Rove's challenged accepted-US Attorney firings "Republicans then ('93) and now"

[underpants]

Glenn Greenwald blows the doors off all the rightwing players. Too much to post here. Great read.

From Crooks and Liars



"...Turd Blossom went into the typical spiel about how Clinton did the same thing, too, then issued a challenge to those who question President Bush's firings to look back and see if Congress had the "same super-heated political rhetoric then" as they do now."



Republicans and U.S. attorneys -- then and now
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html


Nonetheless, Republicans sought in 1993 to depict the routine and standard replacement of U.S. attorneys by the Clinton administration as some sort of grave scandal which threatened prosecutorial independence and was deeply corrupt. Yet now, people like The Wall St. Journal's Paul Gigot -- one of the most vocal critics of the 1993 U.S. attorneys replacement -- insist that the President has the absolute right to fire any U.S. attorneys at any time and for any reason. On the WSJ weekend Fox show, Gigot offered what has become the standard defense of Bush followers:

+

Washington Times, March 26, 1993
Senate and House Republicans yesterday blasted the White House and the Justice Department for giving pink slips to virtually all 93 U.S. attorneys, a move Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole called the "March massacre" . . . .

UPI, March 26, 1993
In a letter to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the chairman, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the ranking Republican, of the Judiciary Committee said the firings were a "severe blow to the administration of justice in this country."

Associated Press -- March 31, 1993 <--- dutifully carried the ball for them

Washington Times Editorial, March 28, 1993
Meanwhile, a House committee has taken up the reauthorization of the independent counsel law, which expired in December. Wouldn't it be delicious if the first use of a revitalized law were to look into the propriety of the Clinton administration's decision to fire the U.S. attorneys?

Associated Press on March 25, 1993 <-- again

Rush Limbaugh, television show, March 25, 1993
Now do you remember something, folks? Remember when Richard Nixon issued a sweeping order for a bunch of people to got--to be gotten rid of? They called that, back then, an obstruction of justice.' Remember that? Remember Watergate--that Saturday night massacre? Why, he can't do that. Why, that's an obstruction of justice.' And this may end up being the same thing. But what are they calling? Hey, it's just politics as usual. Hey, don't bother us about it. It's our right. We're the new administration.'

Paul Gigot (WSJ)in March, 1993

UPDATE:

UPDATE II:

[trotsky]

1. Oh, snap!

K&R - great stuff!

[underpants]

2. This is hilarious

Greenwald points out that this was one of the original mass movements of the RW noise machine against Clinton.

Oh snap indeed.

[Czolgosz]

3. k & r #5

[FuzzyDicePHL]

4. Fan-freakin'-tastic

This and today's Adam Cohen NYT column will make great reading for my rethug boss who had trouble understanding why, "Clinton did the same thing," was a vulgar misrepresentation of the DEC USA firings...

[underpants]

5. *

That picture is hilarious. Is that you?

:rofl:

[FuzzyDicePHL]

7. Thank you :)

Yes, it is.

[tanyev]

6. Nice editorial yesterday pointed out that up until Clinton's time,

it was customary for the US Attorneys to offer up their resignations when a new administration came in. They didn't do that for Clinton, so he had to fire them.

[underpants]

9. Oh reeeeeeeeeeally!?!?!

:rofl:

When will I learn to expect all of what they say to be complete BS :shrug:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

8. not shocked one bit

great find!

[Supersedeas]

10. Paul Gigot would flip the switch on his mother if it meant defending the ideology and the

coin that he is paid to defend it.

[K8-EEE]

11. Wow!!! That's a GOOD ONE!

That one does deserve it's own greatest thread...!