^Thanks

3/19/2007 9:13:16 PM

my favorite part of all this was how White House and Justice Dept. tried to throw Harriet Miers under the bus, a la Scooter Libby.

funny thing was, it didn't catch on.

3/19/2007 9:14:16 PM

I’ve been busy, so it has taken me a while to get back to this thread. At any rate, it really gets quite tedious having to explain this situation to so many of you. I mean, you don’t even fucking know recent history.

I know Clinton-Reno got rid of US attorneys for political reasons because I lived through it--while many of you were still learning to go potty by yourselves. Clinton was smarter than Bush, though--Clinton cleaned house of nearly all US attorneys to get just one or two. Believe this or not--I don’t really give a damn. And I’m really only defending Bush-Gonzales to the extent that the media reaction is utterly biased when compared with the coverage of the Clinton-Reno actions.

ATTORNEY GENERAL [RENO] SEEKS RESIGNATIONS FROM PROSECUTORS
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Special to The New York Times
1112 words
24 March 1993
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, March 23 -- Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a 'critical decision' in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days. While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031307/content/blank.guest.html

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00612F73C540C778EDDAA0894DB494D81

(I included the link above to show that the story is a legitimate article from the NYT. You have to pay to get the full article now, and the link above goes only to an abstract.)

Then, Clinton pardoned his old buddy Rosti. But none of that whole sorry mess could have been politically motivated, right?

Bill Clinton pardons Dan Rostenkowski

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/22/clinton.pardon.02/

Editorial concerning the firings

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_498287.html

PS:

Quote :

"dear hooksaw RevoltNow, you are wrong. rolling your eyes at facts might make you feel good, but it doesnt make your correct. thanks for playing being an asshole."

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM. Reason : .]

3/19/2007 11:57:12 PM

CLINTON DID IT

3/20/2007 12:08:14 AM

^ Worthless. How about addressing my post? I mean, you're the resident know-it-all, right?

3/20/2007 12:10:35 AM

Doesn't absolve Bush/Gonzalez from being shady as fuck.

3/20/2007 6:48:48 AM

dear hook.

how does that "chocolate butter pussy" feel?

regards,

joe.

3/20/2007 9:32:26 AM

^^ You evidently didn't read the following from me:

Quote :

"And I’m really only defending Bush-Gonzales to the extent that the media reaction is utterly biased when compared with the coverage of the Clinton-Reno actions."

^ We can discuss the delights of "chocolate butter pussy" later. Right now, I'm enjoying owning your asses--yet again (long, echoing, maniacal laugh).

3/20/2007 11:39:56 AM

Quote :

""And I’m really only defending Bush-Gonzales to the extent that the media reaction is utterly biased when compared with the coverage of the Clinton-Reno actions.""

If you can't see how the two scenarios are drastically different, then you can't be helped.

You aren't owning shit expect yourself old man. Go choke on your walker.

3/20/2007 11:53:57 AM

^ I don't know, you seem pretty much owned to me, boy. I mean, you didn't really address anything, did you?

And you seem kind of upset--am I making you question your beliefs? You don't like that, do you? Why don't you go choke your chicken, which I'm sure is the usual for you.

3/20/2007 12:07:52 PM

Sure I addressed it, can you not read

Quote :

"If you can't see how the two scenarios are drastically different, then you can't be helped."

3/20/2007 12:24:04 PM

^ Did you offer any evidence concerning this supposedly drastic difference--other than your ill-informed opinion?

3/20/2007 12:55:47 PM

This isn't a provide evidence scenario. I mean, would you like me to produce some sort of scientific peer reviewed study?

Sometimes, common sense is enough.

You are apparently lacking in this department

3/20/2007 1:02:05 PM

^ Yes, I would like a peer-reviewed study--and then I'll summarily dismiss it just as your comrades do concerning global warming.

Quote :

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Albert Einstein

3/20/2007 1:09:48 PM

"folksy quotes should be taken as fact" ~ me, 2007

3/20/2007 1:14:31 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17702224/

Senate has removed AG's ability to appoint without authorization.

3/20/2007 1:19:46 PM

the morale boost call from the prez is almost always a sign that they're about to get canned.

3/20/2007 1:21:29 PM

Quote :

"just as your comrades do concerning global warming. "

Who the fuck are my comrades? I haven't even seriously commented on global warming in this section you halfling.

3/20/2007 1:24:42 PM

^ No, I'm a whole-ling. It's your arguments that are half-baked.

^^^^ Einstein. . ."folksy"?

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 1:33:02 PM

Quote :

"Worthless. How about addressing my post? I mean, you're the resident know-it-all, right? "

How did mentioning Clinton address this thread?

Do you even think?

