This PI editorial, written, it appears, by D. Parvaz, makes some harsh charges:
Big ups to Rep. Jay Inslee for proposing the impeachment of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Too bad Inslee has not yet gotten much support.
According to The Nation, when asked if she'd back Inslee's proposal, "The speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. 'I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week,' " Nancy Pelosi said.
We can sympathize. Who doesn't feel like rubbing their temples -- or gouging out their eyes -- after reading the transcripts of Gonzales' testimonies (aka lies). That said, we'd like to remind Pelosi, and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that impeaching the attorney general shouldn't be put on the backburner. He's gotten away with too much already.
Gonzales has made a mockery out of his office, the Justice Department and the U.S. Constitution. Beyond slippery testimony, (oh yes, there's more), he has grossly neglected his duty to serve in the public's best interest, opting instead to serve at the feet of his masters, the president and vice president.
But presents not one single piece of evidence to justify those charges. Not one.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I were to say that Parvaz hates Gonzalez because he is Hispanic. Any reasonable person would expect me to present some evidence for that, to show, for instance, that she had used an anti-Hispanic sneer when she discussed him. Since I don't have such evidence, I am not making that charge, and I would not make the charge even if I suspected it was true — if I had no evidence. (I do not know why she despises Gonzalez. If I had to guess, I would say she hates him because he is a Republican, and because he wants to defeat the Islamofascists.)
Here are some questions for Parvaz: What did Gonzalez say in his testimony that was a lie? Is it possible to find a person who was not disturbed by his testimony, who did not feel like "rubbing their temples" much less "gouging out their eyes"? What, exactly, has Gonzalez gotten away with? How, exactly, has Gonzalez made a mockery of his office? Specifically, how has his work been against the public interest? Finally, how does Gonzalez compare to Janet Reno as an Attorney General?
And here's some advice for Parvaz: That a partisan such as Senator Schumer says that Gonzalez did not did tell the truth means almost nothing; partisans often make such charges, just for the effect, and Senator Schumer (or Schemer, which my spell checker prefers) has never been especially constrained by mere facts when he makes charges. And, as almost everyone knows, leftist partisans, such as Schumer, know that our partisan press will allow them to get away with making such charges — whether they are true or not.
Nor do you strengthen an argument by ignoring objections from those who disagree with you. Readers, if they are open-minded, will wonder why you give only one side, and will suspect that you can not answer those objections. If you are going to cite The Nation, you should also consider the arguments made by, for example, the Wall Street Journal.
(Parvaz should also get some help with her writing. For example, it sounds childish to begin an editorial on impeachment with "Big ups" and end it by calling Gonzalez "Fredo".
If Parvaz does redo this editorial — as she should — she might start by reading this column by Ruth Marcus, and this post. I'll be happy to supply her with some other references, if she asks.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 01, 2007 08:39 AM | Email ThisBush hired the attorneys.
Gozales fired them.
If they are so great, why didn't Bush get praised in the first place for hiring them.
If they are so bad, why doesn't Gonzales get praise for firing them.
Once again, Libs want it backward, sideways and forward at all times.
Bush is too nice when dealing with Congress and others.
But, here is a point for the wild-eyed radical whack jobs on the other side, why not just let Bush fade into the woodwork? He is already a lame-duck president. With the early election cycle, it is even more so.
And another point, America is fed up with all your accusations and carrying on. You have gotten your Democratic congress in the lowest approval ratings since Ghengis Khan (to quote a John Kerry reference).
Posted by: swatter on August 1, 2007 08:53 AMI take a back seat to NO ONE in defense of civil liberties. (I'm even a real, live LIBERTARIAN.) But I'd like to know who these people are who've been nabbed off the streets? And frankly, if you're getting cell phone calls from Al Qaeda (I'm not sure I spelled that right), I WANT the federal government to know about it.
Posted by: John Galt on August 1, 2007 10:03 AMEXACTLY WHO are these U.S citizens that "have been nabbed off the streets and held incommunicado, without access to a court, counsel or their families"
Yet again, liberals make charges but never back them up with facts.
Posted by: pbj on August 1, 2007 10:12 AMWhat gets me is all you here that were so quick to jump on Clinton, which was correct, are also so quick to defend Gonzales and this administration. You want to rewrite the rules of play whenever it best suites your side. The Democrats are now starting to try to play this game the Republicans have been playing. Their problem is they don't have the master, Karl Rove, to teach them the proper methods.
