Welcome to PatsFans.com

Fire 'em all: a precedent of huge proportion

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Fogbuster, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    The Hubbell Standard
    Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys.

    Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

    Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

    As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

    As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

    At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

    ... more:

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

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    It's a different issue. The convention is to replace these people when a new president enters. At least Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II did it. (I don't know if Bush I did it.) The issue here is that you don't fire people in the middle of your term or it looks like you're trying to cover something up, and the early evidence suggests that's the case. Already, I read on a liberal blog that a number of Republican leaders appear to have been involved in these firings, including Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, Duke Cunningham, etc.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Geez, Fogbuster, I think everyone on these forums knows what Clinton did, how it's similar to what Bush did, and how it's different from what Bush did.
  4. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Patters, whats the point in trying to make the distinction? The dolts on the fringe right wing have their spoon fed Faux News justification for this and they are going with it. Never mind that the evidence that is emerging shows an unprecedented politicization of the DOJ.

    Sununu (R-NH) just came out and is asking for Gonzo to go. Other, similarly reasonable Republicans will soon follow, to save their asses before the next round of con purging. Its unfortunate that good Republicans will be sacked because of the abuses at the top, but where were they when oversight was required?? They were lazy rubber stampers, more concerned about brownnosing some Abramoff hack....abrogating thier constitutional duty to counter a rogue executive branch. Now they will soon pay for it, as they should.

    And the fringe wil continue, as they do with every Bush abuse of power, to weakly defend these unconstitutional actions as acceptable practice in american governance.

    Our forefathers must be truly shocked.
  5. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Firings are firings, regardless of when they happen. More to the point, let's look at the scale: Gonzalez fired 8, Reno/Hubbell fired 93!! 93 vs 8. People are getting their shorts in a wad over this?? Can we get any more partisan?!

    What's next: Bush's Sec/Defense is seen riding in a tank!! Bush's Sec/State is seen at a foreign film!!

    Good God.


    //
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's the single most dumbest thing you've said!

    If the "why" wasn't important, you'd have a point.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  7. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    What is the difference, in the broad sense, between firing 93 people at the beginning of one's term -- a wholesale wipe-out never before done by *any* president, not even Reagan or Carter -- and firing 8 in the middle of one's presidency?? They were both fired for the same reason: politics. The both served at their presidents' pleasure, and both were fired because the presidents, Clinton and Bush II, wanted to make changes. Big freaking deal.

    This just stinks of yet another attempt to get at Bush, plain and simple.


    //
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  8. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    It is another attempt to get at Bush, you're right. The Dems hate him and the repubs hated Clinton equally. This is what's wrong with partisanship that's gone up to "11" in the last couple of admins. It's a testament of the horrible leadership we've had to endure collectively for the last 14 years and it sucks.

    The problem here is that Bush continues to show a complete lack of political acumen in this and dozens of other cases. He is a poor politician, diplomat, communicator, negotiator, liar, and uniter (among other things). His "decider" ability isn't that good either.
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,661
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +130 / 7 / -13

    People replace cabinet members all the time these attorney's are no different.

    Getting rid of people who aren't being aggressive about voter fraud isn't a bad thing, if they had interfered with the investigations of Cunningham and Weldon, you would have a point. This however is not the case.

    Just as a point how do you feel about Clinton firing Stevens who was investigating Clinton and replacing Stevens with one of his (Clinton's) ex students. Was this proper or not? Or firing the US attorney who was 30 days away from indicting Rostenkowski. leaving a crook in office for a couple of extra years?
  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    he earned it.... he had the nation and the world on his side on 9/12... and look what he's done with it all... he's corrupt... wake up, Fog...

    or is God telling you to hold firm?
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23


    How do you justify Bush claiming that mistakes were made in the firings?? How do you rationalize pretty much the same admission by Gonsalves??
  12. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    I agree with you on the partisanship issue. It's gotten out of hand, and it needs to be reduced across the board.

    I see the relative *inaction* by both parties when they gained majorities as a sign of either: knowing their prized legislation would be nixed by the other party, and/or a sense that they need to work toward things that both sides can accept, a near impossible task. Either way, there seems to be an impasse now. Hopefully some good leadership can emerge to show the way that can benefit all people.

    //
  13. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    As I said a few days ago, Bush is upset about it, but it's not like he's the first POTUS to have mistakes made under him or by him. Happens in every administration. Cut him some slack.


    //
  14. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23

    This guy has had enough slack, made huge mistakes pretty much all over the place.. he is supposed to be the commander in chief in a time of international conflict.. bottom line he knows what is going on, all of it is sanctioned from his office.. too bad he gets caught every once and a while. Where do you want to start faulty intelligence, poor conditions at Walter Reed, innapropriate response to NOLA or outing a CIA agent and on and on and on.. yea lets play nice to the biggest screwup to ever occupy 1600 Penn ave.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    He was cut some slack after 9/11. He failed miserably. We should cut him no more slack than the Republicans cut Clinton, though I don't think we should go after his personal life like the Republicans did Clinton (despite rumors of Bush's continuing alcoholism and marital problems--remember when Condi slipped and referred to Bush as her husband?).
  16. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    I don't see Bush as corrupt. I do not for one minute believe he ran for the presidency because of any lust for power, and he has more personal money than he could spend in his life time. I'm truly sorry you see evil in his actions.

    He said from the bell what he was going to do after 9/11, and he has done it. He said it would be tough, there would be losses, and it would take some time. He never lied about it. He also said there was progress being made, and, as skeptical as I can be, he has eventually proven that his course is effective.

    Would al qaeda, the Taliban, or Saddam have rolled over and played nice if we had not gone into Afghanistan and Iraq?? Their LONG track records and their own proclamations -- with a number of brutally unnecessary beheadings thrown in -- have shown me that they only understand one thing: stopping them while re-building Iraq et. al. as democratic nations.


    //
  17. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0


    Can't agree that he has failed. Quite the contrary: Iraq is showing more and more signs of resurrecting from the hell of Saddam and the warfare started in 2003.

    As Bush said then: it will take some time. It has and improvements beyond anything that ever existed in Iraq for at least the past 40 years are showing up day by day.


    //
  18. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,045
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +196 / 7 / -23

    This is the understatement of the year, while he may not be personally profiting from the decisions he makes his network is making billions.. he will profit in the future. As far as his lust for power goes, how about; "I am the decider", "The constitution is just a goddam piece of paper".. on and on this guy is all about power and legacy, not much else.
  19. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Hey, you and Bush both get your orders straight from God (like the Blues Brothers), so you may have some inside info that we don't.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,219
    Likes Received:
    130
    Ratings:
    +365 / 1 / -9

    Bush is the "BOSS" he hires and fires who he pleases, that's what Bosses do.

    Didn't Pant Suit Hillary fire everybody in the White House "Mail Room" if I am wrong I am sure one of you "Thinking People" will let me know about it.

    "Your Fired"
    "What Did I Do"
    "I don't like you and I'm afraid you will get my job someday"

    I think it was GM that had a book they handed out to their "Stool Pigeon Ratty Supervisors" that was titled "How To Fire Your Best Friend"

    Do you think the Bush people will steal the White House Silverware when they leave?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>