But Didn’t Clinton Fire A Bunch Of Attorneys?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in General Politics, Law
That’s the meme being offered around the right-wing noise machine.
McClatchy Newspapers has more:
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.While that’s true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.
Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.
Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.
So the situations, while appearing similar, are not. And yet…
…Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton’s first term firings in defending Bush’s second term dismissals.“Those discretionary decisions made by a president, by an administration, are often done,” he told reporters Tuesday.
It always goes back to Clinton.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 and is filed under General Politics, Law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:06 am
So it is different because of the timing, and anyone hired for the first term should be kept around for the second, no matter how they are performing?
I’m sorry, but the president has the right to fire his political appointees at any time if he feels as though they are not carrying out their jobs correctly and how he wants it carried out.
Funny that the media and dems had no trouble calling for Rumsfeld’s (or now, Gonzalez’) head during a period where there was not a political turnover.
March 14th, 2007 at 11:34 am
How is “It all goes back to Clinton” any different than “Everything Bush does is wrong”?
Just curious.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Morons above - Typical neoclown spin, the issue isn’t about whether the president can fire attorneys, or whether previous presidents did it or not, the issue that is absolutely wrong here is the reasons for why these attorneys were fired. They weren’t fired because they were underperforming, they were fired because they wouldn’t go along with the kings wishes. Don’t change the subject. I want you to say that it is ok to fire attorneys for political reasons. Say it. You won’t of course because you know it is wrong so your left trying to change the subject. This was wrong and sneaky and AG Gonzalez should be fired. He wasn’t qualified for the job to begin with.
March 14th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Sometimes it is just plain funny how both sides say how bad the other is, yet they use the others actions as justification.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
kilroy -
I was just coming to that conclusion myself. Apparently both parties appoint judges based on politiics. That’s the real problem.
All the other stuff is partisan noise, which comes from both sides.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Dee-
Actually, they WERE fired because they were underperforming, or poor managers, or not aggressively pursuing illegal immigrants and drug dealers. At least according to the original text of the emails posted in today’s WaPo. But I suspect you are too dumb to actually read primary sources, instead of secondary (or even tertiary ones).
And I WILL say that it is OK to fire political appointees for political reasons, whether they are attorneys, secretaries, etc. Um…that is why they are called ‘political appointees’, get it? If YOU don’t think it is OK, then we’re back to wondering why you are giving your buddy Clinton a free pass. Now, remind me who the moron is?
PS - it is ‘you’re’ as in ‘you are left’, not ‘your left’.
March 14th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
This should squash the Clinton did it arguement. From today’s Seattle Times: Presidents commonly begin their first term by replacing most, if not all, U.S. attorneys. Presidents Clinton in 1993 and Bush in 2001 replaced nearly all U.S. attorneys in the Justice Department’s 93 districts nationwide. But it’s rare for these attorneys to be dismissed later in a president’s term except in cases of malfeasance. A Feb. 22 report by the bipartisan Congressional Research Service showed only five cases in 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were forced to resign. Three were for ‘questionable personal conduct,’ such as one who bit a topless dancer after losing a drug case.
March 14th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Well, one is trying to find justifications for your present actions with misleading comparisons to the past, and the other is just plain stupid.
In short, they’re both wrong.
March 14th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
KMan-
“And I WILL say that it is OK to fire political appointees for political reasons, whether they are attorneys, secretaries, etc. Um…that is why they are called ‘political appointees’, get it?” Firing political appointees for not following broad policy objectives is one thing. Firing federal law enforcement officers for not following orders, orders which are in effect “go after members of this one party and lay off members of this other party” is a completely different animal. I mean honestly, are you saying that it would be O.K. for a democratic president to tell all of his U.S. attorneys to investigate the leading republicans in each attorney’s purview, and not investigate the democrats despite substantial evidence. And would it be ok for the president to fire those US attorneys who did not listen to him? I would like to know how you would respond to such a situation.
March 14th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I get tired, oh so tired, of the spin from the right wingers on here. Wake up! You know as well as the rest of us that there would have been no uproar over this if these men had not been slandered. Three months passed, & the Dems made not a peep about the firings.The fired attorneys finally got together, and made public the lie Gonzales had told about the poor performance. All had positive performance reviews shortly before. Iglesias & McKay both told of Republican pressures to interfere in investigations which were in process. McKay even took the step of cutting short the conversation, saying it would be Obstruction of Justice to talk any further. He was correct in that assessment. On top of that, Gonzales lied before Congress on the issue, especially when he testified that the WH was not a part of the decision. His own paper trail proved it.
