Ding - no the big difference is that Clinton admin fired and Bush admin transitioned like normal. It's real convenient to make a big deal of the Senate confirmations. Why didn't the Dem Senators make a big deal of the provision then not the firing? How many attorneys had been denied confirmation in the past? Probably zero.

Eat truth libs:

Investors Business Daily:

"As governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton could keep a lid on things without much national attention or interest. As president, he had to be more careful. The U.S. attorney for Arkansas was George Banks. Dismissing him would raise eyebrows. Dismissing all 93 U.S. attorneys to get rid of one potentially troublesome one would not.

On Aug. 16, 1993, Paula Casey, an active Democrat and a law student of Bill Clinton’s, took over from her Republican predecessor. Her job was to run interference and thwart any criminal referrals related to Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.
In addition to quashing a criminal referral of Madison from the Resolution Trust Corp., she also was tasked to prevent Judge David Hale, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and mail fraud, from testifying against the Clintons. She rejected Hale’s effort at a plea bargain. He had offered to share information on the “banking and borrowing practices of some individuals in the elite political circles of the state of Arkansas.” Guess who?"

The move was also designed to try and save Dan Rostenkowski so he could stay on Ways and Means to play shepard to Hilarycare.

My my, mostly. Dont you ever get the story on anything before you go spouting off? Or do you always go off half cocked, making things up as you go along? You need to stay off MOn.org. Your brain is to soft to distinguish between real and make belive stuff.

P.S...pull that skirt down, your ignorance is ugly!

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

NL207 - Because they would not offer to resign as is customary with all political appointees.  Republican appointees who lacked class - but I'm being reduntant

Right NL...

I posted that somewhere earlier...just ask Billy Dale all about it...

Eh Mrs. Clinton?

She and she alone is the one who took care of all of this internal workings when it came to the hiring and firing of EVERYTHING!

She had enough evidence on her husband through Jerry Parks (who she hired, and poof he is dead, and all video's and transcripts are gone according to his widow and son, his office was broke into after his so called car accident...) of his numerous affairs, especially Gennifer Flowers.

Bill Clinton was just her lap-dog...so to speak...lol!

She ruled every single thing.

Dee Bunk -   The fact that Bush took 3 or 4 or x  months to replace Clinton's appointees is irrelevant - they were all replaced.  

And that's not what this brohaha is about - its about Bush using the PATRIOT Act to bypass Congress to install his cronies

dervish -  Has Bush fired 8 AUSAs?  Will they be replaced?  How will they be replaced? 

Will Bush use the new anti-terrorism PATRIOT Act to replace the 8 canned AUSAs without Senate confirmation?   You decide.

The Kyle Sampson email is not alleged - its part of the document dump

Bigtimer, you ask where am I politically. You tell me. I am anti-bureaucracy, anti-control freak, pro-capitalist, anti-parochial, pro-science, religiously ignorant (church of idonno...), open source, politically skeptical, generally compassionate, pro law, order and prosperity. Right and left wing people both call me traitor for opposite reasons; probably wouldn't last a minute under the tender mercies of lbz, or islamo-fascist death squads, and under water boarding I'd hold my breath till I passed out, before you got started. Radical middle?

So Austin, let me ask you this.... Is an execution, administered to someone
who was found guilty of a capital crime, a person being killed by death squads.
No. What is happening is that I get set off by the "treason" thing.
World wide, treason is so often invoked for political offenses, so rarely for
material betrayals of the security of the nation. that I usually associate
it with a kind of ritual political murder. That is not so say that
"treason" could never be a justified verdict.

So, yes, you are right, so long as the idea of treason is being treated
soberly. If that was the case then I was jumping to a conclusion about the context of it's use.

It might be a good idea to just talk about crimes, war crimes, and acts of
war. But, it's probably unfair of me to tell people how they should word
their opinions.

Your ad-hominem hyperbole and sarcastic demeanor do this
conversation little good, and you would do well to argue a point rather than
attack the messenger.

Fair enough. I have insufficient context to know exactly how the message was meant. Tossing around the treason word, is like the red flag to the bull in me.

While I don't believe that capital punishment works to deter crime, and do not support it on those grounds. I do support capital punishment as a way of taking out the trash.

Again, I have problems with the connotations. I note that the easiest way
to defeat normal human inhibitions is to redefine another human as being
something inanimate and detestable. I am reluctant to casually use such
analogies, due to this fallibility which is so well known, and so often
abused. I just generally reject logic that involves over the top
redefinitions or analogies. The conclusion might be correct, but the work
to make the case must not be neglected.

