Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 16, 2007
Lorie Byrd :: Townhall.com Columnist
Journalists should be held to account for deceptive reporting of U.S. Attorney firings
by Lorie Byrd
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Last week watching the coverage of the Libby verdict I wondered how it was possible for so many in the media to completely ignore Joe Wilson’s credibility problems in their reporting. This week, I was even more perplexed watching the media cover the story of the Bush Justice Department firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. How is it so many in the mainstream media think they can get away with deceiving their audience by ignoring the 1993 firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys by Bill Clinton?

The fact that few media reports included a reference to the Clinton firings is a much more important story, in my opinion, than the current firings themselves. The breathless reporting of the eight firings was presented in such a way to give the impression that a horrible and unprecedented crime had been committed. Most in the mainstream media actively misled their audiences by leaving out relevant information and context by refusing to reference similar activities of the previous administration

I learned back in 1993, when he took office, that it was no big deal Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. Attorneys, including at least one working on investigations into his dealings in Arkansas. So when I heard about the recent eight firings, that was the first thing that came to mind, and I made judgments about the current case taking the previous one into consideration. I also could not help but think of the firing of the White House Travel Office by the Clintons to make room for a cousin and of the smearing of Billy Dale. (For those too young to remember Travelgate, check out the late Barbara Olson's book, Hell to Pay.)

I would not be surprised to find that I am in the minority and that most hearing of the recent firings this week would not recall the Clinton cases. One reason is that most are not political news junkies like me, and another is that the Clinton firings were not portrayed the same sinister way in news reports as the current ones have been. I was still surprised, though, that none of the reporters currently covering the story seemed to recall the 93 Clinton firings in their reporting. Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center's "Reality Check" reported the following:

“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared on five broadcast and cable network TV morning shows to comment on the sudden media-manufactured ‘crisis’ that the Justice Department fired eight U.S. Attorneys, political appointees of the President. None of the Gonzales interviewers - at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FNC - ever mentioned that the Clinton administration fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993... The TV journalists asked Gonzales 42 questions this morning, and not one touched on the previous administration. Every network asked Gonzales whether he would resign – 10 times in total.”

Coverage of stories like this not only show the true bias of a liberal media determined to “get” the current administration, but also show how secure those in the media (as well as Democrats like Hillary Clinton) are that their double standards and hypocrisy will not be exposed. Thanks to people like Brent Bozell and others, they are being exposed in the new media. Now the question is whether or not they will be exposed in the mainstream media or if the facts will remain hidden from the viewers of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.

The success of new media like talk radio, blogs and the Fox News Channel has provided an outlet for information suppressed by the mainstream media. Thanks to new media, much information once held back by liberal editorial gates now reaches the public. In spite of the fact that new media is reaching increasing numbers, it is still difficult for some information to break into the mainstream outlets. Even facts and stories that are all over the internet and talk radio often remain ignored by the networks and the major daily newspapers.

Even though it is the buzz on the radio and all over the internet, I won’t be surprised if the mainstream media reporters continue to suppress information about the 1993 firings and how they compare to the recent ones. After all, it isn’t likely that all those liberal reporters, who certainly must realize the way information about the 1993 firings would influence public perception of the current case, are all of a sudden going to admit they withheld that information. Just how would a reporter “break” that fourteen-year old news after ignoring it for over a week?

Too often conservatives are dumbstruck by how absolutely brazen those on the left can be when manipulating public opinion. If you asked me a week ago whether or not the current story of the eight firings could be reported without mentioning the 93 firings by the previous administration, I would have said the very thought is absurd.

Conservatives/Republicans need to realize that they cannot depend on the public, which includes many who get their news from the late night comics, to remember the details of something that happened fourteen years ago which was not reported as a sinister crime, as the current case has been. They certainly cannot rely on liberal journalists to report the news accurately and in context if their alternative option is to manufacture a scandal that could hurt the Bush administration.

One thing that really bothered me about Bill Clinton, from his very first press conference as President, was that he constantly blamed his political opponents for everything. He reminded me of a child who always points a finger at someone else, too immature to take responsibility for his own actions. Many on the right side of the aisle are too reluctant to point out their opponents’ weaknesses and particularly their hypocrisy.

As much as Clinton’s propensity to blame others annoyed me, it did work for him politically. Maybe conservatives should take a page from the Clinton playbook and use every opportunity they appear on network news programs to more forcefully put forward the facts the liberal media wants to ignore -- including pointing out their opponents’ hypocrisy. If that means using every network television interview to call journalists out for their misleading reporting, and results in fewer invitations to appear, then so be it. It is way past time to hold the mainstream media to account for their deceptive and just plain shoddy reporting and time to stop assisting them in their fraud.

In the first paragraph I asked, “How is it so many in the mainstream media think they can get away with deceiving their audience by ignoring the 1993 firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys by Bill Clinton?” The answer is simple – they think they will get away with that kind of reporting because they always have.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Lorie Byrd is a Townhall.com columnist and blogs at Wizbang and at LorieByrd.com.

Be the first to read Lorie Byrd's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Update
Since I turned in my column, there have been a couple of network mentions of the 1993 Clinton firings. I wondered how reporters would introduce the information after ignoring it for over a week. Well, I got my answer. According to Bill Plante at CBS, there was no charge of political motivation in the Clinton firings. That's why no one mentioned them for over a week. Sorry, Bill, my memory isn't that bad. Additional information and links can be found at Wizbang.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/03/16/reporters-should-be-held-to-account-for-deceptive-reporting.php

The MSM
still takes us for a bunch of dummies who are willing to swallow any bs they throw at us. It's amazing how small their brains are that they keep forgetting we have other sources of information available to us other than them. And, some of us are news junkies who do remember what happened during the Clinton years.

Sorry Peppermint.....
.......there are small brains out there. Many are owned and operated by the American public. It is really sad too.

But hey, it is getting better in some cases. FOX programs are good and I know they are balanced because sometimes I can't watch them. Remember BALANCED doesn't mean equal weight of argument and fact, only time.

Hannity and Colmes is a good example. I'm hoping I live long enough so my TV will allow me to reach into the screen and slap some people!

At a minimum I want to demonstrate that they are liars and fools. But here on TH we get that chance!

Even Kimberly has kept a low profile lately. She must be out buying a new supply of bile somewhere.

Take heart that the "climate change" and "Gore-bal" warming claims are falling into chaos. Folks are starting to ask questions and sit back a bit to see facts first.

Marc of CA
I liked your remark about reaching into the TV and slapping some people. I'd like to do the same thing sometimes.
I love Hannity & Colmes, although sometimes Colmes is one of the people I would slap.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
First, Clinton replaced the US Attorneys when he took office because this is what newly elected presidents customarily do. Bush did the same.

It is highly unusual to fire US Attorneys mid-term, which Bush has done.

Most importantly, never before in history have US Attorneys been appointed without Senate confirmation. This has always been the rule - until now.

The situation Bush created here is the result of language added to the 2006 Patriot Act which allowed for the interim replacement of US Attorneys without Senate approval. This provision was slipped in ostensibly to handle emergency situations.

Bush ranked the US Attorneys according to loyalty (read the darn emails from DOJ) and fired those he viewed as disloyal, i.e., they did not make Bush-favored political prosecuting decisions.

He then sought to replace them with people viewed as loyal without Senate oversight.

It is explained quite clearly here: http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/18/us-attorneys-its-the-replacing-stupid/


Mark of CA
writes: Take heart that the "climate change" and "Gore-bal" warming claims are falling into chaos.

Indeed, even left wing tree hugger Paul Wolfowitz is being snowballed by global warming claims.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/15/wolfowitz-on-warming/



Adios, Alberto!
According to the Congressional Research Service, between 1981 and 2006 - that is, prior to the firings initiated by "Torture Boy" Gonzales - a total of 54 U.S. Attorneys failed to complete their terms. Only two of these terminations were nonvoluntary, one in 1982 and the other in 1984
The firing of eight U.S. Attorneys during their terms of office without evidence of malfeasance or poor performance, as took place last year is unprecedented. E-mails from the Justice Department indicate that the White House was directly involved in these actions.
It's likely that an attempt to manipulate the DOJ for partisan political purposes is an impeachable offense. This is why Republicans and their right wing supporters are scrabbling so desperately to find even weak excuses like the one proferred in this column.
Too bad it won't work. Gonzales is toast, if not for this offense, then for purjuring himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee; and with any luck his boss will follow him.

Sean
What a shmuck! I suppose you will give Slick Willy a pass on firing a prosecutor that was investigating him, won't you? If anything was improper that was! Chances are it stopped an investigation where he would have been found at least slimy in the frikkin deal!

Another poster says, "read the emails"! I have! It looks to me like these flakes weren't performing! I'd fire them too! I worked as a supervisor for close to 30 years. If you aint doin' the work, I'll find someone who will!

Oh and W didn't clean house like you suggest when he first took office. Stop lying! You frikkin DimWhits will bend the facts no matter what, won't you!

You're right. The patriot act does indeed look like it gives the pres a loophole. Perhaps it was needed, given this session of congress' propensity to tie up appointments indefinitely! In all of my years as a voter, I have never seen the DemoncRat party be so intolerable. Mark my words, it will come back to bite them on the arse! It would have happened already if not for the RINO McCain and his gang of 14 SLUGS!

I repeat schmuck!

ajhil
Another schmuck!

Do as I say not as I do, huh?

Give me a frikkin break! Everything your hero, ‘Hide the Cigar Man’ did was political! For cryin' out loud! You people hate the pres so much you are grasping at anything to return you to your glory days of WaterGate and defend that POS Clintoon! The guy was an embarrassment to the presidency! Yet you defend him and his witch. Just thinking about hearing her voice continually for 4 years is enough for me to contemplate cutting my ears off! If I lived in NY, I would be deaf by now!

So what if it is political! He's the pres! He can hire and fire anyone he likes in the justice department! He’s the frikkin BOSS!

