A question about the US attorneys firing... - Page 4

cardcounter0 · #31 03-24-2007, 12:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The money quote is no charges were filed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yap, since he was dismissed in the middle of the investigation.

cardcounter0 · #32 03-24-2007, 12:54 AM

Okay, so we are suppose to swallow that Bush fired Lam upon recomendation of Feinstein? HAHAHAHAHA!

Felix_Nietzsche · #33 03-24-2007, 01:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, so we are suppose to swallow that Bush fired Lam upon recomendation of Feinstein?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bush does not owe anybody a reason for firing this attorneys. He can fire them because he doesn't like the suits they wear....

ThaSaltCracka · #34 03-24-2007, 04:50 AM

to be honest, FM I don't listen to anything you say because you are a total Bush/Republican homer, and you have been for years on this forum.

AlexM · #35 03-24-2007, 05:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Bush does not owe anybody a reason for [insert anything here]

[/ QUOTE ]

Odd, I thought he was an elected official, not a dictator. Elected officials owe their voters a reason for every single one of their actions while in office.

whiskeytown · #36 03-24-2007, 05:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Some people see this as consistent with Bush's history, believing that the administration has tried to pressure political-motivated outcomes in areas such as science, national intelligence, and the judiciary.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point - and let's not forget Iraq - as Woodward pointed out in State of Denial, qualified people who were to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq - (the first time, that is) - were pulled and replaced with loyalists who had no qualifications other then a demonstratable loyality to the president - That is part of the reason we now have more troops in Iraq then at any other time during the Iraqi conflict - incompetence spearheaded by GWB loyalists instead of reconstruction carried out by qualified and experienced leaders.

There has not been a single instance I can think of in this presidency where the interests of the American People were put ahead this administration. I can't think of a single example where they didn't live up to the motto "No good deed goes unpunished" - In every single case, they have expanded their presidental power and abused it virtually to the point of treasonous behavior that benefitted only the top 1%.

The firings were politically motivated, and lies were told to Congress first about the reasons, then about the accountability - and now we find by and large that using tactics such as claims of voter fraud and intimidation is standard Karl Rove fare and he too had a hand in the drawing up of the list and getting attorneys who didn't show sufficent partisan zeal out of their appointments early.

And they'd have probably gotten away with it, and did for a time, till they started slandering the attorneys who were let go, and then they started swinging back.

Having lost the Legislative branch, and being only two years away from losing the Executive, it would appear they are doing everything possible between now and then to stack the Judical Branch with the worst kind of legal expert - the partisan hack.

Of course, if it were up to me I'd have had GWB impeached for violating his oath to defend and uphold the constitution. But if he's willing to let his lackeys take the fall for his failure, then impeach those bastards till he has no one left to pass the blame on to -

rb

iron81 · #37 03-24-2007, 06:12 AM

I permabanned Mickey. Mostly because of his past career as Cyrus that most of us are aware of, but partially because of continued snippy, sarcastic replies like the one JMan deleted above. That's not the kind of thing we're going to put up with anymore.

Felix_Nietzsche · #38 03-24-2007, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
to be honest, FM I don't listen to anything you say

[/ QUOTE ]
You are being quite honest as the next part of your quote shows...

[ QUOTE ]
because you are a total Bush/Republican homer, and you have been for years on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I have be quite upset towards Bush on a number of issues. I have made NUMEROUS POSTS saying I can't wait till Bush's term is over. If you had read my posts, you would know this. In your quote above, you have shown yourself to be ignorant towards my political beliefs. ESPECIALLY towards Bush. How can one engage you on a honest level when you FALSELY attribute beliefs that I do not have? Bush does a few things I like and MANY-MANY things I detest.

Perhaps you should learn to aim first before you shoot...

pokerbobo · #39 03-24-2007, 12:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of hypotheticals here as to why they were fired, however one would assume that if they were appointed by Bush, they must have many of the same ideological beliefs. Also, in order for them to even be appointed to a position of this level, they would have to be incredibly competent and intelligent attorneys. So tell me how, after 6 years, they suddenly became incompetent? Defenitely a red flag in my book. I wouldn't put anything past Rove. That man is singlehandidly ruining our country.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the talk of how bush and his entire administration is incompetent...and now you assume because he appointed the attorneys that they are all competent? Something here doesnt quite connect. If bush is as incompetent as most of you seem to beleive then I would think you want most or all of his appointments replaced.

Leads me to believe that you want to beleive in the media and dem phantom controversy. The bottom line is it is his right to fire them. Clinton fired 92 attorneys...Reagan 86 I believe...now its a big deal for 8 or 9?

This is a non story that the press is trying to create into a scandal.

PokrLikeItsProse · #40 03-24-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

All the talk of how bush and his entire administration is incompetent...and now you assume because he appointed the attorneys that they are all competent? Something here doesnt quite connect. If bush is as incompetent as most of you seem to beleive then I would think you want most or all of his appointments replaced.

Leads me to believe that you want to beleive in the media and dem phantom controversy. The bottom line is it is his right to fire them. Clinton fired 92 attorneys...Reagan 86 I believe...now its a big deal for 8 or 9?

This is a non story that the press is trying to create into a scandal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is going on is that Bush appears to have gone after those few US Attorneys who actually happened to show competence, honor, and regard for duty.

US Attorneys still have to undergo Senate confirmation for a limited term. The problem is that the Patriot Act changed the law so that an interim US Attorney can be appointed indefinitely without Senate confirmation, wiping out the notion of checks and balances.

Plus, the big deal is not for the mere fact of getting rid of some of them, it is for the unprecedented action of doing so at a period other the start of a presidential term. It is either obstinate political hackery or unbelievable stupidity that some pundits can't understand the different context and why it matters.