Adios amigo.

Bani's blog is bullshit. It completly ignores the roles of the Rosenburg family and the Illuminati in 9/11 .....

..... and just why would that be?

Hey Tony,

Andrew Sullivan? No cherry picking of information there, ehh? Why, you could start a war or something!

"March 24, 1993

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - 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 ..."

Remember the MSM outcry when Reno canned all United States Attorneys? That was something, Reno almost lost her job then because of those scathing New York Times editorials.

One thing has changed, U.S. Attorneys where fired then and now because they were investigating Democrats.

In 1993 the U.S. Attorneys were fired because they were investigating Democrats.

In 2006 the U.S. Attorneys were fired because they were investigating Democrats (just not doing it quickly enough).

Tony,
Before you start throwing 5,000-word posts at me for 'blame the messenger' .....

I don't have a personal interest in Gonzalez, Abramhoff or anybody else in this theme. I'd like to see justice served. And that includes the thousands of women who are exploited in the Mariannes sweat shops.

However, when it comes to someone like Sullivan, he is such a biased crank -- and makes so many outrageous accuations -- that he's not reliable.

AG AG's COS will go the way of VP DC's COS.

Fall guy.

At least now we know where the buck stops in this WH. Wouldn't want to be any body's COS around there!

Why do Republicans insist on lying under oath, particularly when they're attorneys themselves? Makes you kinda wonder, doesn't it?

The mistake was giving up power to Bush et al. What ever can go wrong will go wrong.
It is a shame that this was the president who was going to reestablish a powerful executive branch. What he has achieved is to demonstrate why powers of the executive branch must be tightly subject to checks and balances from the other two branches.
God save us from this guy's executive power grabs.

However, when it comes to someone like Sullivan, he is such a biased crank -- and makes so many outrageous accuations -- that he's not reliable.

Vernon...

If you'd bother yourself to actually read the link, Sullivan doesn't do anything but quote the information from the first link to Timesblog. It isn't an opinion, its a fact that Specter's former staffer is now the USA in Utah.

He didnt do his job. he didnt know nothing. he didnt mention the fbi law breaking. but he is responsible and i will do better, maybe. Kick the bum out

March 24, 1993 - Barely two months into the Clinton administration.

2006 - Almost six years into the Bush administration.

Hans

So the White House's involvement was concealed yet we are supposed to believe the the firings were still appropriate?

That makes sense, since people usually cover their actions when they aren't doing anything wrong.

Next Mr. Gonzalez will try to sell us a bridge......

Gads! I almost fell into the trap myself.

Bush is orchestrating this so that if a Democrat takes the White House in 08 he (the Democrat President) can't can all the U.S. Attorneys like Bill did in 93!

Bush has had nearly eight years to fill the ranks of the U.S. Attorneys offices with his people.

Bush is setting a precedent to safeguard his appointments.

So Gonzales is simply playing along with the charade, set the precedent that it is wrong to can U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.

Lovely.

is it possible that speedy G got a B J from Harriet?

"mistakes were made"... I take full responsibility... now let's just move along here, nothing further to see.


Republican motto

Having done employment law (on and off) for 17 years, one thing strikes me as inconsistent with the "political" angle here:

E-mails released Tuesday, however, revealed that the firings were considered and discussed for two years by Justice Department and White House officials.

...

E-mail correspondence between Sampson and Miers indicate they began two years ago to consider individual U.S. attorneys for possible dismissal. As the list took shape, their correspondence indicated possible political backlash from the attorneys and their congressional allies.

...

A Justice Department official said Tuesday that Miers, in a February 2005 discussion with Sampson, suggested firing all of the U.S. attorneys. Snow described the idea as a move to get fresh faces in the 4-year term jobs, and said that it was not a firm recommendation by Miers.

The e-mails show that Sampson rejected the idea to fire all of the prosecutors but spent the next year drawing up a list of potential dismissals. On Jan. 9, 2006, Sampson sent Miers a memo listing what the official described as roughly 10 names of prosecutors who were viewed as underperforming in their jobs.

If the email trail does indeed say this, then these men and women are going to have an up-hill battle in any wrongful termination lawsuit, especially since they are employed "at-will".

YEAH!