Any of you schmucks ever heard of the separation of powers? You and your lackeys in congress can cry all you want. It is the president’s whim whether or not that any of these ambulance chasers work. Do you seriously think any of these guys actually have hands on in any particular case? They are nothing more than supervisors. Even in local governments, the district attorney rarely tries cases himself! He does nothing more than assign other underlings to do his bidding! Anyone who doesn't know this is a moron! Don’t you idiots watch Law and Order? Believe it or not, it really IS how it works!

You guys are grasping at straws. Since Fitz couldn't get you schmucks into the WH any farther than Libby, you all are inventing crimes in order to try and disrupt this admin. I find it amazing all this crap happens when he is out of the country and he can’t defend himself. Typical DemoncRat cowardice! The one thing W is guilty of is hiring some of the worst (p)ussies I have ever seen in politics. These guys, given the power they possess, amaze me in how easily they fold under pressure. I’m truly embarrassed for them. I don’t understand how they made it this far when their backbones are made of silly putty.

I have plenty of gripes about this administration. Difference is, I don’t need to invent crap in order to disagree. This is so much a bunch of BS it is ridiculous. If it weren’t for your partners in crime in the MSM, this wouldn’t even be a pea under the mattress! Doesn’t it bother any of you the amount of bias clearly demonstrated by the press? Is this really yor idea of free speech? How loud would you be howling if a repub refused to be debated on CNN? Why is it all I hear is crickets chirping when it comes to real scandals? WHAT A BUNCH OF SCHMUCKS! Why is it you people try and silence OUR dissent? If we tried to do it to you, you would scream bloody murder! Yet you are unwilling to stand up for our rights the same way.

Why aren't you griping about W giving the country to Mexico? Oh that's right, you think all these illegal’s will be DemoncRat voters, don't you? SCHMUCKS!

Who's deceiving who?
"How is it so many in the mainstream media think they can get away with deceiving their audience by ignoring the 1993 firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys by Bill Clinton?"

Because it's not newsworthy when a dog bites a man. It is news when a man bites a dog!

From Wikipedia:

At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. A political office is generally thought of as one where a person "serves at the pleasure of the President."

If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by political appointees from the new President's party. For example, President Clinton dismissed all 93 US attorneys when he came to office in 1993, and shortly after President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.

In contrast to the 2006 dismissal event, prior administrations typically "cleaned house" at the outset of the presidential term; they very rarely terminated attorneys, whom they had previously appointed, for political reasons.

Presidents also have not been known to replace attorneys that they appointed during their first term in their second term in office. McClatchy Newspapers explains: "Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."

Since 1978, until 2006, at least four US Attorneys have been "forced out" in the middle of a President's term.

This is a non-event
The only reason that it comes up on the news at all if the Dems decided they needed a new attack profile since their Iraq efforts are bombing out so bad. Like always, as soon as the Dems got out their talking points the MSM picked it up and regurgitated it from heaven to earth. As soon as the MSM pushes it, the liberal blogs take it and push it even further to the extremes and then the liberal trolls fan out and drop their spew here.

To all of you libtard trolls, there is no story here, there is no issue, and we are not stupid enough to be influenced by anything you post on this issue. Give it up.

OhioBlues
"Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected."

So am I to infer that because W didn’t follow the protocol of his predecessors he is a criminal? That is surely what Chucky Schumer and Leaky Leahy are trying to push. The fact remains; he is their boss and can terminate them with prejudice any time he sees fit.

Why is the left so infatuated with trying to discredit this pres? There have been worse! “Hide the Cigar Clintoon” surely rates right up there!

OhioBlues
From Wikipedia?

Do you understand how Wikipedia gets its "facts"?

Jeesh!

Primus54
Do you understand how Wikipedia gets its "facts"?

Yes. From history and reality. Do you know anything about either of these concepts?

Sean Is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong
The effort to say that George W. Bush did soemthing here with respect to the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys is getting ridiculous.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. The President has every right to be dissatisfied with the performance of a number of U.S. Attorneys and some firings are overdue. I would have fired any U.S. Attorney who, for example, did not go after the gross voter fraud case in the State of Washington's Governor's race or signed off on the Sandy Berger plea deal.

Sean wants us to think that some blog quoting the New York Tiomes "explains" it all. The only thing that it explains is the contorted rationalizations for trying to deprive the President of his power to fire U.S. Attorneys. Saying that the issue is really in the replacement of U.S. Attorneys is phony baloney. All that reveals is that the Democrats look at the position of U.S. Attorney as serving political ends, and they do so because that is how they themselves have used it.

The real problem is that the Democrat complaint about the fitring of eight U. S. Attorneys relates to a perverse Democrat political strategy, which is to try to create the impression of more Watergate scnadals. You need in place for that U.S. Attorneys who wiil give sweetheart treatment of Democrats while going after Republicans if at all possible. Good U.S. Attorneys mean voter fruad cases get prosecuted, and a Sandy Berger is prosecuted to the hilt, as he should have been; and that in turn leaves egg on Democrat faces and precludes scandal mongering.

If you want a good piece to read on the issue of the firings, read "The Hubbell Standard" in Wednesday, Wall Street Journal Online.


To all libtards
This morning Fox is bloviating about this non-issue. Bias exists also in choice of stories to bloviate about. Also, this represents another case where the Republican leadership is sitting back and absorbing the attacks with a patheticly weak defense. If we had real Republican leadership they would be biting off huge chunks of the Dems on this non-issue.

Let's Get Facts Straight
For the liars on this site trying to say that mass firings of U.S. Attorneys, such as what Bill Clinton did in 1993, are common, that is FALSE. Reagan did not do that. Bush Elder did not do that. And most particularly, George W. Bush did not do that. To the contrary, in the first couple of years of the Bush Admisnistration, the S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney was sponsored by one Chuckie Schummer.

That the Republicans in the U.S. Senate don't stand up and get the facts straight, but leave to to talk radio and conservative web sites, is more than disgusting.

Jounalists Should be Held Responsible.
Lorie,

Today's media - with only a few exceptions, gets their message out to the public based on THEIR polictical beliefs and I'm quite sure are hired by their publishers for the known "slant" that they will apply to every article. How long do you think a person would work for the Times if they had either a conservative or republican stance?

Funny how Hillary can get away with stating again this week, "that there's a vast right-wing conspiracy going on in this country"...when the exact opposite is happening, the left-wing and liberals are so into distorting the facts and news, that they are actually hurting our country in the eyes of the world. Every opportunity they can they curcify our President...even blame him if there's a fire in a house somewhere!

I thought the reason why people got into journalism, was to report the truth for honesty and moral convictions. Seems like they've been corrupted by the "system" along the way, starting with their liberal professors in college and into the mainstream press as they ventured into the market to develop their careers.

One more point - and that's concerning the news networks, CBS, ABC and NBC...how far left have these networks gone. God forbit that they ever produce a show that's favorable to the USA or say something decent about our President. If it's not Bush-bashing, then I guess it not good news. The major networks want a democrate run country starting in 2008, but meanwhile they will do everything to downgrade the republicans so it slants the next election results to the left. And, the American public buys everything they say as the gospel truth. They are either naive or vulnerable to the "left-wing conspiracy!" It really is a shame what has happened to this country.

To OhioBlues
Judging from your posts so far, history and reality are alien concepts to you.


No precedent for this
I posted three reports from 1993 over on the Ann Coulter thread, where I had been discussing this with another poster. From what I can tell - and I found 732 articles on Lexis Nexis from 1993 discussing this - it would appear that even right wing papers did not think there was anything untoward about Clinton's dismissals. That does not mean they were without criticism; certainly the haste with which it was done was highlighted and the issue about the prosecutor who was looking into a Democrat was widely condemned. Before anyone cries foul about my sources, I posted two from conservative papers and one from a liberal paper. Clearly, there is a difference between what Clinton (or in fact Reno) did and what Gonzales has done. While all attorneys are to a certain degree political appointments, this does indeed appear to be the first time several prosecutors have been dismissed mid-term for political reasons. There are now three Republicans calling for Gonzales to resign - no smoke without fire. He is a man who seems to be unafraid of making enemies, and if you live by the sword you are more than likely to die by it too. Just ask Tom DeLay.

Vic
At least somebody finally showed up with an ounce of sense! A couple of hours ago I was beginning to feel outnumbered!

To Critical Bill
You are missing the forest for the trees. The difference is, on the one hand, that Bill Clinton fired ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys in a "house cleaning" that so happened to get rid of some troublesome prosecutors and their prosecutions (e.g., in Chicago) and put in place U.S. Attorneys friendly to Bill Clinton (e.g., in Little Rock) and, on the other, the overdue firing of eight prosecutors by Bush who were viewed as not performing satisfactorily. To give a pass to the former while condemnning the latter is just plain dumb.

A sane voice in the conservative camp is Andrew McCarthy, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, writing in National Revioew Online. All need to check out his March 15, 2007 column "Playing Politics With Politics."

Phil
One minute, I'm not giving anyone a free pass. As I said, two of the three reports I posted were conservative and if you go and read them they both state quite plainly that while criticising the way it was done both confirmed that Clinton / Reno did nothing unexpected; in fact, as the third points out, the done thing if for US attorneys to resign when a new administration takes over, as the majority did when GWB took office. So if I'm being really picky, I could say that Republican appointees hung on to be fired while Democrat appointees did the decent thing and resigned. Whatever, it is you that can't see past your own blinkers. There is a clear difference. Perhaps, perhaps, Clinton did have concerns about the "loyalty" his appointees subsequently displayed. But if he did then he did nothing about it - unlike Gonzales, or Rove, or Bush. The emails released clearly show that attorneys were being judged by their loyalty to the Bush cause and 8 were fired because they didn't show enough of it. Surely you can see the difference?

To CB
There is no such thing as a "right wing" newspaper of any size. ALL big city papers are liberal and half of the small town papers are liberal. Even the small town rag in my town (pop 7,000) has turned to a mouthpiece of the Democrap party.

Also, your very words show that there is no issue here. The Republicans, as a whole, did not make a big issue out of the Klinton firings because they realize that this is normal. What is NOT normal is to keep a bunch of opposite party activists in your administration to sabatoge all of your efforts.

