aquapub

If you had any doubt what a partisan, invented scandal this was, check this out:

Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com

Go to the "Opinion" videos and click on any of them. When the video screen pops up, look to the left and find the name Sean Hannity. Click on him. When he comes up, look to the right and use the scroll bar to scroll down to the "State of America" on 3-18 and click on it.

I would like to see if any liberal on this site can refute Hannity on this and explain how the Gonzales "scandal" is anything more than a BS partisan witch hunt.

__________________
They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax ‘businesses!’ So unless you buy something from a ‘business,’ like groceries or clothes or gasoline ... or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small ‘business,’ don't worry ... it's not going to affect you. -Fred Thompson

Navy Pride

The irony of the situation is the sharks in the senate did not lay a glove on Gonzales.............They could not prove he committed any crime........

__________________
http://www.swiftvets.com/

vetsforfreedom.org

aquapub

Since when did liberals ever need or operate on facts or evidence? That market has long been cornered by conservatives. Liberals operate on conspiracy theories and Constitutionally illiterate hysteria.

They invent scandals unaccountably with zero regard for the truth. It's the only way they can keep scraping out razor thin majorities.

Stinger

Hmmm none of our liberals friends seem to have a comment.

__________________
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius
Proud member of the Gang of Five, the gang that is always right!
No Personal Attacks, if you can't debate the issue go elsewhere.

Billo_Really

Well then, I guess I'll step up...

After several attempts at getting that stupid video to play all the way through, I was able to discern it is the same old stupid arguement, "blah, blah, blah..........what about Clinton?"

Hannity starts off by saying liberals are saying the DA's were laid off because of political reason's but there was little evidence of that. When in fact, there is evidence of that. The very first example was how the Administration changed the reason for the layoff's after being taken to task for them. Why would they change their reasons', if the reason's were on the up and up? As I recall, they first said they were layed off due to performance issues. However, they never listed what those performance issues were. And Hannity didn't either! He echoed the Administrations "performance" rap, but never gave the evidence that proved it. The rest of the video was about Clinton.

__________________

"With neocons, it just goes to show, when the
bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong!"

akyron

Do they serve at the pleasure of the president or not?

"
Committee on the Judiciary Press release

U.S. Attorneys Serve at Pleasure of the President
March 6, 2007

Washington, D.C. – Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today issued the following statement regarding today’s hearing on U.S. Attorneys:

"U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and all U.S. Attorneys know that," said Ranking Member Smith. "President Clinton asked all 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign when he took office and dismissed many others during his time in office."

"Every President has to right to hire U.S. Attorneys who support their policies," he continued. "The Department of Justice had understandable reasons for dismissing each of these attorneys, none of which had to do with political retribution."

Smith concluded, "The Department has explained this to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. The Democrats refuse to listen, because they are more interested in partisan politics than the truth.""


What difference does it make in any case?

Bottom line. clinton doesnt matter. Political retribution or not does not matter.

"U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President"

__________________
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.
John Adams

galenrox

Man, you can try all you want to convince yourself that these are somehow different than the firings that happen in all administrations, but ultimately you can't get around "at the pleasure of the President". This was clearly a partisan hackjob, and whatever, that's the game he got into, but you discredit yourself in acting as if it's anything other.

__________________

Stinger

What gets me is this Iglesas [sp?] guy. Does he think he is entitled to that position? That he owns it. Bush wanted to put someone else there, which HE is ENTITLED to do.

The fact is US Attorneys are rotated out quite regularly and for good reason. They have a lot of power, they do act automonously on lots of issues. If they are allowed to build little fiefdoms it does not serve the public well. That's a good reason the are appointed by the President and they serve at his/her pleasure.

disneydude

__________________
Sarah Palin/Jeb Bush 2012
"Bringin' Bush back to the Whitehouse"

niftydrifty

I would agree to "true debate" you on this "subject." psst, transcript of the video is available on lexis nexis. Hannity's comparison of Clinton's firings near the beginning of his term, with Bush's, near the end, is just the tip of the iceberg regarding his spin.

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol