Nets Didn't Care About Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Lead With Replacement of 8

Photo of Brent Baker.
By Brent Baker | March 13, 2007 - 22:12 ET

The broadcast network evening newscasts, which didn't care in 1993 about the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys, went apoplectic Tuesday night in leading with the “controversy,” fed by the media, over the Bush administration for replacing eight U.S. attorneys in late 2006 -- nearly two years after rejecting the idea of following the Clinton policy of replacing all the attorneys. Anchor Charles Gibson promised that ABC would “look at all the angles tonight,” but he skipped the Clinton comparison. Gibson teased: “New controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

CBS's Katie Couric declared that “the uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department” and fill-in NBC anchor Campbell Brown teased: “The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?” Brown soon asserted that “it's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today” -- an explosion fueled by the news media.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

ABC's World News, the CBS Evening News and the NBC Nightly News on March 13 led with and ran multiple stories on the controversy, which were clearly propelled, in part, by attacks by Senate Democrats who demanded the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. But Justice Department clumsiness, which provided hooks for those Democratic attacks, does not absolve the news media of the responsibility for putting the replacement of U.S. attorneys into greater context for viewers so they would understand how Bush's predecessor removed every one (actually all but one as Brit Hume explained) so that Clinton, as is being charged in the current case, could replace them with attorneys more favorable to the administration's agenda.

Unlike ABC, CBS and NBC watchers, cable viewers got a hint of context as Steve Centanni, on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.” The point made it onto CNN's The Situation Room -- barely -- thanks to guest Terry Jeffries who raised it during the 4pm EDT hour of the program.

Last week, on the same day as the Libby verdict, Katie Couric introduced a full March 6 CBS Evening News story by Sharyl Attkisson, who failed to remind viewers of Clinton's wholesale firings:

“Another big story in Washington tonight also involves federal prosecutors, or at least former prosecutors. Eight U.S. attorneys were axed by the Bush administration last year, and some Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. Today some of those ex-prosecutors told Congress about the pressure they felt from top Republicans.”

Back in 1993, the networks weren't so interested in Clinton's maneuver. The April 1993 edition of the MRC's MediaWatch newsletter recounted:

Attorney General Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, a very unusual practice. Republicans charged the Clintonites made the move to take U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens off the House Post Office investigation of Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. The network response: ABC and CBS never mentioned it. CNN's World News and NBC Nightly News provided brief mentions, with only NBC noting the Rosty angle. Only NBC's Garrick Utley kept the old outrage, declaring in a March 27 "Final Thoughts" comment: "Every new President likes to say 'Under me, it's not going to be politics as usual.' At the Justice Department, it looks as if it still is."

“Washington Area to Lose 2 High-Profile Prosecutors; All U.S. Attorneys Told to Tender Resignations,” read a front page story in the March 24, 1993 Washington Post. Two days later, in an article on page A-22, according to Nexis, “Clinton Defends Ousting U.S. Attorneys; GOP Steps Up Criticism of Attorney General's 'March Massacre,'” Dan Balz cited how then-Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos, who appeared on Tuesday's Good Morning America and World News to comment on the current controversy, defended Bill Clinton's decision:

President Clinton yesterday attempted to rebut Republican criticism of the administration's decision to seek resignations from all U.S. attorneys, saying what he was asking was routine and less political than piecemeal replacements.

"All those people are routinely replaced and I have not done anything differently," Clinton told reporters during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office. He called the decision more politically appropriate "than picking people out one by one."

But Republicans in Congress pressed their criticism of the decision, announced Tuesday by Attorney General Janet Reno, with Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) describing the decision as "Reno's March Massacre."

Rep. Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) urged the administration to allow Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, to stay on the job until he completes his investigation of the House Post Office scandal and the role House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) may have played in it.

Stephens said Tuesday he was about a month away from "a critical decision with regard to resolution" of the probe....

Presidential spokesman George Stephanopoulos said it was not unusual for a president to ask for such resignations, although Republicans said presidents in the past have not asked for mass resignations, replacing them over a period of time as replacements were found.

Stephanopoulos said only those U.S. attorneys who are in the middle of trials will be allowed to continue working and said an interim appointee could capably pick up Stephens's investigation of the House Post Office scandal, with no serious disruption or political interference....

For a flavor of Tuesday night, March 13 coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC, the leads on each:

ABC's World News. Anchor Charles Gibson's tease:

“Tonight: new controversy at the White House after a string of U.S. attorneys is fired under questionable circumstances. There are calls for the Attorney General to resign.”

Gibson's opening:

“The Attorney General of the United States is under fire. Alberto Gonzales is fending off charge that he carried out a purge, firing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons on orders from the White House. Across the country there are 93 U.S. attorneys. They prosecute cases for the government. They can be hired and fired by the President. The accusation is these eight were fired because they refused to do the Bush administration's political bidding. We look at all the angles tonight, starting with Pierre Thomas at the Justice Department.”

