Truth gets in way of GOP lies

[gabosaurus]

I love how the Bush apologists are trying to deflect attention from the current scandal involving the eight fired government prosecutors.
You know -- the now traditional "well, Clinton did it" excuse.
"What's the big deal about Bush firing eight prosecutors? Clinton fired all 92 of them when he took office!"
Overlooking the fact that ALL new administrations hire their own staff of prosecutors. It's how the modern political process works. Daddy Bush appointed his. Clinton appointed his. Shrub Bush appointed his.
The different with the Bush firings is that they were political retribution, not a chance in administrations.
More subterfuge and dishonesty, courtesy of the Death Head administration that specializes in it.

[Dilloduck]

I love how the Bush apologists are trying to deflect attention from the current scandal involving the eight fired government prosecutors.
You know -- the now traditional "well, Clinton did it" excuse.
"What's the big deal about Bush firing eight prosecutors? Clinton fired all 92 of them when he took office!"
Overlooking the fact that ALL new administrations hire their own staff of prosecutors. It's how the modern political process works. Daddy Bush appointed his. Clinton appointed his. Shrub Bush appointed his.
The different with the Bush firings is that they were political retribution, not a chance in administrations.
More subterfuge and dishonesty, courtesy of the Death Head administration that specializes in it.

I'd like link to that please. It was my understanding that Bush did NOT hire all new ones.

[CockySOB]

I love how the Bush apologists are trying to deflect attention from the current scandal involving the eight fired government prosecutors.
You know -- the now traditional "well, Clinton did it" excuse.
"What's the big deal about Bush firing eight prosecutors? Clinton fired all 92 of them when he took office!"
Overlooking the fact that ALL new administrations hire their own staff of prosecutors. It's how the modern political process works. Daddy Bush appointed his. Clinton appointed his. Shrub Bush appointed his.
The different with the Bush firings is that they were political retribution, not a chance in administrations.
More subterfuge and dishonesty, courtesy of the Death Head administration that specializes in it.

And how is dismissing all of the US Attorneys upon an administration change NOT a political move? If anything, GWB is LESS biased in this move because HE appointed the eight who are now dismissed

Moreover, the eight were dismissed for performance reasons, something which is a normal consideration for those of us busting ass in the real world everyday. Personally, I find it refreshing that some political appointees are being held to a similar standard by the guy who hired them in the first place.

I'm sorry, what kind of bullshit were you trying to sell as perfume again?

[CockySOB]

I'd like link to that please. It was my understanding that Bush did NOT hire all new ones.

Y'know, to be honest I didn't find information on this one way or the other. No matter. If GWB hired tehm, then there can be NO political bias in firing them. On the other hand if GWB did NOT hire them and they were leftover from the Clinton days, it begs the question: how many of the US Attorneys are Clinton appointees, and why didn't GWB follow tradition and fire the Clinton US Attorneys and replace them with his own appointees?

But my guess is that GWB did replace the Clinton appointees after taking office.

[Insein]

More made up lies that your "proffessor" is passing onto his little lemmings, eh gabby? Aren't you the good little talking point recorder.

I think you need to go read the definition of "lie" in the dictionary. You might be suprised by its meaning based on the context you have been using it.

[stephanie]

As far as I see it...

It's not any different than all you tolerant, forgiven liberals, standing behind a proven liar, proven adulterer, a proven user of women......The lefts, liberals Hero...BJ. Clinton

So......deal with it...:laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

And, once again, Bush can fire and hire US attorneys all day, every day, for four years, because he's the chief executive, and it's his perogative.

[manu1959]

I love how the Bush apologists are trying to deflect attention from the current scandal involving the eight fired government prosecutors.
You know -- the now traditional "well, Clinton did it" excuse.
"What's the big deal about Bush firing eight prosecutors? Clinton fired all 92 of them when he took office!"
Overlooking the fact that ALL new administrations hire their own staff of prosecutors. It's how the modern political process works. Daddy Bush appointed his. Clinton appointed his. Shrub Bush appointed his.
The different with the Bush firings is that they were political retribution, not a chance in administrations.
More subterfuge and dishonesty, courtesy of the Death Head administration that specializes in it.

is bush not allowed to fire his employees for any reason he sees fit? if clinton fired all his was that not politically motivaed to get rid of all of Bush I's..... how many did bush II fire when he took office?

now for facts? does it make you mad he fired people that refused to properly investigate voter fraud claims?

