Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mikey, Mar 20, 2007.
I guess George is right the constitution is just a "goddamned piece of paper". said before and will say again the damage being done by this man and his machine is far reaching and someday folks will realize that many of our civil liberties and rights are being dismantled one by one.. we are not paying close enough attention and it is too late.
Hello! These "may" have been 8 firings for political purposes. If they were the add them to the list of 93 political firing that Clinton was in charge of.
Bunch of GoTTamned hypocrites! Double standard patrol reporting for duty!
OK with me if you assign equal blame to Clinton. But that makes them both wrong, not both right, and it's not too late to do something about it. There are no novel sins in Washington, everything's been done already.
EVERY president hires new Fed Pros...its the way it goes. They clean house at the beginning of their terms. usually its 90+ lawyers fired, 90+ lawers hired. But the white house calling for these ones to be fired because they didn't go after democrats before the election is flat out injustice. Our rights keep being crushed in every way by Rove, Cheney, and Bush....and yo9u silly people keep standing bhind your little elephant symbol scraeming "LOW TAXES. screw trhe poor" and think you are cool.
defending this aministration makes you all a joke, and sheep. You seem to not mind when your rights are taken away. YOU are unamerican for not screaming out about injustice, and fighting to be treated fairly. That is what this country was founded on, not corporations outsourcing to make the stock price go up. DEFEND THE FAT CATS!
Exactly. It's nice to know not everyone is blind. I wish everyone could acknowledge that.Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. Just acknowledge the two wrongs. Lehey and Schumer make me sick. Where was there outrage under Clinton? Buch of hypocrites.
The jokes on you. Nice sugar coating of the 90+ firings. Political, political, political. Did I say political? Why did they do that.? Because they wanted people who fall in line with their politcs......DUH! Do you have your hands over your ears?......."I can't hear you.lalalalala? Wake up. I'm not defending the administration. I'm calling out the hypocrites.
Nice touch bringing up us"silly people" for deflection. You guys think dishonesty, evil, partisan politics and lies all begin and end with the Bush administration. YOU are unamerican. At least I acknowledge wrong for both parties on this.
From what I gather there are quite a few "Bosses" on this forum, what do you do when you have an employee you no longer want working for you, assuming they aren't unionized.
BUSH IS THE BOSS, how many did Hillary fire in the white house mail room after she threw a few Vases at them and called them "%^$@*&! rectums"
Read Ann Coulter today, they can't fire the $%^$#%@ slobs in Walter Reed that cause the Rats to live there because they are Civil Service (union)
It's different, Harry, and you know it. US attorneys don't just have a legal reponsibility to their boss, they also have a legal responsibility to uphold the law. What if one of these guys was investigating the President's friend and the President didn't like it and decided to can him? You'd be raving and drooling about it. Bush might be within the law, but people still have a right to know why it went down.
I agree with some of your post, it's the hypocrisy of it, where was all this outrage when Clinton did it, in a way though the republicans are deserving of all the back handed %^%$ they are getting, they are like a bunch of &*^(%$# wimps, they won't fight back, they have to get right down in the dirt with them, you can't be civilized when you are doing battle with these jealous sore loser democrats, watch this Hillary Obama thing, Hillary will destroy his "private life" and then deny she did it.
Al Sharpton says he is just as clean as Obama, he takes a bath every day.
The Democrats don't care about the attorneys, they just want to make the Republicans look bad, and the other way around, too. That's just how it works, we just go along for the ride. The only time we benefit is when one party takes the other one down a notch.
Has there been such a vindictive administration, ever? There is a long list of respectable people, Republican Cabinet members, Dept. of State, Dept. Homeland Security, Generals, and of course, a CIA agent, who have been fired or outed for disagreeing with George Bush. Is there anyone out there who thinks Patrick Fitzerald did a hatchet job in his last case? This prosecutor has a resume which resonates with brilliance. Yet, he almost gets the ax under the Bush Administration. To compound matters, Bush will appoint cronies in extremely important positions despite having these appointments blow up in his face. Apparently, no lessons are ever learned, nor minimal support from Congress or the American people deter this President from these destructive actions. Currently, Alberto Gonzales will either resign (fired), in which case he becomes the Scooter Libby of the Justice Dept, and a nominee process will then commence................. or he continues as A.G. and answers questions under oath (enjoy your free time Alberto). Defenders of Bush can rant all they want concerning Clinton or some Nixonian grudge (no really), but this guy will become the biggest loser in the history of the U.S, and we have all suffered.