Critical Bill
The simple fact remains Bubba, "W" is their boss and can fire them any time he pleases. Why in the he11 are you and your cohorts in the DimWhit party making so much noise? Could it be you’re running out of bullets? I mean Libby really was the best you could do wasn’t it? How pathetic!

We all know Slick "Cigar" Willy fired 93 attorneys in order to get to just one, that was investigating him, his ugly wife, and his co-conspirators.

Deny that and you are not just a liar, but a damned liar!

When it comes to criminal behavior in the WH, none will ever come close to your hero and his witch in the history of this country! Admit it, then, perhaps we can talk. Until that time, you morons can GO FISH!

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?

Tested Strategy _ Maryland the Lab
So now, the Democrat leadership says it is going to subpoena the Republicans to check out the Bush administration’s motives for the firing of the prosecutors.

Once again we see proof that their analyst and consultants are in charge. They spent the last 18 months of Governor Ehrlich’s (Republican, Maryland) administration investigating him for exercising his executive powers to remove from office political appointees. They stretched it out with the help of the Baltimore Sun all the way up to the election in order to smear him and cast doubt on his integrity. In the end, it was proven he had done nothing outside of his powers and nothing more than every Democrat Governor that preceded him.

It worked so well in Maryland, now they are going to try to create the same theater at the national level. What frauds.

I will go along with it if they subpoena Janet (Waco) Reno, Hillary (Whitewater) Clinton and her Husband (sexual harasser, rapist and convicted liar) Bill Clinton. I think I know how their testimony will go. Reno will say she takes all responsibility, Hillary will say she doesn’t recall and Bill will say, so what, have a cigar.

Since the Democrat leadership and their wiling accomplices in the press seem to suddenly hold integrity as an important factor for public office, what do you say we get the prosecutors busy with a couple of obvious targets for prosecution. Harry Reid and his land deals or William Jeffers and his freezer full of money would make a good start. Yes he was not convicted by the Senate. But he was convicted by a court and the Arkansas bar. Not to mention he was impeached.

Harry Reid, of Searchlight, Nevada (a town with 13 brothels and 0 churches) should take a ride with Ted Kennedy. Preferably around 1:00 AM on a back road with lots of bridges.

Much Ado About Nothing
As Lorie tried to point out, the problem is the MSM's failure to put this in any sort of context.

Why not the following treatment for similar stories on both sides of the aisle? Put all the stories out there with (reasonably) equal weight For example, don't gloss over Sandy Berger but pound Scooter Libby and make him an exemplar for the entire Bush adminstration. Explain the firings. Present the rationale of the administration and present the reaction of the Democrats. Finally, put it in context with some objective analysis of how it compares to what past administrations have done. Then let the people decide if it is a scandal or not.

This is not what has been done and the impression is left that we have another Watergate on our hands.

As the MSM well knows, this spin is what plays out to the vast majority of folks out there who are not political junkies, TH followers, participants from the various forums the libs follow, etc.

Don't despair, folks. When Mrs. Clinton is President in 2008, it will be morning in America again, and the tone of the news will all be positive. Just like in 92 when a wand was waved after election day. "Is The Clinton Boom Here?"

Critical Bill
Surely you can see the difference?

The only difference I see is that Gonzales and his staff, are making these ambulance chasers earn their money or take a hike!

Most admins don't bother and let these bloodsuckers milk the public teat due to political favors!

‘bout time somebody cleaned house when these slugs continue to suck the taxpayers blood!

Login Leery / Vic
Login - why so angry? I know it's early in the morning there but hey, what have I done to you do deserve such anger? You want to calm down a bit. Where have I denied that there could be an element of truth to what you say about Clinton? Nowhere. In fact I have highlighted the fact that condemnation of his actions was widespread, with particular reference to that one prosecutor. I have not really expressed an opinion either way on that particular issue.
And Vic, two of the paper cutting I posted yesterday were highly critical of the Clinton firings. I know few newspapers fit your own rabid view of what being a conservative means, but correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Cal Thomas the most widely syndicated columnist in the US? If there are no consevative papers, I wonder why over 600 carry his musings? the reason there is a fuss about Bush is because these changees appear to be driven purely by political loyalty and are therefore highly unusual. I mean, I would expect any normal person to see that, but then you would for one second be agreeing with a liberal and nothing is worth that is it?

Non-news
I rank the importance of this story right up there with Anna Nicole's death, Brittany's rehab and the Scooter Libby trial. It is a non-story.

The fact it is in the news DOES give us information on a real story - and not that of a leftist media bias. Everyone already knows that.

The surge is working.

This FACT must be kept off the front page at all cost.

To CB
You obviously do not know the difference between a columnist and a reporter. Just because a liberal paper carries a conservative commentator on it's editorial page does not make the paper a "right wing" paper. Even the New Traitor Times carries a conservative columnist every now and then.

And so I guess because I don't agree with you I am rabid? I used to think that occasionally you had an intelligent point, however, more and more I am starting to agree with Lynne that it might be time to just start skipping your posts in a the same manner as some of the other more radical liberal trolls.

Vic
Did you even read the cuttings I posted? Two out of three were clearly not written by people who were fans of Clinton. I tried to be "fair and balanced" by not just posting liberal defenses of Clinton. Ok, apologies for the rabid comment. How much of an issue is this? I fail to see why three elected Republican officials would call for Gonzales to resign if it weren't a real issue. I know you'll claim that they aren't real Republicans but they must have some sort of Republican credentials to get there in the first place.

To CB
I took you at your word, that most Republicans did not have a problem with the Klinton firings. I have seen reports where some Republicans did try to make an issue out of it, but most didn't.

If you know what my response will be then why even post it? The fact is, some Republicans are RINOs, some are Neocons, and most are not conservatives. After all, how many so-called Republicans initially joined with the Dems on the Iraq nonbinding vote? I believe it was 17. Some politicians of either party are political wh*res who will sell their soul for a vote.

There is no issue here but the Dems are pushing it and the MSM is backing them up. If I was on the committee doing the so-called investigation of this I would be ripping the throat out of the Dems on this instead of sitting back with a bent-over posture.

Call the MSM and the Dems on Hypocracy
Lori Byrd wrote:
Maybe conservatives should take a page from the Clinton playbook and use every opportunity they appear on network news programs to more forcefully put forward the facts the liberal media wants to ignore -- including pointing out their opponents’ hypocrisy. If that means using every network television interview to call journalists out for their misleading reporting, and results in fewer invitations to appear, then so be it. It is way past time to hold the mainstream media to account for their deceptive and just plain shoddy reporting and time to stop assisting them in their fraud.
I completely agree. The bias of the MSM is astounding and the strategy of the Democrats is to cry scandal at EVERY manufactured opportunity. I want to SCREAM just about every day. It is time for the President to just get fed up, go on TV and point out EVERY case of bias, misrepresentation, confuscation and hypocracy of both the Democrats crying foul and the press blowing it all out of proportion. Do it in a prime time address and blow them all out of the water in one address. Let the American people know that you might not agree with his strategy or philosophy, but it is impossible to win over support for your actions when the message is skewed, misrepresented or ignored.
Everyone talks about the approval ratings of the President, especially those in Congress, but NO ONE ever makes a story out of the approval rating of Congress. Did you know approval ratings are kept on Congress just like they do for the President? Did you know Congress' approval rating has been BELOW the President's rating, even at the President's lowest point. Congress should not disapprove of anything the President does until they can clean up their own excrement. And they need to be called on it.
I have not approved of everything President Bush has done so don't paint me as a Presidential apologist or blind supporter. I am just sick of watching Congress trying to usurp the balance of power while claiming the President is over stepping his constitutional authority. It is Congress that is trying to steal authority from the President. The Judiciary has already way over stepped their constitutional powers (taking legislative authority away from Congress) so I guess they are just trying to steal from where they can. I am also sick of watching the Main Stream Press just faun over every liberal mouthpiece that comes along, twist every event possible to make the president look bad, hide every event that makes the President look good and then claim no bias. A POX on all of them!

Circle the wagons
Sling the bull, defend Gonzalez.

The newspapers say what's different about the Bush and Clinton firings. If you read them instead of just huffing and puffing, you might learn something.

I haven't followed this story
For the simple reason that having been in law enforcement, I am aware that (appointed) Federal prosecutors, unlike (elected) state and local ones, serve at the pleasure of the one who appoints them, i.e. the President. I had no particular argument with President Clinton discharging all but one U.S. Attorney, even though I'm a (slightly right-of-center moderate) Republican. It was his bailiwick, he was entitled to run it his way. My complaint was with the performance (or lack of same) from said attorneys after he assumed command.

A couple of points;

1. It was the U.S. Attorneys under the present administration (whether new appointees or holdovers) who put Ken Lay et al. in the dock for their various offenses. The MSM constantly harped on how long they had "gotten away" with their crimes, as though the fact that it was the present administration that was somehow responsible. The gentlemen in question were engaged in illegal activities for at least a decade prior to their indictments, which means that they were breaking the law with impunity for at least two-thirds of the Clinton tenure, but it was only under the present administration that they were being taken for "perp walks" in to the courthouse. Even allowing for the amount of time it takes to develop cases like this (and it is not a quick or easy process), it seems to me that the Clinton Justice Department was remiss in this matter, and that blaming their inaction, and the offenders' actions, on the Bush administration is rather like throwing a shoe at your dog when he barks to warn you of a prowler.

2. What (1) has to do with this is performance, or rather the lack of same. As I said, I have not followed this case, but in at least one instance, that of the prosecutor who handled the Randy "Duke" Cunningham case, the dismissal was apparently on the following grounds;

(a) The prosecutor, after bagging Cunningham, failed to continue the case against at least three other participants- who happened to be Democrats. (Corruption is always an equal-opportunity employer.) and

(b) In an unrelated series of immigration cases under INS jurisdiction, the prosecutor in question was essentially refusing to take action due to a personal disagreement with the administration's immigration policy.

