The issue isn't about firing supposedly politicaly nuetral attorneys who refuse to expedite cases motivated by political concerns - it's about lying to congress under oath.

Let me see - another on the list of Ok Activities for Repubs only.

Next question - how and why is it best for Americans to have political party affiliation be a strong force in the justice department?

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

No, but since the attorney's broke tradition, that explains why Clinton fired them instead of accepting their resignations as traditional.

Bush/Gonzales has yet to explain why he fired these 8 attorneys...but as one of the other of 5 threads on this topic says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/wa...ewanted=1&_r=1

Sampson is the guy that stepped down. Gonzales's chief of staff.

And your proof is?

Your reasoned argument?

Anything except invective to add to the assessment?

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

The problem is that Gonzalez was caught lying to Congress - but the repubs are spinning and the media is buying. Bush could fire them for any or no reason. As it happens they were fired for purely partisan reasons. Now, if only Gonzalez would have been willing to admit that it was a failed attempt score a needed coup for the repubs that got these guys fired - provided the memos between harriet Miers and Karl Rowe about firing them, then there would be no scandal.

Lying under oath - I believe current conservative standards allow that for republicans.

__________________
And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, Jan. 29, 2007

And Janet Reno Fired 93 U.S. attorneys back when Bill Clinton was president. And NOT ONE!!! Democrat lashed out on him!!! And When Joycelyn Elders was Fired by White house Chief of Staff Leon Panetta for that 1994 election NBC,CBS,ABC And Nor CNN reported this.And Get this NOT ONE MEMBER Of the press asked Hillary Clinton about her husbands actions when Janet Reno fired 93 US attorneys when he was president. It seems the liberal media is a double standard.Liberal Media thinks BILL CLINTON IS A SAINT AND CAN DO NO WRONG!And Democrats Want Alberto Gonzales to Resign? Why didnt they speak out against Janet Reno? Back in 1998 when she fired 93 U.S. attorneys?

Why were they fired?

__________________
"There were no D-Day Heroes in 1973" - Cold Chisel Khe Sanh

Read here
Feature Article September 1, 1997

And here's the thing: they don't have to...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

How does Gonzalez lying affect the ability of the President to fire them, for any reason he wants?

You may not like it, and the whole situation may stink to high heaven, but the firings aren't "illegal"...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So what if Libby lied or if Gonzales lied or if Bush lied!

Clinton lied too!!!

What Reno did, at the beginning of a new administration, is the same thing that other administrations have done, including Reagan and Bush II.

The recent firing of eight US Attorneys, is simply not the same thing, no matter how many times Bush apologists try to make it so. The circumstances are completely different, and in this case, there are some serious questions about the motives behind these firings, questions that deserve to be answered.

It's not the same thing.

New presidents commonly replace federal judges all the time.

What makes this so unusual is that Bush:

1)replaced judges he appointed himself.
2)replaced them in their second terms, which is very odd.
3)replaced them after Republicans complained about them not going after Democrats after the last election.
4)replaced the judge who threw the book at Randall Cunningham.
5)replaced them just before that clause in the Patriot Act is about to be sunsetted, where a president can name his picks without the approval of the senate. It looks like the president will have to now get senate approval again, and Bush was going to beat out the clock and get some far-righties up there quick.
6)didn't have the Attorney General run this by the government beforehand, which made it look like they were covering something up.

This is much different because it sets a dangerous precedent since the passing of the Patriot Act. Alberto Gonzales might have to resign because of this. It looks like a blatant abuse of power.

Gonzales LIED to congress. Under oath.

That is an extraordinarily weak basis for a claim he lied under oath.

They could, for instance, submit the attorneys to congress at a future date and be fully in line with his promise.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

What a boring "scandal"...