#2 on the Fake Plastic "Conservative" excuse playbook!
It goes hand in hand with playin' stupid (Bush most used)!
What's #1? Why "Just kiiiddiinngg" of course!

When are these guys going to start:

"Restoring honor and integrity to the White House"

They are running out of time after all, and have done far more harm than good in this regard.

So......when are they going to start?

However, when it comes to someone like Sullivan, he is such a biased crank -- and makes so many outrageous accuations -- that he's not reliable.

Posted by vernon at


Well, Vernon is certainly reliable...just read his posts every so often & you will be reliably confuse:>)

"However, when it comes to someone like Sullivan, he is such a biased crank -- and makes so many outrageous accuations -- that he's not reliable.

Posted by vernon at 2007-03-13 04:42 PM"

Any examples of his outrageous accusations, and bias?

What, Bani? Vernon cranks out biased accusations? OUR Drudge Grandpa? Oh, the horrors!

March 24, 1993 - Barely two months into the Clinton administration.

2006 - Almost six years into the Bush administration.

Hans

Posted by Hans


Lets see this info sneak into the The Drudge Report where it was headlining awhile ago, anyway...

Does anyone have access to the WSJ online, because you can view the email trail. Pretty cool stuff.

Hans, you posted:

March 24, 1993 - Barely two months into the Clinton administration.

2006 - Almost six years into the Bush administration.

I don't get your point, is it that the Clinton Admin was politically motivated by doing it so early, as opposed to the Bush Admin? It seems to me that the timing reflects more poorly on Reno then Gonzo.

LeftCoast: I disagree. Clinton cleaned house of the previous Admin's appointees, and included everyone, no matter what they were working on, whether it favored R's or D's. Bush looked to selectively purge prosecutors who were not carrying political water for the GOP.

Clinton cleaned house of the previous Admin's appointees, and included everyone, no matter what they were working on, whether it favored R's or D's. Bush looked to selectively purge prosecutors who were not carrying political water for the GOP.

Why is it some of those with sympathies for the right have so much trouble understanding the facts of certain political/legal situations as compared to the spin-at-all-costs talking points, which often are rife with lies, distortions and mischaracterizations?

No one is complaining that Bush fired US attorneys because this is his right as President. The questions arrise because these individuals seemingly received glowing work reports, while Congress was told they were replaced because of poor performance, and secondly, Congress was told that politics didn't play a role in the dismissals, and now e-mails, phone conversations, and testimony all show that political considerations were at the root of the dismissals.

The DOJ is supposed to prosecute the laws of this nation, not blindly follow the political whims of any Administration which appointed them. Rule of Law is their commander, not political expediency in trying to railroad innocent opposition politicians and bureaucrats in order to sway election results in selected locales.

"Mistakes were made"? REALLY? How about correcting them for a change?
How about we start with the immoral occupation of the WH by a cabal of thugs and cretins?
But-probably too much like "hard werk".
Don't expect that crew to change anything.

"Clinton cleaned house of the previous Admin's appointees, and included everyone, no matter what they were working on, whether it favored R's or D's."

Please, he canned 8 years of Reagan and 4 of Bush the elder in one fell swoop.

And then there was '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.'

Bush has been handed an opportunity to make his appointed U.S. Attorneys politically off limit to the next administration.

The puppets think they are in charge, a thing of beauty.

I read the emails that Taxman was referring to (they are in .pdf format, I can't link them) and those trails start in February 2005 (after the second inauguration) discussing USA's that Bush appointed in the first place who are terming out. Miers talks about getting rid of all of them (ala Reno) for a fresh start, Sampson recommends only getting rid of the ones that are "underperforming".

And it goes from there. Initially, Cummins, Chiara, Ryan and Lam were on the list, which expanded as evaluations continued to roll in. The one thing that does stand out is that part of the evaluation process is whether the USA "exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General", but taking that in a job evaluation sense that is no different then loyalty to the company and the boss.

I agree with ROC that any wrongful termination action would go nowhere.

I don't think a wrongful termination action would go anywhere either. But I do thikn that lying to Congress might get someone in trouble. (Well, I guess it did, as we have seen one head roll already. I think there may be more to come.)

LeftCoast - how many of the 8 who were fired were tagged as "underperforming"? (I'll give you a hint: 3)

"Bush is setting a precedent to safeguard his appointments."