I say the hell with both ends. Both Republicans and Democrats are both more interested in power than service. Where is someone who will actually tell the truth and answer the questions straight forwardly, how they were asked.
We all know what happened. Bush hired some attorneys, that were Republican, but then fired them because they didn't want to play along with politics of the Republican party. Pity them, didn't they know that there was a new boss in town. It doesn't matter if they were just doing their jobs, their job now was to do whatever to make the administration and party come out on top. Forget the non-partisan ship that should be in the office. Of course, this is all perfectly legal, just as Bill Clinton is correct in depends on what the definition of "is" is.
Then, you have Gonzales, he who will walk around the law whenever it doesn't suit him, just to look good to the boss. No wonder Rove and Bush like him. What is apalling isn't the Clintonian tactics this administration has decided to assume, but that they would go so far as pestering someone in the hospital, just because they didn't like the answer given by the person Ashcroft appointed. While I didn't necessarily care for Ashcroft, at least he was ethical and new where the line is to be drawn. Gonzales and the current administration want to choose to draw the line wherever the hell they want, so long as they can get their way. There is no respect left in this Administration. They have sunk to lower tactics than even Bill Clinton.
Posted by: tc on August 1, 2007 11:14 AMIn addition, suspending habeas corpus is an extreme violation of the principles of this nation put forth in the Constitution. Without habeas corpus it is possible to pick anyone off the street, and hold them without charge and without public knowledge. People can just disappear, and be transported to our modern day Bastille, Gitmo.
Posted by: Micah Rose on August 1, 2007 11:15 AMWait until '08. They'll start indicting ham sandwiches.
I suspect it wasn't too many times, nor too much money. The dems were in charge of congress in '93, and they weren't too keen to investigate a new dem president.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 1, 2007 11:29 AMCongress apparently spent $80 million total investigating Clinton over eight years, that's quite a lot considering they never found squat other than an extramarital affair.
I'm sure if the GOP was still in power they would have no trouble keeping Gonzales out of the headlines.
Regardless of whose in power it's the typical Washington game make the other party look bad. It's just a lead up to the PUSA battle and the next election cycle. It has little or nothing to do with actual facts.
What about "partisans" such as Arlen Specter????
Posted by: BillL on August 1, 2007 12:45 PMI read the article you linked to, and I didn't find anything about Foster in there.
BTW, considering all of the scandals and corruption during Slick's eight years in office, I'd say $80M is a bargain.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on August 1, 2007 12:49 PMAny truth to the rumor that the Dems are nominating a ham sandwich run for one of the state house districts in Seattle?
The P-I has already prepared an editorial lead and sub: "Ham Sandwich plump, nutritious / Whole wheat bread, organic mayo indicate environmental, health bona fides of fresh candidate"
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 1, 2007 12:53 PM"Congress apparently spent $80 million total investigating Clinton over eight years, that's quite a lot considering they never found squat other than an extramarital affair."
I am no Clinton fan, especially Hillary, however, I have to agree with you. I wish that the partisan scalp hunting in washington would end, that the professional politicians who are in it for themselves more than for We The People, would just knock it off and do the PEOPLES business and not their own. In my opinion if there is no real crime done, especially one that the perpetrator will have real charges brought against, every dime that is spent on witch hunting is a rip off of the taxpayer.
"I'm sure if the GOP was still in power they would have no trouble keeping Gonzales out of the headlines."
Do you really think that is true? Didn't do Scooter Libby much good did it.
"Regardless of whose in power it's the typical Washington game make the other party look bad. It's just a lead up to the PUSA battle and the next election cycle. It has little or nothing to do with actual facts."
What is PUSA? Other than that, looks like a sad but true statement.
Posted by: REBEL on August 1, 2007 01:02 PMNo, I do not think that impeaching Gonzo is too serious a remedy for the ills he's been a part of, and, unless something changes dramatically in the comng months, I would not be opposed to censuring or even impeaching the President and the Vice-Pres. I'm sorry, but I'ld put the interests of my country ahead of those of my party in a minute (I supported Nixon in 1960, 1968 and 1972, and yet favored impeaching him in 1974). The irony here is that the current situation is closer to what the Founders had in mind when creating the impeachment power, then was the travesty that led to the impeachment of Clinton.
