News-Record.com

Just one question, Mr. Chitwood. What has Bush done here that was illegal?

What he did may not sit well with the drunkard from Ma. and his cohorts, but because they have nothing of substance to offer in the form of leadership and are trying to appease the Daily Kos crowd that voted for them, this doesnt make the firings of US attorneys by the Bush Adm. illegal.

No the firings weren't .. and neither were the re-appointments .. but red faced Senators wearing red, blue, and purple ties are unhappy with "the provision slipped into the Patriot Act Re-authorization Conference Report in 2006 which granted the Attorney General the authority to make indefinite interim appointments of U.S. Attorneys - who can then serve indefinitely without Senate confirmation" because it circumvents the advise and consent clause.

tell me oh great one .. about advice vs. advise

I hear your call.

advice = noun. I will give you some great advice, don't take any wooden nickles.

advise = verb. I advise you to heed my advice.

It seems to me that this administration takes great joy in doing things its way, legal or illegal. It seems we are being pushed to see just how far they can go. It seems they can go a long way.

Just one question Mr. neocon. Why don't you respond to the letter?

I realize it's much easier to resort to the tried and true method of bashing Ted Kennedy and "the Daily Kos crowd" (whoever that is), but if you're not going to address the letter, why don't you keep your opinions to yourself.

As for my opinion: Mr. Chitwood, I applaud your letter.

"Keep my opinions to myself"? Funny, I thought that was the purpose of this forum. I asked what was done that was illegal. That is addressing the letter. Just because it ruffled your feathers, doesn't mean it has no bearing on the subject.

I wonder (not really) if Mr. Chitwood, the red faced drunk from Ma., and the liberals who post here would be so concerned about "the greatest constitutional crisis of our time" if it were a democrat in the WH?

They have no problem with a democratic operative stealing and destroying government documents to cover the ass of 'one of their own', but let Bush [legally] fire a few attorneys and it's a "constitutional crisis".

They are sooooo out of ideas they have to manufacture scandals to cover their own shortcomings.

Democrats are making a mistake focusing on this attorney firing issue with the sole purpose of sticking it to Bush while ignoring more important issues. I think the American people realize this:

Recent approval ratings of Congress are back down. I thought the new Democratic led Congress was going to be the panacea to all the countries ills.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26914

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi has switched jobs from House speaker to that of Sec. of State and has decided to meet with the terrorist sponsoring govt of Syria. Nice.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2995828&page=1

That is curious Neo, Sandy Burger stuffs classified documents into his pants, steals them from the Natl. Archives and destroys them, admits to it, yet no outcry from the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16706-2005Mar31.html

"28% job approval for congress"...that's a mighty shallow gene pool there. :]

Well the Berger think is a question. I can only assume that the Federal District Attorney, who was appointed by the Republican Administration with the consent of the Republican Senate and was assigned to prosecute the Democrat Berger, was one of the DA's Alberto wanted fired - due to incomplete prosecution of this bastard.

right?

For the record, my feathers are hardly ruffled. I was merely pointing out that you (despite your assertions) were not really addressing the issue, but rather resorting to hackneyed tactics to divert attention by bringing up Kennedy and painting the 72% of the people who do not approve of the administration as a fringe element.

And now you bring up a totally unrelated topic like the Sandy Berger incident to -- once again -- divert from the topic. Since you brought it up (and apparently I'm taking the bait by following this tangent), who has come to Berger's defense and said it's "no problem"? According to Dan's link, Berger's about to plead guilty. I'm fine with that.

As for your opinions and this forum, I thought it's purpose was to address the content of the letters, which I didn't think you were doing. But perhaps I was wrong. Since the point is apparently to address any topic, I predict Florida by 13 points in tonight's game.

Howie ... two co-workers are buckeyes. For my sanity, I hope you are wrong.

We have a buckeye across the hall from a gator. It was brutal for football; so this all feels like a re-run.

I had one of the final two right. Unfortunately, the one I picked to win it all lost Saturday (and I'm not talking about Georgetown).

Oh, well. Better luck next year.

Interesting, 72% of the people do not approve of the admistration OR congress. Think it's the same 72%?

I really could care less who they fired or didn't fire. If the Patriot Act is giving too much authority to the executive branch, then perhaps Congress should have thought about that before passing it, extending it, whatever.

I think the letter makes some good points and perhaps this provision should be changed. However, I also believe that it went off the deep end when it said "greatest constitutional crisis" and "permanent Republican imperial presidency".

James,

Accept and Except always get me even though I know their definitions.

"If the Patriot Act is giving too much authority to the executive branch, then perhaps Congress should have thought about that before passing it, extending it, whatever."