What part of "serving at the pleasure of the president" don't you understand?

"I don't get your point..."

Monte pretty much covered it in his 5:35pm post.

Hans

Monte-

It started with three in May 05 (Chiarra, Cummins and Lam) became 4 in October 05 (Charlton), 5 in January 06 (Ryan), 6 in September 06 (Bogden) and 8 by December.

I think that the first 6 had substandard reviews, I wasn't able to glean anything other then politics for the last two.

They had all termed out, btw, but it seems pretty clear that Inglesias was well regarded but stepped on the wrong toes.


The one thing that is clear is that Gonzo f'd up in handling this thing and I don't think his COS being the fall guy is going to suffice.

Hans-

"Monte pretty much covered it in his 5:35pm post.

Hans"

So are you saying that cleaning house for political purposes only, regardless of what they are working on, or how good they are, is okay?

Some of you stupid bastards can't keep you eye on the ball...

Yes, these lawyers serve at the pleasure of the President....

BUT BUT BUT The Department of Justice is supposed to be the Department of Justice, NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICS

SEVERAL OF THESE LAWYERS were fired because they fail to bend to pressure to PROSECUTE DEMOCRATS before last Novembers election....

This just shows what a sleezebag administration we are dealing with...

And if anyone has LINKS to SUB-STANDARD EVALUATIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM....

If I'm not mistaken, Senator Dumberthandirt or whatever his name is from New Mexico has already admitted that his phone call to a prosecutor was inappropriate. (Of course, as is the style these days, he first denied knowing anything about it and then, after it was proven he made the call, he said admitted he shouldn't have done it.)

Scarey-

The emails reference them (some up to two years in advance) but the release of performance reviews in some states is a violation of the constitutional right of privacy.

Montecore-

I would agree that the firing of Inglesias was politically motivated, but since he was on extension and at will, he could be fired for any reason. Not to say that it was kosher, but politics is a rough business.

"So are you saying that cleaning house for political purposes only, regardless of what they are working on, or how good they are, is okay?"

Political spoils.

It is the nature of the beast.

Hans

The Senate Judicary Committee gets out of sorts with Gonzales when there are lawyers fired, but let Gonzales say that the Constitution does not specify the right to a writ of habeas corpus and that slides. We are truly lost. The only thing the elitist lawyers are listening to are other lawyers and people representing that legal fiction - the corporation. This is not a government fit for the American people.

Political spoils.

It is the nature of the beast.

Hans

Posted by Hans at 2007-03-13 07:24 PM

So then how is the firing of Inglesias, for example, any different from what Reno did?

Along that train of thought then, how is it worse that Bush fires prosecutors for political reasons that he actually hired then it is for Clinton to can ones that he didn't hire. Doesn't Bush have a better argument that he hired them, he doesn't like them (for whatever reason) and he is firing them?

"Bush is setting a precdent to safeguard his appointments...."

Blew soda through my nose at that one. No future president, provided he is sane, will honor any Bush "precedent".

It's like saying I'm bound to follow my dog's precedent to take a dump in the yard.

Along that train of thought then, how is it worse that Bush fires prosecutors for political reasons that he actually hired then it is for Clinton to can ones that he didn't hire. Doesn't Bush have a better argument that he hired them, he doesn't like them (for whatever reason) and he is firing them?

Posted by Rightocenter


LOL funi flag!

I am convinced that many CONS here simply have no moral compass....

We all realize BUSH has the right to fire any or all of them....

But when the evidence show they are being fired for not particpating in a POLITICAL PROSECUTION you have a lapse of moral fiber...

And the US Attorney who dragged his feet on the New Hampshire phone blocking of the Democrat headquarters by Republicans still has his job....

Its just like the Saturday Night Massacre....Two Republicans with some moral fiber refused to fire the special prosecutor....finally Nixon came to that SCUM BAG ROBERT BORK who did the deed...

And Nixon didn't want the special prosecutor fired for sub standard job evaluations....

It was because the fellow was hot on Nixon's criminal enterprise....