As a final note: anybody who can say before a Congressional hearing that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the Great Writ is too stupid to be the Attorney General. A classic case of the evils of Affirmative Action, because I can't imagine any other way this clown could have gotten into, much less graduated from, a major law school.
Posted by: MJ on August 1, 2007 01:02 PMHubble and a few that I remember. Need to do a net search, but Clinton had plenty that were in trouble.
And what ever happen to the the securty guy/bouncer with all the FBI files.
From Wikipedia -
Convictions
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign.
* Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, forced to resign (fraud, 3 counts)
* John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
* William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
* Stephen Smith (Whitewater): former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds)
* Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
* Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
* Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud, , contempt)
* David Hale: banker, Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
* Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
* Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
* Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
* Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy)
* John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
* Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
* Charles Matthews (Whitewater): Whitewater defendant (bribery)
I am NOT defending Clinton in any way, I can barely stand to look at the man, but fair's fair, and by ANY standard of criminal behavior, his administration lags both the Bush and Reagan administrations. Imagine if an impartial investigation, and Clinton's was by no measure impartial (even his perjury conviction bordered on entrapment), but imagine if any investigation spent even half the money or time that Clinton's did on investigating every aspect of Bush's life in politics, or imagine if the probe of Iran-contra had not been shortciccuited by Bush Sr, how either would have measured up.
No, before you trash Clinton on his criminality, make sure your own house is not made of mud.
Now, if we're talking sleaze....
Posted by: MJ on August 1, 2007 02:43 PMEvidence? Evidence?
We don't need no stinkin evidence!
Posted by: Ken on August 1, 2007 02:44 PMDon't give CATO as softball like that, you know he's going to say " If Ted had driven off of the bridge to nowhere, he probably would have gotten a pass".
Posted by: Huh? on August 1, 2007 02:47 PMThis happens all the time, often on this site, and often on others.
We all do it, really.
And the PI piece was an editorial OPINION following weeks of news covereage about Gonzalez.
Here's another example of a leading politician who declares that someone else is lying, then refuses to offer any evidence, as it is not worth it, he says: this was from aol. just now:
"A tart profile in Vanity Fair chronicles the rise of Judith Giuliani, wife of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Headlined 'Giuliani's Princess Bride,' the article paints her as a status-conscious divorcee who schemed her way from humble circumstances into the arms of one of the nation's most powerful politicians.
"The Giuliani camp reacted quickly. "There are so many inaccuracies in that story, so many innuendoes in that story that is so vile that it really isn't worth going into," an adviser told CNN. Rudy Giuliani called the article one of the "unfortunate prices" of political life."
Hmmmmm the Giuliani camp cites no "evidence" at all.
Obviously both sides do this. LEt's all get off the moral high horse.
If you want to argue the evidence go ahead and argue it, yea or nay, but to start attacking others for nothaving evidence is ad hominem and does not get us anywhere.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on August 1, 2007 02:50 PMNo matter: my apologies to you, Smokie.
Posted by: MJ on August 1, 2007 02:59 PMI take exception to your phrase "the Clintons were found innocent of any criminal links to the Whitewater scandal". They were never "found innocent", they were never indicted. Those are not the same thing.
In fact, see the "Ray Report" (as summarized at Wikipedia):
Ray Report
Kenneth Starr's successor as Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, released a report in September 2000 that stated "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct."[7] Ray nonetheless criticized the White House in a statement regarding the release of the report, saying delays in the production of evidence and "unmeritorious litigation" by the president's lawyers severely impeded the investigation's progress. Ray's report effectively ended the Whitewater investigation, with a total cost to American taxpayers of nearly $60 million.[2]
As for your statement "the Bush administration is already far ahead both in criminal indictmants [sic], and convictions", do you have a list to compare or are you just pulling this out of thin air?
Second, I have a little story to illustrate D. Parvaz's general thought process: During an interview on the radio today, the interviewer mentioned Harrison Ford's movie "Regarding Henry " and how it was one of his better works. The interviewee confessed that she didn't watch many movies so didn’t know much about it. The interviewer gave her a a quick plot synopsis: "It's about a guy who is a Republican and gets shot in the head and turns into a Democrat."
I think that about covers it.
Hillary Clinton's amended family tree
Judy Barnes, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana. He was hanged in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Remus
Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives,
convicted and hanged in 1889."
Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton @ NY.Gov for com ments. Hillary's staff of professional image adjusters cropped Remus' picture, scanned it, enlarged the image, and edited it with image processing software, so that all that's seen is a head shot. The accompanying biographical sketch read as follows:
"Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and
intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed."
And that's how it's done, folks.
Welcome to politics in America, Clinton style!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on August 1, 2007 07:18 PMRegarding Inslee, he's got to do something to stay in the news, considering biofuel has been exposed as the next dot.com wreck in the making, global warming has cooled, and free HDTV boxes aren't going to happen.
Posted by: Organization Man on August 1, 2007 07:24 PM
To quote: "they never found squat other than an extramarital affair."
As a direct result of the investigation, corruption was discovered that removed a state governor and put him in Jail. There are only 50 state governors.
If Clinton hadn't stonewalled the congress at every turn, would this have cost $80 million? Doubtful.
Posted by: Johnny on August 2, 2007 10:16 AMBut then, when you have BDS, no number is to small. If you don't have BDS than you have to get some perspective.
Posted by: G Jiggy on August 2, 2007 10:23 AMOn Captain Yee, he was military. The government is allowed to do just about anything with military personnel anyway. Hardly a patriot act issue.
Besides, if you get past the editorial page rhetoric on the guy and actually read through the evidence, it looked a lot like he was acting as a conduit for Al Queda communications.
There was some pretty evidence there. Admittedly wrong, but they didn't yank this guy off the street simply because of the color of his skin. If the evidence had been right, it might have saved innocent lives. Maybe even several thousand lives.
Posted by: johnny on August 2, 2007 10:26 AMBush is stonewaling congress on several fronts right now by claiming executive privilege. Cheney is flip-flopping between branches of Govt. at his leisure. Meanwhile Gonzales seems to be suffering from bouts of amnesia regarding his role in the firing of US Attorneys. If the Administration was forthcoming and honest would there be any reason to continue investigating?
You seem to be arguing that partisan witch hunts should only have full disclosure if the GOP is running them.
Maybe Cato will approve of those witch hunts.
Heck, one even features a witch.
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 2, 2007 12:56 PM'IF' Gonzales has any reason to be impeached its for not treating the criminal wetback with the same care and consideration Janet Reno showed the American citizens at at Mt. Carmel just outside of Waco, Tx back in '93...
Oh wait! My bad! I forgot that the big heshe made the cover of Time magazine...
I mean just consider Reno's sterling record as a prosecutor in Floriduh! ...
Reno's track record for upholding free speech and her overarching care for children and those who alledgedly abuse them ...
So where were those whinning about Gonzales today back then?
Posted by: juandos on August 2, 2007 01:26 PMThen again maybe you should consider your source:
during Reno's legal stewardship of Miami it became a mecca for drug dealers, money launderers, corrupt politicians and other hoodlums.
Umm yeah...I'm sure it was like that before she took over. The Crack epidemic pretty much plagued every major US city during the 80's.
Besides do you think Jack Thompson would have done better? He seems to be the laughing stock of the court system at the moment.
It's fun to play the game of "Yes we may be guilty but you are too" except....
The Clinton investigation was a criminal investigation - it wasn't about procedural issues. Big, big difference here.
Bush's team is saying "Executive Priviledge" on matters on matters such as Presidential papers, state secrets and day to day management practices in the white house. That fight started with George Washington and has been going on ever since. In matters of how the President manages, the office of the President has pretty consistently won and that is probably a good thing.
What the Clinton case was about was whether he broke a law unrelated to management of the country. To be blunt - it was about swindling investors. And the crime happened before he took office.
I can see that difference, I hope you can too.
So, to show where we agree, if Bush had been involved in a deal before becoming President where there was obvious illegal action (remember that Clintons buddy DID get convicted) then an action against Bush shouldn't be covered under executive priviledge.
On the other hand, if the Clinton fight had been about why he decided to fire all those attorneys, he would have a right to executive priviledge as to the whys and hows.
In fact, he did fire some attorneys now that I remember. (All of them - including the ones very close to cornering the Illinois Senator Rostenkowski.) I don't remember the Republicans asking for any special prosecutors over it.
