« Today's crappy cell phone pic | Main | "We fight them in Iraq so we won't have to fight them here" »

The scandal thus far

I've been busy lately, so I haven't had much time yet to comment on the scandalous scandal involving Gonzalez and the U.S. Attorneys. I haven't been following it closely, so maybe someone could help me understand the details. I just know that it's very terrible and scandalous because I guess it's illegal now to fire lawyers, or something. Or for Republicans to fire them. Or whatever. Anyway, the important thing is that it's very terrible and wrong and stop bringing Clinton into it too because that was totally different.


Geez, have you still not learned to simply accept what the unbiased, objective media reports to you?

It's all very simple: for Bill Clinton, perjury is not a crime if what you're lying to cover up wasn't a crime. As the media clearly reported, the Republicans were simply trying to imprison him for getting a few blow jobs. Petty Partisan Politics. For Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, OTOH, covering up a non-crime is still a crime, because, well, they're obviously evil, as clearly portrayed by the unbiased, objective media.

For Bill Clinton, firing 93 U.S. attorneys (no matter what cases they're in the middle of) because they aren't pursuing your agenda (i.e. for political reasons) is perfectly acceptable, because they're political appointees, and he had the RIGHT to un-appoint them for any (or no) reason. They serve at his pleasure, after all. For Bush, firing 8 such political appointees is wrong because he may have done it for political reasons, and besides, some of them may be in the middle of important cases. Duh! Can't you see that the difference is night and day?

I hope this clears things up and shows you why the media is only reporting the version of the story you need to know. You obviously get confused thinking about those unimportant details.

It's pretty simple if you ask me:

Bush lied and prosecutors cried.


Rove is evil.

I'm not sure which.

While I find the whole thing a bit slimy, this is politics so whatever. Prosecutors were fired, for the most part, because W wanted to use the positions to play favorites, and really, that's kind of yeuchy but totally expected, and not because he's a Republican. It is what it is. All political appointees serve at the pleasure of POTUS and that's that. Once again it's the lying that's causing the bigger problem. Why the heck did they lie about it? They fired people because they wanted to replace them with others. Fine. Whatever. Then they had to go and lie about it and say that it was for cause. Why?! What is wrong with them? Did they really expect the litigators to just suck that up? Of course they were going to kvetch about it. Wouldn't you? If you were fired because your boss wanted to hire his friend's child? And then proceeded to bad mouth you in your industry when people asked why you'd been let go?

ANY such political appointee can be fired for any reason, or even NO REASON at all.

There's really no "scandal" here, because bottom-line, the current President, like any President, has a right to replace ANY and every appointee he's made, as well as any appointees left over from previous administrations...for any reason, or even no reason at all.

Congress has a right to ask "Why" they were fired.

They are NOT entitled to any meaningful answer, other than, "Because I felt like it."

Likewise, Congress also has a right to ask about the WH maintenance schedule and again, the only answer they're entitled to is, "Because I said so."

Hey! Sometimes the answers aren't nearly as good as the questions.

I'd like to hear Bush say that he fired them "because I felt like it." That'd be better than the hemming and hawing and non-answers and the pitiful "sorry these wonderful public servants' names were sullied during this whole affair" pablum.

I would too.

Generally, in such situations, the more you say, the worse things get.

When first asked, he should've just said, "They just weren't part of the team," or some other such nebulous inanity.

When asked, "What does that even mean," he could've just given that goofey laugh he's famous for, "Heh-heh-heh," and been done with it.

Or he could've gone another way altogether, "Whoa, those eight guys were attorneys? I thought they were the janitors. Well, they're fired too...I guess. Now get me the maintenance Department. I've got a bone to pick with those guys."

Or he could have straightened out his biggets pre-Presidency mistake and announced a blockbuster trade: the 8 attorneys for Sammy Sosa.

Oh stop lying. It isn't against the law to unappoint appointees, both Clinton AND REAGAN dismissed them all.

What is illegal is to fire a worker in retaliation for that worker refusing to follow your criminal, anti-American, treasonous agenda. That IS illegal.

Gonzales and Chimp both say, a la Reagan, "mistakes were made".

Why are they saying that? You morons are all saying that NO mistakes were made. Are you all calling President Chimp and his boy Chico ... LIARS?

It just fits into King George's pattern of hatred and disdain for America and the Constitution.

That's why it is news. Well OK, that isn't news, it is a little redundant. We all know that Bush hates America.

"Or he could have straightened out his biggets pre-Presidency mistake and announced a blockbuster trade: the 8 attorneys for Sammy Sosa." (Fred)

I'm sure worse trades have been made, though Sammy's pretty much over the hill now-a-days.

Post a comment