3/20/2007 1:58:38 PM

^ (1) To point out the OMFG hypocrisy of the media and many Bush critics posting here, and (2) to clearly illustrate that what was done to US attorneys during a previous president's administration was actually worse than the recent AG actions at issue. Is that plain enough for you.

3/20/2007 2:04:47 PM

Quote :

"^^^^ Einstein. . ."folksy"? "

the quote is folksy.

Quote :

"to clearly illustrate that what was done to US attorneys during a previous president's administration was actually worse than the recent AG actions at issue. Is that plain enough for you."

i really don't understand how you could still think this.

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 2:07:48 PM

Quote :

"to clearly illustrate that what was done to US attorneys during a previous president's administration was actually worse than the recent AG actions at issue. Is that plain enough for you."

o rly?

And since #1 relies on #2, you have nothing.

3/20/2007 2:11:35 PM

Quote :

"to clearly illustrate that what was done to US attorneys during a previous president's administration was actually worse than the recent AG actions at issue."

Are you smoking dope?

3/20/2007 2:41:29 PM

haha, I thought the "AG" up there in the post about the Senate bill was referring to Alberto Gonzalez. I was like "can they do that???" >.<

3/20/2007 2:41:50 PM

Quote :

""to clearly illustrate that what was done to US attorneys during a previous president's administration was actually worse than the recent AG actions at issue. Is that plain enough for you.""

jesus christ, how many times do we have to say this - that statement is blatantly wrong. There's no opinion, there's no slant, there's no spinning or bias - it's just plain wrong.

Quote :

"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 considered one that the occupant "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 new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[58] 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.[59]"

3/20/2007 2:48:48 PM

3/20/2007 3:01:59 PM

Quote :

""folksy quotes should be taken as fact" ~ me, 2007"

LOL, that's some golden stuff right there.

3/20/2007 3:44:46 PM

^^^ Can you get off wikipedia.com for a fucking second and come back to our planet? Are you saying that The New York Times' article was wrong or that it is a fabrication?

And since you love wikipedia.com so damn much, here is one of the criticisms of Reno:

Quote :

"Requesting the resignation of every United States Attorney shortly after taking office in March of 1993, prompting accusations of partisanship retribution for investigations of allies of President Clinton.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno

BTW, the forced resignations by Reno were referred to as the "March Massacre." And in 1993, the Republicans objected to the move because it was clearly politically motivated. Many of you don't remember these things because you were too busy watching Power Rangers.

Bonus link:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_21123146

3/20/2007 10:16:55 PM

Quote :

"BTW, the forced resignations by Reno were referred to as the "March Massacre." And in 1993, the Republicans objected to the move because it was clearly politically motivated. Many of you don't remember these things because you were too busy watching Power Rangers. "

and the democrats cried bloody hell when Reagan removed the US Attorneys when he entered office in 1981. Doesn't change the fact that this mid-term firing, plus the blatant lies by Alberto Gonzales is new. Christ wake the fuck up. The spoils system dates back to Andrew Jackson. No one is decrying that. We're decrying the blatant politicization of the US Attorneys office during the last election cycle.

you claim to be nonpartisan, but in reality, you are as nonpartisan as Bill O'Reilly (read: political hack)

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 10:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 10:26:03 PM

^ Oh, shut the fuck up, you stupid asshole. You don't know shit about me--and you're wrong.

You mention the spoils system and blatant politicization in the same sentence and you fail to notice the continuum? Yes, favoritism and disfavor still abound--in both parties and in between--even if by other names.

Even though it's not best practice, the type of action in question--and much worse--has been happening for generations. Thanks for making my point for me. QED.

3/20/2007 11:15:56 PM

i just know about you from what you post. It is nothing but, "I'm not a conservative...but clinton..."

and the spoils system has been around for a long time, but this is one of the first times that the spoils system was directly abused by the executive for something other than rewarding their friends.

3/20/2007 11:17:35 PM

^ You. . .must. . .be. . .fucking OUT OF YOUR MIND! And you work at the GA?! Holy shit!

3/20/2007 11:27:27 PM

I'm not out of my mind at all.

got back to claiming to not be a conservative bill o'reilly.

3/20/2007 11:28:28 PM

hooksaw loses again

3/21/2007 9:08:48 AM

^ LOL! You wish, bitch! Just look below to see how idiotic your claim is.

^^^^

Quote :

"and the spoils system has been around for a long time, but this is one of the first times [sic] that the spoils system was directly abused by the executive for something other than rewarding their friends."

nutsmackr

You actually posted, "one of the first times"? Do you even bother to think before you type? Spoils system: "The postelection practice of rewarding loyal supporters of the winning candidates and party with appointive public offices." If the "executive" did "something other than" reward it's friends, its not the spoils system, dumbass.