NP: I remember hearing that after all the floor debate .. on the day the Congressmen came back to vote on the Patriot Act .. the actual bill on their desk - the official one - had been swapped, i.e., the one they were about to vote on was clearly different from the one they had used for debate. Perhaps it was supposed to be just a clean reprint - but it was different enough that folks noticed .. but they still voted without checking too deeply.

That may just be a conspiracy theory - but I thought I heard it from a usually reliable source.

btw - they did repeal the "DA's without Senate Review" part this morning (or last night).

I wish I had bet some serious $$ on the tourney. I had 13 of the Sweet 16 correct, 7 or the Elite 8, and 3 of the Final Four. Woulda had that 100% if my Alma Mater Heels hadn't fallen apart in the last 10 minutes. Interestingly the lady Heels did the exact same thing last night, blew a 12 point lead towards the end of the game.

I've got OH St. & FL picked correctly with Oh St. picked to win it all.

Gotta agree with you Nit. I can give more credibility to an opinion without the chicken little sensationalizing some folks spew forth. I don't see the firing of 8 attorneys to be considered the "greatest constitutional crisis of our time".

It reminds me of the woman who compared her kid's punishment in school, holding his arms up in the air, to Chinese torture prisons.

Again I think the D's in Congress may shoot themselves in the foot to make such a big deal out of this. There are many more priorities.

Have to agree that "greatest constitutional crisis..." is a dramatic overstatement.

Also, the truth about the Patriot Act's changes after debate is accepted as fact by many (though I can't find a relevant link). But that doesn't excuse the congress from renewing it. They had three years to read it before renewal, and despite the fact that the Republicans were in the majority, the dems had their chance to make substantial changes and failed. The "Changes were made in the dark of night" argument was relevant once, but there's no excuse now.

Fire them all. Let God sort it out.

What is an imperial presidency, anyway? One suggestion for people trying to make sense: try to make sense. Just throwing two words together in sequence doesn't guarantee that sense will be made.

Dan,

Just curious. Would it have bothered you if Janet Reno would have fired prosecutors for not pursuing Republicans aggressively enough or pursuing Democrats too agressiviely prior to the '96 election?

Rufus, Reno and Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys. Speaking of firing, Reno also fired on the Waco complex resulting in the deaths of innocent children. Speaking of children, she sent the goon squad....errr...INS out to kidnap Elian Gonzalez and send him back to Communist Cuba.

Take a look at this photo, nice:

http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Elian_Gonzalez.html

Where was all the love for illegals?

I didn't agree with any of these actions but I never considered any of them the "greatest constitutional crisis of our time".

Elian Gonzalez is at home with his only living parent and his brother, as well as most of the rest of his family. Where is the love for "family values"?

Family values...if you say so!

http://www.therealcuba.com/elian_gonzalez.htm

The equivalent, Howie, of Republicans forcing a kid to attend a birthday party with Rove and Cheney and making the kid read a book extolling Bush.

And the alternative is the equivalent of having a child taken custody by another country and forced to live with distant relatives, and likely used for the same type of propaganda. "America's Mayor" (Rudy G.) wanted him to drop the ball on New Years Eve. How different is that from what is happening now? The main difference is that he's with his family. Politics or not, the child deserved to be with his parent and surviving family. Whether or not I agree with Castro, we're not in position to start kidnapping children from other countries and taking them from their families.

"Rufus, Reno and Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys."

Dan, I was going to ask you not to bring up this propaganda in my original post, but I wanted to satisfy my curiosity to see if you would or not. Since all presidents including your favorite one does that at the beginning of their term (if parties change) it doesn't really have anything to do with this issue. Sounds good to the ignorant (and willfully ignorant) though.

As it is you've done a fine job of changing the subject. Elian Gonzalez?? Wow, that does take one back? Any thoughts on the grassy knoll?

Howie, remember the adage of talking with a "brick wall?" If not, let me know and I will bring you up to date. If you do, I would suggest exercising the crux of that old adge.

Shalom

Speaking of Janet .. I think we can all agree she was in over her head.

While the Davidian Branch thing was probably more accurately the fault of overzealous "locals", she was ultimately "in charge" and certainly had plenty of time to step in and say "hey, wait a second .. back the hell off". Bill also certainly could have and should have done the same. It reminds me of the fire in Phila (what was the name of that group?) when Mayor Goode just sat and watched grossly un-necessary force burn down a neighborhood and take several lives. Tragic, unneeded, incompetent and de facto absent leadership.

As for Elian .. regardless of his status today, ditto with the grossly un-necessary force.

Speaking of tragically incompetent and de facto absent leadership leading to grossly un-necessary force, is now a good time to mention Water pumps for Thirsty Muslims? Working Sewers in Muslim Towns? Stable and Rational Leadership for Local Muslim Neighborhoods? .. all Ideas given to me by military men and roundly tromped on by "support our troop" types.