Get it through your heads, cons, that the attorneys in question would not have gone public, the investigations would not have happened, & Gonzales would not be sweating over the issue if he had only told the truth in the first place.
Justin is right. The Right Wing is saying what they did was right by saying the other side was wrong. Sorry, guys. If Clinton was wrong, so is Bush, Bush I, & Reagan for doing the same thing. And Gonzales is even more wrong by his utter disrespect for the truth & the law. Don’t forget the illegal spying on civilians that Bush, the FBI, & Gonzales all admitted publicly. If this was an isolated incident, you might have a point. But it is a pattern of duplicity here that makes investigation necessary.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“In short, they’re both wrong.”
I couldn’t agree more.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I have not read the email, however did pay attention to the attorneys’ testimony in that the majority of the 8 realized their jobs were threatened if they 1. weren’t more aggressive on following the White House agenda; 2. they didn’t cooperate to specifically find dirt on Democrats before the election, and the most striking 3. they were being retaliated against for prosecuting Republican Senators–Duke Cunningham (for accepting bribes in assigniing military contracts), and in preventing future agressive investigations into more Republicans such as into DoLittle, Lewis and Dusty Faggo. or, 4. simply because Rove wanted to install a croney. Given Rove’s history and tactics, I would suspect that a buddy of Rove in Hillary’s home state would be there as an instrument to specifically find dirt on her. There is also indication that the attorneys who did not get fired might have been less likely to prosecute cases fairly. What that means, is that if you are a friend of the Executive office, are put on trial, the prosecution might overlook their Judicial duty, overlook evidence, over look the rule of law, and instead follow the dictate of the WhiteHouse. Yes, they are appointed and fired on the “pleasure” of the president, however, their behavior and job is to follow the Constitution and rule of law, not a punk chicken hawk dictator. A self-described decider who fills his office with Iran Contra characters and other shady characters. We must have a honest, non-partisan Justice System. Remember, failures in the courts are responsible for him being in office. (Florida) Being of an educated, open liberal, mind, welcome rightwing comments, and any clarification of the facts that you might find helpful. Clinton had his faults, but did not endanger our country to this extent, didn’t lie us into a bloody war, didn’t abuse our Civil rights, and did not trash the Constitution. The Articles of Impeachment drawn on Nixon are just as applicable here.
March 15th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Rightwings might reference http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arlen_Specter
(Republican)
Allowing for unapproved U.S. Attorneys
On January 17, 2007 a spokesperson admitted that Specter made a last minute change to a bill in 2006 that would allow for the Executive to install U.S. Attorneys without the approval of the Senate. The Administration, shortly after the bill was passed, began to replace U.S. Attorneys with new, unapproved, ones.
This is part of the Patriot Act, and might have been done by Specter’s aide, however it was under his name.
Prior to this, Congress reviewed and approved replacements. Checks and Balances being dismantled so that King George can reign. If this doesn’t bother you, you need to study more.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Some of the arguments here are bordering on zealous rants. The FACTS, which can be verified, are that Clinton fired ALL the US attorneys and replaced them with political cronies. It is the President’s right to do that, although only Clinton exercised that option.
In fact, Clinton did this before his Cabinet was even seated, and no less an organ than the New York Times called this move “unprecedented.” (Dee, do you know what that word means?) The media barely raised an eyebrow at this action, and there was no outcry of righteous indignation from the opposition — although there should have been.
The most recent firings of 8 US attorneys were based on a 2-year performance review process. Yet the wingnuts on the left, whose only goal for this nation seems to be complete and total social control, are having what can only be described as a “hissy” fit.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
A little more background on the McKay case:
In Washington state, McKay’s office was involved in the recount for the governor’s race when he was approached by a Republican politician (sorry, I can’t recall the name) who started a discussion concerning the recount. McKay cut him off in mid sentence, saying in effect that any further discussion would constitute Obstruction of Justice. In other words, McKay kept this Republication out of prison by cutting him off.
