Last night, David Gergen said Clinton/Reno wrongly fired 93 US Attorneys

[CatWoman]

and were roundly attacked for it:

COOPER: You know, David, a lot of Republicans, though, will say, well, look, what is -- what is different here than what Bill Clinton did? He fired all the U.S. attorneys.

GERGEN: He did fire all the U.S. attorneys. And -- and, by the way, he caught hell for it.

When -- when Mr. Hubbell and Janet Reno did that, way back in the Clinton years, they fired all of them. That is, again, within the law that you can do that, but that seemed -- there seemed to be some political motivation for that, obviously. And, in this case, the individual attorneys who were singled out, the Justice Department said they were fired for poor performance.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/14/acd.01.html

:wtf: is going on here?

[tridim]

1. Gergen also said that BushCo has been scandal free for 6 years n/t

[CatWoman]

2. He apologized for saying that, as he received so many irate emails

GERGEN: Well, it's an administration in which, I'm afraid, some very bad decision-making early in the first term has come home to roost on Afghanistan and Iraq, you know, taking our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and then -- and then the -- the series of egregious misjudgments leading into -- into Iraq.

But I think, also, in any administration, there's a certain amount of hubris that sets in when you get elected to a second term, and you start making mistakes out of pride.

I -- Anderson, I said on the -- on your program just last week that this administration has been pretty free of scandal until now, and until Scooter Libby went to jail. I got a ton of responses from your viewers, saying that's not true.

Well, they have been free of -- of the kind of felonies, the kind of scandals that involve felonies that send people to jail, until Scooter Libby comes along with these felonies.

But what they have not been free of are sort of these rancid episodes, as we have with the U.S. attorney -- attorneys -- where -- when it's -- when people defend them and say, the president -- after all, these U.S. attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president, that's true. But they are not pawns of the president for political purposes. That is out of bounds.

There are certain sort of -- even though the law says the president can -- can fire them, there are traditions that surround these U.S. attorneys. And the way they were fired and the misleading conduct of the administration since then, the lies that, in fact, were told to Congress, have just got everybody in Washington in a fervor about what this is all about.

It is true, Anderson, as well, one other thing has happened. The Democrats now control Congress. And, of course, they have the subpoena power, the investigatory power. And that is -- is one of the biggest single powers in Washington, and why the Republicans did not want to lose...

[Atman]

6. Scandal-free only because no one would prosecute them

It's like running a stop sign late at night...you still broke the law. Now the republicans are finding there are cops on every corner, and they're getting busted for running those same stop signs, and seem surprised.

.

[gatorboy]

17. Gergen has truely lost it.

He made that comment on Larry King not on Cooper's show.

[Atman]

3. I think it needs to be put in a little more context

The way I heard it, Gergen acknowledged that Clinton did it, yes he caught hell, but it was nothing compared to what Bush has been doing in such a cynical, calculated way. And that BushCo has also been caught lying through their collective teeth about. He was easy on Clinton, nor on Bush, and I think he did manage to make the point that what Bush was doing was far, far worse.

Besides, unless you're a freeper or a poster on CU, since when does "But he did it, too!" make a wrong right?

.

[CatWoman]

5. my understanding is/was that replacing US Attorneys at the outset

of your administration is accepted practice.

if so, why should/did he catch hell for it?

[havocmom]

7. Yes, S.O.P.

But what is sauce for the goose gets boiled hard for Bill Clinton.

Now, they are taking a common procedure out of context in silly attempt to give bushco yet another pass.

We won't let that happen, WILL WE, DU? :evilgrin:

[Atman]

8. Replacing all of them IS accepted practice

But firing just a couple key players, like Hubble and Reno did, mid-way through a term when the heat is on...that's stinky. Bill gets no pass from me on this. But what is coming out about BushCo is the systematic way it was done, based SOLELY on loyalty to the president, and a desire to make sure their illegal activities weren't prosecuted. Gergen also pointed out, I believe, that there is nothing wrong with looking for attorney's who share your general philosophy on issues such as clean environment. But Bush went way beyond issues of mere ideology. He was firing for retribution and cover-up.

.

[jwirr]

11. These news people make me sick. They all know that most

administrations clean house when they come in by getting rid of the last administrations local subjects in all jobs that answer to the president. What is different here is that *ss is getting rid of them at the end of his term and firing them because they did not do exactly as he wanted.

[etherealtruth]

15. That was my take on the interview ...

I saw it and thought ...whooo, Gergen really doesn't like the Chimp

[sinkingfeeling]

4. I guess some of the 'media' has n't given up on that talking point. However, CNN has this as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/fired.attorneys/index.html

"U.S. attorneys are political appointees who are routinely replaced when a new president takes office, but their removal in the middle of a presidential administration is rare -- and some say unprecedented."

[Buzz Clik]

10. Exactly.

And the circumstances are odd as well.

[Buzz Clik]

9. This discussion about the firings has lost its way...

It's not the firing of the US attorneys at the beginning of an administration that raises eyebrows. That's as typical as replacing the entire cabinet.

The problems here are that 1) it was done in response to a lack of indictments of political opponents and 2) politicians attempted to apply pressure to US attorneys regarding specific cases. Problem 1 is a matter of ethics, problem 2 is dancing along the line of criminal.

Don't allow the conversation to be shifted toward whether or not Bush can fire US attorneys, because he can, and he doesn't have to have a legitimate reason.

[never cry wolf]

14. Plus, it was done because they had a window to appoint without Senate confirmation

They had no intention of ever naming a replacement as a nominee, they were happy just to let them be "interim" until January '09.

[Rageneau]

12. Smirk fired US Attorneys that he HIMSELF appointed.

Incoming Presidents sometimes fire the OLD President's US Attorneys -- but not their own appointees -- and not in midterm.

[underpants]

19. He (they) is amazing

He can f**k s**t up in ways no one ever thought of before.

[IWantAChange]

13. Watching the Freeper house of cards blow down is going to be fun.

[Catherine Vincent]

16. I wish Clinton himself would speak up on this lie.

Where's Joe Lockhart?

[spanone]

18. You know, I've always thought Gergen was fairly neutral. This 'Clinton did it' shit is sooo tiring.

The rethugs always seem to circle the wagons when one of their own is on the line. Regardless to principle or truth.