After Thomas, Gibson did a Q and A with Jan Crawford Greenburg and George Stephanopoulos about the situation, but Stephanopoulos, who stuck to assessing the status of Gonzales, did not mention his defense of Clinton's action.

CBS Evening News. Katie Couric led:

“Hello, everyone. The uproar is growing tonight over the firing of eight federal prosecutors by the Justice Department. The department had told Congress the White House was not involved in the firings, but e-mails released today show that the firings had been discussed for two years by officials of the Justice Department and the White House. So we'll begin at the White House tonight with correspondent Jim Axelrod.”

Following Axelrod, CBS went to a second full story from Bob Orr on how a former U.S. attorney charged that Gonzales “has let politics infect the justice system” and then Couric conducted a brief Q and A with Axelrod and Orr over whether Gonzales will be fired. Couric also noted how Axelrod's younger brother worked for one of the fired prosecutors.

NBC Nightly News. The tease from fill-in anchor Campbell Brown:

“The Attorney General and the firestorm tonight over the controversial dismissal of several federal prosecutors. Was it political punishment?”

Brown opened:

“Good evening. The Attorney General of the United States is under fire but vowing he will not resign. It's a story that has been brewing for weeks and it exploded today. The key issue, a decision by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to fire eight federal prosecutors and questions about whether that decision was politically motivated and driven by the White House. Attorney General Gonzales' top deputy has already resigned, but the President is standing by his man. We begin tonight with chief White House correspondent David Gregory.”

Following a piece on Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace's remarks about homosexuals, Brown discussed both topics with Tim Russert.

For more on coverage of this subject, check these earlier NewsBusters postings:

FNC's Hume Chastises Media for Failing to Point Out How Clinton Fired Every Attorney

Bozell Column: Bush's Eight vs. Clinton's 93

ABC's GMA Frets Over Dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys; Ignored Clinton’s Firing of 93 Attorneys

CBS Legal Blogger Cites Dem Donors In Swipe at Attorney General Gonzales

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WWW.USDOJ.GOV TDD (202) 514-1

WWW.USDOJ.GOV

TDD (202) 514-1888

WHITE HOUSE AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

BEGIN U.S. ATTORNEY TRANSITION

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys.

Attorney General Ashcroft said, "We are committed to making this an orderly transition to ensure effective, professional law enforcement that reflects the President 's priorities."

In January of this year, nearly all presidential appointees from the previous administration offered their resignations. Two Justice Department exceptions were the United States Attorneys and United States Marshals.

Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year. President Bush will make announcements regarding his nominations to the Senate of new United States Attorneys as that information becomes available. Pending confirmation of the President's nominees, the Attorney General will make appointments of Interim United States Attorneys for a period of 120 days (28USC546). Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

Let's see, so far I have co

Let's see, so far I have controversy, uproar, and firestorm and one them mentioned "purge". LOL that's an awfully tiny purge. And ABC, CBS and NBC wonder why we can't take them seriously?

And then there's Chuck Spumer saying Gonzales should step down. Is it me, because every other time I hear a sound byte from Chuckie he's saying someone should "step down". Why be picky Schumer? Just get it overwith and say everyone you don't agree with should step down.

Didn't Chucky's underlings ge

Didn't Chucky's underlings get arrested and convicted of STEALING Richard Steeles personal credit imformation during this past election???
Was he ever held accountable for that?? Did his name ever appear in the story of the arrests and subsequent conviction of these criminals???

nick...Not one damned thing h

nick...

Not one damned thing happened to the slimeball.

Not one.

If the conservatives knew how to start fighting back and shaming and ridiculing some of their own enemies behavior that may just shut them the hell up, heck maybe even be hold them accountable...but they don't.

 As long as we have mice for men in Congress...we may as well forget about it...

I am sick and tired of wimps that we elected.

If they cannot learn how to speak out in unison and speak out, and speak often about whatever wrong-doing the opposite party is or has done...well we may as well fold up the deck chairs and sail away....

BT - Del Dole thinks he's e

BT - Del Dole thinks he's exposing something here with his DOJ letter and doesn't even realize that he is showing that the Bush administration Transitioned the attorneys in the normal way unlike Reno who fired all 93 and gave them a few days to get out.

Of course the letter he is showing is from Bush's first term. A second term probably wouldn't replace all 93. Just like Cabinet members I would think some stay some go. Eight out of 93 - less than 10% hardley seems worth mentioning.

I agree with you these people need to fight back against these meaningless accusations. It's getting ridiculous

We need to hire Don Imus -- t

We need to hire Don Imus -- the only person on the planet that seems to be able to shut Shumer down.

