Say Anything Blog

At the risk of turning SA into a Fred Thompson love fest…

I think we can take it.  I eagerly await the announcement of Fred’s candidacy.

"Regardless of who wins the White House, don’t we need a strong president?”

YEP!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

How about a smart one?

For all of the conservative bloggers pretending that this US Attorney firing is really no big deal, mark my word:

Gonzales will be gone by the end of the month.

Republicans are already expressing concern at his handling of the firing, and his shifting explanations (in front of congress while under oath, no less).

Bye bye Alberto!

If you are right, Bush is a damnable coward to allow the Demoncrats to push Gonzales out of office. They did nothing wrong, this is just more blood lust from the Left.

The Demoncrats are great at tearing things down, attacking others and destroying things; they are incapable of anything good, positive or decent. If they keep power that is what we will live with for a long time.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

It won’t just be Bush.  Republicans are about to fall in line and call for his resignation (the first, Sununu, just made the call).  They are doing this because they hope that it will slow or stop a full investigation of the matter, which will turn up some very dirty things indeed.  They were hoping that firing his aide (Kyle Sampson) would achieve this, but it just indicated that there was something worth going after.

“The Demoncrats are great at tearing things down, attacking others and destroying things;”

This made me laugh, in light of our current foreign policy.

For all of the conservative bloggers pretending that this US Attorney firing is really no big deal,

Well it’s not big deal when Democrat does it.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

It’s common practice for a president to clean house upon election (but not reelection).  It is not common practice for a president to fire US Attorneys between terms, especially a group this large at a time.

The “Clinton did it, too” argument is disingenuous at best.

a group this large

8 people??? 8????? You must be from North Dakota!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Imagine that? Democrats & voter fraud. Hmmm…

Gonzales will be gone by the end of the month.

Republicans are already expressing concern at his handling of the firing, and his shifting explanations (in front of congress while under oath, no less).

For once you are actually correct, but not for the reasons you think.  Gonzales should not be fired because he had those U.S. attorneys fired, but because he didn’t tell the press and congress to get stuffed when they started their little temper tantrum.

The only scandal here is the limp-wristed response by both Gonzales and Bush.  What will the Democrats politicize next?  ("President Bush used the oval office restroom but did not put the seat back down.  Congress responds with a special hearing.  Film at 11.")

Gonzales should not be fired because he had those U.S. attorneys fired, but because he didn’t tell the press and congress to get stuffed when they started their little temper tantrum.

Interesting.  Who exactly is speaking up for Gonzales and telling the press and congress to ‘get stuffed’?  Not Bush, he says he’s not happy and that the AG has some explaining to do to congress.  Not the Republicans.  Other than Sununu who spoke out against Gonzales, they’ve been largely silent on the issue.  Guliani, a former US Attorney won’t even comment.  A few pundits have chimed in, but they don’t mean much without official support.

You can talk about how they didn’t do anything wrong all day, but they are acting like they’ve been caught red-handed.

You can talk about how they didn’t do anything wrong all day, but they are acting like they’ve been caught red-handed.

And yet you can not produce any evidence of a crime or even point to a single law that might have been even possibly broken in this idiotic scandal.  Please, if there were some law that was broken what is it?

Defensiveness does not equate to guilt.  If you beat a dog, each and every day, it will eventually whimper when you just look at it.  That doesn’t mean that the dog did anything wrong.  Even the most innocent of defendants in a trial will seem nervous and defensive when put on the stand.

So, let me tell you John and all your Bush-hating buddies: Actually cite a law that has been broken here or go get stuffed.

Please, if there were some law that was broken what is it?

Lying to congress.

Laws aside, It’s a politically untenable position that you’re asking the Republicans to take. 

Take Nixon for example.  He stopped the investigation into his office.  Within his right as president?  Sure.  But it wasn’t something he could get away with in the political arena. 

Take Clinton.  He had an intern who “served at the pleasure of the President.” Did he break any laws?  No.  But that didn’t stop him from being dragged in front of Congress.  He could have refused, cited executive privilege, etc. but he couldn’t deal with the political pressure that would have followed.  He then tried lying under oath, which is illegal.

Also, I like how the Republicans are an abused dog in your analogy.  But what are these beatings that the dems have been giving them?  This seems like the first real smackdown in a long time.

go get stuffed.