I agree that capital punishment is insufficient deterrence to crime to
justify it on that basis. My remaining opposition to it has to do with the
corrupting effect it has on the executioner. That's another worthy debate.

In the same way, if a person betrays his or her country to the enemy, and that betrayal leads to the death of other Americans, as far as I am
concerned, he needs to be dragged up before congress and put on trial, not before a jury of his peers, but before the Congress of the United States.

It's not practical to bring every accused traitor up before Congress. I
also note that both intent and effect, and perhaps a few other points, ought to be evaluated to make the case for treason. It's not necessarily an easy judgment.

In times of sufficient desperation, I can forgive a lot of legal niceties.
My feeling is that we are a long way from that degree of desperation.
However, this too is a worthwhile debate, which time does not allow here.

Then, the evidence needs to be presented, and if it shows that he
betrayed his countrymen, he should be summarily executed... no waiting
period.
Sure, if he goes immediately to congress, but as that is generally not
practical, let me just look at your anger, expressed in the hypothetical
context, and I sympathize with righteous anger and frustration, but suggest it is more important to channel that anger into constructive action, rather than vent it into the hypothetical.

We have enemies out there who are ready for a long and protracted war.
Enemies are enemies until we make peace with them. Win or loose. Then,
oddly enough they may even become friends. Look at the case of Vietnam.

This enemy has been our enemy since our country first began, and they will continue to be our enemy until we defeat them outright.
What are we talking about here? Islam? Liberals? And what would
defeating them mean, short of genocide? Are you sure they have been our enemies since the country began? And some of them are us. So are we our own enemy? Well, I suppose, wouldn't be the first time.... :-)

Do you think it is ok to give aid and comfort to the enemy?
Sometime truth is more important than the effect it has on the enemy. There are a few other strategic considerations having to do with the short term effects versus the long term effects that can sometimes trump the normal case, but in general, no, it is not OK to give aid and comfort to the enemy.

Do you believe it is ok to call our soldiers criminals while ignoring the
crimes and threats of our enemy who's sole purpose is to come here and
subdue or kill us?

On calling soldiers criminals, some few of them OK, the vast majority of
them not OK.

Ignoring the crimes and threats of the enemy would be foolish indeed. We have many enemies, and they have different intents. Some enemies are enemies due to misunderstandings. We should always try to clear the
misunderstandings that keep us enemies. Others cannot be reasoned with. We can only do our best to defend ourselves from them. Most of the "enemy" in Iraq are not the ones that have the sole purpose of coming over here to subdue or kill us. Some few of them do have that intent.

And have you studied the Koran?
Yes, I read it last year.

I would challenge you to begin doing an in depth study of Islam to see for
yourself whether they're telling the truth about being a religion of peace.

I find some passages in the Koran that argue for peace. Some that argue for peace if the opposition is sufficiently submissive. Some that argue for violence. In practice, much of Islam emphasizes peace. Go back a few hundred years and most Islam was reasonably tolerant of others, especially anyone identified as one of the people of the book. A number of current strains of Islam are the opposite, and advocate endless frenzy of violence.

I note that parts of the bible advocate genocide, and we Christians/Jews,
believers or just culturally Christian or Jew, usually tend to emphasize
those parts that speak more to peaceful emotions, although some do not. Culture and Religion take many forms. They usually cant be be analyzed in too theoretical a way.

I have lived for a time in different Muslim countries. I know the sense and
feeling of peace that the more benign manifestations of Islam can convey -- awe for the beauty of God's creation, compassion and other laudable values. I know that fanaticism comes and goes, and human weakness ebbs and flows too. The culture shock, the competition for resources, the poverty and the wealth, these all have various political manifestations. We have to take it as it comes, and deal with it all as need be.

I already have done this, and have already come to the conclusion that
they need to be stopped. I came to this conclusion in the early 90s, but you may take longer... what more do you need than 9-11?
There are those who need to be stopped. There those whose fire would burn out if we just left them alone. In some cases we have the resources to solve the problem. In some cases we only have the resources to contain it. Unfortunately, in some cases we don't even have the resources to contain it, and have to negotiate a truce, hoping that time will bring the enemy to it's senses. We have to watch that our lines of supply don't become too long and thin, and we have to pick our field of battle with all strategic consideration.

We have to look at other countries that have survived a 9-11 and worse. We have to tighten our ship of state. I note that the disasters of policy that followed 9-11 may have been worse than 9-11 itself. That is justifiable only if future 9-11's can't be contained by any other method. The methodology has to include use of every bit of wit and wisdom. Military action can sometimes support wise policy. It can never replace it.

Thanks for taking the time to write me in such detail.