Partisan fishing
This letter has not been edited.
"Democrats in the House and Senate are coming to the aid of Republican US Attorneys who may have been released unlawfully."
Unlawfully?!?! They don't own those jobs. They can be fired (as can most people) for almost any reason. Clinton fired 93 attorneys because they were left over from a previous administration. So what? These 8 were fired because they weren't doing their job the way the administration wanted them to. So what?
Yes, they were fired for political reasons.
So what?
Posted by Mike on March 28, 2007 12:46 PMMike, do you know what obstruction of justice is?
Posted by flimflam on March 28, 2007 01:09 PMMike,
You are right. Why is it that no one seems to acknowledge the fact that Reagan and Clinton fired all 93 of their attorneys?
It is perfectly lawful to fire the attorneys, even if it was for political reasons.
Posted by John II on March 28, 2007 01:26 PMWhile it may be lawful to fire those attorneys it sure looks pretty bad, especially since there is no presedent for it. Firing the attorneys as the begining of a administration is a far cry from doing it in the middle of one.
However, none of that changes the fact that what may be going on here is obstruction of justice, which is why we need an investigation. I also think its pretty clear that Gonzales was less that honest with Congress and may have outright lied, which is a felony.
Posted by flimflam on March 28, 2007 01:31 PMWhen are the representatives and Senators going to be held to the standard of outright lies and dishonesty being illegal?
Posted by on March 28, 2007 01:40 PMYour response is so lame. It has been pointed out time and time again that changing US Attorneys is traditional at the beginning of a presidency. What is unprecedented is the firing of US Attorneys mid-term simply because they are either investigating people you don't want them to or they are not investigating the people that you do want them to. You have to have seen this rebuttal. Either you don't pay attention or you are totally daft.
Posted by geez john on March 28, 2007 02:25 PMflimflam,
So far we've got perjury and obstruction of justice.
When do we identify the crime?
Posted by Jim J on March 28, 2007 02:51 PMRight geez john; plus e-mails seem to reveal the firing activity coincides with the manipulation of local election activity. So what? So, there's going to be an investigation. So what? So sit back and watch the worms squirm, that's what.
Posted by hikingartist on March 28, 2007 03:00 PMFlim- Yes, I do.
Now, how does it apply here?
Posted by Mike on March 28, 2007 03:01 PMMike, obstruction of justice applies here if there has been an orchestrated plan to replace attorneys general that were starting to close in on the White House or other high ranking Republicans as part of their investigations of corruption. There is in particular a lot of valid speculation that Carol Lam was taking the Duke Cinningham corruption probe to the Vice president's office. THAT would make replacing her obstruction of justice.
Posted by Exhoosier24 on March 28, 2007 03:52 PMDo we have probable cause for an investigation? Any evidence (factual, not because you hate Bush) of an actual crime to warrant forcing people to be questioned under oath? Or are people simply frothing at the mouth in hopes of being able to find a crime where none exists?
Posted by KW on March 28, 2007 04:18 PMHoosier- You can speculate that she was forced to resign because of the Duke Cunningham case, but there is also evidence that it was because her prosecutions were down by more than 1/3rd; specifically, in gun and border crimes. Border crimes are, obviously, being focused on now, and her inability (or unwillingness) to prosecute those crimes the way the administration wanted her to, meant she had to go.
There's nothing scandalous about that.
Posted by Mike on March 28, 2007 04:22 PMJohn II: "Why is it that no one seems to acknowledge the fact that Reagan and Clinton fired all 93 of their attorneys?:\"
Why does John II make such statements when no one has ever denied what Reagan and Clinton did? It has been reported time after time on the news.
Posted by Truth on March 28, 2007 04:56 PMMonica Goodling, the Justice Department's White House liaison, has a perfect right to claim that if she were to testify to the truth it might incriminate her. But it makes sense to find out what is going on that caused her to take this unusual step.
Posted by Truth on March 28, 2007 05:01 PM“...It has been pointed out time and time again that changing US Attorneys is traditional at the beginning of a presidency. What is unprecedented is the firing of US Attorneys mid-term...”
I can't believe you let him get away with this.
Please name for me all the presidents who fired 90+ US Attorneys? I can only name one: Bill Clinton. THAT'S what was unprecedented, and among those he fired were the ones working on White Water and Rostenkowski. You know why Republicans didn't get up in arms about it? Because US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. That's why we get special prosecutors for cases that involve the White House. Surely you folks know this stuff...