"Mistakes were made"

-Bart Simpson.

the constitution of the United States of America gives this power to the president..
you people here talk all the time about the checks and balances and this is a part of the SEPERATION of powers......
why is the left trying to circumvent the constitution and then whine about it somewhere else.....oh well of course....this serves your purpose......

and when blow job bill did it in 93 a usa was a few days from sending rostenowski up the river........a coincidence......hardly....

hans....the peceeding information came from anderson cooper on CNN so I am sure that you will not question it......

and it doesnt make one bit of difference.,,,all this nonsense about what gonzales said or didnt say......this is not a story that will bring down the house.....so all of you can stop the slobbering.

only mistake so far is bush not getting on tv and telling schumer and the rest that they can kiss his rosy red texas ass. he does the hiring,he does the firing,.......

GEE BL2 I can't imagine why Bush dosen't take your sound political advice!!! BL2 you are a danger to yourself and others...Please get help!!! Find a meeting where you can share with other dumb assholes like yourself!! Good luck

"Bowa...

"You are not the one to speak about clouded judgement."

It is said that the funniest humor is that which is based on truth.

Tony, that was a funny comment!

Hans

The Patriot Act gives the president the power to appoint new federal prosecutors without the traditional and constitutional step of advise and consent of the Senate. Unfortunately for Gonzalez and BushCo the firings attracted too much attention and Gonzalez was forced to state that he does believe in the constitution and the normal method of appointing new prosecutors. Had that not happened these prosecutors would have been replaced by political hacks with no experience and no business in those offices. Now, because they didn't get away with this one little scam to put political operatives in positions that could easily sway elections by indicting Democrats with little or no evidence they will just try other methods to use the power of the presidency to effect the outcomes of elections.
This administration has no limits to its intention of securing long term right wing power regardless of the will of the people. They will continue to use provisions of the Patriot Act that hardly anyone else even knows exists. The Patriot Act itself should be repealed and replaced with an Act that Congress actually reads and understands before its passage.

please move to the other thread on the subject and read some FUCKIN FACTS about your hero.,,,,,blow job billy...

not even reagan or carter did what he did....they replaced them as thier terms expired......but blow job along with his REAL GIRLFRIEND....janet reno......fired them all.......but none faster than the one in ARKANSAS looking at WHITEWATER......and the one about rostenkowski...........so we can stomach a little bit more of this liberal outrage if one of you would just admit that it is not something out of the ordinary.....

this story is not going to be the story that chucky and you are trying so DESPERATELY to make it

and the name HUBBEL is in that link as well.....and I am not talking about a satelite..........

and yes I know the findings from whitewater investigation.......DOES THIS TOTAL PURGE OF USA's NOW maybe have something to do with those findings???????

and in a less than serious note....

has there EVER BEEN this much compassion for a bunch of scum sucking, bottom feeding, ambulance chasing, LAWYERS??????

danni.....you could make your last request about almost ANY legislation before them......couldnt you?.......

BLT...

Bush cleaned house when he came in in 2001 just like Clinton did. Again, go back to Spin Central and refresh your talking points. What about the Abramoff Grand Jury being released due to Bush's new USA in Guam? Care to anaolgize this MIDTERM replacement with anything that Clinton did?

"...please move to the other thread on the subject and read some FUCKIN FACTS"

Posted by Mr. "I heard it on the radio or read it somewhere" bushlovertwo at 2007-03-14 10:36 AM

This has to be one of the (unintentionally) funniest things ever posted here on the Drudge.

Hans

Yes, it is true that incoming Presidents routinely replace US Attorneys appointed by previous administrations and the US Attorneys, who serve at the pleasure of the President, are normally in for 4-year terms.

The fact is that Shrub & Co attempted to use a little-known provision of the Patriot Act, meant to empower the President in TIMES OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY to appoint US Attorneys should Congress be unable to act, to sneak in political hacks in place of current US Attorneys without Congressional oversight. Gee, have we heard THIS song and dance from Shrub & Co before? The hacks, I am pretty sure, could be counted on to tow the party line and leave those corrupt repulsicans not currently under investigation alone. They could probably also be counted on to drop investigations that are proving problematic and troublesome to Shrub & Co.