Posted by: johnny on August 2, 2007 04:13 PMThink before you type.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 2, 2007 06:21 PMHow many "enemy combatants" in Gitmo, how many people sent overseas to be tortured, how many phone conversations listened to under the unlawful search and seizure wiretapping program, how many civil liberties burned on the spear of the "War on Terror."
If you answer "I don't know" to any of these, I have to give the edge to Janet Reno. At least she has had some measure of accountability by not shrouding her every action to the public. Plus she can't be held responsible for the actions of the FBI and ATF at the branch dividian complex, she wasn't there and didn't authorize that type of force. Elian Gonzalez was kidnapped! It doesn't matter if it was from a communist nation. She pursued the correct course of action there, both legally and politically.
Posted by: Micah Rose on August 2, 2007 09:36 PMWake up. Gonzales is a disaster. If you are patriotic, and esp if you want (as I do to) see two parties, you should endorse the ffort to get this man to resign "voluntarily."
At this point he has, for better or worse, lost .. he has NO credibility.
What benefit there is to Nr, Bush in keeping this man on is very worrisome to consider:
1. Blind loyalty ... this makes NO sense. There is nothing the AG can do now that will imporve things for him or for Mr. Bush. This means that the longer the fellow hangs around the weaker the already imperiled Bush regime will be. Just imagine what would happen if GWB needed the AG's support for some security issue? I do not think an opinion written by Mr. G. would be much more use than one written by his namesake from the Godfather movie.
In effect, GWB is making Alberto swing in the breeze like a Pinata. If Mr. G is going to rescue his name and career the sooner he starts the btter off he will be.
2. Mr. Gonzales knows something dangerous to Mr. B or Mr. C. This is not only frightening to imagine, it is also all the more reason to find someway t move the AG out of the public eye asap,
3. Bush is as stupid as the left says. This could be and if its is, woe to the Repubrican Party.
2.
I love it when libs complain about their loss of liberties, such as the government might be able to get the list of books someone checked out from the library or movies rented from the video store.
When it gets as easy for the government to get that information as it can now for someone legally purchasing or carrying a firearm (something the 2nd Amendment guarantees), I might feel a little sympathy.
Remember those slippery slopes. You never know what's at the bottom and it's so easy to get there once started.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on August 2, 2007 11:56 PMWhy don't you use the preview option before you post. Your postings always are full of typo's and misspellings. This is not about whether I agree with you or not. It is about the tedium of reading your posts.
Of course seeing the usual leftist diatribe from you is also tedious.
Posted by: REBEL on August 3, 2007 06:07 AMDuring wars saboteurs and spies are executed. During war captured soldiers out of uniform run the risk of being caught and shot for being a spy or saboteur. Any problems so far? Enemy combatants captured on our shores out of uniform during WWII were summarily executed.
Communications play an important role. So if Johnny Jones routinely contacts the enemy or routinely receives calls from the enemy, it would be assumed that they are not discussing the upcoming beach party. The rub of course is the monitoring phone numbers being called and intercepting calls involving calls to and from enemy phones, cell or otherwise. This has been an acceptable method of protection long before this administration. Any problems, so far.
Recent events in bombing incidents demonstrate that their are enemy cells actively planning and executing plots to kill civilian citizens of all ages and sex. Sorry, that occurred here also, I recall 9/11.
So we are fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, relies on spies and saboteurs to commit horrible acts and promises more of the same. Do we agree that this is an accurate description of the enemy's mo.
With that in mind it seems foolish to:
Treat this has a crime
Abandon the Geneva Convention
Suggest that we release suspects on habeas corpus
War is a military game not a legal game. Attorneys don't win wars, soldiers do. Do we agree?
And your problems with this rational are?
Posted by: Snuffy on August 3, 2007 06:49 AMDuring wars saboteurs and spies are executed. During war captured soldiers out of uniform run the risk of being caught and shot for being a spy or saboteur. Read the rules under the Geneva Convention. Any problems so far?
Enemy combatants captured on our shores out of uniform during WWII were summarily executed after a quick military trial. They were not held in a POW camp. They were not placed on a trial in a civilian court. By the way our combatants suffered the same consequences when captured out of uniform in hostile territory.
