Friday, March 16, 2007

Hypocrits

On the drive back from the Metroplex, I was -- unfortunately -- forced to listen to AM radio for a brief interlude.

Seems like the firing of several US Attorney -- nine, I think -- is the latest scandal flag being lustily waved by the Democrats.

Am I the only person who remembers co-Presidents Bill and Hillary Clinton firing
ALL US Attorneys by way of Janet Reno in 1993?

So -- will somebody, anybody, please tell me why it's okay for President Clinton/Janet Reno to fire 93 or 94 US Attorneys, yet a massive scandal for President Bush/Alberto Gonzales to fire eight US Attorneys?

Is it because Bush didn't fire enough? If he'd gone ahead and fired every-bloody-one -- like Clinton did -- would that have been okay?

And I'm here to tell you, Senator Clinton -- who was, if I remember correctly, something called a "Co-President" when every working U.S. Attorney was fired by the White House in 1993 -- just might ought to keep her hypocritical mouth
shut on the subject of firing US Attorneys.

But that's just me.

LawDog

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Been wondering the same thing!

Anonymous said...

I'ma thinkin' there's something in the Kool-Ade that eliminates such memories

farmist

ben said...

Will try to clear that up a little, Clinton replaced all previous appointed DAs when he took office in 93, Bush did the same thing when he took office in 2001. I understand that is the norm when there is a party change in the white house.

These eight or nine were appointed by Bush, depending on who you want to listen too they were removed for performance or for political reasons. I suspect that both reasons are involved but don't know enough to substantiate either.

rwc said...

In fairness to all involved, I think the kerfluffel is more about lying about why they were fired (performance, etc.) then it is about the legal right of the president to demand their resignations.

Speaking from the other WA I can say that Mike McKay is widely respected. The implication that he wasn't doing his job was transparently ludicrous and folks from both sides of the aisle, as well as the judiciary, and said so.

Bottomline, AG Gonzales should have simply requested their resignation and kept his lips zipped. No gratuitous commentary = no kerfluffel.