogitive.)

The thing that makes me agree, zingzing, is the "no transcripts" rule. That's absolutely ludicrous.

You could have said that.

Just because this poster actually knows what the issues are--and they are essentially that of manipulation of justice by the Bush Gang and of accountability--that doesn't mean that others do.

The House just upheld the subpoenas.

clinton's admin removed far more us attornies than bush's. why is it such an issue? the media is over-inflating something clinton did tenfold.

RE #15: First, that's incorrect. Second, the situations aren't comparable.

In keeping with prior practice, Clinton removed all 93 prosecutors upon taking office.

So did Bush.

This is common practice and entirely uncontroversial.

But once prosecutors are named, they're supposed to be insulated from political pressure.

That's why Clinton left the prosecutors alone, firing only three. Larry Colleton resigned after he was videotaped grapping a reporter by the throat; Kendall Coffey resigned after being accused of biting a topless dancer; and Michael Yamaguchi simply couldn't get along with local judges or the Justice Department. Clinton replaced him with a Republican, Robert Mueller -- Bush the Elder's chief of the criminal justice division and the current FBI director.

Bush, by contrast, took the unusual step of firing nearly 10 percent of his prosecutors midterm.

See the difference?

If Bush's yes-men tell him what he wants to hear, that suggests that he already has an idea of what he thinks should be done, which suggests that he has actually thought about the issues and made a decision and is therefore NOT an ignoramus.

The person who reached this "logical" conclusion could by many thinkers be considered an ignoramus. But maybe not. I'm just saying... just could be.

Dave

You can't have it both ways. Either he's a willful tyrrant surrounded by yes-men to support HIS decisions, or he's an ignorant fool who just does what his handlers tell him. He really can't be both at the same time.

Why not. Why cant he be a stupid tyrant? Most are. I'm just asking. Are you an expert on stupidity or tyrannical behavior or maybe both? Did you attempt both at once and realise that it was too difficult? Which one did you settle in on. I have a clue but perhaps you can expound and illuminate on the topic :o)

Sean

Did you hear that on NPR? You lil devil.

Maurice

Coming in with new prosecutors is standard practice. Getting rid of them mid term is unprecedented.

Zedd: NPR? Nope, although I get some good leads off of them.

BTW, here's a Congressional Research Service report outlining the fate of U.S. attorneys going back to 1981. Out of 486 attorneys, 54 left office before their term was up. Most of those were for obvious reasons, like being named judges.

Of the remaining eight, two were fired (by Reagan), and six resigned: three for public embarassment (one Reagan, two Clinton), three for no known reason (all Bush).

I go into it in more detail here.

The only issue here is that many of you are clearly suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)

that one cuts both ways, archie.

Documents now seem to show that Bush's great and good buddy the AG didn't quite manage to tell us the truth about his involvement in the firings. Bush claims no testimony under oath protects executive privilege; what it really protects is their ability to go right on lying.

No administration has abused the concept of executive privilege more than this one--not even Nixon's!

closest Thread to the Topic, so i'll put the linkage here...

GSA Chief accused of playing Politics with his office

if any of the accusations are proven, no jail time, but tossed out of office for a violation of the Hatch Act...

read the linked article, and make up your own mind

For whatever it is worth, Gonzalez is supposedly considering resigning.

That's after an aide has indicated she will take the Fifth Ammendment in the hearings and the top aide who resigned indicated that he will testify under oath and not take the Fifth.

I suspect Gonzalez is deep into his own fifth by now--of tequila.