I love the fact that Gonzal

I love the fact that Gonzalez is taking a page from the Democrat playbook: taking responsibility and refusing to "step down".

Janet Reno took "full responsibility" for the massacre at Waco, yet didn't "step down." Which of the two AG's is worse?

Good point. That drove me (

Good point. That drove me (and Dave Barry) nuts at the time. It's like the media will let officials get away without taking any responsibility as long as they are willing to say words about taking responsibility. And of course, getting killed is far worse than getting fired. I suspect Clinton's insiders knew how to manipulate their very new Attorney General because they'd just delved into her background, so they knew invoking the possibility of Koresh hurting children would cause Janet Reno to react in a way that, ironically, allowed them to burn the place and end up killing a bunch of innocent children. A very sad day for America.
JMR

Let's do not forget Elian Gon

Let's do not forget Elian Gonzales being taken on Easter Sunday either by Reno and her goons...of course okay'd by the WH...

Then there is always Ruby Ridge.

Yeah Webb Hubbell/Reno were some AG's eh?

Ohmigosh, I forgot about th

Ohmigosh, I forgot about the "other" Gonzalez and Ruby Ridge (was that Reno too?). Yeah, for Democrats, "taking responsibility" means absolutely nothing.

I just hope that Bush doesn't cave to the Democrats wailing in Congress and ask Gonzalez to resign...you know, in the "new tone" mode, where he does everything the Dems ask, to show he wants to "cooperate", and then they stab him in the back... again. Then they will say Gonzalez is guilty;  the fact that the President asked him to resign proves it.

Pre PATRIOT Act Upon the expi

Pre PATRIOT Act

Upon the expiration of that appointment, the authority rests with the United States District Court (28USC546(d)).

Post PATRIOT Act - per Kyle Sampson

 In addition, I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments.... we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House.

The PATRIOT Act gave Bush an unprecedented amount of power in the name of fighting terrorism.  Feel safer now that 8 AUSA's were canned?

ding, I asked this in the o

ding, I asked about this in the other thread: firing the AUSAs has nothing to do with the PATRIOT Act. They could try to circumvent Congress in the replacements, but as far as I know they haven't. (Sampson, quoted above, was fired too.)

Policemen are allowed to carry firearms that they can use to shoot me if they wish, but I don't really worry about it at all.

dervish - I answered in the o

dervish - I answered in the other thread. 

 I'm glad you're not worried but those who realize that bypassing the Senate confirmation of AUSAs has nothing to do with combating terrorism do worry.

ding - I said this in anoth

ding - I said this in another thread but since you keep repeating so will I. Confirmation of Attorneys was pretty much a rubber stamp and needless red tape. What possible reason could there be not to confirm a person who hadn't been disbarred other than political. These are not lifetime appointments and they are not high level. You have yet to tell me anyone who wasn't confirmed.

If that were their complaint then they should shut up and change it. That isn't there complaint - it's about firing and Clinton fired 93 - Bush fired 8. Transitioning is common, firing is not.

Dee Bunk -  Preserving Unite

Dee BunkPreserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007 (see S. 214 and H.R.580) is the legislation to change "it".

It's traditional that the home state Senators/Representatives recommend the appointee to the President .  After the President accepts a recommendation, a bacground check is made and if the appointee passes, then the President will forward these appointees to the Senate.  This is not a rubber stamp process since both the Legislative and Executive have input to the process.

Ding - okay then what's the

Ding - okay then what's the big deal? They are changing it and who has not been confirmed? You keep ignoring that question. I could care less either way really, but it seems like a silly process to have the Senate confirm them because there wouldn't be a good reason to not confirm someone who had not been disbarred.

For you to say "it's traditional" goes to the heart of the matter that Clinton went against tradition and fired 93 - not 8 like Bush. Now if you think that the Clinton admin took recommendations from all of the Republican Senators - you are losing it. The procedure is the same for circuit judges where the home state Senators recommend - but that doesn't mean they have to accept them - they can still appoint someone else and this bill would not change that.

Maybe the Dem's want to go against tradition and start making U.S. attorney appointments as political as they have made judge appointments (by using filibusters which were not traditionally used). That and causing false and dishonest outrage are the only real reasons for changing the law.

Dee Bunk -I said home state

Dee Bunk -I said home state Senators and Representatives give recommendations -  surely you don't think that there weren't Democratic Senators and Representative in 1993 who gave recommendations to Clinton  (and as an aside, Clinton did in fact take recommendations from Republicans - and no, I don't have the stats for that)

 You keep saying Clinton fired 93/Bush fired 8  knowing full well that all new administrations replace the AUSAs at the beginning of their term.  Reagan did not keep Carter's AUSAs. Clinton did not keep Bush's Reagan's/AUSAs.  And Bush did not keep Clinton's AUSAs. 