Instance (a) is pretty clear-cut, to me. Without a very good reason to refrain from prosecution (lack of evidence, cooperation from the suspect, etc), the behavior of the U.S. Attorney in question looks suspiciously political in motivation. As for instance (b), if the prosecutor in question did not agree with the administration's policies on immigration and exactly what sort of prosecutions were to be pursued under it, the ethical action would be to tender his resignation. Since the attorney in question did not do so, the AG was within his rights and authority to ask for it and, if it were not forthcoming, to discharge the official.

I would say that this situation was handed clumsily (nothing new for this administration), but so far I have seen nothing that rises to the level of criminal wrongdoing.

And BTW, my source for the above information was an opinion piece in the L.A. Times. (Truth in advertising moment.)


cheers

eon

Vic
I dare say there are more wh*res in politics than there are in prostitution. There, we agree on something. None worse than our very own Tony Blair who has sold out each and every pirnciple he may once have had. But, I see even John Gibson is now saying that Gonzales should resign, albeit at the same time saying that he did little wrong in the first place. It always surprises me that Bill O'Reilly gets so much flack when Gibson is every bit as offensive. There you go - O'Reilly is an easier target I suppose. But if Gibson is saying he should go he really has run out of friends.

Gonzalez
I would not be opposed to Gonzalez stepping down, but certainly not because of these firings.

My impression is that he hasn't exactly distinguished himself during his entire tenure as AG.

I, for one, would have liked to see a little investigation into the NYT and certain tidbits of information published--as just one example.

Gonzalez has been overlooking plenty of opportunities to investigate questionable activities. That alone is enough to replace him, IMO.


To CB
I went to Fox and read the Gibson "my word" piece you are referring to. It looks to me like that what he was saying is that Gonzales promised to do something that he was not required to do (bring DA appointments to congress) and then did not follow through on it. He also said Gonzales has beome a magnet for attacks against Bush. These are the reasons he says Gonzales must go. I disagree, not because I am a big fan of Gonzales because I am not. I disagree because anyone Bush puts in any position is an attack magnet for the Dems. They relentlessly attack everything the President does or says. Firing Gonzales will only heighten this by reqwarding bad behavior. Surrendering to the Dems is like throwing blood in the water when sharks are circling the boat.

Normally Gibson is accurate, on this he is wrong.

Democrats = Liars
These so -called journalists should lose any press passes and clearances they may have and be prosecuted along with Sandy Bergler.
By the way why is Libby on trial for talking about a CIA receptionist that everyone already knew about and Sandy Bergler gets away scot free after stealing CLASSIFIED National Security documents on camera and hiding and destroying and selling them????
Why did Bill Clinton and his wife fire 93 prosecutors amid the WhiteWater land deal scandal that they were involved in??? Well they would have loved to just fire the one that was looking into their land deal but that would look funny, so they fired all 93. Hmmm Why doesn't CNN or CBS mention this? Hmmm??? I don't know, maybe it's because they are biased, and have a left wing bend.

Chuck Schumer and Bill Clinton's wife should resign. Immediatly! Also Harry Reid!

Vic
Believe it or not there is a part of me that is inclined to agree with you. Were Gonzales a Democrat I would be calling for him to ignore calls for his resignation for exactly the same reason. However, if you put your head above the parapet it's there to be shot at and if you're going to do anything, anything that might be considered controversial you have to do it by the book. Gonzales failed to do that and so, not surprisingly, there are calls for his head. From both sides. How does the saying go - victory has many friends but defeat is an orphan, something like that.

To CB
I don't see where he did anything that wasn't "by the book". In what manner was his actions on firing these people not "by the book"?

To CB
If you want a conservative opinion on this issue from a newspaper, look at this from the WSJ opinion page.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

i wonder
if there's a democratic president next term, will everyone defend his right as president to fire who he likes?

or will they be calling foul?

either way, this is a non-issue. even if they were fired for political reasons, it doesn't matter; it's bush's prerogative. i just hope everyone gives the same leeway to a democratic president instead of become hypocrites themselves.

i suspect, however, that they won't.

of course, this assumes a democrat wins the white house... and that would be a scary turn of events.

vic
Well, even the WSJ admits that the handling of this was botched. And there isn't a more right wing editorial page in mainstream print. Anyway, can't talk about this now, more important matters are at hand. England playing New Zealand at the world cup. laters!

Phil Byler
You're a jackass.
...in an e-mail to Harriet Miers on Jan. 9, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms, explicitly stating, “In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton did not seek to remove and replace U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision”

You can read Sampson's email here (if you're not afraid of facts getting in the way of your argument): http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/sampson-rove-attorney/



CB
Yes, the WSJ says the handling of this was botched, but not for the reasons you seem to imply. The WSJ aricle also says this: "But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends." Basically, the WSJ is saying (correctly) that given the fact that the Democrat politicians are such a-holes, especially when they wield power, the Administration needs to take this into account with EVERYTHING they do. I disagree with both Vic and John Gibson. Gonzales should be fired, not for improprieties or because he is a "magnet" for rabid Democrat attacks, but because he has caved to these politically motivated attacks. But then, this has been one of the most consistent - and worst - characteristics of the Bush administration, starting with W himself, and continuing on to the majority of wimps calling themselves Republican politicians, always caving in to the power greedy, negative, rabid attack dogs that the Democrats have become since being taken over by the moveonsoros.org extremist wing. I truly wish the Republicans could come up with someone like Zell Miller to carry the fight to the American people.

Neither the media
Nor the Democrat politicians make any pretense of being honest or fair. Look at Hillary out there running off at the face over the "disgrace" of this.

To buzzkat
I think I am beginning to agree with you from the standpoint of it doesn't matter who we put in there they are going to cave in.

Currently on C-Span there are democrap investigations going in both the house and senate. In the house Waxworks is holding hearings on valerie lying wilson plame. The Repubs ask gutless questions. In the senate they are holding hearings on this issue. Again the Repugs ask gutless questions. I can't stand to watch the thing it makes me so mad.

I'll wait until tommorow and read a review somewhere.

Fire them ALL!

OhioBlues
wrote, "Gonzales’s chief of staff Kyle Sampson (who resigned yesterday) admitted that the Clinton administration never purged its U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms."

Exactly! The fired attorney's terms had EXPIRED!

Why are you mis-stating the situation? Is it because if you told the truth, it wouldn't fit into the "vast right-wing conspiracy" rant of Hillary?

Bush allowed the US attorney's to serve well past their 4-year terms, firing them for cause. Clinton simply fired ALL the US attornys en masse. The reason he did so was that one of them was looking into Whitewater. Clinton couldn't fire just that one, so he fired them all.

On lies and fraud.
Atty. Gen. Gonzales and his little todie, Johnny Sutton of Texas are the ones who will end up in Federal Prision for their acts of lies and fraud used to convict Border Patrol Officers Ramos and Compean, along with Gilmer Hernandez, and others.

The evil acts of the orginal convitions using a life long drug dealer, given a "gold card border pass" , immunity for his first drug running Ramos and Compean caught him in the act of, then the second drug run prior to the trial, then the judge gets into the act and aids and enables the fraud trial.

Its one thing on the MSM, we all know they are liars and frauds that is why no one with a brain
reads of watchs them any longer,,,BUT WE DO EXPECT AN HONEST AND TRUTHFULL ATTY. GENERAL , AND WE DO NOT HAVE ONE AND THAT IS MAKING US, "WE THE PEOPLE" MAD AS HELL.

mis-stating the situation?
The dismissals are notable because all of the attorneys in question were appointed by President George W. Bush and were not holdovers from the Clinton Administration. During the previous 25 years, only two United States Attorneys had been fired in the middle of their term and not between administrations. One dismissal also raised questions about a clause in the USA PATRIOT Act which gives the president the power to fill vacancies in the United States Attorney's office without the approval of the Senate.

The rest of the story.
Remember Waco texas.Now look into who got fired by Reno before the attack and wasn't she clinton attorney general.

re: taxfreekiller
taxfreekiller wrote:

"... Atty. Gen. Gonzales and his little todie, Johnny Sutton of Texas are the ones who will end up in Federal Prision for their acts of lies and fraud used to convict Border Patrol Officers Ramos and Compean, along with Gilmer Hernandez, and others..."

===

What!? The same way Attorneys General and Federal Agents wound up in the clink for Ruby Ridge and Waco??


In other words: Don't hold your breath.

Vic and CB
It was sure nice to see someone have a debate without all the name calling. Enjoyed your comments

Pick a scandal any scandal
Make no mistake - the US Attorney firings is bad - not to mention that Gonzalez appears to have lied to Congress - read the emails released yesterday by a disgruntled DOJ employee (you can find them here: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Newly_released_emails_implicate_Rove_in_0315.html)

And the fact that Rove was involved - and the fact that the FBI admittedly abused its power under the Patriot Act, BUT PEOPLE listen to this: we now have evidence that Gonzales blocked an internal investigation by OPR which may have targeted him by advising Bush to deny security clearance to the investigators (remember that little story - another unprecedented decision). No doubt Gonzales is out of a job (now we have Smith, Sununu and Rohrabacher calling for his ouster as well) - but more importantly he needs to get fitted for a nice orange jumpsuit once Feingold, et al. get done with him.

This administration has engaged in abuses of power that would make Nixon jealous. The problem is that we have not known about it because there has been no Congressional oversight. I am telling you that what we are seeing now is only the tip of the iceberg. The Dems in charge are going to take these guys to the woodshed in the next two years and it is going to be a brutal expose of corruption and abuse not known in modern times.

From the Iraq War to military profiteering to Valerie Plame to FISA to Gonzalezgate to on and on and on.

I think Dylan put it best:

Shame on your greed, shame on your wicked schemes
I'll say this, I don't give a damn about your dreams

The hammer's on the table, the pitchfork's on the shelf
For the love of God, you ought to take pity on yourself



Too funny
The funny thing about this article is that it points out MSM as not putting things into context by pointing out Clinton released 93 District Attorneys when he took office.

