Ah, Hillary's Hypocrisy

[Crazed Rabbit]

There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.
But the dems and media have jumped on this as a chance to portray the Bush administration as obstructing justice and the like, blowing it completely out of proportion it a blatant attempt to hurt Bush, facts and objectivity be darned.

The hypocrisy, however, is coming from Hillary Clinton, who wants the US attorney general to resign because of this, even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

Here's a link to Hillary's demand Gonzales resign:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2948538&page=1

And a story about how she's a filthy hypocrite:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

I know, let's get the Clintons back in power! Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.

[Tribesman]

Wow the Presidents wife has the power to sack all political appointees .
Come on Rabbit , you can do better than that .
How about a nice article saying that it was really Hillary who told the FBI to burn Waco because she hates guns and god

There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.

Hmmmmmmmm....hypocrisy is it , now I wonder who was ranting about Chavez being a dictator because he fired some judges as he allowed to by law ?

[ShadeHonestus]

Wow the Presidents wife has the power to sack all political appointees .
Come on Rabbit , you can do better than that .
How about a nice article saying that it was really Hillary who told the FBI to burn Waco because she hates guns and god
Hmmmmmmmm....hypocrisy is it , now I wonder who was ranting about Chavez being a dictator because he fired some judges as he allowed to by law ?

Ah the great over simplification and emoticon rebuttal of tribesman at it's best. However I do think this one is down a few " 's" . You need to up that to keep your flame cred.


Honestly, who didn't know it was going to be an unwashed open season on republicans as soon as the democrats took both houses? You can't see your dribble for your spew as any republican rebuttal or retort to past offences by those same very democrats is greated with shock and horror, smoke and mirrors and something about the environment. Wake up and smell 2nd mid-term election fallout as it has always been a precursor for politics to lay fault of the next administration squarely on the shoulders of the previous. Republicans did it, Democrats are doing it...circular, circular, feel it, doing the bull dance...feeling the flow..

What I can't stand are those who refuse perspective...now that's x 50

[CrossLOPER]

Clinton is superior.

[ShadeHonestus]

Clinton is superior.

In many ways

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.

I for one am sold.

[Husar]

Ah the great over simplification and emoticon rebuttal of tribesman at it's best. However I do think this one is down a few " 's" . You need to up that to keep your flame cred.

Tribesman is one of my favourite posters here, maybe it's because he softens up a debate with short and flammatory comments, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is wrong, does it? You don't always need to write 20 pages to have a point.

On the topic, well, I don't care that much about Hilary, I always wanted Bill Clinton to stay, he was such a lovely guy compared with Bush.

[ShadeHonestus]

Tribesman is one of my favourite posters here, maybe it's because he softens up a debate with short and flammatory comments, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what he says is wrong, does it?

Oh he's one of mine as well, don't get me wrong, I just like to call him on his style.

You don't always need to write 20 pages to have a point.

Absolutely agree, in fact Tribe can throw out 50 accusations in 3 sentences, I swear. That is of course part of his style and appreciated, even if once you wade through 49 you find that one that has truth.

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.

Iowan's prefer their politicians in the past tense...

[Tuuvi]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.

So she's getting more votes by not running? wha?

[Marshal Murat]

"This was an unexpected moment, and it took a lot of courage on her part," said Miami resident Brian Highland, a former supporter of Arizona Sen. John McCain. "I've been a staunch Republican all my life, but now that Hillary's dropped out of the race, she's definitely got my vote."

That makes sense?
How does that work? You vote for someone that has dropped out?

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's nothing compared to her latest gambit.

Well, that's got me seriously reconsidering my support for her newest policy.

In all seriousness, I'd rather see Obama in there than her - she wants power and will do anything to get it. Obama doesn't seem so ruthless.

That makes sense?

It makes perfect sense. You can write in any candidate you want to on the ballot.

So she's getting more votes by not running? wha?

Well, if she gets more support by not trying to get support, it makes sense, doesn't it?

CR

[drone]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right?

[ShadeHonestus]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right?