Q: How often are U.S. attorneys fired?

A: Excluding the current controversy, the Congressional Research Service found just five instances over 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were fired by the president or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. A Reagan-era prosecutor was fired and later convicted in federal court in connection with charges that he leaked confidential information. A Clinton appointee resigned over allegations he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club following a loss in a big drug case. The CRS study did not include departures that followed a change in presidential administration, when turnover is common.

Getting Tim Griffin into Arkansas and getting Carol Lam out of California was, in my opinion,  the intent of these 8 firings... the other 6  were just petty power run amok plays.

 

And certainly some of the l

And certainly some of the liberal activists and legislators most vehemently banging the drums on this "controversy" are staunch critics of the USA PATRIOT Act. The media should take care to note that when appropriate, and certainly to critically examine the likes of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and others on that point.

After all, this is going to turn into another WAshington circus with grandstanding by liberal Democratic senators and maybe a few squishy Republicans. It's legitimate to ask if this fight has more to do with liberal opposition to the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror than any legitimate concerns for the overall administration of justice.

Ken,Just as an aside, I think

Ken,

Just as an aside, I think you could remove the phrase "handling of the" from your last sentence, and strike even closer to the truth. After all, isn't the latest lib plan for us to pull out, and make Pakistan handle our "light work?"

I know, I'm bad!    ;^)

IJ

A pox on them Del but as lo

A pox on them Del but as long as i'z on hold.......

FWN?

FWN?

decimation

decimation

chicken sh#ts 8P

chicken sh#ts 8P

pols first.

pols first.

msm enlightens

where's my f#cking cartoon

where's my f#cking cartoon now please sir?

ALBQ

If I do not get my cartoon RIGHT NOW i reposte the whole sordid ALBQ story-now

after a short break 8Drealt

after a short break 8D

realtime- gotta luvit

thank you sirs may i 'av an

thank you sirs may i 'av another? XP

SBS

SBS

we handle their lite work

".' "."

".' "."

Carp,Olive OilEek.Get 'er sum

Carp,

Olive Oil

Eek.

Get 'er sum help or spinach.

ok

ok

of course apparently it's a

of course apparently it's all greek to me

you now owe meXD

Tuntuntuliak?

Tuntuntuliak?

we're even

we're even

how .bout a nice walrus sti

how .bout a nice walrus stirring stick?

DO NOT let it happen again

DO NOT let it happen again or OK

"Infinity always gives me vertigo."

Bruce Cockburn

SAS OC

never 'eard of 'em

love yah Dad- you are missed

tell the universe

this is Baghdad

this is Baghdad

too bad- used to be a nice place

Carp

If the conservatives of all s

If the conservatives of all stripes, especially in Congress... do not step up in unison ...to tell the leftist media idiot talking know it all heads and the idiot leftists slime balls in Congress to screw off....about this whole non-issue and use the Clintoon's firing of all the US Attorneys when they stepped in office... with the exception of one, and that was Chertoff at the behest of Bill Bradley, NJ, then there is no hope for this gutless party we have representing us now in the Capitol....

I am sick and tired of the niceties they think silence will bring as soon as the storm clouds just blow over and pass by... they mistakenly think... poof like magic...let's just click our heels three times and it heck, golly gee it will be a bright sunshiny day tomorrow and nobody will say another word.

You gutless wonders, they are walking all over you over a NON-Issue over some useless leftist critters that were fired as they should of been, most likely working against this administration in the first place and that includes you, you nit-wits... ... the whole mess of them should of been cleaned out years ago...as Harriet Meir's suggested, but was over-ruled by....one guess....

Gonzales! 

BT -the polite words for it

BT  -the polite words for it are intestinal fortitude. The Republicans are taking the low road. They are becoming the appeasers. To steal a title:

"Stand For Something"

misterb...Stand for something

misterb...

Stand for something is right...how about stand for anything...stand up for yourselves as an individual...stand up on your own two feet...stand up for the constituents that PUT your no-good arses in office in the first place you gutless wonders!

I am still past furious!

Not just this, but everything that has happened over the last two weeks, Walter Reed episode, this and now Peter Pace and his comment about don't ask don't tell,  and these so-called men and women we elect remain are silent...mum...say nada...zip...zilch!

I have had it!

BT these pieces of--

BT  these pieces of--rotting fruit (Walter Reed etal) have been sitting in the bucket going bad for a long time. Not worthy of note , (to the MSM) earlier on, but when you get a chance to make Bush and company look bad, you have to take your swings when you can. Our Republicans in office (not all) are taking the position that if they stay quiet, no one will come after them. Sort of like the European countries when Hitler made his first move. (Then his second, then his third...)