Hey, how about that helliburton, moving offshore? I'm absolutely certain that isn't being done so they can avoid federal prosecution for crimes committed in Iraq and New Orleans. Or wherever. Just a coincidence. Move along, nothing to see here.

soup and nuts........hans......soup and nuts....

tony.......bush did not purge the entire 'fleet' of usa's at any time.....as clinton did in 93.....and again...my charge.....did the firing of usa prior to whitewater findings have ANYTHING to do with results......one thing that this brohaha could do is shed some light on that........
and rostenowski......please.....he is a crook, correct?

and the name HUBBEL........more items not addressed by the left.........

and tony.....sure lets look at EVERYTHING....but thats not what chucky and your side really wants to do, now is it?>????????

"soup and nuts........hans......soup and nuts...."

Posted by Mr. "I heard it on the radio or read it somewhere" bushlovertwo at 2007-03-14 11:07 AM

Can't make this shit up, folks.

They willingly volunteer it!

Hans

BLT...

If you mean going back 14 years as "everything," the Republican controlled Congress had the opportunity then and evidently didn't do a good job, did they?

Since Starr investigated Whitewater, do you really think any stones were left unturned, or are you just another one blaming the incompetence of the Republican's own on the Democrats ala Berger? Who brought charges against Berger? Who investigated Berger? Who decided to accept a plea from Berger? Gonzo, Gonzo, and Gonzo. Seems we've found our culprit, haven't we?

The Patriot Act itself should be repealed and replaced with an Act that Congress actually reads and understands before its passage.

Posted by danni
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That seems logical Danni.
What a concept eh?

Canada let their patriot act expire.

Funny thing, most Americans don't even know anything about the so-called patriot act.
However, they DO know their favorite sports teams/players stats for the past ten years and can recite them from memory!
And this just may be part of the problem.

Every time this administration comes under fire the Bushy Butt Babies use the "Clinton did it" defense.

First, the misdeeds of one person do not constitute a waiver for the misdeeds of another. I didn't like Clinton, and I don't like Bush, and chances are that I won't like the next president, but most of all I don't like excuses.

Second, it may however be appropriate to compare Bush with Slick Willy because both are ideologues and liars.

Third, unless we start holding our elected officials accountable the government will continue to favor special interests and politicize the rule of law.

Personally I favor a permanent Grand Jury comprised of one person from every state and the District of Columbia to investigate the government without restriction. We need one for every branch and every bureaucracy of the government. Otherwise it's going to be more of the same.

mike....I appreciate your partisan comment about both of them....well at least in a sick sort of way......but anyway.......

for the 100th time and once more.....

we point out clinton's shit because we are pointing out the lefts reaction to it......and again.....its not blowjob billy but the left that we are going after when they excuse his behavior and then call bush all sorts of names......maybe someday even this too shall pass..........

and yes gonzo....mistakes were made.....and again what should have happened....

DATELINE WASHINGTON....

time...right after chucky schumer left the podium..


THE PRES: chucky....The constitution gives me the right to fire all of them just like it did your golden boy,bill...so you can kiss my rosy red texas ass........

Gonzales: Mistakes Were Made

I saw an editorial cartoon that addressed this issue in a - too true to be - funny way. It asked if anyone else misses John Ashcroft?

cant wait for the nooner...

someone ....PLEASE SOMEONE.....tell me the name of the guy who sings the over the rainbow song that starts out with just the guitar strokes.....and has a little counter melody first......used on a commercial and just heard it on a movie and used on end credits on movie with sean connery as the shut in writer who helped the young black writer...

someone please tell me this singer....it is driving me crazy......so I am sure some of you are saying......you mean crazier dont you??>??>??

help......

"help......"

Posted by Mr. "I heard it on the radio or read it somewhere" bushlovertwo at 2007-03-14 12:14 PM

Probably too late for that.

Way too late.

Hans

its not blowjob billy

You come up with a good nickname for Lynne "I write dirty books" Cheney yet?

WSJ: The Web Hubbell Standard; Hillary Clinton knows all about sacking U.S. Attorneys...

LAW: 'United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President'...

Oh, its the law????

Thanks libs....morons.

Thanks libs....morons.

The only moron on this thread is YOU for failing to recognize that this entire mess was created by the Bushies testifying under oath that politics didn't play a role in who became US Attorneys, while the damning e-mail evidence shows the complete opposite was the case.

Lying to Congress? Morons....

george banks and paula casey....

those names ring familar.


banks was the little rock usa investigating whitewater.......replaced with casey ....a clinton law school protege......

and then whitewater is whitewashed.....

hhhmmmmmmmm......and yet this is no big deal to clinton apologists but 7 usa's being fired is.......