Calm down, buddy.  We’re just talking politics, no need to get testy.

8 people??? 8????? You must be from North Dakota!

So when was the last time a group of attorneys this large was let go in the in the middle of the presidents term?  I’ll bet you can’t find a time in at least the last 25 years.

a group of attorneys this large

You mean more than two and less than ninety-three?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

You mean more than two and less than ninety-three?

I assume you’re talking about Clinton.  Do you know why those two attorneys were forced to resign?  One of them grabbed a reported by the throat on camera, the other bit a topless dancer after losing a big drug case.  You can hardly claim that they were let go for political reasons.

As for the 93, I’m talking about US Attorneys being replaced in the middle of a presidents term (in bold because you seem to have ignored it in my last post).  So yeah.  Get back to me.

John, you forgot to add:

-Not in a leap year
-Over the period of four months
-In the same year that Colts win the Super Bowl

I’ll just add in your other qualifiers:
-In the Last 25 years
-In the middle of a presidential term
-Not Clinton

Lying to congress.

If Gonzales lied to congress then let them punish him.  You still will have to explain how that makes the firing of eight attorneys a crime

Laws aside, It’s a politically untenable position that you’re asking the Republicans to take.

Take Nixon for example.  He stopped the investigation into his office.  Within his right as president?  Sure.  But it wasn’t something he could get away with in the political arena.

Nixon actually committed a crime (or at least ordered his people to commit a crime).  You still haven’t cited a single law that has been broken here.

Take Clinton.  He had an intern who “served at the pleasure of the President.” Did he break any laws?  No.  But that didn’t stop him from being dragged in front of Congress.  He could have refused, cited executive privilege, etc. but he couldn’t deal with the political pressure that would have followed.  He then tried lying under oath, which is illegal.

Huh?  Dragged in front of congress?  When did that happen?  The only time that Clinton has come close to testifying before congress is in the 9/11 commission.  You are right on one point, Clinton did commit perjury and therefore was guilty of a crime.  What that has to do with the current situation, in which no crime has been committed, remains as unclear as the rest of your argument.

As for the 93, I’m talking about US Attorneys being replaced in the middle of a presidents term (in bold because you seem to have ignored it in my last post).

I think he ignored your point on “in the middle of a presidential term” because it’s an asinine argument.  You have yet to explain where a crime was committed by firing these attorneys either at any time.  You haven’t even made a case for it being unethical.  So yeah.  Get back to us when you have a leg to stand on.

Seth,

You’re intentionally obfuscating (I never said ‘Not Clinton’, so let me be clear.

When a president is elected it is common practice for them to clean house, replacing all the former US Attorneys with their own appointees.  It is not common practice to fire the attorneys that you yourself hired.  When it is done, it is due to scandalous behavior (see the two examples above).

So my question is this:

When was the last time any president fired a group of his own appointed US Attorneys at once?

So if Clinton fired a group of his own appointed attorneys at once, let’s hear about who and why.  If a president fired a group of his own appointed US Attorneys at the beginning or end of his term, let me know.  If it was longer than 25 years ago, let’s see how long ago and under what conditions.  I think you’ll find that this is, in fact, a very unusual move.

When a president is elected it is common practice for them to clean house, replacing all the former US Attorneys with their own appointees.

When was it done prior to Clinton?  When were all of the attorneys fired at the start of a presidential term?

It is not common practice to fire the attorneys that you yourself hired.

The cited reason for the firing was that they were not doing their jobs… Wouldn’t you fire an employee who wasn’t doing their job?  Do you just keep them on the books?

You mean more than two and less than ninety-three?

I assume you’re talking about Clinton.

No, I was talking about 8 out of about a hundred US Attorneys, out of about 2 million seven hundred and twenty thousand, four hundred and sixty two civilian employees of the Federal Government (as of DECEMBER 2005).
2,720,462

You’re right! Eight does seem like an awfully big number

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

The biggest joke here is the Dems accusing the Republicans of “playing politics”.  Besides the fact that it’s the job of political parties and politicians to “play politics”, the real issue is whether or not that playing politics(done equally by both Parties) is either beneficial to, detrimental to, or neutral for, the country at large.  I fail to see how firing eight employees, for any reason, is in any way harmful to the country, in any way at all.  However, the Dems playing politics with the war on the terrorists and with our national economy is definitely detrimental to the country at large.  Losing the war, which is what the Dems want, is only beneficial to the terrorists, and to their lunatic fringe contingent of voters(one and the same, if you ask me).  Let’s get all worked up about the real destructive type of “playing politics”, OK?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It is not common practice to fire the attorneys that you yourself hired.  When it is done, it is due to scandalous behavior (see the two examples above).

