RE: The Fired Attorneys (I'm just ranting a little)

[Orrex]

Of course I know that Repubs get their daily marching orders and are only too happy to trot themselves before the cameras for their recitals, no matter how inane. But in the wake of the attorney scandal (and has it been called "Lawyergate" in the press yet?), one particular soundbyte has annoyed me more than the others.

We've repeatedly heard Repubs point out that Clinton removed 93 attorneys in 1993, as if this is at all relevant. Can someone explain to me how it matches up to a midterm wave of retributive firings? Sure, they all serve at the President's pleasure blah blah blah, but why does no one in the press complain when this bogus comparison is made again and again?

If you turn on CSPAN's Washington Journal and listen for more than 20 minutes, you're all but guaranteed to hear a Republidrone calling in to parrot that same objection.

Who's being fooled by this idiocy? Idiots?

AAArrrrghh!

[Connie_Corleone]

1. It's not working for them except for their idiot base.

Even the MSM is pointing out the differences between what Clinton did and what Bush did.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Clinton replaced all the US A's when he came on board.

That's a President's perrogative. He has a right to put in a slate of Federal Attorney's who will focus on the priorities of that President. Clinton did force 2 out during his term...from the Washington Monthly-http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010931.php

"As it happens, the Congressional Research Service has just released a report on this. It appears two resigned under pressure -- one because he grabbed a TV reporter by the throat on camera, and the second having been accused of biting a topless dancer."

[jcrew2001]

3. its political

I love how RW are saying that the excuse is the "everything" is political - BUT Clinton ousted attorney's from the past administration so he could put in his own.

GW Bush is ousting is OWN fed attorney's because he doesn't want them investingating Republicans.

GW Bush is taking a plan out of the DUMB and DUMBER playbook.

He looks like an idiot for installing the Fed Attorney's at the beginning and now firing these attorneys, not for performance, but to cover-up corruption investigations.

This present day scenario is Completely different than what happened in 1993.

[Orrex]

4. Clearly you didn't get the memo

Bush fired them not to cover up rampant corruption but because they were insufficiently aggressive in prosecuting vote suppression. Why are you opposed to letting people vote? Why do you seek to keep people from the polls? Why do you hate America?

It sickens me. The mere fact that these mindless dolts are allowed on-air is baffling to me. The fact that their wild assertions are largely unchallenged is an affront to journalism.

[medeak]

5. dude...it's completely different

in that Clinton's appointees had to go through congressional hearings..while Bush's are exempt from that.