Nobody seems inclined to fight for Bush and Iraq. It is too unpopular. Me-I am p**** off at him re: immigration, but I still believe we have been safe at home because of his actions in Iraq. I also remember how long we stayed in Germany and Japan after WW2--oops, we're still there. I'll be darned. That darned Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton. How could he--they--do that to us???

misterb...If you want to know

misterb...

If you want to know how pissed I am...go to the open thread...I was posting with a couple of others and said all I felt today...still feel the same now.

I am furious..Including President Bush and his statements in Mexico today about migration as he put it...not illegal immigration...but migration..

I have had it.

I thank the good Lord he is the President, always will think the good Lord put him in the place he is for a good reason, will always stand behind him as far as fighting the enemy world-wide...but....

ENOUGH is ENOUGH!

BT I take it--

BT I take it--that you have been reading on a few of GWs Mexican positions. You probably read something about an amero for money, The US of North America. I don't give a damn who is reading our blogs, I will go out and buy a rifle and fight to the death for the good old USA. I will not turn my back on the girls and boys in uniform all over the world who risk their lives for the America WE know and they believe in. They have a right to come back to the same country with the same dreams that we all grew up with. Not some GodDamn visionary's ideas.

Until then, and when the Near East is safe, I will stay in line. I am sure I am not alone in my feelings.

God bless the USA as it is and will stay!

Bigtimer I understand compl

Bigtimer I understand completely. I like George W on most issues except for illegal immigration. I still don't understand what went wrong with what seemed like the country's will to solve this problem.

But now I should get back on the thread topic. And that is no matter what happens, somewhere down the road, these MSM people are going to look stupid. Or more stupid as the case may be. Katie keep chirping away. It's going to get annoying and the viewers will turn to Futureweapons on the Discovery Channel (cool show) and then the ratings will drop further down. Pretty soon CBS et al will be waving the white flag. BTW I guess I never did get back on topic.

bigtimer,Just read on Drudge

bigtimer,

Just read on Drudge that Hillary is calling for Gonzales' to resign. Unbelievable, what a hypocrite!

Bigtimer,I hear you loud and

Bigtimer,

I hear you loud and clear.

Harriet Miers

CNN states that Harriet Miers suggested their mass firings  in 2005  that proposal was rejected by Gonzales as impractical and disruptive.

After being nomiated for the Suprem Court  months later,  the Senate request documents of privilege advice she gave to Bush during his tenture thus prompting Bush to withdraw her name.

security

sec,I posted this about Miers

sec,

I posted this about Miers earlier today in a couple of posts or three...too bad they didn't listen to her in the first place btw.

My question is...so what?

Would they have had to give the documents of privilege to the Senate...at all?

I am not being snide, is this what you are saying is the reason they really withdrew her name for?

After all the big brouhaha and firestorm for other reasons, I never heard this one.

The issue in the firings is N

The issue in the firings is NOT that a new administration of any stripe can fire US Attorneys, as that is allowed under rules of engagement. The legal and ethical issue is that you cannot step on them when they do their jobs- or fire them for not doing what you want. It is a clear seperation of powers issue, and that is why Gonzalez's aide was forced to quit. When you use political pressure from the legislative or executive branch to force a prosecutorial body into certain behaviors- which is what happened, ergo the resignation- that is NOT allowed. For damn good reasons. So don't count numbers: any fool can reason that out. But I guess most fools here don't use reason. Some, however, do.:)

There is zero evidence that

There is zero evidence that they were fired for not doing something specific that they wanted. Here from a WSJ article with my bold:

"In prepared testimony, Carol Lam, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, planned to read a statement on behalf of the group, saying, "Each of us was fully aware that we served at the
pleasure of the President, and that we could be removed for any or no reason. In most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations."

So some fools are just ready to be outraged at nothing - just because their leaders tell them to be and they can't use reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, bu

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the prosecutors part of the EXECUTIVE branch as well, just like the Attorney General? They work for Bush, in other words, so he should be able to replace them for whatever reason he wants.

mISSING POST

mISSING POST

Update Wed morning. NBC had t

Update Wed morning. NBC had this as their lead topic, and finished its discussion at 7:13 this morning. Baur interviewed Gonzolas, and of course Tim Russert was brought in. NO MENTION OF CLINTON'S FIRINGS. What a surprise. Another key point made by Russert -- Republicans are siding with Democrats, thereby legitimizing the complaints. In fact, Russert said "And here's what they are saying -- idiocy, troubling -- and that's from the Republicans".

Congressional Republicans are fools and wimps. If we want them to act like Democrats, then we should simply vote for Democrats. That would take the wind out of Russert's sails.