Noooooo

Next thing you're going to tell me is that Grizzly Adams had a beard.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right?

What are you talking about? The Onion, a joke? But that would mean I was just leading those poor sods on, wouldn't it, that I was having a bit o' fun with them, and that you, instead of joining in, had to be all serious and bring them back to reality, wouldn't it?

I don't know what craziness you're spouting. Clearly, the Onion is not a joke.

Crazed Rabbit

[CrossLOPER]

You guys do know that The Onion is a joke newsite, right?

Slow posters are SLOWWWWWWWWWW.

[Marshal Murat]

It wouldn't be bad for her to do that poll and see if she would step down, if there were enough people complaining.

[Goofball]

There's been a manufactured controversy over here in the US recently about some federal prosecutors being fired, as is allowed by law.
But the dems and media have jumped on this as a chance to portray the Bush administration as obstructing justice and the like, blowing it completely out of proportion it a blatant attempt to hurt Bush, facts and objectivity be darned.

The hypocrisy, however, is coming from Hillary Clinton, who wants the US attorney general to resign because of this, even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

Here's a link to Hillary's demand Gonzales resign:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2948538&page=1

And a story about how she's a filthy hypocrite:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110009784



I know, let's get the Clintons back in power! Wouldn't that be a great idea?

Crazed Rabbit

I see what you are saying, but here is where I see the difference:

From what I understand of the situation, Pres Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys in one fell swoop because he had taken office after an extended Republican hold on the Presidency, and basically wanted to clean house. While the move is definitely partisan, there's nothing really surprising there. Partisan politics are, after all, traditionally the American way of doing things when it comes to appointing not only your attorneys, but your judges as well. Clinton didn't pick and choose because he disagreed with the specifics of any particular cases, he just made a fresh start.

On the other hand, if the allegations are true, it appears that the Bush administration targeted specific attorneys because they wanted to prevent or stop specific investigations/indictments that would have reflected badly upon Republican interests. And that is definitely a no-no.

Again, assuming the allegations are true, you have no leg to stand on with your comparison between W.J. Clinton's actions and what is happening now. There is absolutely no similarity.

And as far as using this to call H. Clinton a "filthy hypocrite" goes, it's beyond laughable. She never fired any U.S. attorneys.

But hey, as long as it keeps Republican hate pointed Hillary, I'm happy. She's one of my least favorite contenders anyway.

[Marshal Murat]

It's the number replaced by Clinton that is insane.

The prosecutions the attorneys are trying to work on are ones that involve voter fraud that they don't want to reveal.

I think the article states that the prosecutors weren't doing their job, and for that they should be sacked.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

[Goofball]

It's the number replaced by Clinton that is insane.

The prosecutions the attorneys are trying to work on are ones that involve voter fraud that they don't want to reveal.

I think the article states that the prosecutors weren't doing their job, and for that they should be sacked.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against Democrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.

[Marshal Murat]

No I just refuted it because he is a DEMOCRAT, and he was protecting his own crew.

The vote was in doubt.
There were suspicions, including the *sparkle magical tooth fairy warehouse vote sparkle*
It wasn't opened.
He didn't do his job.
He should be sacked.

I fail to see the problem.

[ShadeHonestus]

Goofball

You should also remember at the time of those political sackings, among them were U.S. attorneys that were investigating him and whitewater...among many other things. Don't forget his last second deal to rid himself of concern over future prosecution.


/sarcasm on
Bush should have fired them all and not just those in particular, the political issues would have been lost in the fold.
/sarcasm off

[Goofball]

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against Democrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.

No I just refuted it because he is a DEMOCRAT, and he was protecting his own crew.

I'll speak more slowly this time:

It appears that Bush fired specific U.S. attorneys because they were not doing what was in the interest of Republicans. The bit you quoted supported my point completely.

How is this difficult to understand?

Goofball

You should also remember at the time of those political sackings, among them were U.S. attorneys that were investigating him and whitewater...among many other things. Don't forget his last second deal to rid himself of concern over future prosecution.


