News-Record.com

... and let's not forget Bernie Kerik.

btw (and seriously) - I did notice a look of discomfort on Brownies face when heck-of-a-job was said, kind of like "ar you kidding, Mr. President? I'm SO like the folks in the 9th ward: way over my head."

Bottom line: The attorneys work for the president and it is up to him when and who he may fire. He doesn't need the approval from the bloated drunk from Ma., the pansy - lil Chuckie Schumer, OR L.F. Rappaport to do so.

The democrats are so desperate for a scandal to cover their own ineptness and lack of leadership, (and pork spending) if Bush switched brands of toilet tissue they'd try and find a way to sensationalize it.

With their approval ratings in the tank, they've GOT to find something to provide cover for their planned tax hikes.

If Bill Clinton hired 123 prosecutors during his 8 years and fired 93 when he entered office, he must have fired another 30. Therefore, I would challenge this statement by the letter writer:

"However, since 1981, only five U.S. attorneys out of more than 500 have been replaced in the middle of a president's term, an indication of the unusual nature of these current dismissals."

You can look it up.

"The democrats are so desperate for a scandal to cover their own ineptness and lack of leadership, (and pork spending) if Bush switched brands of toilet tissue they'd try and find a way to sensationalize it."

Thanks neocon, I needed that. I'm tired from staying up to watch the game, and that belly laugh was just what I needed. Oh wait, you're serious? You think the Dems are desperate for scandal? All they have to do is wait a day for the next one. I can't keep up without a scorecard.

Oh, and the one about pork spending, thanks, I needed that too. Priceless.

Yeah! So what if the people you fired were actively investigating members of your own party? No harm, no foul, right?

"If Bill Clinton hired 123 prosecutors during his 8 years and fired 93 when he entered office, he must have fired another 30. Therefore, I would challenge this statement by the letter writer:"

Karl Rove explained it pretty well, when he made statements using the EXACT SAME numbers... Weren't you paying attention to Uncle Karl?

Who cares? I mean, really, who really gives a flit about this?

Howie, Denz, ORR, Neocon?

Denzien - can you provide that link?

Rambo - are all those concerned weaind blue shirts? I thought there were also some red shirted concerns - something about bypassing the Senate ..

JDR- just google it.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=clinton+123+prosecutors&btnG=Google+Search

nitpicker- there's certainly a "flit" to be given. What APPEARS to have happened is that several attorneys, who were knee deep in investigations concerning prominent Republicans were laid off all of a sudden.

Actions like that raise eyebrows. Gonzales apparently lying to Congress about his role in the firings also raises eyebrows. You see where I'm coming from?

It would be another thing altogether if Gonzales had said to Congress, "Yeah, we fired them because I wanted to. It's my right to do so. Yougottaproblemwiddat?"

But he didn't.

Denzien: before ya let Al say "yagottaproblemwiddat" .. don't forget the part about not needing - in the name of "terrorism" - Senate Advice and Consent for the replacements

Who gives a flit about this? Uncle Teddy & democrats who think they can harm Bush and the republicans by painting this as a "constitutional crisis", that's who gives a flit about it.
When they see polling data that says the public has lost interest in this manufactured scandal, they will sieze on to something (anything) else to create the next "crisis" over and there will be dire warnings about the republicans trying to create a monarchy or a "Bush dynasty"...all in order to provide cover and deflect attention away from their tax raising schemes.

... might be good to raise taxes, Meow .. pay down the horrific debt your red shirted buddies signed off on.

(not that I'm counting on the pay down part, but one can always dream).

==

Back on thread - since you're often hollaring at those dodging questions .. Rambo - are some of those concerned with bypassing the Senate wearing red ties?

LOL, neocon. You are on a roll today. Keep it up; I could use the levity.

"don't forget the part about.."

I also shouldn't forget about how there's about a month's worth of documents and email that somehow got accidentally deleted, and the fact that Republican staffers about the same time quit using the White House email system, instead moving to private email servers and blackberries.. (I'd post links, but we all know how pointless that's become)

Nah, nothing to look at here...