Rufus, you are the one who brought up Janet Reno, 'twas not I. And, I cannot think of Janet Reno without the Branch Davidians and Elian Gonzalez coming to mind. If you can find anything illegal about the firing of the attorneys, please let me know. Is there a law that states they can only be fired at the beginning of a term? Please cleanse me of my ignorance and refresh me with your knowledge.

Howie: "America's Mayor" (Rudy G.) wanted him to drop the ball on New Years Eve. How different is that from what is happening now?"

Thanks for the laugh. Elian wouldn't have been FORCED to do the NYC event, he was FORCED to be the poster boy of Castro's propaganda. That's the difference.

Did you see the nice photos of Elian's home town? No child deserves to live in such conditions. Scroll down a bit on that link and take a look.

Darryl quit talking about yourself.

JDR, the group in Philly was called Move.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm

I'm sure little Elian was better off growing up in the slums of Cuba than having to endure that old Chinese torture technique of dropping the ball on new year's eve.

This is, in a nutshell, why America cannot afford liberals in charge of the country. Castro?....just a misunderstood old father figure who only wants the best for his people. Ditto Hugo Chavez. Anyone who hates Bush can't be all bad.

Elian would be better off a homeless street person in America than a citizen of Cuba.

Dan,

I brought up Janet Reno & asked a specific hypothetical question. Which you ignored.

Now any thoughts on the grassy knoll?

Rufus, and I asked you to for some specific questions, not hypothetical questions.

Here they are again:

If you can find anything illegal about the firing of the attorneys, please let me know. Is there a law that states they can only be fired at the beginning of a term?

After all what Clinton did is not relevant as you guys always say. History. What Bush does is relevant, present, here and now. Please answer the questions. Thanks in advance.

Dan: No - nothing illegal, including appointing replacements without the Advice and Consent of the Senate. If Clinton had tried that, it would have been impeachment city .. and that would have stuck because Clinton was pre-Patriot Act.

I'm serious - I hear all the rhetoric about "Conservative Values" and "Limited Government", and am very-cool with keeping America safe .. but PLEASE tell me how Presidential Appointment of Federal DA's without the Advice and Consent of the Senate has ANYTHING to do with extremist Muslims. Why aren't the generic you up in arms about that?

Thanks in advance - 'cause I think it's partisan BS. The whole USA has morphed into partisan BS.

Dan and neo,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I will never be convinced that, despite the socio-political climate in which a child is raised, he is better off taken from his immediate family and given to strangers, even if some day he'll be able to grow up to be a successful capitalist. I do not agree with the political philosophy of Chavez and Castro, nor do I desire to live in their countries (hence my 274 zip code). However, trying to convince me that the extraction of individual children from their families is worthwhile.

By the way, you two have been pretty hot and heavy against illegal immigration. Yet it appears you are suggesting that if children came over the border (like Elian), that we should accept them and raise them if their home town has open sewers. Which is it? Can we sign you up for a couple of Mexican orphans?

Sorry, end of the first paragraph should have read: "...trying to convince me that the extraction of individual children from their families is worthwhile is a fruitless pursuit."

Sorry Dan,

I'm not going to be led down the path of distraction that you are going. If you want to talk about Elian or other non-relevant nonsense go for it.

Perhaps you want to lead a discussion about John Wilkes Boothe. Hero or villian?

Also has nothing to do with subject.

James,

You are right about those water pumps. I read an article in Newsweek (Jan. 22 edition) that addressed how China is taking over the spot the US once held in world ranking. Know how they are doing it? Seems Chinese president Hu Jintao is paying attention to struggling nations and why they are struggling. Then he sends that nation what they need, ie, water pumps for those struggling for clean drinking water, buying empty buildings and providing employment for those countries struggling with unemployment or providing funds for a needless war for those engaged in one.

I don't delude myself that he is doing these things for any benevolent reasons. He is playing politics. But he is gaining the appreciation of many by "helping" them in their time of need. Too bad Bush chose to take the "force them into submission" road rather than the one that may have garnered him some respect.

My memory tells me that the children of WACO were "with their families" when their spines bent backwards from the pain of inhaling burning poisonous tear gas fired on them by the federal government before they burned them to ashes.

Tim McVeigh was executed for murding the children of Oklahoma City. How much time did the people who murdered the children of Waco get.

Sorry, went off on a tangent. Touchy subject.

Rent the documentary about what happened there sometime if you want to really get pissed off.

It's been a while since I saw that, but "Totally Agree", NP. Maybe it's acedemic, but was Janet guilty through action, e.g., "I don't care about those damm kids, send in the tanks" .. or through lack of action, e.g., "Where's Waco?"

I never defended the Waco assault. Don't know enough about it. Much of what I remember centered around consiracy theories and hyperbole, so I'm in no position to condemn or condone.