IT JUST WONT WORK....unless we get more chickenshit, gutless republicans who are running scared...

J sununu.....you are finished if we have anything to say about it......

... "First,the misdeeds of one person do not constitute a waiver for the misdeeds of another. I didn't like Clinton, and I don't like Bush, and chances are that I won't like the next president, but most of all I don't like excuses." ...

Posted by MikeSiesel at 2007-03-14 11:37 AM

Nice and right to the point, Mike.

It seemed to be in need of repeating.

"Presumed Guilty" The other side of the story from a "little guy" accused of big white collar crimes ... I am currently under Federal indictment and awaiting a trial for allegedly committing white collar crimes I am not guilty of committing. I have never committed a crime of any type, paid my taxes, respected others and even law enforcement. I believed that overall our law enforcement agencies were honest and their agents honorable, I was so very wrong. I operated several small businesses that unfortunately failed to gain enough funding to realize their full potential. Many of my investors and clients were retirees...THEY LOST MONEY, and I have to take responsibility for someone else's poor choices. Everyone's a Victim now, especially the elderly! I am very sorry that people lost money and would do anything within reason to change the past, but that's not going to happen! I wanted to give everyone my side of the story or at least a summary of it.

My life, marriage, and reputation have all been flushed down the toilet. I spent over $100,000 on paying for the best legal advice I could find, a prominent securities attorneys and I even had a full time corporate Attorney on staff plus he was a major shareholder and I STILL GOT INDICTED ANYWAY, AMAZING ISN'T IT? My disclosures were over the top and my agreements very detailed. In 2002, the State of California sued me and by default won an eight figured multi-million dollar judgment against me personally. I went Bankrupt, started drinking heavily, friends disappeared, I was the subject of multiple search warrants in march of 2003 which produced nothing that was not already on public file.

Mistakes were made by me, I took risks and they did not pay off. Are we going to prosecute everyone who dares take a risk? Entrepreneurs are the life blood of this mighty country! Guilt has been presumed since the beginning. "PRESUMED GUILTY" First with ridiculous civil judgments and penalties for untold millions and when no assets turned up after a few years, a criminal indictment is sought after and it's almost a word for word copy of the States Civil case, Imagine that?

The trial could take months because I have over 100 Witnesses I want to call and the A-USA will have that and more. Their case is very weak but will probably be effective, the prosecutor will simply parade dozens of seniors who will sob and point at me ... Sounds like a fair trial with a jury of my peers, right?

"Presumed Guilty" Hand cuffed, booked, stripped, searched, finger-printed, kept in jail for two weeks, made bond-cannot have a glass of wine, was subject to drug testing with the lowest life crack heads in my area, every week, I have to report in each week, I have to have permission to leave the city I live in for any reason. I cannot work in any of the fields I have experience in or am licensed to work in. ALL THIS AND still no trial.

Sincerely,

"Presumed Guilty"

JPMGreek-
Um...not that your post has anything to do with anything on this thread, but I noticed that you wrote several paragraphs of whine and one sentence actually explaining your alleged crime: "Mistakes were made by me, I took risks and they did not pay off."

What mistakes, what risks?

and lets add one more item......


two of them were fired mainly for being lazy on looking into voter fraud....
WHAT????????

voter fraud???? isnt that a democratic cry for help........BUT WAIT,,,,,,,,,the winners in the election were dems....WELL WE CANT HAVE investigations into that.....

so if all of your bullshit about voter fraud in 2000 EVER HAD any truth in it, then you should be demanding they were fired here too......you know unless you just cant make yourself be honest about it and tell us that its different in this case...........WELL???????????
??????

here is where mistakes were made......and I just cant understand why and what they are thinking,.......

there were no mistakes made until now.
the white house should have brought out documents and info from 1993 and they should have gone to the media and said...
this is my right under the constitution and I will fire these people for just not liking thier hair style if I want to....

and another mistake is the gutless, chickenshit, republican politicians who are now bending over and taking it in the ass from the left and all they can say is thank you sir may I have another......

this is nothing more than a political move by the left to manufacture shit like this to keep heat on the republicans and there are too many republicans who would rather take it up the ass instead of take the heat. too bad. this is where the mistakes are being made because history and FACTS are on the side of bush.......

come on george.....where is your FUCKIN BACKBONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"come on george.....where is your FUCKIN BACKBONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Puppetmeister Cheney decided to withdraw his arm from Bush's ass for just a sec so he could woof down some extra crispy bacon rinds.

