Will Specter and Shumer subpoena people to get to the bottom of those politically motivated firings by Clinton????

I won’t start holding my breath.

According to the WSJ editorial today, Reagan didn’t fire any of the US Attorneys when he assumed office. Neither, for that matter, did Jimmy Carter.

The Attorneys have four-year terms, and serve at the pleasure of the President. Reagan and Carter both allowed the US Attorneys to complete their terms before making any changes. Clinton was the one who deviated from normal practice, and we know why – he wanted to shut down the investigations by two US Attorneys – of Dan Rostenkowski in DC, and of his own Whitewater crimes in Little Rock – and firing all the Attorneys and replacing them with his political allies (as Janet Reno herself admitted he did) had the the added benefit of disrupting both investigations.

From my understanding of this, normally presidents on their election or re-election will fire or remove the US attorneys, but President Buh on the other hand has done this mostly within his 2nd term, not at the beginning – this I think is what is driving portions of the ‘he did it for political reasons’, and giving the Democrats something to glom on to.

I believe the handling of this was done incompetently in allowing for this to even get this far.

Yes, he only fired 8 compared to Clinton’s 93? 94? But Cliton did so at the beginning of his term, soemthing every president has done, there lies a difference.

Now, it could be argued that the President has been very busy dealing with the war and everything else and has just now gotten to dealing with these prosecutors, that could take some of this away.

They gave out some excuse on bad performance on these attorneys part, but some of it may not be holding water. They should have had concrete proof, because they should have known that this would be used against them and when they come out and complain, point to their records and say THIS is why they were fired.

They also need to remind everyone one that the US attorneys work for Bush, he is their boss, these are politically appointed positions.

As for Hillary, I think she would be the LAST one who would want to bring this up, and I would think the Democrats also would not want what was behind the Clinton firings of all US attorneys during a time of some of hte things they were investigating.

Do they really want to rehash Whitewater and other things that were being investigated during that time when all US attorneys were fired by Clinton?

The only way they can really make this a scandal is with the media cooperation by omitting the Clinton facts also.

But the media isn’t biased by not reporting what Clinton did and why……are they?

Scandals are manufactured by the criminals or person doing the wrong doing. The media would simply report not manufacture a scandal. In this case there IS NO scandal but the media is trying to manufacture one in people’s minds.

It’s like this. Your gardener (no I don’t have one) can be fired by you at any time for any reason. You can just simply ask them to stop cutting your lawns and give them their last check. Same with these Attorney’s that were fired. They serve the president. Clinton fired 93 of them within the first month. George H Bush fired some. And I HEAR (don’t know for sure) that Reagan did too.

No scandal.

Unless you are the media trying to manufacture one.

It’s great to be duped huh??? Any issues/ideas/solutions you want to discuss instead?

This is stupid. All Federal prosecutors are routinely asked for their resignations at the start of a new administration, and considering that Clinton replaced a Republican, this was no surprise. It does not serve the right side well to constantly blather that the left does it too. Forget (Bill) Clinton, already. He’s over and done with!!!

But the above stupidity is minor stupidity. Let us return to the gist of Sistah’s point, about this scandal being a media-manufactured one. There, Sistah, you are totally on target. And much more so than the people you quote. What has happened here is simple: somebody got fired; that somebody didn’t like it; that somebody complained to a mediot, who wrote the story.

Cazart! Somebody got fired. Who did it? Why, the administration! They must be covering up something!
Soon all the mediots are swarming around like hyenas around the corpse of an antelope. Soon, it’s a Gate!

The real problem here isn’t that seven out of 93 or whoevermanyitwas finally got fired. It’s that, after all the Gates, year after year, administrations left and right simply do not know how to deal with them. “Mistakes were made.” She-esh, it would have been better for the AG to have said, “yeah, I fired ‘em. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it!”

And have you ever seen anything more stupid than the defenders of the fired? Oooh! Their reputations have been sullied! Puhleeze, people! These are political appointees. For them to get fired is no different from a football coach getting fired after his team goes 4-12 and fails to make the playoffs for the third year in a row. Not even the sportswriters would argue that Coach Fonebone’s “reputation” has been sullied.

I don’t know how many of Sistah’s readers are Rudy fans (I know she ain’t), but this I know (I’m from New York): Of all of ‘em, Rudy’s the best at giving the media back what they give him. And for better or worse, he never worried much about a sullied reputation.

If scandals did not rely on media impetus, the issues at heart would not gain public attention, and would never develop into scandals.

I’m not sure I see the reasoning behind passing the blame for the AG’s poor decision making/oversight along to the media.