"How much time did the people who murdered the children of Waco get?"
About the same amount as the people who made widows and orphans of some of the 3,200 soldiers' depentents I'd guess. Maybe that's a reach, but I guess you see my point.

I understand you cannot answer the question Rufus as it will invalidate your argument. My 9:28 post has nothing to do with Elian and you know it. Nice dodge.

JDR answered it for me anyway.

Howie, I support LEGAL immigration for everyone, especially those fleeing dictatorship.

Mexicans are flooding the US for economic reasons, not political. And most of them are not seeking LEGAL citizenship.

Therein lies the difference.

Here's one for you, Dan: what do you say about men who seek asylum because they are persecuted in their homelands because they are gay? (A very real scenario) Green light or red light?

From what I understand, one of the factors for legal immigration consideration is country of origin, and since we already have enough Mexicans, we apparently aren't taking any more. So if they want to come to the US, they really have no choice but to enter illegally and take their chances.

But all of this has nothing to do with Elian Gonzales. He watched his mother die, and was snatched up by zealots who wanted to exploit his case and get Castro riled. The boy wanted to be with his real family. He is where he belongs.

So if I change my proposal to "can I sign you up for a couple of Sudanese orphans?", does that change your answer?

Howie, being gay doesn't have anything to do with the subject, I support LEGAL immigration regardless of sexual orientation. Green light if done legally.

Problem is legal immigration is so difficult in this country. A buddy of mine married a British citizen and it took her over 10 years to gain citizenship.

Sorry to get everyone off track on Elian Gonzalez. Agreed, we will have to disagree on that one. Rufus mentioned Janet Reno and her name instantly makes me think of Elian and the Branch Davidians. Sounds like a rock group non?

I've already got my hands full with my own kids, wife, job, parents, etc. Can't take on any orphans, sorry.

Now here's something we can agree on: "I've already got my hands full with my own kids, wife, job, parents, etc." As I recall, my kids are a year or two younger than yours, so I can relate.

My son turned 6 last month, my daughter is 4 1/2. It's a fun time, diaper days are long gone, they can do alot on their own, they play well together, and they still worship mommy & daddy.

My son is 4 1/2 (about 3 weeks younger than your daughter if I recall from a discussion about school age cut-offs), and my daughter just turned 2, so she'll give us a few more months of diapers. This is truly the best time of my life.

"diaper days are long gone"

I don't want to talk about it. My little man's 6 months old..

Good for you Denz! I didn't know you had a little one. Don't worry, only two more years or even less and your diaper days will be gone as well. Meanwhile enjoy, especially the gooey ones that get all over their clothes.

BTW, I don't miss the high chair days either, slopping that nasty baby food into their mouths just to watch most of it come right back out!

Howie, my daughter was born on 10/16, the cut off date, although NC is going to change to August or Sept. I believe. She will go to kindergarten next year and then we will have to decide to let her go or hold her back.

Getting off diapers and formula .. is like getting one HECK of a pay raise.

Enjoy while you can, 'cause college pulls out real expenses!

Dan,

Concerning your 9:28 post I would say firing for political reasons would constitute obstruction of justice not only for the justices involved but for the others that would take the lesson.

Was it ILLEGAL Rufus?

My youngest is 4. Born on the day the war in Iraq started. I was in the hospital praying Saddam couldn't fire back and hoping the war coverage didn't cut into the NCAA tournament playing on the hospital television.

Done with diapers and really enjoying this stage in his life.

The question I hear 4,000 times a day is "Why?"

"Was it ILLEGAL Rufus?"

If deemed to be obstructing justice, yes. Can the firing be deemed obstruction? We should probably look at that, don't you think?

Oh, and as an aside, based on the experiences I've had with my stepdaughter, just wait till they hit middle school and get all sorts of moody and mouthy. :)

Dan,

I do believe that's what Congress is doing right now as well as a possible perjury on the Att. Gen.

It's nice to have a Congress that does some work.

Actually I prefer a Congress that does less work. That means they have less time to figure out new ways to spend my money :)

As for work, Nancy Pelosi coulda gone to Cancun for Spring Break, yet she chose a terrorist sponsoring nation instead.

Quick Dan- can you name the two Republican representatives that are in Syria right now?

I'll even give you a link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1YH6znT2Z10&refer=home

Before you speak ill of Pelosi, I suggest you clean your own house.

Denz, I never said R's can't be appeasers with the sole goal of pleasing their electorate. We call them RINOs.

So dialogue with Syria is out of bounds, as they support terrorists?

What about Saudi Arabia?

What about Iraq (death squads count as terrorists)?

What about Pakistan?

What about Sudan?

Also, Dan- "appeasers"?

Following the advice of our best experts is now "appeasing" and worthy of being called a RINO? What does that say about the priorities of the White House?