Last I checked, prosecutors aren't judges...It really doesn't matter what political views the prosecutors have or do not have. Their "opinion" really doesn't matter a whole lot. If they were to bring about frivolous cases against innocent people, they would lose their licenses/jobs, the judges would throw out the case, and justice is still served.

I'm with you, BUSHLOVERTWO, my favorite thing about the Bush Administration has always been that they stood up for what they believed in no matter how popular or unpopular that view was - quite the opposite of the spineless lefties. Lately, however, the administration seems to be bending over backwards to do the opposite. It's kind of sickening.

"my favorite thing about the Bush Administration has always been that they stood up for what they believed in no matter how popular or unpopular that view was"

Yeah! Doing something the wrong way is better than doing nothing. Right?

ROTFLMAO

BL2

You're not considering a name change, are you? Maybe Cheneyboy? Wouldn't have the same cache somehow.

"...my favorite thing about the Bush Administration has always been that they stood up for what they believed..."

Oops:

FLIP: May 16, 2003: U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer announces a sweeping operation to ensure that Baath Party members are removed from critical positions in the public sector. This ban could affect as many as 30,000 senior Baath Party members.

FLOP: Thursday, April 22, 2004: "The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions. . . . The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.""

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

FLIP: First Bush claimed he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

FLOP: Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

FLIP: Bush then says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

FLIP: Bush promised in 2000 to renew the assault weapons ban.

FLOP: Then he said and did nothing as Congress let it lapse.

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

Oh, and thestink, er, I mean theslink:

What was that about "spineless lefties"?

Hans

If that is all you have after 6 years, Hans, he's doing alright.

"If that is all you have after 6 years..."

Bush opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department, then embraced it.

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]

Bush first refused to speak to the members of the 911 Commission, then agreed only if Vice President Dick Cheney came with him and provided that their testimony was secret and not under oath.

Bush has flip-flopped on whether his legacy will be as a war president or a peace president.

"I'm a war president," Bush told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Feb. 8. But in a July 20 speech in Iowa, he said: "Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president."

FLIP: BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

FLOP: BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [ Washington Post, 3/28/2000]

FLOP: BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]

...

"If that is all you have after 6 years..."

FLIP: BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

FLOP: BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA NCENTIVES TO DISARM "Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

FLIP: GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

FLOP: CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

FLIP: PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [ Washington Post, 4/5/04]

FLIP: In 1978, as a congressional candidate, Bush supported a Woman's Right to Choose... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

FLOP: BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life."

[Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

FLIP: BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

FLOP: BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

...

"If that is all you have after 6 years..."

FLIP: BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

FLOP: BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

FLIP: BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]

FLOP: BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]

FLIP: BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

FLIP: BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

FLOP: SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

FLIP: Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect...the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]

FLOP: Bush says patients' histories are not confidential: The Justice Department...asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]

...

"If that is all you have after 6 years..."

Okay, now I am ROTFLMAO!!!

Hans

"If that is all you have after 6 years, Hans, he's doing alright."

Okay, thestink, er, I mean theslink:

What was that about "he's doing alright?"

And, again, what was that about "spineless lefties"?

But most importantly, what was that about your "favorite thing about the Bush Administration"... you know, where "they stood up for what they believed"???

Way too funny, thestink, er, I mean theslink.

Way too funny!!!

Hans

""I'm with you, BUSHLOVERTWO, my favorite thing about the Bush Administration has always been that they stood up for what they believed in no matter how popular or unpopular that view was""

Absolutely true. The Bush administration has always believed in absolute power and have done everything they could to gain it. The also believe in profit for cronies and have done everything they could to insure that they make plenty off the suffering of our soldiers in Iraq. They also believe in using the legal process as a political tool as the Prosecutor scandal shows.
They are consistent and immoral but they believe in immorality.

