DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Fired U.S. attorneys testify before Congress

**deackatera** · 08-03-2007, 05:27 PM

I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old.

While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion.

I didn't say that it did. My point instead was, that people here seem to be interested in an action that makes Republicans look bad. I was wondering if they were truly interested in the action, or merely in making Republicans look bad. So far I have seen interest in the one making Reps look bad, and ZERO interest in a more extensive action by Democrats. But the day is young, and it's theoretically possible that some Republican-basher may yet examine the other, more extensive, case of US-attorney firing.

As for "crime" or unethical conduct... U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire one, ten, or all of them, he can. I did not object when Clinton fired all 93 of them in 1993, and I do not object to Bush's firing of 10 of them today.

The President's job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The U.S. Attorneys are his direct instrument for doing so. If one or more of them aren't doing it the way he wants, it's his choice and even DUTY to replace them with people who will. Whether the President is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

There have been reasons advanced why George Bush should fire the attorneys he did (lack of performance on Immigration and Ethics issues), and reasons why he should not (some are involved in active investigations, some against members of his party). Reasons have also been advanced why CLinton should not have fired all 93 of them in 1993 (Some were involved in investigations against emmbers of his party). No reasons have been advanced why he SHOULD fire them.

But, again, the day is young. I asked for examinations of both firings... since people here say they are interested in U.S. attorney firings. The response so far, indicates that they are interested only in firings that seem to make Republcians look bad, and no interest in far more extensive firings that made a Democrat look bad.

That says a lot about the people claiming only interest in US Attorney firings. It says that perhaps they are not being honest about their motivations, and casts large doubts about the sense in paying attention to them.

Personally, I think there is no real problem with either set of firings - a view I held even back when only Cinton had done them. But some here now claim they dio see problems. I am encouraging them to examine the firings (all of them) - but am struck by the strange one-sidedness of their "interest".

Of course, considering the source, I cannot say I'm surprised. SSDD.

08-03-2007, 05:27 PM	#24
deackatera Join Date Dec 2005 Posts 511 Senior Member	I really don't care one way or the other. But the case you're referring to is 14 years old. The one Sam is referring to is a year old. While the passage of time doesn't make something "less wrong", the instance itself has no real bearing on the case currently under discussion. I didn't say that it did. My point instead was, that people here seem to be interested in an action that makes Republicans look bad. I was wondering if they were truly interested in the action, or merely in making Republicans look bad. So far I have seen interest in the one making Reps look bad, and ZERO interest in a more extensive action by Democrats. But the day is young, and it's theoretically possible that some Republican-basher may yet examine the other, more extensive, case of US-attorney firing. As for "crime" or unethical conduct... U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. If he wants to fire one, ten, or all of them, he can. I did not object when Clinton fired all 93 of them in 1993, and I do not object to Bush's firing of 10 of them today. The President's job is to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The U.S. Attorneys are his direct instrument for doing so. If one or more of them aren't doing it the way he wants, it's his choice and even DUTY to replace them with people who will. Whether the President is Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. There have been reasons advanced why George Bush should fire the attorneys he did (lack of performance on Immigration and Ethics issues), and reasons why he should not (some are involved in active investigations, some against members of his party). Reasons have also been advanced why CLinton should not have fired all 93 of them in 1993 (Some were involved in investigations against emmbers of his party). No reasons have been advanced why he SHOULD fire them. But, again, the day is young. I asked for examinations of both firings... since people here say they are interested in U.S. attorney firings. The response so far, indicates that they are interested only in firings that seem to make Republcians look bad, and no interest in far more extensive firings that made a Democrat look bad. That says a lot about the people claiming only interest in US Attorney firings. It says that perhaps they are not being honest about their motivations, and casts large doubts about the sense in paying attention to them. Personally, I think there is no real problem with either set of firings - a view I held even back when only Cinton had done them. But some here now claim they dio see problems. I am encouraging them to examine the firings (all of them) - but am struck by the strange one-sidedness of their "interest". Of course, considering the source, I cannot say I'm surprised. SSDD.
	Quote