"Rush Limbaugh claimed that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, "the first Hispanic-American attorney general -- a minority" is "under fire by white liberal racists in the Senate."
Frankly, I had no idea that Senators Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham and Chuck Hagel were white liberal racists.
"WASHINGTON — Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators sharply questioned his honesty over last fall's firings of eight federal prosecutors."
Posted by Truth on March 28, 2007 05:08 PMFlimflam,
Legal commentary regarding perjury and obstruction of justice from a person who cannot even spell precedent?
That's rich.
Lecture on 5:11pm, you master of spelling, you.
Both Reagan and Bush I fired all USAs upon taking the presidency, and I believe the practice started long before that.
Why do you people continue to give this administration such leeway. For the millionth time, the Bush Administration does not equal the United States of America, nor does the Republican party.
Posted by flimflam on March 28, 2007 06:37 PMMike: "Yes, they were fired for political reasons.
So what?"
Gonzales: "Alberto Gonzales who told the Senate, 'I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation.'
Some say it's OK for Libby to lie to the grand jury. Some say it's OK for Gonzales to lie to Congress. Others disagree.
Posted by Truth on March 28, 2007 06:55 PMMichael Trimble: "You know why Republicans didn't get up in arms about it?"
MIchael, in case you didn't know, Senators Arlen Specter, Lindsay Graham, and Chuck Hagel are Republicans, very prominent and respected one.
"WASHINGTON — Republican support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales eroded Sunday as three key senators [Specter, Graham and Hagel] sharply questioned his honesty over last fall's firings of eight federal prosecutors."
Michael Trimble: “...It has been pointed out time and time again that changing US Attorneys is traditional at the beginning of a presidency. What is unprecedented is the firing of US Attorneys mid-term...”
I can't believe you let him get away with this.
Please name for me all the presidents who fired 90+ US Attorneys?"
Michael is a great one to try to get someone else to do his research for him. This time, he would appreciate it if one of you would quit what you are doing and research the history of prior administrations' way of handling U. S. Attorneys. Any takers?
"Written Statement of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. Mcnulty to the Senate
Judiciary Committee for Hearing on Appointments and Resignations of U.S. Attorneys
Washington, DC
February 6, 2007
When a presidential election results in a change of administration, every U.S. Attorney leaves and the new President nominates a successor for confirmation by the Senate"
"One question that has remained unresolved is the extent to which the view put forth by the Bush administration matches that of previous administrations. Is the White House and Justice Department today practicing business as usual? Or is this a complete break from past practice and an unprecedented move?
That question appears to be largely resolved by a Congressional Research Service report on the issue released yesterday. CRS examined the tenure of all U.S. Attorneys who were confirmed by the Senates between the years 1981 and 2006 to determine how many had served-and of those how many had been forced to resign for reasons other than a change in administration.
The answer is that of the 468 confirmations made by the Senate over the 25-year period, only 10 left office involuntarily for reasons other than a change in administration prior to the firings that took place in December, according to the available evidence gathered by CRS. The average incidence of such involuntary departures was one out of every two-and-a-half years; the largest number of such departures prior to this administration was a total of four departures during the Clinton administration."
Michael, I haven't researched the prior administrations as you were wanting someone to do for you, but I'll be happy to do it at my usual research rate of two hundred dollars per hour. I'll need a five hundred dollar retainer, in small bills; just put them in a brown paper bag and leave them under the bricks in my front yard. Being a good Republican, I see no need for the snooping government to know anything about this. If I don’t use all of the money this time, my policy is to retain the rest as a credit to your account. Naturally, I’ll have to charge you my usual interest rate for holding the money in safekeeping for you and any such money I hold for over thirty days automatically reverts to me as I'll be damned if I'll spend my good time looking after your money forever. As I said, I am a good Republican and I know whose money this is and it’s not the government’s.
Posted by on March 28, 2007 07:24 PMTruth- If you don't believe that politicians do things for political reasons (and then tell people that it wasn't political), then you are very naive.
Posted by Mike on March 28, 2007 08:04 PMMike, I agree that politicians do that. But that doesn't always make it right. Sometimes, it is wrong and sometimes we catch them doing it when it's wrong. Doing things to advance one's politics is quite different from doing things to advance one's country, and we never want to just say, it's OK, they do it all the time.