CNN Breaking News: The Senate Judiciary Committee approved by voice vote today the use of subpoenas to compel testimony from five Justice Department officials about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Watch the hearing live on CNN Pipeline now.

and not one comment as an attempt to deny that these firings are business as usual in ANY PRESIDENCY and in fact, bush did it better for the judges than blowjob billy did......and you on the left still cant keep from cuming at the sight or sound of clinton.

I feel that the bottom line on this story is that it is another plan by the dems to keep pressure on the right and keep shit going whether its real shit or just the kind that hans trys to come up with.....(I knew I could get you in here somewhere)..........
lots of political crap about nothing, but with a liberal media and republicans who need to grow a sac, it will probably be around longer..........

why cant a republican leader.....SOMEWHERE have the gumption to call these williewackers out for what they are.................

I don't like the color of that one's hair. Your fired.

Signed,
The President.

It doesn't matter what the reason is. There is no crime for the President to remove someone who is doing a great job as it is his right.

When Hillary wins in 08, how many will be fired (or asked to resign)?

"whether its real shit or just the kind that hans trys to come up with....."

I wonder whether bl2 "read that somewhere," or did he "hear it on the radio"?

LOL!

Hans

""and not one comment as an attempt to deny that these firings are business as usual in ANY PRESIDENCY""

That must be why Republican John Sunnunu wants Gonzalez's resignation.
You can pretend it's business as usual but the real intent, due to the emails from Republicans, the phone calls, etc. tell any except those unwilling to listen that this was an attempt to use the legal system as a political tool....but they got caught before they could make recess appointments under that provision of the Patriot Act instead of the normal process followed by all other presidents.
Don't worry BL, the sky isn't really falling it just feels that way.

It's business as usual to fire them. The President has the authority to fire anyone he pleases of this bunch.

Gonzales... it's not the firing that has him in the hot seat.

Listening to Gonzales explain why he had to fire the gal that prosecuted Cunningham was sickening. If prosecutors didn't stop prosecuting Republicans and start prosecuting Democrats (even for trumped up charges) they were targeted by Miers & her co-conspirators. That's what made her Supreme Court material, at least according to Bush.

So it IS business as usual for this Administration to lie to the Congress and the Senate to justify their actions!

I get it now...

Thanks Petrous

The only thing missing from this story is President Bush saying...

" And Alberty...You're doing a heck of a Job!!"

That's the great thing about you lefties...first, you get together with a bunch of other lefties, post baseless comments to one another, and think "man, everyone thinks the way that I do." Preaching to the choir is fun, eh?

Then, when someone of a different point-of-view makes a comment you reduce yourselves (if that's possible) to name-calling and even more baseless comments. And you wonder why you all cannot win a presidential election....

You are all the same. You have no platform other than "Bush is evil." Hypocricy is your M.O. You flip-flop on every issue known to man. Keep up the great work - Rudy will thank you for it in '08.

"You flip-flop on every issue known to man.... Rudy will thank you for it in '08."

LOL!

That's rich!

"And you wonder why you all cannot win a presidential election...."

Let's review:

1992: Democratic candidate wins popular vote and electoral college

1996: Democratic candidate wins popular vote and electoral college

2000: Democratic candidate wins popular vote, Republican candidate wins electoral college

2004: Republican candidate wins popular vote and electoral college

"first, you get together with a bunch of other lefties"

This would be the Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs.

Apparently thestink, er, theslink doesn't know where he is.

Hans

"You flip-flop on every issue known to man."

That would be George W. Bush:

FLIP: May 16, 2003: U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer announces a sweeping operation to ensure that Baath Party members are removed from critical positions in the public sector. This ban could affect as many as 30,000 senior Baath Party members.

FLOP: Thursday, April 22, 2004: "The White House confirmed Thursday that the administration is moving to change a postwar policy that blocked members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from Iraqi government and military positions. . . . The sweeping ban was put in place by civilian administrator Paul Bremer, but he now wants to change the policy as part of an effort to convince Sunnis, who dominate the party, that they are welcome members of the postwar political transition in Iraq.""

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]

FLIP: First Bush claimed he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]

FLOP: Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]

FLIP: Bush then says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]

FLIP: Bush promised in 2000 to renew the assault weapons ban.

FLOP: Then he said and did nothing as Congress let it lapse.

FLIP: BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

FLOP: BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

"You flip-flop on every issue known to man."

But nice try thestink, er, theslink.

Hans