Events since shows the thanks he received for that favor, namely the slander of his record about 2 months after his firing. I have a feeling Fitz would have let the potential vote fixer go on , & then have him arrested.
And for the record, AGAIN> The only comparable thing Clinton did was to fire 2 US As, one for biting an exotic dancer & the other for assaulting a reporter, both criminal acts. Every President since at least Carter has asked for the resignation of all US As when entering office. Seems all the ranting con’s responses I have read show they can’t seem to be able to read past the first 20 or so words of a blog, & can’t figure out how to link to the original story. All they seem to be able to come up with is the same old spin, spin, spin, : “BUT Clinton did it!”
March 17th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Poliwonk, find right-wingers’ supreme understanding of facts just fascinating. If you look further back in your history you’ll see that Regan and Bush I replaced attorneys in same way as Clinton. Since you wish to compare with Clinton.
Clinton did it as an initial change of office, however unlike this bush, Clinton did not have a “Patriot Act” so that he could bypass congressional approval of replacement attorneys. There wasn’t an attempt to identify those attorneys that follow Clinton, vs not follow Clinton.
Once appointed, and after they are sworn in, their first responsibility is to the law, to the Constitution, not to the president. Given the level of “credibility” of our honorable executive, and his willingness to honor power and party–not GOD and country, it would not be out of character for him to cherry-pick attorneys for his POLITICAL agenda, just like he cherry-picked to justify a war. Both wrong, the first obstruction of Justice, the second, the total lack of morality, I’d even call it mass murder.
Question for you. Why exactly did we go to war…oh, I forgot….to liberate the Iraqi People. Can’t wait to hear your answer, because no one has explained it, as far as I know. And, no, I’m not off topic because when you boil it down, the motives are power; and results are destructive when the majority of power is in the hands of an undeserving few.
We the People want out of Iraq, We the People now admit going into this was a mistake. We the People have petitioned for redress. If this is a Representative Democracy, wouldn’t we be out by now? Is it because “the deciderâ€Â? knows better than all the rest of us? Well, as your president said, “…he he…well…uuuhhh, sometimes money trumps peace.” and “some might call you the elite, I call you my base.” He is even quoted saying his job would be easier if, “I were dictator…heh heh hehâ€Â? etc.
Our troops suffer, 2 million Iraqi refugees suffer, Last time I checked, the Lancett estimates this has cost 165,000 Iraqi civilian lives. We are in hock up to our ears, to the Communist Chinese; we have alienated all but a few corners of the world, are looking at starting a new arms race. Money and infrastructure…direction… for new energy sources—-nope! And, whitehouse coverup of Jim Hanson and other scientific findings re global climate change cost us precious time to address a major problem. What we are doing is creating more terrorists, as 16 Intelligence Agencies reported. Brewster Jennings which had been the major intelligence operation in charge of monitoring for WMD, and Iran, ruined by whitehouse. Major spy operations like that take years and 100’s of millions to establish…gone…The people who cooperated with Brewster Jennings…don’t know. The translators in Iraq are targets, but we leave them behind. Don’t kid yourself that we are there because we care about the Iraqi people. It is at the will of the “decider.â€Â?
LEGALIZED THEFT is the best way to describe the oil agreement which passed through Iraq’s cabinet, but not Iraqi parliament. From what I know of the contract, only 17 of Iraq’s 80 oil wells will remain for Iraq for the next 20-35 years; and the rest are for international corporations; 2/3 of all undiscovered oil will be open to foreign control. Do you suppose that may be the true reason for the majority of the anger in the hearts of the Iraqis people? Do you suppose that the Iraqi people will be pleased when they find that this also means that there can be no partnership with Iraq companies, people employed are not likely to be Iraqi. Or that the greater majority of profits will be removed from their country. If that is the case, our soldiers are dying for oil corporations. We occupy a country, when we went there to win hearts and minds.
We don’t have proper distributions of political power, we don’t have benevolent leadership or media. Mix in corporation profiteering, military infrastructure, some who actually want armageddon, with a whitehouse full of incompetent, power-hungry thieves, and you get the perfect recipe for ruin. I encourage you to read the Project for a New American Century, Clean Break, Downing Street Memo, and look up Iran Contra. You will find many of those old names in this administration. We got Phase I, still waiting for Phase II.
