I'm so sick of these guys using Clinton's dismissal........

[CrownPrinceBandar]

of federal judges on his watch as a justification for this debacle. If the current shakeup is so legitimate and defensible then why compare it to "the previous administration"?

[Eurobabe]

1. Ditto, obviously they never read the editorial in the WaPO yest.

The Reno Precedent
President Clinton's attorney general fired all U.S. attorneys. So why is this different?

THE LATEST they-do-it-too excuse for the undeniably botched and increasingly suspicious firings of U.S. attorneys involves the 1993 episode in which President Clinton's new attorney general, Janet Reno, unceremoniously dismissed the first Bush administration's holdover U.S. attorneys. By comparison with the Reno massacre, we are told, the Bush administration's canning of eight U.S. attorneys was positively restrained; if you suspect political motives in the current controversy, so the argument goes, consider that when he was ousted by Reno, the U.S. attorney in the District, Jay Stephens, was just weeks away from deciding whether to indict House Ways and Means Chairman Daniel Rostenkowski (D-Ill.). Inconveniently for these conspiracy theorists, Mr. Rostenkowski was in fact indicted and convicted -- and, yes, he ultimately was pardoned by President Clinton.

The Reno precedent is a red herring, not a useful comparison. The summary way she announced the move was, indeed, unusual if not unprecedented. But a turnover in the top prosecutorial jobs with a new administration taking power -- especially one of a different party -- was not. As we wrote at the time, "These are political appointees who owed their jobs to the last administration and have expected to be replaced ever since last November's election. It would likely have happened earlier had the Clinton administration not made such an adventure out of the appointment of an attorney general." And so President George W. Bush, properly and unsurprisingly, replaced all but a few U.S. attorneys during his first year in office. Indeed, while it would undoubtedly have been disruptive and unwise, it would not have been illegal or unethical for the president to follow the suggestion of his then-White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers, to replace all the prosecutors again in his second term.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/14/AR2007031402194.html

[Atman]

5. They've never read ANYTHING but Fox news crawls

Seriesly. Check out Certifiable Underground or Freeperville. I actually read a post last night wherein they claimed this is exactly what Clinton did, and the democrats are only persuing this to distract America from the fact the republicans have been able to block them from passing any of their legislative agenda. Really. It's like the twilight zone, they live in an entirely different world. That's what happens when you think Fox News is real.

.

[Bitwit1234]

2. Maybe they should start to compare the first 93 attorneys bush fired

I suppose the media would not pick it up anyway.

[Skidmore]

3. Instead of spending all our time defending Clinton, perhaps we should focus

on attacking they're refusal to take responsibility for anything they do. It's always someone else's fault or it's okay because someone else did it, even when "it" was wrong. Their weaselly, two-faced criminality is the issue. Forget Clinton. He takes the focus away from their behavior.

[Toucano]

6. I don't see it as defending Clinton as much as attacking their defense.

Too often when Rove says shit that isn't true, it gets talked about so much that it permeates the consciousness of the electorate and becomes "true" by default.

I think there's value in challenging every false assertion they make.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

8. Yup, that's my point..........

If thing is so on-the-level, why do they have to resort to "he did it too!!!" to put lipstick on this pig?

[baldguy]

4. Because they have no other defense.

Clinton fired the Federal prosecutors as a normal house cleaning that new administrations do.

Bush targeted 7 Federal prosecutors who followed the law, and did not play political favoratism. They were asked to start investigations of Democrats where investigations weren't warrented, and to stall or end on-going investigations of Republicans. They wouldn't do that, so they were fired.

And there are 86 other Federal prosecutors who Bush chose not to fire.

[Buzz Clik]

7. It's an intentional misdirection of the argument.

Mass firings of US attorneys in the first months of an administration is the norm, not the exception. Although purging US attorneys mid-term is unprecedented, it is not illegal.

The issue is "why". Firing even one US attorney for not indicting political opponents is third-world bullshit. Having members of Congress apply pressure to these attorneys related to a pending case just prior to the firing is illegal.

Gonzo calling a press conference to lie about his involvement is the last straw. It is time for Gonzo to go back to Texas. (It won't happen -- Gonzo protects Bush and Bush needs him desperately.)