Obviously trying to suggest that Bush only fired 9 opposed to Clinton's 93. We see this all over right wing pundit websites. Yet to anyone who actually does their research, Clinton releasing most AGs at the beginning of his term is what is typical. Regan and Bush did it. If fact all Presidents do it when they take power from the opposing political party. The only difference with Clinton is he did it swiftly, replacing that all at once. Where GWB did it over the course of 6 months.

So the whole Clinton did worse is a strawman that we can all see through. Clinton got rid of most AG's left by Bush Sr, Bush got rid of most of the AG's left by Clinton, he just did it over the course of months instead of doing them en masse. But don't let the truth hurt your claim against the press for not telling the truth. You don't want context you want to spin BS.

What Bush and Gonzales did here is different. They fired 9 of their own because they wouldn't use the Justice Department as a partisan tool. These 9 believed in American Justice and had too much morality to prosecute people so they could retain power. That is why they were fired, they put country above party. That is a great sin to republicans today. One must be loyal to party above nation or the constitution.

To those who say this is no scandal. Just wait. 2 people have lost their job to this 'non-scandal' , 4 more on their way out the door. Trust me, this is a scandal. At least to those who believe faith in American Justice is important and not a political tool.


Mister Buck
How about we just keep them accountable. Why must you people allways exagerate the point. Is this any logic argumnet the left can make, or is ad-hominin the extent of it?

Too funny
Good post, Tom. Oh, and it's a scandal all right. You can almost hear the butt-holes puckering up on the right, as more and more facts are uncovered.

Clinton
What's with all of you loony rightwingers? Why is it Clinton Clinton Clinton 24-7 with you all? He's been gone 6 YEARS!!!!! GET OVER IT! Perhaps some counselling would help......

OhioBlues
You posted the link to an organization that is a far left wing rag organization and you have the gall to call Phil Byler a jackass.

Here's the two head guys for this left wing org.
Take a look at who they worked for and it will give you some idea where they are coming from.

Faiz Shakir, Research Director for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Faiz holds a B.A. degree in Government from Harvard University and a J.D. degree from the Georgetown Law Center. Faiz has previously worked as a Research Associate for the Democratic National Committee, as a Legislative Aide to Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, and as a communications aide in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. His writings have appeared in the Jerusalem Post, Florida Today, and Salon. Faiz has appeared on BBC, Fox News, and CNBC television, among other places, and has been a guest on many radio stations, including NPR and BBC radio.

NicoNico Pitney is the Deputy Research Director for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. He holds a degree in philosophy from the University of California Santa Barbara, and studied economics and international relations with the Fund for American Studies at Georgetown University. Prior to joining the Center, Nico developed web content for the student arm of Gov. Howard Dean’s presidential campaign.

Peppermint
Firstly, the link OhioBlue posted is to an email, reprinted in full. It is available elsewhere on the internet. So unless it was forged by someone at thinkprogress, it's real. Now, there is a chance it is forged, I accept, but seeing as its all over the place and Kyle Sampson resigned on the back of it, I think we can assume it is real. If it's not, the people at thinkprogress will be sued out of business pronto. Watch this space. You may not rate the source, and that's fine, but there is good reason to believe that what is published on that link is real.
Secondly, judging by my own pitiful academic record, I think those two biogs you posted are pretty impressive. Regardless of who they have worked for, they clearly aren't short on brains.

Doc Blake
Good point - the blame Clinton first crowd is really tiring - but that is republican playbook Rule One - it's Clinton's fault.

If I were to hazard a guess I would say that they are upset because they worked so hard to get the Repubs in control and, well, we all know what has happened over the last six years. It will be a long time (if ever) before they have a chance again for control. I think America will think twice, three, probably four times before they vote values in the future.

I think that we really are seeing the death of American Conservatism. It will be really interesting to see how history depicts the Bush years when my young kids are studying it in school. I don't think it will be good.

You may find this interesting (WINGNUTS TAKE NOTE) Delay's new book slams Gingrich and he states: "our leadership was in no moral shape to press" for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton" NO KIDDING!


But then again Peppermint
I see from the latest on your blog you are talking about Global Warming not getting a mention in the Bible, so anyone with half a brain can see that your intelligence is questionable, to say the least.

Peppermint
Looks like they are "coming from" our country's most prestigious universities. What's the matter - are they too educated for you?

More ThinkProgress Goodies:
Amanda Terket,Assistant Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Amanda was formerly the Center’s Special Assistant for Strategic Planning. Her past positions have been with the Office of Senator Charles E. Schumer

Worked for Schumer, the political leftwing hatchet man.

Payson Schwin is Assistant Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress. Payson holds a degree in government from Harvard University. Before joining the Center, Payson worked for the campaign to reelect Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) and the Capitol Hill office of Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN). He hails from the great state of Georgia, a place that is always on his mind.

Schwin worked for Daschle, a corrupt dem who his own state voted out of office.

Satyam Khanna is Research Associate for The Progress Report and Think Progress.org at the Center for American Progress. Satyam holds a B.A. in Biology and Political Science from Washington University in St. Louis. Prior to joining the Center, he worked as a field organizer for Jeff Smith’s Missouri Senate campaign and a researcher for Claire McCaskill’s US Senate race, both in St. Louis. He is also an alumnus of the Washington Leadership Program of the Indian-American Center for Political Awareness. Satyam hails from Edmond, Oklahoma.

Another dimocrap political arm, who helped MsCaskill get elected on false pretenses in regard to embryonic stem cells.

Gee Ohio Blues if you're going to try to shoot down that there is no bias in the left wing media, come up with something more credible than a far left wing operating rag organization.

And, for goodness sake, get over the non story.
The AGs serve at the President's discretion. He can fire them any time he wants. There is no crime there.

You libs spend every last minute of your lives since 2000, which you have never gotten past, to try to come up with some "scandal". It sure gets old.

How about spending some time writing RedNanny Pelosi to "clear the swamp" of her own democrap party. There's still Jefferson with all those bucks in his freezer. Then there's Dingy Harry Reid and his crooked land deals. How about Conyers? Pelosovich still hasn't cleared the swamp of these guys.

Oh, and then the BIG fish, Sandy Burglar, who stole CLASSIFIED documents. How about you guys screeching about him for a change or doesn't that little act of treason bother you guys?




OhioBlues
Trying to have a meaningful exchange of views with Peppermint is like trying to explain algebra to a four year-old. No matter how crystal clear you put that link, no matter how you explain that it is a scan of an email, he (or she I still don't know) will come back with this nonsense about biographies of people who work there and ignore the crux of the matter. I can write freely, because he (or she) no longer replies to anything I write. You're banging you head against a brick wall I'm afraid.

Hey Peppermint
Spin this -


U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales reportedly advised President George W. Bush on a federal inquiry even after learning his own actions might be probed.

Citing government records and interviews, the National Journal reported Thursday that, shortly before he advised Bush in 2006 on whether to shut down a Justice Department investigation into the administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, Gonzales learned that his own conduct would likely be a focus of the inquiry.


Bush shut down the Justice Department investigation in April 2006 by denying investigators security clearances they would have needed to examine the eavesdropping program.


It was unclear whether Bush knew at the time that the inquiry -- which was to have been conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- would likely examine Gonzales' conduct, the newspaper said. Sources familiar with the matter told the Journal that if the probe had been permitted to continue, it would have scrutinized Gonzales' role in authorizing the eavesdropping program while he was White House counsel, and his oversight of the program as attorney general.


The White House and Gonzales declined to comment on the report, the National Journal said.


Vic
If you come back onto this thread at some later time today read Critical Bill's post Friday, March, 16, 2007 1:01 PM, then you will have some idea why Lynne and I do not acknowledge him or get into discussions with him.



Peppermint
What, you are upset about that? No wonder the Republicans are capitulating if that's what the sort of intimidation the hardocre ground support caves in to. Jeez. Sticks and stones, Peppermint. You can't spend half your posts plugging your blog and then get upset that not everyone who reads it thinks you're the next Mark Twain...

Sean
I don't particularly care if Gonzales is fired because I don't like how he handled the Campos border agent situation. I'd like to see him fired over that. Not to mention he is a member of the Requinistas and I am not so certain he sees his job for our country as a priority. I wonder if his priorities lie with Mexico and helping illegals into this country instead.

What I don't like is how the media reports things in a biased manner. Clinton did fire all of his AGs.

The media started out, until they got caught, making the accusation that firing AGs was completely an unknown thing to do. That is what bothers me. They all knew Clinton fired all of his. And, there were dubious reasons for him firing all of his too. But, that is his right as the POTUS.


its always the cover-up with the GOP
yes it is normal for a president to fire the fed. attorneys but that is at the start of the first term.

the problems are two fold.

1) justice dept. officials testified (under oath) that the white house had nothing to do with this and now we find they were at best misinformed or misleading.
lying to congress is serious stuff my conservative friends.

2) i saw sen. john ensign republican from nevada because the republican attorney in his state had been fired for no good reason that he could see.

finally, no one has no problem with the white house hiring and firing attorneys but when lawmakers put pressure on them to act on cases in a partisan way then you got a problem.

so conservatives think it would be ok for a democrat president and congress to fire someone because they are not indicting enough republicans prior to an election?

anytime you try to use clinton as an excuse the rest of the country rolls their eyes and says here we go again.
take responsibility for your actions rather than the childish "he did it too mommy defense".


sheesh
Let me put this straight for those of you who are unaware of the irony of conservatives saying "well if Clinton did it so can Bush". Here it is: Clinton. Did. Not. Do. This.

dude3344
this whole mainstream media argument conservatives have been selling for 20 years is getting old.

you have dominance on the radio and your own news channel and even conservatives on cnn and msnbc and you still complain. don't think that mainstream america is tired of your whining.

besides it is insulting and patronizing.

so 70% of americans have been duped by the media and we are too stupid to realize it right?

that narrative will surely get you elected.
insult the american people and then ask for their vote. wonderful strategy.

then to top it all off, you all sit there and say but we are smarter than the rest of you and are the only ones who understand what is going on.

hypocrisy thy name is republican

Peppermint
I think you mean US Attorneys - not AGs.

