Well, I challanged you to find a link that disputes the claim by Newsmax that klinton firing all US attorneys was unprecedented (never done or known before). If your saying that this is a lie, prove it.

Do I believe him? I don't know.

What??
Prove your claim that "Every President does this when they take office." My Newsmax link says the firing by klinton was the first time it's ever happened. Either your wrong or Newsmax is wrong.

I have no historical knowledge either way so I cannot comment. But I will say your probably correct...

Prove it.

From what I've heard, this is correct. And I don't like it. They need to be confirmed by the Senate even if it's controlled by the socialists.



Like I said, I don't like this move one bit (if it's true and I think it is).
By the way, for the record, I'm a conservative who dislikes and distrusts Bush and for the first time in my life, I didn't vote for a Republican prez in '04 because of Bush.


So I'm asking you again, prove to me that Newsmax's claim that klinton firing all US attorneys was unprecedented is not true.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

It's hard to find Reagan and Carter news in a google search for appointing attorneys. But I'm doing my best.
McClatchy Washington Bureau | 01/26/2007 | Gonzales appoints political loyalists into vacant U.S. attorneys slots

Anyway the point is, US attorneys have a 4 year term. When the term is up, the President's appoint new ones. When the terms are up in the year the president takes office, he obviously appoints hundreds of new attorneys. I'd like to find an actual news story about Clinton firing attorneys, and I cannot. All I know is, it's unusual for Bush to be doing this in the last two years of his presidency. It's suspicious.

Apparently "failure to indict Democrats" = "gross incompetence" for the Bush White House, along with "successful prosecution of Republican corruption" another sin that will not be forgiven.


This is a story with real legs, and it looks like Karl Rove will have to answer about his part in the matter, under oath and on camera.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
What a gift for the 2008 DNC, a story that will unfold over the next year with lots of clips of the testimony of Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales trying to defend the indefensible, clips of Bush trying to respond to questions about it and sounding like a moron. Half the 2008 campaign is going to be footage from these hearings.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

It is a political firing. The Justice Dept is not supposed to be political. The Patriot Act is allowing it to happen. Just when I think there is enough evidence of law breaking and constitutional violations to start hearings and remove these crooks, they do something else to sidestep the laws of our country. Yes goober, the next two years are going to be nuts.

Alright, it's not a big deal that Bush can replace attorneys since they do serve "at the pleasure of the president", but use your common sense: these people were appointed by Bush in the first place, there were complaints about them not prosecuting Democrats, and the Senate is about to debate whether it should roll back a provision in the Patriot Act allowing the President to name attorneys without the Senate's approval. If Bush gets rid of the "soft" judges, replaces them with "hardliners" who suit his fancy just before the clause in the Patriot Act gets sunseted, he'll have that many more neo-con friendly judges heading into the 2008 presidential election. It's a gift and an apology from Bush to whomever the Republican nominee will be.

Clinton never did anything like this. If he did, don't you think Republicans would've sacked him for it?

They certainly would have tried... Just look at the big deal the repubs made over Clinton replacing the travel coordinators... wasn't that called travel-gate?

But the real question isn't what did those eight attorneys do that got them fired, but what did the other attorneys do that didn't get them fired, too? Cuz if the eight were fired because they refused to kowtow to GOPressure, then......

__________________
I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.
~~ Socrates

As it turns out an aide to Gonzalles is reported to have resigned (fired) by his boss for haveing been responsible for these firings? If true? WHY"" after all, the firings were perfectly legitimate. RIGHT???? HMM!!!!!!

Any story that is negative about Republicans almost always "has legs." Like the Foley-page story. But the media "forgot" that Gary Studds also had a similar issue and he got to stay in orifice until he retired. Amazing that the 'unbiased liberal media' hounded Foley out of office when Studds wasn't hounded out of office.

The DNC biggest gifts are Hollywood, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, NYTimes, LA Times, etc., etc..

What's the big deal in firing 8 or so US Attorneys when klinton had ALL of them fired (except one) when he took office. I think Bush 1 also did this.

The only issue I see here is I read somewhere that the process of approving US attorneys has been changed due to the patriot act. New US attorneys won't have to get Senate confirmation. If this is true, this is BS and needs to be changed. (And I'm assuming here that US attorneys ALWAYS were confirmed by the Senate).

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

It's about "Moral Values". The difference between Studds and Foley is that Foely worked for the Holier-Than-Thou party that claims righteousness over everybody. When they're seen as hypocrites, the fall is much worse. Also, Foley was heading that task force to look after missing and exploited kids. Are you saying he should've kept that job?

Yes, the UN-Patriotic Act makes it clear that the President can now appoint judges without the senate's backing. But that clause in the Patriot Act is a sunset clause that is going to be debated this week on tv. Fearing that the newly controlled Democratic congress would sunset the clause, Bush got rid of the attorneys who weren't hardline enough for him, because his party is going to need all the help it can get in November 2008.

If your common sense can't lead you to that, than good night and good luck. Separation of powers is going to be the grand theme of the year now as the congress investigates this.

This is kind of funny since it was the Republicans whi were calling for Foley to get out.





The only issue I see here is I read somewhere that the process of approving US attorneys has been changed due to the patriot act. New US attorneys won't have to get Senate confirmation. If this is true, this is BS and needs to be changed. (And I'm assuming here that US attorneys ALWAYS were confirmed by the Senate).

Kramer[/quote] Thr biggest problem is that they can be appointed on and "intrim" basis, with no time, limit as to what contitutes an Intrim period. (It is open-ended)

It is now reported that "THEY" are calling for Gonzalles to resign over this mess. But he says he won't resign and will get to the bottom of the mishap. HMM. Since he is the Boss, an the ones who did it are just one step under him, The bottom should be very easy to find.

Just a quick fact check

You apparently forgot the Gerry Studds story.
Gerry Studds went back to his district and explained what happened and was re-elected by a landslide, despite the media, especially the conservative talk radio morons and the Conservative leaning Boston Herald being on his case 24-7.

And you also forgot the Foley story.
Foley wasn't hounded by the media, he had already resigned and checked into rehab before the story even broke.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

A president appoints US Attorneys for four years, after which time they offer their resignation. At least that's the way it worked until Clinton was elected and some of the US attorneys appointed by Bush simply refused to resign.
That's the unprecedented part, US Attorneys had always offered an incoming president a letter of resignation, so he wouldn't have to fire them, he could either accept or refuse their offer to resign.

Now, the Justice Department has fired 7 US Attorneys, apparently because they were prosecuting corrupt Republicans, and not indicting enough Democrats before elections, and not challenging the results of close elections that were won by Democrats.
In other words they were fired for not blatantly abusing their offices to support the Republican Party.
You may not believe this is big, but D. Kyle Sampson, the top aide to Mr. Gonzales has already resigned, so maybe he knows more about it than you.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Yeah they put Gonzales in the senate Debates,But Democrats not once investagted Janet Reno!

Thanks goober. That clears up the question about Clinton firing attorneys. They didn't offer their resignation as is the custom. But these 7 attorneys were Bush appointed, weren't they? This isn't normally done, firing a group US attorneys in the middle of the term that the President himself appointed.