The Patriot Act and Bush’s signing statements are dangerous, because they eliminate We the People’s protections, concentrates power in the executive office, and are an attempt to bypass the system of Checks and Balances. Basically, we now have an Enabling Act.
Hitler’s path to power was made possible by the March 23, 1933 “Enabling Act.” This law was officially called the ‘Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.’ “The Enabling Act” curtailed the constitutional freedoms of Germans, based on peril to the homeland, with a promise that they would be fully restored in four years. The German parliament, which was similar to our House and Senate, was promised that the new powers used would be only those “essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures” for the protection of the state and people, and the “recourse to such a law [would be] in itself a limited one.”
In 1937, the German parliament extended the Enabling Act to 1945
Read, Read, Read, then extrapolate. The majority of wealth is in the top less than 1% of the US population. The last tax cuts were bragged about…look at the Thomas Register and do the math. If you are in the bottom 99%, your tax cut averaged out to be 200$; top 1%, if I recall correctly, it was around $14,000 to $25,000 tax cut. Critical Thinking is called for. Money beget money. Look at the “Death Taxâ€Â?. Wars are fought by the poor for the benefit of the rich. Smedley Butler on Interventionism — Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC
Poliwonk, in all fairness, the Republican party at time of Lincoln fought for the voting rights of minorities, and Democrats didn’t. Bush did one good thing in office, by setting up an ocean refugee around some Islands in the Pacific, Can’t think of anything else.
You can be a Republican now, but with an open mind and some effort think you might change your mind.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
What I don’t understand about the dittoheads who post here is why you defend a CLEARLY awful administration . FYI Clinton has not been Pres for SEVEN YEARS now
MANY Presidents fire and appoint their own attorneys WHEN THEY BEGIN their Presidency. What happened here is attorneys with positive performance appraisals were fired on the say so of the White HOuse for not being political hatchet men WELL INTO the evil ones 2 nd term. PERIOD and of course they lied about it and lied about it and lied about it….It is amazing what a HAZY memory Gonzales has isn’t it for a man in his position . He does not recall a thing.
There are THREE branches of government ..Judicial , Legislative and Executive……for the first 6 years this administration acted as if there was only one.
So NO it is not AT ALL the same as what Clinton did not AT ALL
================================================
THe same righties who wanted Clinton IMPEACHED for lying about cheating on his wife while undeer oath , the same people , now want Libby who lied to the FBI REPEATEDLY about the possible outing of a covert operative to be pardoned. THE SAME PEOPLE…and we wonder how HItler came to power ….
===============================================
The Plame hearing…even if we assume that the leaker did NOT know she was covert , the fact remains that the ONLY REASON her name was released as to get even with Joe Wilson for telling his story. NO OTHER REASON….essentialy ending her mission to find WMD’s which of course W and his cronis know never existed in the 1st place
================================================
Turn off RUsh , turn off Oreilly , turn off Hannity and THINK FOR YOURSELF
March 17th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Thank you, Vince. No rightwinger will hear you, of course, past the strident tone, but I’m sure it felt good. It felt good to read.
As a moderate (really), I cannot understand how rightwingers get so upset when anyone suggests that checks and balances are a good idea. Didn’t we learn that in middle school? Why do they pretend to occupy the moral high ground on everything, and act shocked when anyone questions their actions? Thank god we’re past hearing, “We’re at war, how dare you question our leaders”, “He’s a good Christian man, how dare you question his motives”, “Our soldiers are at risk; your challenges help the enemy”. I am so sick of being held hostage to that crap. Those days are over, folks, get used to it. This admistration’s actions and motives MUST BE QUESTIONED. Period. Get over it. ALL ADMINISTRATIONS motives and and actions must be questioned. That’s what keeps us free, you moroons! (Now I’m strident. Damn)
Power corrupts. People in power loose sight of the bigger picture sometimes (like our civil liberties), and it becomes tempting for them to take politically expedient actions that bend the rules (like firing Fed. Attorneys that aren’t serving the party’s political agenda). That is against the rules. A political party cannot use the legal system to gain a political advantage. A political party CAN appoint political appointees, of course, and a party can accept the resignation of the previous administrations appointees to make room for their own; but it cannot aske their own appointees to use the position to serve the party at the expense of the constitution. If we let parties do that, we’d end up like Russia. We’d be pretending to be a free society, with a dictator/puppet master manipulating the system for his or her own political interests. It already happened to us. Remember Nixon? It might be happening now. We have the right to question power and hold them accountable. We do.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Michael wrote:
“A political party CAN appoint political appointees, of course, and a party can accept the resignation of the previous administrations appointees to make room for their own”
Now why would a new president want to replace appointees left-over from a previous adminastration??? I think McClatchy Newspapers has already answered this for us:
“Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers…”
So, we have arrived at the idea that Presidents can and do fire US attorneys for pollitically orenited reasons. Who cares if they are fired at the start of the first term, or half-way through the second? I would love to hear how the outcomes differ!