Anyhow no point in going around about the facts -You will never admit the obvious anyway - I am glad to see you agree Gonzales should be fired for at least one issue. I suppose that is all that matters.

You know the Clinton thing really gets tiring - after all we are talking about 14 years ago. There was plenty of blasting Clinton at the time. Why can't you guys just take some responsibility for your conduct - I don't understand - I thought you were the Jesus crowd, you know, moral values, etc.

It just doesn't work when everytime a new Bush scandal erupts I turn on the TV and hear about Clinton. Admit that you are out of material - you are invisible now - the gig's up and if you don't turn your attention away from Clinton and onto your own party things will really get ugly

dude3344
this whole mainstream media argument conservatives have been selling for 20 years is getting old.

you have dominance on the radio and your own news channel and even conservatives on cnn and msnbc and you still complain. don't think that mainstream america is tired of your whining.

besides it is insulting and patronizing.

so 70% of americans have been duped by the media and we are too stupid to realize it right?

that narrative will surely get you elected.
insult the american people and then ask for their vote. wonderful strategy.

then to top it all off, you all sit there and say but we are smarter than the rest of you and are the only ones who understand what is going on.

hypocrisy thy name is republican

To CB
I see we are back to square one. Clinton did fire 93. As someone else posted earlier, so did previous presidents. This is NOT an issue! So read this: clinton.did.do.it. So did all other presidents.

If you guys like, I will stipulate that Bush was stupid...for not firing every da*n one of them his first day in office, as well as ALL of the democrap appointees in State and the CIA.

I will wager that the next Republican president has been taking notes on the Dems actions here. Beware Dems that you don't set too many precedents for the Repubs to follow. You will not always have a gutless Neocon in office.

religiouslib
Amen, religiouslib. By constantly referring to the press as "the mainstream media" the right affirms that their ideas, actions, and values are not widely accepted by society. The opposite of "mainstream" is extreme. It is the extreme elements of the right - and the left - that are dividing our country.

ohio blues
i agree and continue to try and make this point to the conservatives here.

they spend hours and days demonizing liberals as if the 70 million liberals in this country think and act the same.

the ones on the left are just as bad but they go after individuals not whole segments of the population.

To Our Liberal Friends...

... of which there are many here today.

Perhaps a couple of quotes from from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moyniha (D-NY) might be in order:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

-and

"The liberal left can be as rigid and destructive as any force in American life."

Wise words -- from one of your own.

To Peppermint
CB is still fairly civil most of the time, unlike some of the others. I don't expect we will ever convert any of these posers who come on here to stir the pot.

Some of them actually believe that the network news media is neutral or even in some cases conservative. This is after NBC news openly admitted bias and that they were no longer going to make any attempt to feign neutrality.

These people would consider Karl Marx and V.I. Lenin as rightwing reactionaries. They are the quintessential “useful idiots” described by Lenin and Mona Charen.

Oops...
Forgot the second "n" in "Moynihan"! Sorry!

Clintons Fired All 93 US Attorneys
Bill/Hillary Clinton DID fire all 93 US Attorneys who "serve at the pleasure of the President." That put a stop to the US Attorney's investigation into Whitewater, which was the investigation into the Clinton's shady real estate dealings. Have we forgotten? Maybe Bush 43 should have fired all 93 USAs too and there would not be this nonsensical discussion now about politics. It was political for Clinton as it is for Bush. US Attorneys are political appointees, similar to an "at will" employee in the private sector.

Vic
Yet another good post!

How CB can state that Clinton "Clinton. Did. Not. Do. This." is simply an example of the mind set of the Socialist-Democrats.

As I've posted before, Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys in order to fire the one in charge of the Whitewater investigation.

In 1990, I managed an investigative firm which did a lot of work for the FDIC (and later, the RTC). I submitted a bid to work on William Jefferson Clinton case (didn't get it, unfortunately), but found it quite suprising when Slick Willie ran for president.

As AG and later as Governor of Arkanas, Clinton did a LOT of things that won't come out for decades under the FOIA. The worst things Bush ever did was failing to take public speaking classes and being politically inept.

Clinton's actions were a LOT worse.

OhioBlues & religiouslib
You two crack me up...

First, OhioBlues: In the world of politics and media, many words are seldom definable in the classic sense. Thus, the word "mainstream", as it is used with respect to media, means "traditional"; as in big-city newspapers and broadcast television -- unlike the "new" media, i.e., cable, internet and talk radio.

And, religiouslib: There are many polls available (try Google), that demonstrate that the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative or moderate, with only about 3 in 10 who call themselves "liberal".

That is not a majority, nor does it in any way translate to "mainstream" in any honest person's book.

religiouslib, ohio blues, cb, et al
Interesting that you insist we conservatives "get over" the Clintons.

I, for one, would love to...it's just that they (the both of them, as well as their syncophants) WON'T go away.

I'm sure that were they to crawl back under the rocks from whence they came...we would get over them.

And as far as our complaints about the MSM being biased, untruthful, incomplete in their reporting, and at times downright treasonous...well, again, you are right: it is getting old.

And I, for one, would love to see some honest, scrupulous and fair reporting across the lines. THAT would be refreshing.

Understand, I have no love for Gonzalez--Buzzkat said it better than I...but sheesh, talk about "getting over it". There is no there there.

Your monkey screeching has become most annoying.

And leave Peppermint alone.

Subpoena Hillary re: US Attorney Firings
To keep things fair, Congress should issue subpoenas for Hillary Clinton and Janet Reno when the US Attorney in Little Rock, AR investigating Whitewater was fired, along with the 92 other USAs fired by the Clintons and Reno.

Were the Clintons' 93 US Attorney firings cover to get rid of the Little Rock US Attorney and quelch the Whitewater investigation? Or, were they just blatent political firings? Either way, we need to get to the bottom of this before the firings of the current 8 USAs are investigated.

Primus54
They are wise words. Here are some more, from Sen. John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign:

...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Noel Gibeson
Subpoena Hillary? That's the best laugh I've had today.

I can see it now: "Why, yes, of course I had Bill fire those attorneys in order to get rid of the one that was investigating us. Had to. Oh, and by the way--about Vince Foster--and Ron Brown? We did them, too. Might as well come clean, you know how I value truth, justice and the American way and all. Any other questions?"

To OhioBlues
I don't like the term "liberal" as it confuses some people who still think of liberals under the classical version of liberalism. I use the term occasionally because in today's environment sometimes it's the only way to get a point across. In truth, most of the people we refer to on these posts as “liberals” are really socialists, except where dealing with non-economic issues and there they fall under the category of “statists” and pacifists.

Yes, JFK was a socialist, so was LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush 1, and Bush 2. The big difference that you see from some of these socialists vs the others is that sone are also anti-US pacifists. I say anti-US because it seems the anti-war crowd never protests the other side in these wars.

it looks like this site
is getting ready to crash again so I am calling it quits for a while.

Vic
The only thing I would add is that sometimes war is used by these same socialists to further their agenda too.

A socialist does not automatically turn into pro-US, just because they want to have a war. That's a little dichotomous, don't you think?

OhioBlues
You are correct, those are some great words by JFK... who also cut taxes to stimulate the economy (hmmm... now where heard THAT before?)

I find it equally interesting that during the 2004 campaign, when John F. KERRY was asked if he were a liberal, he deflected the question... as opposed to being "proud".

JFK would not recognize what has become of his beloved Democratic Party... or his brother, for that matter.

Thanks for bringing him up, BTW.

:-)

To Liberty
What I was trying to say is that some of the socialists were also pacifists. Most of the ones who get out and raise h*ll against war only raise h*ll against the US, so they are not really against war, they are against the US being in any war, even to the point in some cases where we are not supposed to defend ourselves.

Vic
Yes, I would agree with that. Do you agree that a socialist President can also use war as a way to further their socialist agenda?

Lorie
So what if we all agree totally with you.

Does that mean when YOUR bias comes out and is as blatant as it is, that we should hold YOU accountable for what you're saying?

Be careful what you wish for!

To Liberty
Yes

Look it up Libs
Ironically the predecessor to Charles Banks, (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas who was fired by Clinton in 1993) was George W Proctor who served from 1979 to 1987. How can this be when according to you Libs, Reagan replaced them all in 1981?

Here's another who was replace when his 4 year term expired 11 months after Reagan took office.

Edward F. Harrington -District of Massachusetts
8/1/77 - 11/1/81

These are from the DOJ's own websites for those districts.


Primus54
Liberals aren't against tax cuts (who is?). We just don't mind paying taxes (or increases) if it means better roads, schools, healthcare and other services that the state provides.

I'm not a Kerry fan at all. He almost cost us the November '06 midterm elections and he wasn't even running! The whole swift-boat thing in '04 was unfair though. Like him or not, he served his country bravely in Vietnam (which is more than can be said for the hawks in this administration).

Goldwater wouldn't recognize what has become of his beloved Republican Party either. It goes back to what I said about the extremists on the left and the right hijacking their respective parties. We should all try to meet closer to the middle.

Have a good weekend. I'm out...

Please note:
Here are some more, from Sen. John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign: ...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind,

=================================================

Before you fill the room with smug, please note the word "IF".

Besides that, had it not been for LHO spreading JFK's brains all over the inside of a Lincoln his presidency would have been remembered as a combination of the worst aspects of both Bush's and Clinton's.

Stop that
apoplectic writes: Ironically the predecessor to Charles Banks, (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas who was fired by Clinton in 1993) was George W Proctor who served from 1979 to 1987. How can this be when according to you Libs, Reagan replaced them all in 1981?
===============================================

How do you expect their under developed minds to digest facts like that? Its like telling a 4 year old that Santa doesn't exist.


Hockey Goon
It might keep them busy for a few hours/days.

Hockey Goon
One more before I go...

"spreading JFK's brains all over the inside of a Lincoln" -- How eloquent. I will give you credit for spelling "IF" correctly though. Good job.

Hockey sucks.