Just now on Foxnews.com the h

Just now on Foxnews.com the headline says something about the fate of Gonzales is in Bush's hand...what? I don't get, why is Gonzales apologizing for what he did? Why doesn't this Administration stand up and stop being whimpy. I am about sick of it. I want a strong Administration that is willing to lead when they are under the gun, not a bunch of mealy (sp?) mouths who buckle under the scrutiny of the liberal media. I long for true leadership, please someone take the lead in the Republican party. Fred Thompson, perhaps?

msh...This is how mad I still

msh...

This is how mad I still am...I just called C-Span and talked to Asa Hutchinson, didn't think I would get through, my husband dared me, well...I did, most likely made a fool of myself, but I got one thing through loud and clear...when are you guys going to fight back against the media and grow a spine or some such....

I am so past tired of the conservatives acting like little weenie wimps...that is not my party.

Btw....I cannot stand Gonzales, but I haven't for over a year.

For the audacity of Hillary to ask for anyone to resign is beyond sickening...she can go to where the sun does not shine...infact that shell of a woman should be in jail doing time, along with her mate on the buddy plan.

President Bush should of gotten rid of Karl Rove after the first election as far as I am concerned....I detest his so-called republican strategies....he has been a detriment for us out here in the real world to place real conservatives in races, just ask Toomey!

How cool BT! Good for you.

How cool BT! Good for you. I wonder if the C-span segment will be re-broadcast. Maybe someone at NB was able to tape it and can post a "bigtimmer on C-Span" blog. : - ]

I agree with you about Rove - He may be good for election strategy but he or who ever else behavior has been blowing it big time.

Dee... II do not think it wa

Dee...

I do not think it was so cool, lol... 

I have called there before but was prepared with what I wanted to say then, this time it was a dare, I never thought I would get through because I have tried desperately when it is a subject or person I know is going to be on and never get through then lately,... well, heck, I haven't even been to bed yet, I have been playing on this, and other things, mostly this...heheheee...but I got through...plus I got cut off once Asa Hutchinson started talking, plus what I heard from his answer to the statement about the conservatives getting a spine and fighting the media...from what I could hear, he ignored, like a good little lap-dog republican...

I am so tired of it!

I followed him and his brother Tim when he was in the Senate ...during the Impeachment trial that they both were serving in the Congress then...on and on...he was one of the thirteen on the committee in the House under Henry Hyde leading the Impeachment hearings...

I think he may be trying to run for Senate coming up in '08 in Arkansas....if he does, I do hope he wins. 

bt,

bt,

I hate to say it, but I'm with the Hildebeast on this one. Hypocrisy or not, that man has got to go. Yesterday.

Damn, did I really just say that?

Dave - has he had a Bad Performance review?

Dave - has he had a bad performance review? ; ) If not - Bush can't do it because it would be an outrage!

Dee,After about twelve second

Dee,

After about twelve seconds of further reflection, I have pretty much decided that the whole lot of 'em should go, from Bush on down to the guy who opens car doors at the WH (okay, well, maybe not him.) 

Otherwise, with their pathetic excuse for a border security policy, a sizeable percentage of the south-western poulation of the US is going to wake up one morning soon and find themselves in another country.

Dave - immigration policy i

Dave - immigration policy is where I differ from most conservatives. I am in agreement with Bush. I think the only way to deal with the security problem is to first deal with making good working people legal so that you can find the criminals more easily. A guest worker program is the only way to go. Once that is in place then you can place heavy fines and criminal penalties on companies that don't comply. Right now you can't penalize companies because they need the workers and have no where else to get them. We only have a 4.5% unemployment rate and that is considered full employment.

Dee

I'm really not opposed to Mexican imigration into this country, but I would like to see it slow down some, as historically immigrants coming here have always assimilated into American culture. My concern is that at the rate it is currently progressing we are in danger of losing our national identity.

Perhaps that is a little irrational on my part, but I was going down the aisle in my local Publix the other day and noticed many of the labels on their store-brand items were bi-lingual. That alone doesn't concern me. The fact that the spanish titles were far larger than the english ones does concern me.

What I am far more upset about is the fact that, due to what I see as lax security, some rag-head Islamic fanatic with a suitcase nuke is going to waltz right over the border and set the thing off in a large population center.

Mexico's President Calderon

Often lost in the false (agenda-driven) charges of racism that discussions on the subject are usually dragged down into, the immigraton problem is not limited to Mexicans or other South Americans.  There are consistent reports of large numbers of illegals coming across our porous southern border from China, Middle Eastern countries, etc.  That's the primary reason it must be strongly dealt with.