"are some of those concerned with bypassing the Senate wearing red ties?"

They're wearing red ties to show that they care not if the blood of Americans is spilt by the terrorists. (As opposed to the other fat white guys in red ties, who wear red ties to show their allegiance to the bravery and patriotism that founded this country)

Boo Boo's on a roll ...!!!

I agree with you on this one, Denzien.

At the very least, the administration is guilty of seriously mishandling and botching all of this. At the least they blew a lot of smoke and then started to wonder why people came around looking for a fire.

The allegations of the true reason behind the firings as an attempt to styme political corruption investigations is only given credence when the initial explanation wasn't completely, how can we say, accurate?

I also agree that an explanation wasn't required, but if offered, it damn well better be sufficient and beyond reproach. That wasn't what we got.

Well, what about all the folks testifying before Congress? Is that required? Can they be foreced to testify, or can an Executive privilege be asserted? What we got was some half assed assertion of a privilege. "You can talk to my guys, but only in private and whatever they may or may not say can not be used against them later, if proven untrue." That's about the gist of what I got from the great offer.

I don't know if the allegations are true or not. I am a rather trusting (naive, gullible, foolhardy?) person, so I think that they are probably not. But I also know that when you act like you have something to hide, people will believe you have something to hide, and will try to find out what that something is. If you are the President, the people (your employers) have a right to find out what it is. Just ask William Jefferson Clinton about people wanting to get to the bottom of things you would like to hide.

The mess the administration is in right now over all of this is a mess completely of their own making. If it all was a gaffe, then so be it. I would not have expected them to make rookie mistakes 7 years in, but hey, that's just me. If there is any fire behind the smoke that they've created, then someone damn well better be held accountable.

Corruption is a serious issue. It strikes at the heart of our system of governmetn and undermines the people's faith in the government that is supposed to be a representative of them. I would honestly expect the parties to be overly sensitive to potential corruption within their own ranks, as it hurts them so badly.

Look at Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham. Those guys scandels set back the whole GOP. If I were a GOP bigshot, I'd go out of my way to make damn sure that there weren't anymore like them in my party and get their tails out if there were.

These allegations seem to indicate a chance that the other Foleys and Dukes are not being uncovered, but could be protected. If true, this is reprehensible. To me, Republicans should be more outraged that Democrats at this thought.

The administration, perhaps simply through folly, laid a basis for this one. I suspect it will amount to a stupid mistake, but will be not be above admitting my mistake if it turns out otherwise.

Excellent post, swanks. Agreed on every point, which makes me feel.. . kinda dirty, honestly. :D

swanks, I concur with Denzien on your posting! As was so eloquently noted, when it appears one has something to hide, it makes looking at the potential of hiddenness all the greater.

The question is whether or not a good "looking/searching" will take place.

Shalom

Mwahahahahaha!

It all starts with a simple agreement. Next thing you know, you will be worshiping at the foot of the Shrine of Saint Ray-Gun.

Soon you will be brought to your indoctrination camps for proper re-education. After that, you can expect to do such wonderful things as pulling the government cheese directly from the mouths of starving welfare babies, telling the disabled and maimed to "shut up and get a job, looser" or sending the innocent young children of others off to die for an unjust war.

Once you earn your 3rd degree rankings (attainable either by blowing up an abortion clinic or converting no less than 7 heathens) you will be eligible for a monthly "war for profit stipend." Each month you can set back and recieve a check delivered to your front door every time one of the innocents you sent off gets killed anywhere in the world, as long as it is in an illegal, immoral, or unjust conflict! If they shed a tear prior to death, you will automatically be entered into a monthly drawing for 10,000 units of Exxon stocks. Second prize is a Hamilton Beach slow cooker. If anyone of your innocents should happen to themselves take the life of an innocent, Ann Coulter herself will come to your house and rub your feet.

A Hamilton Beach slow cooker?!?!

HOLY S**T!! SIGN ME UP NOW!