Oh! Vince, I hear you.
“THe same righties who wanted Clinton IMPEACHED for lying about cheating on his wife while undeer oath , the same people , now want Libby who lied to the FBI REPEATEDLY about the possible outing of a covert operative to be pardoned.”—Vince
you see, despite the spin(from both sides), Bill Clinton violated the law. Last I checked, those people are commonly referred to as criminals. However, the difference here is that L. Libbey is rotting in a federal prision while Clinton is out campaining for presidency so his wife can destroy our country…again.
In closeing, no-one is criminalising B. Clinton for his actions concerning attorneys, they are just making a comparison to the situatins and the correspinding responses. The underlying issue here is that you people(term used liberally), left and right, are so closed minded that you refuse to see truth. The political arena of this country has become little more than a coluseum of weak little bitches pushing agendas. Truly, We The People, that is the vast majority of the US population that lies somewhere in the middle, don’t give a damn about Libbey, Plame, Clinton, or Bush. We want a government to work for us…hell, that’s what we pay for!!! And, stop making unfounded allogations!! Don’t turn off talk shows, listen to both sides, do a little research, and arrive at your own perceptions. Truth is perception after all.
March 19th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Every President, when he takes office, receives the resignations of all U.S. Attorneys. That is traditional, and it has happened for every President in memory. For Clinton, that happened in 1993. All of George H. W. Bush’s U.S. Attorneys resigned in January, 1993. Likewise, all of Clinton’s U.S. Attorneys resigned in January, 2001. So Karl Rove has been running around telling people that Harriet Miers’ idea was just “business as usual.” As Karl told people last week
March 20th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Hey!
Valerie Plame was outed by both the Russian govt. and accidently by the CIA to Fidel Castro. that is why they didn’t raise an uproar when her name was published and also why she was a desk jockey. Libby was found guilty because the CIA never came out and publicly identifed her, but as a “covert” agent, she was already useless.
Any leftover questions about the 2000 elections can be answered by reading the dissenting opinion from the Florida State Supreme Court, who accurately predicted that the decision that they had rendered previously would not hold up under scrutiny. A widely repeated inaccurate statement was that SCOTUS voted 7-2 and gave Bush the presidency. The key vote was 5-4 that upheld that the two previous vote counts would stand. 7-2 was that there was no legal solution to delaying the vote’s certification.
It always does come back to Clinton because he took the potentially most prosperous time in recent history and drove it into the ground. The Clinton-Gore recession is a fact, and the illegal agreement that Gore negotiated allowing Russia to provide weaponry to Iran is how Hamas got 21,000 missiles ready to provoke Israel into a war. As Clinton left, he lamented that pakistan was not an ally, which they now are. The black market atomic weapon shop run by AQ Khan is out of business. Syria has abandoned their WMD program. North Korea has stopped (without the bribe that Clinton gave them). By the way, where was the UN approval or US declaration of war in Kosovo? Tell the people in Sudan whose pharmaceutical plant was blown up when Monica’s blue dress hit the media that “no one died when clinton lied”. Tell the joker from NASA who granted 1400 interviews that doesn’t constitute “muzzling”, and ask him why he took Ketchup-boys money? Ask Gore why he favored releasing oil from the strategic reserve as the 2000 election neared, and how paying poorer people carbon credits reduces the absurdly large amount of energy he uses? And while your at it, tell George Clooney that all of my efforts to reduce energy consumption were wasted when he decided to fly to Darfur to see for himself. And by the way, please explain why Hillary Clinton had 279 FBI files illegally in her possession, and ask yourself what is the real reason that Foster killed himself and his wife went to jail rather that admit what she knew…. it goes on and on and on and on….