A program that combines 1) border control  2) a guest worker program, and  3) improving Mexico's economy are the ways to do it.   Although not the only ingredients, the first two will go a long way toward making Mexico become serious about the third.   And, most importantly, our national security will be improved.

Mexico's President Calderon, although he is against the fence (a political decision), agrees that improving their economy "is the only way to truly solve the migratory issue."

Dave and Dee,This is the shit

Dave and Dee,

This is the shites....we have Public Enemy #1 Shrillary calling for resignation, and of course other and all leftists.

We also have a terrible AG in place....what to do...let the leftist win this battle or wait it out and replace him later after this has died down?

You got me.

Either way...the conservatives will win, as long as he is gone.

Btw Dee, for me it has nothing to do with this latest BS...it has to do with him not taking charge and doing absolutely nothing when it comes to say the NYT's, WaPo publishing classified info that hurt us during a time of war in various ways...as far as I am concerned it is treasonous...there are other things too that have absolutely not been done whatsoever..but I am getting burnt out, so I just put in a couple that burn me more than anything.

Lets not muddy up another issue here..

It's NOT about the firings, it's about the reasons TO fire these attorneys.This should articulate the differences between the Clinton Administration and Bush Administration’s procedures.

Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.....

It would help if somebody, an

It would help if somebody, anybody in the media, let alone our own side of the aisle started saying what was said in the hearings, wished just a handful of these guys would of watched the Specter hearings and reported the outcome...ooops, I mean Schumer, where he got his clock cleaned by Specter.

I give up anymore.

We are in an ideological wa

We are in an ideological war BT... do not give up the fight. I'll join you in your foxhole.

Look people, this isn't a shooting war (thank god) but it is a war none the less, and the other side isn't looking for a truce. We need to win. We need to save the millions of babies from infanticide. We need to instill in our youth a sense of personal responsibility that the left has been trying to drill out of them for 40 years. We need to stand up for standards, ethics and virtue. We need to stand up for good manners and respect for your elders. We need to stand up for personal responsibility and understanding that women DO have a choice... its called saying NO to sex (an argument made all to infrequently).

BT, we need people like you and all the rest of you conservatives to stand up every time they knock us down, and keep fighting the good fight. This war will not be over until one side wins... which may be never, but we must continue to try.

I've included one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Paine which I believe is so very true to this day.

____________________________________________________

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." ~ Thomas Paine

lbz,Thank you...that meant a

lbz,

Thank you...that meant a lot to me.

I was telling my husband some of what I posted yesterday, wanting to just hang my head sometimes and shed a few tears and forget about politics and the fight for the good idea of life and what our forefathers fought and died for, and that does include a lot of my relatives, but I can't...it isn't in me....

Your quote from Thomas Paine is so true and great, now if I could just live up to the first part better!

Thanks again.

While you cannot see me, and

While you cannot see me, and I cannot see you, we stand shoulder to shoulder and face the torrent together. You with your values and I with mine, meet and face the enemy of freedom. We may not always see eye to eye on all things, but on that which gnaws at our gut, we know we must keep up the fight. We must stand up for principals as not many with loud voices do so any more.

Just know, when you are weak, I will be strong... and I would hope that when I am weak, you would hold me up. We are fellow travelers in this wild and tumultuous time and if we cannot rely on one another, then all is really lost.

I will not surrender save for unto death. And let's hope that is none too soon.

Now remember BT, the quote below from Thomas Paine means that we must teach our youth... we can't just trust that because we are virtuous, that they too will be.

____________________________________________________

"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." ~ Thomas Paine

lbz, I am speechless. I think

lbz,

I am speechless.

I think that says enough for you to understand my response to your post.

I hope you know I felt every word.... 

You have some interesting tho

You have some interesting thoughts liberal_bug_zapper. In fact while reading them I couldn’t help but think you are right, those Al Qaeda radicals want to install their moral standards on us, we are at WAR... Oh, you are talking about your fellow Americans?? How many examples do you need to see in the world, that approach to morality in America will turn us into a fractured country!  By using military jargon you only inflame the distrust. Everyone needs to realize one persons morals could be another persons prison. We need to follow our own morals in our own daily life, change what you can and if you can’t don’t associate yourself with them. However immoral you think they are they have rights and liberties in this country also. Want to change their morals? Try what the conservatives seem to hate, DISSENT!! That is what dissent is all about. Through dissent one makes the arguments for or against an issue.  Dissent does work; look at changing the course in America, it starts with dissent. By inflaming the rhetoric, both sides talk past themselves not to each other. As far as that” shooting war” comment talk to Eric Rudolf.

Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it………

Justa... My oh my...Well aren

Justa...

My oh my...

Well aren't you special.

justa

Bush fired the lawyers for political reasons.

Clinton fired the lawyers for political reasons.