Quote :

"got [sic] back to claiming to not be a conservative bill o'reilly."

nutsmackr

I don't know where I need to "got back to," but I have always been clear that I am a conservative. I am NOT, however, a Republican--there is a difference and a distinction. And I don't know what's fueling the O'Reilly obsession, but you are the most ridiculous item of the day.



[Edited on March 21, 2007 at 1:18 PM. Reason : PWNT.]

3/21/2007 1:02:25 PM

hooksaw loses again

3/21/2007 1:27:38 PM

3/21/2007 1:49:35 PM

He's not able to see the difference between what Reno did and what Gonzales did.

And thus,

hooksaw loses again

3/21/2007 3:23:02 PM

omg, hooksaw made fun of my dialect/vernacular. oh the horror.

3/21/2007 5:28:57 PM

^you're one to talk, grammar-boy

3/21/2007 5:52:53 PM

Quote :

"Documents: Gonzales OK’d firing attorneys WASHINGTON - Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he was not involved in any discussions about the impending dismissals of U.S. attorneys. On Friday night, however, the Justice Department revealed Gonzales’ participation in a Nov. 27 meeting where such plans were discussed. ... Politicians in both major parties have called for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ resignation amid the furor over the firings of U.S. attorneys. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17763780/ "

oh, and before hooknuts runs off on another tangent... Reagan released all of Carter's US Attorney appointees. Bush Sr. released Reagan's. Clinton released Bush's. Bush Jr. released Clintons. and guess what? no one cared. why? because it is expected from every incoming administration.

and your Rostenkowski bit is a red herring. OH NOES CLINTON PARDONED ROSTENKOWSKI. OH NOES GEORGE H W BUSH PARDONED CONVICTED IRAN-CONTRA FIGURES FROM REAGAN ADMIN.. OH NOES REAGAN PARDONED 400+ CRIMINALS. OH NOES GERALD FORD PARDONED NIXON. OH NOES NIXON PARDONED SPIRO AGNEW AND 800+ OTHER CRIMINALS. OH NOES EISENHOWER PARDONED 1100+ CRIMINALS. OH NOES GEORGE MOTHERFUCKING WASHINGTON PARDONED THE GUYS FROM THE WHISKEY REBELLION OH NOES HOOKSAW NEVER SHUTS THE FUCK UP.

anyhow... back to the issue:

the thing is, NO PRESIDENT has ever fired their own US Attorneys for political paybacks. nor has any president tried to covertly change the US Code under the guise of "fightin' terrar" so that they could dismiss their Attorneys and replace them with sycophants for indefinite periods without having to get Congress to approve the "emergency" nominations.

This was a well planned conspiracy by the White House and the Justice Dept, and now AG Gonzalez has been caught in a boldface lie.


which is a bummer for Mister Gonzales. who like Rummy, will go down as a disgraced liar.

and a bummer for you and your fellow apologists/tools.

but is a real bummer for this beleagured adminstration. just wait for sworn congressional testimony by whitehouse officials to start.

when those floodgates get opened, you know what that means right?












[Edited on March 24, 2007 at 3:59 AM. Reason : ]

3/24/2007 3:30:10 AM

Quote :

"^you're one to talk, grammar-boy"

there is a difference between vernacular/dialect and grammar

3/24/2007 10:25:15 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/05/gonzales.testimony/index.html?eref=rss_politics

It's a fucked up sad state of the world that we live in if you have to be coached before telling the truth.

4/5/2007 8:43:30 PM

if his story is said enough times, he just might start to believe it.

4/6/2007 12:02:00 AM

^^^ha

4/6/2007 12:12:25 AM

man, i'll tell ya, I'm really surprised Gonzalez is holding out so long. i expected he would have resigned within a few days of the OP.

I'm surprised GWB is spending so much of his political capital on this guy. If theres one thing you can say about George, he's loyal to his friends.

4/6/2007 3:19:38 AM

so, why are we on a witch hunt against Gonzalez, now? what was the ostensible purpose in asking him about these firings anyway? Even if he did come out and say "yeah, we canned em for political reason, so what?" what would anyone have done about it? i'm so sick of this partisan bullshit.

4/6/2007 11:54:04 AM

Quote :

"If theres one thing you can say about George, he's loyal to his friends. "

to a fault

^I don't want anyone in office blantanly lying to the public...he should be canned.

4/6/2007 12:33:42 PM

i'm sorry, but there are plenty of politicians who lie to the public. why should we single out Gonzales? Hell, Clinton lied about a BJ. If it's the "lie" that people care about, then let's not concern ourselves with what the lie was about, let's treat it as a lie; and, let's be consistent and root out all of the liars, not just the ones that are the focus of the current political circuses.

4/6/2007 12:46:53 PM