March 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
In short we are all culpable for permitting the amendments to the 2006 Patriot Act that peritted the AG to fire U.S. Attorneys after Senate Confirmation and then pick replacements for them who did not have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Repubican/Democrat–The Blood Is Spilled And We Allowed It.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Not a republican, but Bush is one of the few president’s who allowed democrat political appointees to keep their jobs a few more years especially in such an important position. Democrats need to be careful, they will shoot themselves in the foot, when it is their time to fire appointees and replace them. They will be seen as hypocrites of the worst type.
March 23rd, 2007 at 3:14 am
Where were all these so called truth finders during the Clinton administration? It amazes me how the Democrats who are the Party of Lies and Deception, can actually question someones integrity.
The Clintons came in office and went out of office under investigation starting with Whitewater and ending with Clinton himself lying under oath about his sex-capades in the white house, not to mention all the crooks he pardoned when leaving office. They do nothing but undermine everything the President tries to do to protect us, I think most of them should be brought up on charges of treason.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Dee, Dennis Franks, et. al. only prove once again that the collective stupidity of the liberal left is overshadowed only by their mind numbing intellectual dishonesty.
The fact that the wackjob left is making this a story at all is because A) their blinding hatred for all things Bush, and to B) to move away from the real story which is that Knee-Cap Nancy Pelosi didn’t have the needed votes on WEDNESDAY, when the original Troop Appropriation Bill vote was to have taken place; she needed two additional days to threaten HER OWN PARTY MEMBERS into voting the party line (Dennis Kucinich wasn’t even allowed to speak on the floor AGAINST the bill; A REPUBLICAN SENATOR HAD TO GIVE HALF OF HIS OWN TIME TO KUCINICH — LOOK IT UP YOU AMERICA HATING LIBERALS!!!) as well as the so called “Party of Ethics” shoved so much pork into the same bill, there was no way Bush wouldn’t veto it, and they know it.
Also, be watching for how the main stream media slants the Bush veto story as being some how “sour grapes” or some other such nonsense in regards to the Dimocrats winning the Congress, which is also not true, in fact the Republicans LOST the congress by not doing what they were put there in the first place to do.
Bottom line is that Clinton fired 93, Bush fired 8 and according the MSM and idiot liberals, the world is coming to an end and Karl Rove is the Anti Christ. Keep it up, liberals and you will not only lose the Presidential Election in ‘08, but also congress as well.
But they will only blame Bush for that as well…
March 26th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Michael wrote:
“LOOK IT UP YOU AMERICA HATING LIBERALS”.
Wow. Michael, thank you for proving an earlier point: that Neo-con nut jobs like yourself cannot stand being questioned on anything without calling names and putting up your dukes. Someone once said that liberals are whiney and elitist, and neo-conservatives are violent. Can anyone really refute that? Wow, dude.
By the way, liberals may blame everything on Bush, but at least he’s in office, which makes him…uh…accountable. Neo-nuts blame everything on a guy who hasn’t held public office for more than 6 years. Keep up, guys.
The whole point of democracy is to question leadership. It doesn’t mean we hate the country, Bill O. It means we love this country enough to question the bully that controls all the big guns and ships and tanks. We do it FOR the soldiers, because they can’t. Do you get it, yet?
Okay, let me slow down. If no one questions King George, King George gets drunk on himself, and he starts making soldiers do his political bidding, (like going to war with the guy that put a hit on his daddy.)
Am I talking down to you? Sorry, Michael, I told you Liberal’s were elitist. Bet that makes you want to kick my ass, doesn’t it?
March 29th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Michael Mc wrote “Wow. Michael, thank you for proving an earlier point: that Neo-con nut jobs like yourself cannot stand being questioned on anything without calling names and putting up your dukes.”
I guess calling someone a “Neo-con nut job” is not doing the same thing, at least not in your view.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
This is just plain power politics,notice the recent PARTY LINE votes .Pelosi and her friends have changed nothing.
December 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Reagan and Bush didn’t fire all of their attorneys like Clinton said. They let their terms run out. You should know that you can’t trust the only US president to ever be accused of perjury..the only reason why he wasn’t convicted was because technically, he wasn’t lying. Misleading yes, but not lying