Your right - its a lot different. Why don't you try THIS article.

Thank you florida_chad for th

Thank you florida_chad for the link. It was a sober refresher on the Clinton era. Not so much a Clinton supporter here, but isn’t it true that with the firing of all United States Attorneys any replacement had to be vetted through the Senate? At least there was the check and balance (what genesis those constitutional framers were) against Clinton packing the court with purely political cronies instead of qualified individuals. Thanks to this Administration, with the revised Patriot Act; there is no check or balance to any of these U.S. Attorney replacements. More importantly it was the litany of reasons that came out about the replacements that causes the suspicion. First it was purely on merit was the stated reason. Oops, 7 of the 8 all just got commendable job performance evaluations. They flatly denied there was any political reason they were fired… and then came the dribble of e-mails out. The fact that Mr Rove had asked to have a “protégé” replace one of the attorneys, that after the complete denial from the Attorney General, the White House was involved, oops again. We can certainly agree, it is alot different.

For those of you who might st

For those of you who might still think of this as a tempest in a teapot. Some food for thought…. From an article by Dan Froonkin., to see entire article go here

“But this White House appears to have lost sight of a distinction that is critical to the maintenance of good government: That just because someone is a political appointee doesn't mean they're supposed to do their jobs primarily as partisans -- or that they should be fired if they fail to do so to the satisfaction of political operatives in the White House. That is particularly the case with law enforcement. Filling non-law enforcement jobs with political appointees who are incompetent or blindly partisan may well take a toll on the government's ability to do function properly. (See, for instance, David E. Lewis in NiemanWatchdog.org.) But in law-enforcement jobs -- such as the attorney general, the director of the FBI, and the country's 93 U.S. attorneys -- overtly partisan behavior is a more troubling problem. While the men and women in those positions serve at the pleasure of the president, it is also a critically important part of their job to remain independent. That's because it's flatly un-American for the law to be used as a political weapon. It erodes public confidence in the justice system, and offends the American commitment to fairness. It's the sort of thing that, quite properly, can lead to impeachment.”

...

...

Why should I take Froomkin se

Why should I take Froomkin seriously?

Nowhere does he mention the well-documented facts concerning Preident Clinton's partisan firing of all 93 US Attorneys when he had the constitutional power to do so.

Either Froomkin is ignorant. Reason not to take his seriously. Or mendacious. Reason not to take him seriously.

Or are you and Foomkin both postulating the idea that all 93 Attorneys Clinton fired were incompetent.

Therefore, according to Froomkin, the whole subject is not worth mentioning to his readers.

The fact that he is not interested in giving the vaguest historical perspective on previous Presidents -- in an article about President Bush firing eight attorneys he appointed --  makes me suspect he's just the usual BIG MEDIA hack.

And not worth my time in future.

The answer is socialism. But only if the question is:
"What's the fastest way to impoverish, enslave and destroy people?"

Oops must have double posted sorry

Media-wanks are pitiful conjurors!

The leftist mass-media has no sense of principles; solely a game of manipulation for agenda sake. If viewers are so dense, out-and-out dullards, which obviously most are, we are in deep #%#!

This is not new, it is witnessed and reported everyday by sites such as this one.

Of course, this is then spun into a pitiful twist by leftists as being a conservative conspiracy.

Until, the wanks in the news media are truly held accountable, this will feed upon itself as it has for decades. Ninety-three attorneys compared to eight is a massive differential… but the viewers continue to swallow this #%# disseminated by wannabe comrades.  

 

"Name" from "A Boy Named Goo" by the Goo Goo Dolls.

I keep seeing, here & in the "mainstream" media, stuff about the provision that "was inserted" into the "Patriot" Act regarding ease of firing US Attorneys, but I never see one thing...The name of the politician who actually inserted it. I mean, the firing-provision did not magically appear there on its own, and I'm sure-as-hell curious about it, so why isn't the news media (or NB) telling us the secret name?
JMR

Sarc - I have seen this in th

Sarc - I have seen this in the news a lot concerning bills. This provision or something got inserted into the bill. But they never name the "inserter" . I doubt they even know, or else we would certainly hear about it when a republican sticks something into a bill.

I want Gonzales to RESIGN als

I want Gonzales to RESIGN also....if he doesn't step forward and speak up against his Critiques.  What a Wimp....I thought Prosecutors were a little more aggressive that his "Mistakes were made"....well, they sure were, and the lack of taking the Liberal press to task is a mistake.

At least some Republican announced candidate can take this subject and run with it ? ?  HELLOOOOOO....!  Is Hillary the ONLY candidate that has B...lls ?

The silence is deafening..........  

At Times like these, it becomes more than just a Moral Obligation to express ones opinion, it becomes a Pleasure.