/sarcasm on
Bush should have fired them all and not just those in particular, the political issues would have been lost in the fold.
/sarcasm off

Actually, you're correct. Except Bush should have fired them all at the beginning of his first term, then it would have not been suspicious at all. And he also shouldn't have fired guys who, as far as I can see from what has been written, had good work records.

[Tribesman]

And as far as using this to call H. Clinton a "filthy hypocrite" goes, it's beyond laughable. She never fired any U.S. attorneys.

But she did she did , can't you see it ?

By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint

plural so she did .

even though she and her husband had every single federal attorney fired in 1993.

it says she , so she did .

He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department

Look she is there again , but this time appointing not sacking .

So Goofball you are completely wrong with your "beyond laughable" line , its very laughable , not as funny as the "she ordered the Waco murders" one (I will have to see if I can find that again at townhall.com , its a real classic )
But really what is so sadly laughable is that the runup to the elections and all the mudslinging that goes with it is all over the airwaves , but the election is still ages away .
There are many months of this crap to come .

[Marshal Murat]

That wasn't me....


Anyway, how difficult is it to understand that some people don't DO their jobs? He didn't. If it was a Republican governor, the whole issue would have been exploded across the news networks as the attorney led a charge into the devious back-stabbing realms of the GOP.
The bit I quoted supports my point just as validly as yours. The attorney didn't prosecute the governor-elect for these fraudulent acts. Your telling me they fired a prosecutor who didn't prosecute a person because they are a Democrat?

They are sacking him because he didn't do the job he was hired to do! If your hired to drive a truck, but you don't drive it because you have 'other things' and then get fired for it, it's not the employers fault, it's yours!
The hubub is about nothing more than a political appointee being kicked out, and raising a immature fuss about how he was fired because of 'political partisan actions' rather than his own gosh darn fault!

some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse....But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

Are you saying he did his job there? That while it isn't proof, it certainly raised red flags in my head. If anything is the problem, it is the attorney for showing favoritism to a candidate of the same party! He should have been fired for not investigating it, because there was FRAUD. He shouldn't have worried about whether it was a Republican, Democrat, Green Peace, or Eskimo running.
The favoritism attitude projected by this attorney means that he is not only un-biased, but a partisan attorney who is trying to save someone of his own party from being kicked out. Are you saying that this was right? It's okay for someone to abuse the law system and his privileges like that?

He should be fired for this negligence on his part.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide"

[ShadeHonestus]

Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide"

Well of course, either answer would cost her votes and as long as she doesn't make too big of a soundbyte for CNN or Fox, she'll keep them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sorry, but you just proved my point. The Republicans sacked this guy because he wouldn't open an investigation against Democrats that the Republicans wanted open. And I bet you dollars to donuts that if the Washington election had gone the other way and the Republicans won by 100 votes, they would have sacked the guy if he did open an investication.

Dead people voted in that election. People voted twice. People who shouldn't have voted at all voted. There was voter fraud, there is no doubt about that.

Yet that fellow did absolutely nothing to investigate it, as was his job, as he should have done. It matters not if he was harming republicans or democrats by investigating or not doing so; he was harming democracy. He did not do his job. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I'll take that bet here in WA any day of the week.

Trying to argue on that point is maybe the worst attorney you could pick to support.

She never fired any U.S. attorneys.

She benefited politically from it, as did some of her associates, and now has the gall to accuse Bush of doing that when he didn't.

Though, I never said she fired the attorneys. But I guess it's easier for some to just set up strawmen and hack away.

Clinton on whether homosexuality is immoral: "that's for others to decide"

Gotta love someone who lets polls decide their morals.

Crazed Rabbit

[ShadeHonestus]

Gotta love someone who lets polls decide their morals.

Better yet, someone who lets polls speak their morals. She won't speak of them herself.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

wasn't there something funny about GWB and some high court judges getting him elected in the first place... oh i can't remember..... /sc off

its a tad rich for the republicans to care about the voting system and voter fraud now isn't it....