Communications play an important role in today's war. Planning requires communications. So if Johnny Jones routinely contacts the enemy or routinely receives calls or emails from the enemy, it would be wise to assumed that they are not discussing or planning an upcoming beach party. Communicating with the enemy provides reasonable cause. The rub of course is monitoring calls to and from known enemy lines of communication, cell, email or otherwise. Historical, intercepting and monitoring enemy communications, and involved parties was and is an acceptable method of protection long before this administration. Believe General Arnold's betrayal was discovered in this manner during the Revolution. Any problems, so far.
Recent events in England demonstrate that enemy cells actively planning and executing plots to kill innocent civilian citizens of all ages and sex continues. Why even Doctors were involved. Proving that the enemy may be found in all walks of life.
Sorry, that occurred here also, I recall 9/11. Do you?
So we are fighting an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, relies on spies, cells and saboteurs to commit horrible, violent acts to destroy our society and is determine to do more of the same into the future. Do we agree that this is an accurate description of the enemy's mo.
With that in mind it seems foolish to:
Treat this as criminal activity. It is a war. Is it not?
Abandon the Geneva Convention.
Suggest that we release suspected enemy combatants on our shores while they await a civilian trail. The consequences may be dreadful.
Attorneys don't win wars, soldiers do. Do we agree? Or do we shower subpoenas on the bad guys.
And your problems with this rational are?
Either you accept we are at war or you don't. If you do not accept we are at war then are you prepared for the consequences. If your loved ones were killed will you change your mind? If your father, mother or child was killed would that matter? Is there and line that if crossed by the enemy that would matter? If you answer no, then you have no cares or concern about the American society you live in. How unfortunate.
Posted by: Snuffy on August 3, 2007 07:24 AMHate to burst your bubble but Reagan did that too when he took office. (wikipedia)
The other main difference between the firing of the attorneys by Clinton vs. Bush is the provision in the Patriot Act which let Bush bypass Congress when appointing new U.S. Attorneys. Since the Dem's controlled Congress it would be much easier for Bush Admin. to appoint new U.S. Attorneys without going though a Democrat controlled Congress.
Hate to burst your bubble but Reagan did that too when he took office. (wikipedia)
The other main difference between the firing of the attorneys by Clinton vs. Bush is the provision in the Patriot Act which let Bush bypass Congress when appointing new U.S. Attorneys. Since the Dem's controlled Congress it would be much easier for Bush Admin. to appoint new U.S. Attorneys without going though a Democrat controlled Congress.
"Can you honestly tell me that the founding fathers intended for everyone to be able to purchase something that could mow down 70 people in about a minute?"
And what, pray tell, are you talking about? What (legal) firearm can "mow down 70 people in about a minute"? Let me guess, you're one of those that supported Clinton's (entirely cosmetic [based upon looks]) Assault Weapon Ban.
Let's take your argument and apply it to the "press". Can you honestly tell me that the founding fathers intended for everyone to be able to print something that could sow their hate and discontent around the world in a minute?
I think we should ban repeating printing presses that print more than 1 page every minute (or whatever printing presses could do in the time of our Founding Fathers). If the libs want to apply antiquated technology to the 2nd Amendment, then let's be fair and apply it to the 1st Amendment as well.
"if they don't have probable cause and have not gone through due process, then it violates my Constitutional rights, which are neither liberal nor conservative."
Amen, we agree then (oh, wait, that's right, you're rather squishy on whether the 2nd Amendment gives one a Constitutional right to "keep and bear" arms, even though it does use those words).
"Stop using a political ideology as a shield and debate on the facts."
Where am I using political ideology as a shield? Where did I not use facts to support by position?
All I said is that I love it when libs complain about something that affects them but don't care about others' liberties that they don't think they should have. This wasn't necessarily pointed at you as I have (had?) no clue on your political bent, but since it seems to have hit a sore spot with you, if the shoe fits...
"a firm belief in the inviolability of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land."
Amen again, so why are you so up in arms [pun intended] about me wanting it applied consistently?
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on August 3, 2007 10:33 AMI didn't say that Reagan didn't do it. Kind of hard to burst a bubble that wasn't there.
My point was (and is) that these attorneys serve at the discretion of the President. That means - as much as some in the democratic party and certain media outlest want it to be different - that no crime is committed when one is fired.
On your point about the Patriot Act: What you are saying is that President still followed the laws. (Even if you don't agree with them because it made it easier to get something done.)
Wow, what a dictator that makes him, huh? Geez.
Posted by: johnny on August 3, 2007 03:44 PM