Say what?!

“Hillarycare” was a disaster.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005987

And what about the Clinton’s use of IRS audits to silence their opponents?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14702
The “abuses” of the Patriot act are childs play by comparison.

Oh, and let’s not forget vote fraud.
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=list_pages_categories&cid=24
That’s sure to go up with a Dem in the White House and AG’s instructed not to worry about the problem.

Oh, wait. Those last two would be in the “deliberate” category, so unless she gets caught, they wouldn’t technically be “screw-ups,” would they?

And Bush offering “Strong Support” for anyone is the kiss of death. I had thought that Bush would keep Gonzales on for awhile since he will have trouble getting another constitutional hatchetman thru a democratic senate confirmation. But now I’m beginning to wonder.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=434

It’s not about the AG’s. It’s about the Dem gravy train coming to an end.

That’s right.

But you misconstrued my point. It isn’t that it’s ok because “Clinton did it too.” It’s that the President, whoever he is, has the right to do this. The fact that nobody criticized Clinton of Regan for doing it is that it was their prerogative. This is a witch-hunt, pure and simple.

“Now we can see the wheels coming off an administration that obviously can’t get its alibi straight.” – kritter

The only “wheels coming off” are the ones the Dems are deliberately knocking off in their use of this as a political weapon against Bush. It isn’t that Bush was angry with the AG’s because they weren’t nailing enough Dems for vote fraud, it’s that they weren’t going after whoever committed that crime. It’s not Bush’s fault that vote fraud is a nearly wholely owned Dem franchise. And they are angry with him because they’re been caught and the source of their power is drying up.

The Dem’s attitude seems to be . . .
“what’s jettisoning a couple of hundred years of traditional governance and crippling the presidency in perpetuity, as compared to the opportunity of possibly indicting Karl Rove? We must keep things in perspective!”

They don’t care if they sink the ship of state, as long as they get to be in charge as it goes down.

> DLS- It will be sweet justice after Hillary wins,
> and can use W’s screw-ups to hide her own. ha ha

She won’t make as many screw-ups as W, either.

Her competence as well as ambition coupled with the serious lefty underneath her current electoral disguise is what worries those of us who aren’t left of Nanci Pelosi.

> Dems are blowing so out of proportion solely to make trouble for the President.

This is routine. That’s been standard operating procedure for the Dims since they have nothing positive to offer as an alternative. The Dims are probably desperate that post-2006 they are not winning. Their motive here is an eagerness to see the Bush administration and by association, the GOP, lose more prior to the 2008 elections.

Note they shouldn’t be too complacent in expecting Hillary Clinton to easily win in 2008 (with out without Obama as VP). Gore was strongly positioned in 2000 and then proceeded to lose to DUBYA. In fact, Gore was leading strongly all the way to the debates, then gave anti-Dim (normal) voters some hope that Bush might win after all, once Gore proceeded to lose the debates(!!!) to … DUBYA(!!!). (hahahahahaha)

It would be sweet justice if Hillary was complacent as well as her arrogant and conceited self and turned off so many voters that even one of the GOP lightweights won in 2008.

I am heartened by some of the Reagan-era conservatives coming forward and calling for a strengthening of the constitutionally mandated checks and balances. It is up to Congress to reduce some of the excesses of the Patriot Act, as this fiasco has shown that an unethical administration will abuse any extra power for political gain.

Search Results (sorted by Document ID Number, reverse chronological order ):

89 Items containing exact words united states attorney in the same order.
0 Items containing the words united states attorney near each other in any order.
0 Items containing all of the words: united states attorney , but not near each other.
1237 Items containing one or more of the words: united states attorney

Listing of 89 Items containing exact words united states attorney in the same order.

1 . Nomination: PN1811-103
Steven Scott Alm, to be United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii, Department of Justice; vice Daniel A. Bent, resigned.
Received: September 26, 1994
Referred: Senate Judiciary
Latest Action: October 07, 1994 – Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.
…..

Actually I did know- that’s the excuse for an overly aggressive executive branch? What a joke. Clinton was replacing prosecutors appointed by Reagan. Bush also replaced all of Clinton’s appointees. You guys don’t get it. Rostenkowski was convicted by the Clinton appointee- so obviously that wasn’t the point.

The issue here is not “but Clinton did it too!” but the fact that Tree Shrub wanted to use the Patriot Act to subvert the constitutional role of the Senate . He replaced a few key prosecutors who were doing their jobs too well, thus politicizing the entire Justice Dept. Now we can see the wheels coming off an administration that obviously can’t get its alibi straight. The next president will have a precedent for whatever unethical activity it desires thanks to Rove and Miers. Heckuva job, Bushie!

mms://realserver.bu.edu:554/w/b/wbur/onpoint/2007/03/op_0316a.wma

Source Site

Cummins, a Republican (like the other 7) doesn’t like the way the situation has been handled….especially in terms of the “performance” excuse.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AG

MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2001
(202) 514-2007

http://WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TDD (202) 514-1888

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Attorney General Ashcroft said, “We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President ’s priorities.”

Sounds like “transition process” is the same as replacement or firing at the change over of administrations is a common practice.

” Many years ago, a cousin – who had been a career state trooper – was elected sheriff of my rural county. The chief deputy had been a longtime supporter of the previous sheriff, whom he had defeated, and he wanted to get rid of the man. He called another cousin, a lawyer, to ask how best to do it.

He was told he could fire him at any time because deputies serve at the pleasure of the sheriff. He called the man in, and asked, “Are you aware that deputies serve at the pleasure of the sheriff.”

“Yes, sir,” the deputy answered.

“Well, then,” the sheriff continued, “My pleasure has ended.”

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, as do all political appointees. He can fire them at any time for any reason, or no reason at all beyond the “end of his pleasure.”

Civil service protection indeed protects the intransigent, the intractable, the incompetent, and the outright hostile employees. While the old patronage system had its flaws, at least the Administration clearly owned the acts of all its employees.

Posted by: Adjoran at February 24, 2007 12:00 PM “

Gotta love it.

Such a wise ‘kritter.’

Say, did you know . . . ?

“In 1993, the Clinton administration demanded the resignation of ALL U.S. Attorneys.
. . . .
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 …”

No? I didn’t think so!

In any case looks like the error was corrected, and now we are learning a whole lot about the character and daily operations of this white house. I actually will be highly entertained if Mr Rove, Ms Miers and Mr Gonzales are subpoenaed and force to testify under oath. Then we’ll see who takes the gloves off and gets down and dirty, lol!

Think your plea of “They should have been nice� would stand very long?

The answer is – you bet you would be held liable.

If Congress doesn’t want to vote for whatever reason – they do not vote or they vote no. It’s that simple. Why should they be given a “well it was late” excuse when you and I cannot. Your just signing a mortgage, they’re creating laws to run a nation.

You ought to know simple responsibility Kim.

Think your plea of “They should have been nice� would stand very long?

Maybe you don’t remember a time when the AG was not a political hack, but served the country, but I certainly do. What is inexcusable is using a terror attack as a crass political opportunist.