For Sean
If you're going to put words in other people's mouths you should take care to get the concept right.

You wrote:

"Good point - the blame Clinton first crowd is really tiring - but that is republican playbook Rule One - it's Clinton's fault."

No one in the "blame Clinton first crowd" or any where else is saying "it's Clinton's fault."

They are saying that it is NO SCANDAL when the Prez fires a US Attorney. They are saying that, by law, the US Attorneys are appointed by the President and serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire one, eight, twenty, or all of them he can do so and he doesn't have to justify it to anyone. Clinton's firing of all 93 US Attorneys in 1993 is mentioned as nothing more than an example of this prinicple; and one about which the same left that calls this a scandal had no complaint.

Summarizing, the reference to Clinton in '93 is not a way to say it's Clintons fault this happened. It's a way to say that it's no big deal when it does happen. It is a normal functioning of our government as it is constituted and not the least bit scandalous.

Agreed
wiseone writes: Summarizing, the reference to Clinton in '93 is not a way to say it's Clintons fault this happened. It's a way to say that it's no big deal when it does happen. It is a normal functioning of our government as it is constituted and not the least bit scandalous
=================================================

The AGs service is political - otherwise why would their terms be linked so closely with the political cycle? The liberals cry and gnash their teeth over the possible politicization of the AGs tenure when is the very nature of the appointment. Now if one could show a possible disruption of an investigation into the administration (similar to the one shut down by the Clintons) there might be some scandal. The MSM outlets attempt to make something out nothing leaves them with even less credibility.

To graphic?
OhioBlues writes: "spreading JFK's brains all over the inside of a Lincoln" -- How eloquent.
=============================================

Perhaps, but its brevity adequately sums up the Kennedy heritage. Had JFK served out his term without being “martyred” he would be remembered for the Bay of Pigs, escalating Vietnam and bringing the world to the edge of nuclear holocaust over nothing. Couple those political failures with a few disgusting personal scandals and his presidency is a failure at all levels. The Kennedy family owes LHO a great debt for saving them from all that and giving JFK an eternal legacy for those that don’t bother to look too deeply into history. Bill Clinton is still trying to figure out how to accomplish the same without actually having to shed some blood.

Journalists are held accountable
There was the journalist for the NY Times who was writing fake stories. He got fired. And ones who won't reveal their sources spend serious jail time. The attorney's that were fired by Clinton had not been appointed by Clinton. The ones fired recently were appointed by Bush who can fire them but it was some of the reasons why they were fired that bring to question whether the firing was for the good of the country or not. One of them had the best record for concvicting high profile terrorists and had received an excellant report on his performance then suddenly he was fired. He convicted three high profile terrorists including the one who was going to do the Millenium bombing of the LA airport. Then one of them was fired because he was not moving fast enough on indicting a Democratic Congressman just before the election. He was called on the phone by Karl Rove's office and asked if he would get an indictment before the Congressional elections and when he said no the phone went dead.

Please
ProfGene writes: Journalists are held accountable. There was the journalist for the NY Times who was writing fake stories. He got fired. And ones who won't reveal their sources spend serious jail time.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Only ONE of the journalist faking stories at the NY Times was fired, the rest keep going about their business.

Only the journalist that refuse to reveal sources connected with criminal activity fear jail, and it’s hardly "serious" jail time considering their acts constitute being an accessory to a crime.

If I profited from a crime committed by another person then protected that person’s identity I’d be looking at “serious jail time”.

ProfGene
Even if every assertion you make is true, and even if there were no other considerations (there are), my reaction to your post is "So what? Where's the scandal?"

Are you saying that if you can your own appointee after his term expires that's political and/or improper but if you can the previous guy's appointee it's not?

Having checked the names and places of the fired US Attorneys I have noted that they include the attorneys for New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and the Southern District of California; every state along our border with Mexico west of Texas, plus Nevada, which borders CA and AZ.

And the single biggest issue on which most Americans agree is that our border is not being secured. Memos sent to the House Judiciary Committee state specifically that the attorneys for AZ and NV were refusing to "take good cases." Another memo dealt with the AUSA in New Mexico declining to prosecute marijuana possessions of less than 500 lbs. If we had US Attorneys refusing to enforce immigration and drug laws at or near the border with Mexico then the only 'scandal' as far as I'm concerned is that they weren't canned sooner.

A fifth AUSA that was canned was in Washington, another border state, although there us no mention in the memos that she was not enforcing immigration law, it strikes me as a good possibility.

In the case of another, Bud Cummins of the Eastern District of Arkansas, he had already informed the DOJ that he did not wish to finish out the last two years of Bush's 2nd term and was seeking employment in the private sector. In other words, he quit. But it must be 'political' and a 'scandal' because it's a Republican administration, right?

And people who didn't bat an eye or worry for a tenth of a second about whether "the good of the country was being served when Clinton replaced 93 AUSA'a at once are suddenly obsessed by the quality of their representation by the DOJ because 6 under-performers got canned and one guy quit.

You're going to need a lot of fertilizer to sell that notion.

Also, the AUSA in San Diego, Carol Lam, was the subject of a signicant number of complaints from members of Congress for her lack of performance on immigration enforcement, according to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. The above-mentioned memos indicated that she was the one with whom the DOJ was having the most trouble.

Retraction
Earlier I posted that appointment of US Attorneys does not require consent of the Senate. That is incorrect. See the following from the LATimes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-qampa14mar14,1,4041650.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

At the end of the day, people
in general are going to understand the media just a little bit better because of how they have covered this story.

It's just a little bit too obvious that the press treated these two stories very differently. They mirror each other too well. The less people hear about the 93 being fired, and about Whitewater, the more they will learn about the media. The more they hear about it, the more they will learn about the Clintons!

One the one hand, Clinton fired EVERYBODY and the transition time had never been so short. And, as has been said, it is very possible that the MAIN PURPOSE was to thwart a fraud investigation against powerful people in the White House (in which many less powerful indivuduals were convicted).

On the other hand, we have a few individuals being fired and the press screaming bloody murder. Imagine if one of them had been investigating GW Bush and the First Lady for fraud.

Wiseone,
Very good points on the reasons for the firings.

With the press making such a big deal out of finding the reasons for the firings, we'll see if they can avoid publishing the reasons when they are announced at a press conference.

primus
i have googled that very thing a number of times and the even on a right wing poll the best number for americans leaning conservative was 41% and that clearly is not a majority.

of course the only poll that counts was last november.

your attitude is why republicans are out of office and will stay out of office.
you are under the mistaken impression that you represent most americans and you are simply deluding yourselves on that.

but please by all means continue to think and act as if you are cause it will mean you will wander in the wilderness for years to come, making your ridiculous claims.

To Critical Bill
I had to go practice law all day, but to answer your question this morning: the difference between Bush 43 and Clinton is that Bill Clinton did a massive firing to ensure loyalty of ALL 93 U.S. Attorneys because he would expected to need that loyalty (and did) and George W. Bush firing eight because his law enforcement priorities were not being implemented. Your apparent effort to say the latter is worse is, sorry to be blunt, just dumb.

I think you got your facts wrong about what happened at the start of the Bush Administration with respect to U.S. Attorneys, but more importantly, what you continue to miss is that the President has a right to insist upon effectiveness in U.S. Attorneys in implementing what the President sees are priorities in federal law enforcement. You can call that loyalty, but that does not take away the President's rightful power and responsibilities with respect to federal law enforcement. This whole non-scandal is a sign of idiotic political scandal mongering on the part of Democrats.

PhilByler
You always make such good points and with good clarity.

Bin Laden
Our troops won't ever have to find and kill Bin Laden. The way things are going on in DC, he's likely to die laughing.

US Atty firings
All I've read and heard about this firing is typical Liberal "Much Ado About Nothing." I had to laugh out loud when Henry WAX(Nostil)MAN told the lady who actually helped craft the law about outing a covert government agent that he wasn't going to let her "take up my time.." when she testified. In other words when she testified that Valorie Plame was not a covert agent, he stopped her testimony!!

Americans do not realize that they are being attacked from two fronts. If they continue to sleep on these issues they will wake up one day and be under the thumb of either the Communists who are disguised as liberals in this country, or Al Qaida who have already taken over much of Europe. Both of these entities work in slow incremental stages which boil the frog before he realizes he is cooked!

GunnyG
Yeah, I heard that clip by Waxman in response to Victoria Toensing. How arrogant can one get? He sounded like a total jerk while Victoria Toensing maintained her calm, cool and professional self.

USAtty Firings
ProfGene tells a compelling story and I am inclined to believe it. We have only seen the surface of what is going to happen if the DemocaRATs get elected in this next cycle. Heny WAX(nostril)MAN will have one hearing after another ad nauseum and they will be total nonsense and a waste of taxpayer's money. Imagine the scenario if you can. Here we have Mr. (Freezer) Jefferson who is obviously a totally incompetent crooked politician being appointed chairman of the committe which deals with our most sensitive military secrets (Oh he won't be tempted to sell that information!) by a toally incompetent House Speaker. You are just being introduced to the beginning of the downfall of America if they are in charge of this country.

Sean is wrong wrong wrong
The Democrats of today could not hold a candle of the Democrats of JFK or Truman. Look at yourselves...you are not Americans you are Stalinists!! You cannot tolerate any dissent, you will not tolerate it in any form. You not only go after those who oppose you, you have to destroy their character, their family, and any chance of making a living in the future!!

What did Scooter Libby actually do to deserve a prison term of 25 years? Anything close to what Sandy "Burgler" Burger did? Geez! Take off your stupid blinders won't you? You have brought America back to the Dark Ages with your "Spanish Inquisition" tactics which aim at getting convictions of non-believers at any cost.

Gunny
You state: You cannot tolerate any dissent, you will not tolerate it in any form. You not only go after those who oppose you, you have to destroy their character, their family, and any chance of making a living in the future!!

Sounds like Cheney-Plamegate described to a tee.