[Psychoblues]

I think you've hit the nail more squarely on the head that you intended, CockySOB.




And how is dismissing all of the US Attorneys upon an administration change NOT a political move? If anything, GWB is LESS biased in this move because HE appointed the eight who are now dismissed

Moreover, the eight were dismissed for performance reasons, something which is a normal consideration for those of us busting ass in the real world everyday. Personally, I find it refreshing that some political appointees are being held to a similar standard by the guy who hired them in the first place.

I'm sorry, what kind of bullshit were you trying to sell as perfume again?

As a "pResident" is free to hire and fire US criminal and civil prosecutors to suit his own political agenda, how is that relevant to state, local and municipal prosecutors?

"The Land Of The Free" just ain't what it meant when I was a kid.

[Gunny]

I love how the Bush apologists are trying to deflect attention from the current scandal involving the eight fired government prosecutors.
You know -- the now traditional "well, Clinton did it" excuse.
"What's the big deal about Bush firing eight prosecutors? Clinton fired all 92 of them when he took office!"
Overlooking the fact that ALL new administrations hire their own staff of prosecutors. It's how the modern political process works. Daddy Bush appointed his. Clinton appointed his. Shrub Bush appointed his.
The different with the Bush firings is that they were political retribution, not a chance in administrations.
More subterfuge and dishonesty, courtesy of the Death Head administration that specializes in it.

BS. If Bush's were "retribution," then so were they ALL retribution. Your logic is beyond flawed. Thsi thread should be titled: Psychoblues Tries to Let the Left Have Its Cake and Eat It Too

[CockySOB]

As a "President" is free to hire and fire US criminal and civil prosecutors to suit his own political agenda, how is that relevant to state, local and municipal prosecutors?

I don't believe POTUS has any authority over state, local or municipal prosecutors. AFAIK, the US Attorney is deals solely with prosecuting criminal cases brought by the Federal government, the prosecution and defense of civil cases where the Federal government is a party to the action; and, collection of debts owed to the Federal government which are otherwise noncollectable (tax cheats).

[Psychoblues]

Cutting and pasting is not exactly my forte' but how in hell did you that quote from me? I probably said all those words at one time or another but give me a place where I said them together as you intimate?



I don't believe POTUS has any authority over state, local or municipal prosecutors. AFAIK, the US Attorney is deals solely with prosecuting criminal cases brought by the Federal government, the prosecution and defense of civil cases where the Federal government is a party to the action; and, collection of debts owed to the Federal government which are otherwise noncollectable (tax cheats).

I certainlydon't beliven anything like that and I certainly don't advocate anything like that. Please give and explanation and a subsequent link to said claims. OK?

[avatar4321]

lie... you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you seem to think it means.

[CockySOB]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=27834&postcount=9


As a "pResident" is free to hire and fire US criminal and civil prosecutors to suit his own political agenda, how is that relevant to state, local and municipal prosecutors?

I was just answering the question. IMO it is NOT relevant. And you didn't claim that it was or was not as far as I could tell: you were simply questioning.

I did correct what I perceived to be a simple, innocent typographical error ("pResident" to "President").

[Mr. P]

is bush not allowed to fire his employees for any reason he sees fit? if clinton fired all his was that not politically motivaed to get rid of all of Bush I's..... how many did bush II fire when he took office?

now for facts? does it make you mad he fired people that refused to properly investigate voter fraud claims?

Oh stop with the facts, you know better, they can't handle the facts! Or is that the truth? :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

Oh, I see now, CSB. It seems like months, maybe even years ago but you are correct.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=27834&postcount=9



I was just answering the question. IMO it is NOT relevant. And you didn't claim that it was or was not as far as I could tell: you were simply questioning.

I did correct what I perceived to be a simple, innocent typographical error ("pResident" to "President").

The jerk, I mean the pResident, was just expressing an opinion as was I.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.