March 13, 2007
Well, she would've called for Reno's (and Clenis's) head if her positions would be consistent for more than a year at a time. But alas, Democrats have no guiding principles and assume everyone else has a short-to-non-existent memory.
What say you to this little blast from the past, Hildabeast?
Article (walled up behind Times Select) here.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:38 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.
I had hoped this nonsense, debunked last week, would have
disappeared by now, but it seems to be the only talking point White
House allies can come up with.
The argument is premised on a mistaken understanding of how the process
works. When a president takes office, he or she nominates federal
prosecutors at the beginning of the first term. Under normal
circumstances, these U.S. Attorneys serve until the next president is
sworn in.
In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush
replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual.
Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.
The difference with the current scandal is overwhelming. Bush
replaced eight specific prosecutors, apparently for purely political
reasons. This is entirely unprecedented. For conservatives to argue, as
many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs
is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty. They know
better, but hope their audience is too uninformed to know the
difference.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 10:32 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 10:33 PM (AeRA2)
many are now, that Clinton’s routine replacements for H.W. Bush’s USAs
is any way similar is the height of intellectual dishonesty
That's cute, but woefully braindead.
Ignoring the cold, hard facts does not change them. Excusing Clinton and not Bush is the very height of hypocrisy. The fact remains that Clinton removed 93 appointed attorneys for political purposes and Bush removed 8.
Numbers don't lie. Democrats do.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 10:43 PM (yMbfY)
"When we came in, we ultimately replace most
all 93 U.S. attorneys – there are some still left from the Clinton era
in place. We have appointed a total of I think128 U.S. attorneys --
that is to say the original 93, plus replaced some, some have served 4 years, some served less, most have served more." -karl rove
your sauce, with video
http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/arkansasblog/2007/03/rove_speaks_in_little_rock.aspx
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 10:58 PM (AeRA2)
that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not
confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were
fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not
indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively
going after Republicans We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department
lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took
place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the
White House with the direct involvement of the president.
And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys.
That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of
reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why
these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP
agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b)
because they lied to Congress about why it happened.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 11:07 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 11:36 PM (yMbfY)
clinton was 7 YEARS AGO! GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 11:36 PM (AeRA2)
Keep putting lipstick on that pig."
oh, you out of numbers to use against me?
i dont really care and i really expected something like this from bush.
the thing is, its terrible to see people defend it with this. really you all should just be like "yeah, so what if we did?" and congress would totally back down. *sigh* i hate the democrats.
Posted by: smurf at March 13, 2007 11:45 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 13, 2007 11:57 PM (yMbfY)
Posted by: Jake at March 13, 2007 11:58 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at March 14, 2007 05:12 AM (2OHpj)
Black democrat District Attorney of New Orleans (Eddie Jordan) fires 43 white workers and replaces them with 43 incompetant blacks. Not a complaint from the left. Shows where their hearts are. I hope Bush fires every god damn democrat in the federal government. They are lazy assholes anyway.
Posted by: greyrooster at March 14, 2007 11:36 AM (W7E9s)
Black democrat District Attorney of New Orleans (Eddie Jordan) fires 43
white workers and replaces them with 43 incompetant blacks. Not a
complaint from the left. Shows where their hearts are. I hope Bush
fires every god damn democrat in the federal government. They are lazy
assholes anyway."
sidelining much?
Posted by: ben goldman at March 14, 2007 04:40 PM (AeRA2)
Posted by: Moises at May 24, 2007 12:47 AM (f9w1I)
Posted by: Stevie at May 24, 2007 04:51 PM (vjWYH)
Posted by: Muhammad at May 25, 2007 12:46 PM (O760/)
Posted by: Eduardo at May 26, 2007 04:44 AM (gPpo1)
Posted by: Waylon at May 26, 2007 06:52 PM (4bw/1)
Posted by: Cale at May 27, 2007 11:00 AM (EOv+R)
Posted by: Madison at May 28, 2007 02:40 AM (A0/1F)
Posted by: River at May 28, 2007 06:45 PM (yL/m/)
Posted by: Tyshawn at May 29, 2007 08:04 PM (f7QYz)
Posted by: Nathanael at June 01, 2007 03:48 AM (8eA/D)
Posted by: Bryant at June 01, 2007 10:27 PM (2WbUx)
Posted by: Arnulfo at June 02, 2007 06:20 PM (Mm5F7)
Posted by: Grayson at June 03, 2007 12:10 PM (j+Yzb)
Posted by: Kent at June 04, 2007 07:54 AM (+pyAz)
Posted by: Gavyn at June 05, 2007 02:26 AM (Fjvj9)
Posted by: Allen at June 05, 2007 09:17 PM (UQYg7)
Posted by: Bernardo at June 06, 2007 06:18 PM (7LpI6)
Posted by: Samson at June 07, 2007 03:36 PM (24VlT)
Posted by: Jevon at June 08, 2007 01:48 PM (oKhNn)
34 queries taking 0.0694 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