Sean Writes:
"sounds like Cheney-Plamegate..." What has Cheney done to Plame? On what basis do you make the claim that Cheney had anything to do with this low-level clerk in the CIA? Do you make that claim on the basis of what the Drive-By media has to say? If so, so much for your intelligence. In fact I do not remember reading ANYTHING in the media about Valorie Plame's character, her love life, her family life or anything negative about her...do you? On the other hand what about the vicious diatribes we have to endure daily about Bush and Cheney? The only thing I have ever read about her is what the liberal press had to say about how she has been "outed" by the administration which has already been proven to be total BS!! The only person who "outed" her was another liberal named Armitage, and he apoligized for it. Mysteriously, the liberal press has never mentioned this fact so you fuzzy-headed liberals would not know about that. Or maybe you do but simply choose to do that liberal thing that Scarlet in GONE WITH THE WIND did so well.....just ignore it!!

Ohio Blue writes:
Do you think that the extreme left and right in this country are really dividing the country in the same way that the extreme religious differences in Iraq are dividing that country?

Maybe, since we don't see that kind of bloodshed here, it is healthy to have opposite views so long as we don't ACT OUT our emotions like the IRAQI's apparently do.

Gunny
You rock man. Give it to these libtards. Blinders indeed. They hear the truth but refuse to listen to it due to BDS.

Gunny
How do I know? Hum, let me think - common sense I suppose.

Cheney is an evil man. Joe Wilson posed a threat to the rationale for his little neo-con, Halliburton enriching, imperialistic conquest and he had to be punished.

If you don't think Cheney was involved than I've got some property in Florida you should look at. His right hand man was convicted of obstructing the investigation into who outed Plame - who would Libby be protecting by obstructing the investigation - let me think, oh, I know, maybe Libby took the fall for Cheney knowing he would get a pardon.

This is my theory - I suppose you could say it is all just coincidence.

Anyhow, I enjoy communicating with people like yourself and others on this website a lot because I enjoy discussing politics and it is impossible for me to find any people in my life who take the positions of the people on this website.

I don't know where they are. I practice law in a large matropolitan area and live in the urban area and I interact and socialize with a large number of people. I am not kidding when I say that I know of noone that believes the same as the people on this website.

Of course birds of a feather flock together, but I know people from law school who supported Bush in 2004 and they now think the whole group should be jailed. I know several lawyers who are very conservative and they think this Administration is a disgrace. I do alot of work for insurance companies (very conservative) and the people who I know well enough to small talk about politics just roll their eyes when Bush is mentioned.

I guess what I'm getting at is where do you people reside (I don't mean literally, but demographically). I don't really know too many people in the suburbs, but I do know that most of the big box evangelical churches are out there. My experience with evangelicals (my wife's brother and her cousins) is that they support Bush - they are very black and white thinkers - successful in business, but not intelligent. Maybe that is the answer. Every so often I am in the suburbs and every so often I will see a Bush bumper sticker. Even you haven't removed it by now you must be a diehard I suppose.

I just find the analysis fascinating. I read What's the Matter with Kansas and the thesis is fascinating to me. Why do middle class bible belt Americans support an administration whose policies are contrary to their economic best interests?

Yea - well anyhow - its nice to know that you guys are out there and I enjoy the banter.


sean
i share your sentiments. i am constantly amazed at the conservative posters here who think that their view are mainstream and everyone else is out there.

they sit around on this board or listen to talk radio and re-affirm their myths about how they are the truthtellers and everyone else is a liar.

i participate in liberal message boards and although their are crazy and crude left wingers out there they don't get to the point where they want to do harm to all conservatives while i regularly see that sort of sentiment against liberals on this board.

its amazing how some can hate their fellow americans and then call themselves patriotic.

gunny
lets see plame was covert according to the head of the cia and fitzgerald but you know better.

ok, give me the name of one credible person who has or had direct knowledge that she was not covert.

she was involved in overseas secret missions (again confirmed by the cia) which means it was in fact, against the law to reveal her name.


but of course facts mean nothing to someone who FEELS that their fellow americans are stalinists.

you hate america gunny or you wouldn't FEEL so negative. you are in the minority in this country and if you don't like it leave.

religious lib
You are a night owl as well I see

In my experience I have seen the same thing. I regularly talk with left leaning people or middle of the road people and while they vehemently dislike Bush, et al. and the people who support him the discourse is much more civil and there is no talk about wanting to hurt someone because they are conservative - it more disgust and amazement at their, what I like to call, willful ignorance.

There are some on this message board that argue well their conservative position, but most of it is the Coulter-reactionary garbage. The lets poison a Supreme Court justice mentality.

I consider myself to be pretty smart and it is beyond me how some people cannot see through the spin and lies. I know that some of these people are smart so I have to conclude that they simply lack the humility to acknowledge a mistake.

In the end none of you libtards
have come up with anything that says that Bush has done anything wrong. As I say earlier, this is all a false falg operation to try to yell at Bush some more for nothing. As always the MSM carries the water for the Dems.

Vic
"In the end none of you libtards
have come up with anything that says that Bush has done anything wrong."

And you neo-con whackos can't come up with anything that says that Bush has done anything right.

sean
willful ignorance is a complimentary way to put it.
i hear over and over how conservatives base their decisions on facts but when the facts turn out to be different than they claimed, conservatives turn to smear and fear.

i get the same reaction when i discuss religion.
some conservatives claim you cannot be religious and liberal and when i point out the absurdity of that, they go ballistic.

i and anyone who says they are liberal and religious have been called the anti-christ on this board.

it is bizarre and disturbing to me.

know-nothings
Well, I now know this is a conservative rag website. Something about the emails I can subscribe to.

Hey, have you noticed that Bill Clinton isn't the President today? Why compare whose dick is bigger? Yes, he did fire the attorneys. Presidents do that when they take office. All the now-fired attorneys were Republicans with Party loyalty, so probably many were installed by Bush in 2001 - I don't claim to know, but I doubt Clinton picked most of them.

Bush and his incompetent A.G. Gonzo(lez) fired these people SELECTIVELY in the middle of his term, and targeted only those who went after Republican corruption or got convictions like the Duke Cunningham case. One was looking into Rep. Jerry Lewis. Maybe the prosecutors who were NOT fired were willing to compromise their legal ethics and responsibilities to satisfy the Bush revenge machine like so many other hacks and cronies we now find were doing exactly that, to the detriment of the country, and for some rogue company's profit interest. How many dubious prosecutions might there have been as a result?

What does it take for a Republican to admit they have a problem? Alcohol rehab for all the closeted anti-gay gays? Drug rehab for the liars? Blaming Bill Clinton for doing the "same thing" doesn't make Republican crimes any less. And by the way, I was no fan of Bill Clinton -- didn't vote for him either time and I don't want Hillary because she's a sellout without conviction just like her husband, the closeted Republican who gave us NAFTA and so many other policies the Republicans love.

Sean
You SO have no idea of the facts behind the Wilson Plame case:

1) Richard Armitage was the person who leaked Valerie Plame's identity to first Bob Woodward and then to Robert Novak.

2) Patrick Fitzgerald KNEW that Richard Armitage was Robert Novak's source at the very beginning of his investigation, BEFORE he ever talked to Scooter Libby.

3) Fitzgerald continued the investigation even though he had identified the leaker at the outset.

4) Valerie Wilson was NOT a covert agent at the time, hence Patrick Fitzgerald's curious use of the term "classified," a term which has no meaning in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

5) Joe Wilson lied about the conclusion of his report to the CIA.

6) Joe Wilson and Valeria Plame have been treated like Washington royalty ever since the story broke.

Oh, and anyone who thinks the economy has not been doing well over the last four years is getting their evidence from anecdotes, not from actual analysis of the economy as a whole.

ReligiousLib,

What? You've never read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post? The Nation? You've got to be kidding me.

Media scandal
I suppose one, fairly clear, comprehensible example of leftward bias in the media would be that they continue to say that Scooter Libby was convicted of covering up the Administration's efort to ruin the Plame-Wilsons. Libby was convicted of covering up for something that HE DID NOT DO. Richard Armitage, a Democrat, was the source for Woodward and for Novak. I know that Harry Reid keeps saying he was convicted of other things, but he is a politician, and politicians lie. But the press just reports what he says, and moves along. They should not do that. Never mind, for the moment, what they do in other cases. We are talking about the Libby case.The investigation revealed that Karl Rove did not do what he was suspected of doing. Richard Armitage says that he did it. That ought to be all of that story.

As for firing the US Attorneys, they probably ought to have had, each one, a performance review, and then, individiually, several of them should have been terminated. A Federal prosecuter who dropped the investigation into voter fraud in Washington is either lazy or partisan. Gregoire won that election by five hundred votes, including votes cast in boxes whose voter lists included people registered as living in one office in the county courthouse. While it is all very well to say that there is some scandal here or there on the Republican side, we are talking, here, about one attorney who did not investigate a specific scandal. Another US Attorney was very lax, by her own account deliberately so, about prosecuting illegal alien drug smugglers. The President is generally regarded on the Right as being too lenient on border issues. Still, that attorney, declining to do her job, was, eventually, fired. My outrage is that it took so long.

Right on Lori
I believe that the News makers,"spell manufactured consent", and the politicians are creating a phantomn drama that decieves the American Public, who have come to put more faith in the Net work than their own Priest Rabbi or Minister.
What we all need to do is stick up for Justice Gonzales and write to our Congressman in his defense.
As for the TV /news that bites/soap opera, turn it off and find a better place to feed the brain.
Even listening to their deceptions will not leave you unharmed, since their empasis on key topics will distort your worldview and it is what they do not report that is serious.

Right on Lori
I believe that the news makers,"spell manufactured consent", and the politicians are creating a phantom drama that deceives the American Public, who have come to put more faith in the Net work than their own Priest Rabbi or Minister.
What we all need to do is stick up for Justice Gonzales and write to our Congressman in his defense.
As for the TV /news that bites/soap opera, turn it off and find a better place to feed the brain.
Even listening to their deceptions will not leave you unharmed, since their empasis on key topics will distort your worldview and it is what they do not report that matters.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.