So when were U.S. attorneys fired because of scandalous behavior?  It would seem that you are appealing to history as an indicator of current guilt but there is no history there even by your own admission:

So my question is this:

When was the last time any president fired a group of his own appointed US Attorneys at once?

So, you’re argument seems to be: It’s never been done before which makes it a scandal and if it has been done before it was for scandalous reasons.  And yet you still haven’t told us what the scandalous reasons were.  You’re worse at this kind of prevarication than even my 4 year olds.

Actually, firing US Attorneys that were appointed by someone else is the definition of firing “for political reasons”, wouldn’t it?
On the other hand, firing your own employees is generally how it’s done in the world.  It’s usually for reasons of inadequate performance.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It is not common practice to fire the attorneys that you yourself hired.

It’s also not common practice to boink the chubby interns in the Oval Office...First time for everything!

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

It doesn’t have to be a crime, and I never claimed it was.  All I claimed was that Gonzales would be gone before April.

It is, however, politically stupid in that it reeks of playing politics with public servants who have taken an oath to not let politics interfere with their jobs.  This combined with the allegations of political pressure from senators who relayed their concerns to Rove paints a nasty picture of unethical behavior.  Enough of a picture to warrant further investigation.

Now if they truly believe they’ve done nothing wrong, that’s fine.  They can muster up a little courage and tell the public what they did and why.  But that’s not what they did.  They admitted that they ‘mishandled’ it, and fired the aide whom they deemed responsible.  So there are still a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of troubling emails to be examined.

I’m going out for the night, so that’s it for me.  I still say Gonzales will be gone by the end of the month, if not the week.  Nobody’s willing to put anything on the line for him, he’s twisting in the wind.

When was it done prior to Clinton?  When were all of the attorneys fired at the start of a presidential term?

Alright, one more.  Reagan did this in 1981.

John: So, this is a “style” complaint?  The Pres had every right to fire incompetent attorneys, but he didn’t do it the right way?  Maybe you guys have way too much time on your hands; better to devote it to supporting our country in time of crisis, rather than undermining the President for political purposes.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Here is what I find so depressing about all the above comments:

I am a Democrat, and I remember full well, when Republicans, foaming at the mouth, would ask me how could I support Clinton in light of the Lewinsky bjs. My response was simple: You are right, clinton is an idiot and should resign in disgrace.

Almost all of them would look at me in a state of pure shock, thinking that I would in a knee jerk fashion defend clinton’s behavior as did 90% of the Dems.

I just stated that, even though I am a die hard Democrat, what clinton did was despicable.

Now, as the Republicans have power, I ask them “Perhaps Bush/Cheney mislead us into Iraq and it may be a huge mistake”...and their response overwhelmingly is usually, “well, Clinton had 8 years to kill bin Laden” or
“maybe the President knows more than you” or “prove he was lying”

Sadly, the Republicans, just like their detested Democrats who supported clinton, have turned their rational brain off and just indulge in mindlessly parroting the party line.

So it is with this insane, but “Clinton fired 93” defense of what Bush did. As if the two are even remotely similiar.

Its like saying that Sirhan killing RFK is the same as a policeman shooting a bank robber.

A republican would make the comparison that since they both killed somebody, the crimes are equal, when any thinking person would dismiss this analogy as ridiculous.

So, with this situation of firing U.S. Attys. No one is saying Bush does not have the right to do this, it is the context of WHY they were fired that makes all the difference.

Yet, most of the above Bush apologists seem to miss this CRUCIAL difference.

In conclusion, what ails america is the inability of both sides to see reality, regardless of who’s “side” they are on.

I just wish, just one, just one, Republican can look me square in the and agree that some of bush’s policies and war planning (and this gonzalez issue) have been disastrous, not unlike Clinton’s inexcusable behaviour.

It will be interesting to see any comments to the above.