There is a difference between:
(A) Firing all 93 Federal Prosecutors to clean house when a new President takes over, and
(B) Firing selected Federal Prosecutors because they will not go after Democrats.
That is exactly what this means to Bush haters. His appointees are "cronies" His "firings" were political. His WMD's were lies. His potential pardons are political. Nope but not my guys. That was way different.
Clinton hired a bunch of republicans, right? His WMD's were honest and real, His firings were, what, merciful? His pardons were what, just?
I agree. He's within his rights, but I still want to know what's up.
They were fired for not investigating DEMOCRATS.....
PatsSB42, not sure if we've sparred in the past...but I love a good back and forth. welcome to the political board and heres to spirited debate! having said that......
They were fired for not investigating DEMOCRATS.....if they were fired for not invesigating criminals, you might have something. The only shred of something here that you might have to hold onto is the fact that these lawers serve at the presidents whim.
There is a reason that congress is looking into this, there is a reason the administration has already pointed the finger 3 times, and is not forthcomming about this. The whole thing is a little F-ed up.
The e-mail trail will serve the JUSTICE we both desire.
we shall see what happens here....
The story just keeps getting better.
Its funny how they rank "Loyalty to Bush" and not loyalty to the Justice system and the costitution....after all Bush is above the constitution.
gotta love the Cronies!
You seem surprised.
Look, Im not defending the firings. I'm simply saying that the motivation for both was political. Now since these 8 were allowed to stay on, the reason they should have been fired in the first place(not my justification), became clear to republicans. They were frustrated over not getting the "cooperation" they wanted. Do you think for a minute that isn't why ALL of them were fired in the previous administration? There will be no email or memo trail for proof but make no mistake about it, they wanted there own in there to make sure they got complience. Fire them all. No one to worry about then. Since there is apparently a paper trail to pin this administration with, the completely partisan left is gunning with both barrels. I may be cynical but the goal seems to be 99% political and 1 % justice. I'm sorry but I do not by for a minute believe the dems have a shred of moral ground to stand on in this one.
"Who.....does .....number.........two ........WORK.....for?"
-Austin Danger Powers
Its seems Gonzo has just gotten the kiss of death...
"The president reaffirmed his strong backing and support of the attorney general"
Gonzo...you're doing a heck of a job....pi$$ing on the constitution.
Where did I defend Clinton's pardons or his political firings? Do you want me to cite you examples of Bush's horrendous appointments? In my post I pointed out Bush's extrordinarily and inept appointments and firings. But, if your wish is to compare Presidents, lets start with appointments and firings. Cite me a bad Clinton appointment and a firing and I will match you with Bush's. My problem is with our CURRENT President. He is inept. What part of my post don't you understand?
Well you didn't defend Clinton. I give you credit for that. As far as Clinton's firings, well they all went for political reasons. No spin will sway me from that belief. Bush had 8 go for that. I'm not defending either by the way and maybe I'm trying too hard to make the point but the thread is about the attorney's that were fired, not appointee's etc. Deflecting to other issues only clouds the topic. If his appointees sucked then singleing out Bush's attorney's firings is ok? Any politician that was silent(100% of them) when Clinton, Bush SR. and I think Regan did it to, better remove their halo's. Another case off the pot calling the kettle black. 99% political, 1% justice. No amount of Bush is a bad president changes that.
I don't know the answer, but ....
how many of the prosecutors did Clinton, Reagan, or Bush 1 fire mid-term because they didn't prosecute the opposing party before an election?
You people are to %^$#@*> smart for me
"I was under the impression that there would be no math"
Deflecting to other issues, huh? My original post was concerning Patrick Fitzerald and the competent job in which he performed (Title of thread, Patrick Fitzerald). I did mention relative to the firings, that Bush has had a history of appointing absolutely hideous people to take the vacant positions. Now, read your response to my post and tell me who went off topic.
None. But come on, be honest. They were let go before because they were hired by the other guys and they didn't want someone that may not be loyal to them. They were fired over potential disloyalty.
I know the answer to this one, but............
How many did Clinton(not sure of Bush 1 or Regan) fire for potential disloyalty? 93 Not a legitamate reason in my book.
How many did Bush 2 fire for not prosecuting democrats? 8
PS. the investigation is on going. There may be some legit reasons some of them were fired.
Separate names with a comma.