Comments on: GOP Senator Calls For Gonzales' Firing

John Sununu Says Bush Should Replace Attorney General In Wake Of Controversial DOJ Ousters

[sprvtr]

I'm seeing both sides of the argument here and really struggling to figure out which side I'm falling out on. I do know one this...this episode doesn't bode well for political appointees going forward. Let's assume for a moment that Bush was trying to be benevolent when he first took office hence he did not fire the prosecutors. Now he finds himself in this mess. I'd guess future presidents will simply get rid of all of them to avoid this same thing happening. Could be damaging to the overall judicial system I'd wager to guess. There should be a way to keep the justice system out of politics.

[aaabee-2009]

So if a Democrat senator called a US Attorney and (illegally) inquired about an ongoing investigation, and after the attorney wouldn't disclose information regarding the investigation, a Deomocrat president fired him, you all would be equally as compliant? Not bloody likely.

The Republicans have no shame in their greed and hypocracy these days and their one sided power grab is killing YOUR way of life.

"one-party system:
a type of party system government in which a single political party forms the government and no other parties are permitted to run candidates for election.
De facto single-party state:
a dominant-party system where unfair laws or practices prevent the opposition from legally getting power, outlaw opposition parties, or subordinate allied parties."
Quoted from Wikipedia

[imprisonbush]

According to the above CBS article: "Gonzales acknowledged his department... misled Congress about how they were fired." Thus, (like Bush) he admitted that he lied. Now I realize most Republicans do NOT have a problem with lying to anyone, including Congress. But we Democrats like to humor ourselves by believing that it's wrong to lie (especially to congress) -- even if the person is the highest-ranked and most powerful lawyer in the country. I know that this is very difficult for you Republicans to understand. Just accept that it's something you missed in your early years.

Consequently, as a start, my strong suggestion is that whenever ANY member of this Administration has demonstrated a willingness to deceive Congress (e.g. such as Gonzalez, Rice, Cheney, Bush and Rove etc) that they NOT be allowed to testify without being placed under oath. Then at least they can be prosecuted when Democrats take over from this corrupt bunch of fools.

[perception5]

"And that is such a smug and arrogant looking picture of him up top. He looks like an azz!
Posted by jh6379 at 08:00 AM : Mar 14, 2007"

...........brought to you my the "Reliably" corrupt CBS (Clinton Broadcasting Station)
Why are you surprised???

[perception5]

Excerpt from the WSJ this morning. No wonder the Dems and their close buddies in our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack are concerned:


"Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129-votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

The Democrats have a long history of surpressing voters and are experts at it...... look at the job they did on Black Americans from the 1860's to the 1960's in the South........sad indeed...

[omnibus66]

These firings are nothing more than a very blatant warning to the rest of the federal prosecutors to leave Bush and his partners in crime alone.

The public explanation is that they were released because they were not doing their jobs well. However, there is no evidence to back up that allegation.

The wing-nut neocons are trying to compare this to Bill Clinton requesting resignations from all of the previous appointees when he came into office, but that is standard practice for any new president. He did not fire those who disagreed with him six years into his term. No comparison.

Bush and Gonzales are both jokes, neither very funny.

[imprisonbush]

Hey gslinger3:

It is NORMAL for a newly elected President to appoint new US Attorneys at the beginning of his/her term. It is NOT normal for a President to fire all of them midway through their term (or even 8 of them). I do not believe any President has replaced all of his AGs before in fact. Such a proposal would be incredibly disruptive to the prosecution of crime very stupid. If this is representative of Harriet Meiers thinking, thank God she was rejected from the Supreme Court. Morever, what Bush, Rove and Gonzalez did here was much worse in my opinion than replacing all of them. First they 1) selectively fired those AGs who refused to tow the party line, punishing and discarding some very talented attorneys who cannot be readily replaced; 2) they have sent a clear message to all remaining AG's that they had better submit to Bush's political pressure, regardless of the law, or risk being fired; 3) they have sent a clear message to all Americans that federal justice is a political tool left to political hacks who blindly tow the party line; and 4) they all lied to Congress and the American public about the reasoning and motivation for the firings, destroying all credibility of AG Gonzalez and his political hacks. Of course, Bush and Rove had NO credibility remaining so they had nothing to lose here. If you cannot understand the damage they did here, then you surely belong in the Republican party. Seig heil!

[perception5]

If Ronald Reagan was alive today we could hear him say..."Well...... Dems there you go again"

Let me get this straight:

1. Attorney's are politicial appointees
2. They ALL serve at the pleasure of the President
3. The President is George Bush
4. Firing any or all Attorney's for political reasons IS NOT Against the law
5. In 1981 Reagan fired ALL the attorney's when he took office
6. In 1993 Clinton fired ALL the attorney's when he took office.
7. In 2005 right after the 2004 re-election of our President a decision was maded to fired some 7-9 Attorney's
8. In December 2006 the names of those to be fired were released.

......... Help me our where's the story? If Bush wanted to replace these 7-9 Attorneys for "ANY REASON" including polictical that's not against the law......................nor is it something other Presidents haven't done.........despite the "timing" of the firings....

[gslinger3]

Where was CBS news reporting back in 1993?

CBS, you and all the mainstream media are so politically biased is stinks!

[prcdr]

Frankly, the Attorney General should not have apologized at all. It doesn't matter what the reasons for the firings are. These are political appointees who can be replaced at ANY time by the President. They were lucky to have kept their jobs for as long as they did! It is STUPID of anyone to expect that political appointees from a Democratic administration should be kept in their jobs during a Republican administration. And yes, I would be saying the same thing if the situations were reversed. Frankly it's pathetic that the Democrats don't have better things to do than to be hypocritical about this!

[gslinger3]

All you Liberal Left wing Hippie, pot smoking, sandal wearing, tree hugging, Bush Hating, Barbara Striesand Loving, unshowered, Abortion loving, Unborn Child hating kooks are all nothing but HYPOCRITES!!!!

This is exactly what Slick Willy Clinton and Janet Reno did back in 1993, only they actually DID fire 93 prosecuters!