Posted by Truth on March 28, 2007 08:27 PMTruth:
We've had our words before, but I want to say that this is a civil correction you have written me, and I appreciate it. I will also say I looked back at my post, and I was not clear in my post. So, while you are correct in your assertion, it actually does not address what I intended to say. I was saying the reason Republicans did not get up in arms over Clinton's firings of US Attorneys is because they serve at the pleasure of the president.
7:24-
Pardon me for refusing to be taken to task by someone too chicken sh*t to post even a screen name to be identified by. As usual, those who will not sign a name are prone to throwing up a lot of mud hoping something will stick. Do you so lack confidence in your assertions that you can't give any sort of name? I use my real name, because I am generally confident in my assertions. Here is the reference for my assertion that Clinton's firings were unprecedented.
www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784
In this case, I phrased it “Please name for me...” because my reference is an opinion piece, though generally the Wall Street Journal has it's actual facts correctly, regardless of whether someone agrees with their opinions or not. Other times I might be actually asking a question (you are familiar with the traditional response? “I don't know” is generally acceptable when you don't know. I recommend it to you.)
You'll excuse me if I don't take you up on your offer of research for a fee, since you apparently think offering entirely unrelated material in some way answers my assertions. “Other than a change in administration” really doesn't apply to my assertion, does it?
Flimflam:
Ok, you said Reagan did it, but the Wall Street Journal says he didn't... mind if I ask your source? If you're right, I'll say so, but I would like to see it.
7:24-
Just a side note: Your error appears to be saying rather too much- more, in fact, than you actually know.
For example, had you concluded your second paragraph after the first four words, you would have made a better impression.
flimflam:
OK, now I think I get it- you are saying that Reagan evantually fired all, or nearly all, the US Attornys, not that he "swept house" at the start, like Clinton did? That is probably right, as far as I know. But it is still a bit of a stretch to say 93 at once is okay, but 8 at once is not, just becuase Bush gave them a chance to do the job, isn't it?
Didn't Clinton fire the guy who was investigating Whitewater?
Posted by on March 28, 2007 10:23 PMLook at it from this angle.....these attorney's were not fired at the beginning of the term because of the bennifit of the doubt factor. The 'lets see how well they do their job on our watch ' factor'. They didn't do their jobs to the wants of their boss and were let go. period. Get over it. Sheesh!
Posted by Ann on March 29, 2007 05:51 AMMichael Trimble, and I appreciate your civil and forthright response.
You say: "the reason Republicans did not get up in arms over Clinton's firings of US Attorneys is because they serve at the pleasure of the president."
So the president can remove a U.S. Attorney for any reason, political or otherwise? It seems that Attorney General Gonzales does not agree with you. He testified before Congress:
"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons or if it would, in any way, jeopardize an ongoing serious investigation."
I think it is clear from that statement that removing a U.S. Attorney for purely political reasons or to thwart an investigation is not something that is considered proper. Why else would Gonzales make such a statement if that were not the case?
The three senators I mentioned, Specter, Graham and Hagel, all Republicans, are critical of Gonzales. Perhaps it is only because he lied to Congress or perhaps they too see a problem that you do not see in firing a U.S. Attorney for purely political motivation even though the Justice Department has rated that service of that attorney as excellent.
Are you aware of anyone at all, Republican or Democrat, who has echoed your sentiment that there is nothing wrong with removing a U.S. Attorney with an excellent record for purely political reasons? I haven't though I may well be wrong. If I am right, would that the fact that no one "up there" agrees with you, give you any pause about your position?
All of the eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired are good Republicans. I think we can assume very good ones since they were appointed to those posts. Many of them are very upset at being fired for what they say are political reasons. Do you think they are just whistling in the dark, or that they likely know what they are talking about, that is, that there is something very wrong about firing a U.S. Attorney with an excellent performance record for purely political gain?
"WASHINGTON, March 28 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales endured blunt criticism Tuesday from federal prosecutors who questioned the firings of eight United States attorneys, complained that the dismissals had undermined morale and expressed broader grievances about his leadership, according to people briefed on the discussion."
Michael Trimble: "But it is still a bit of a stretch to say 93 at once is okay, but 8 at once is not, just becuase Bush gave them a chance to do the job, isn't it?"
"just because Bush gave them a chance to do the job".
Very disingenuous, Michael; that is, lacking in candor and frankness.
The big point is that they were indeed doing their job. How else the excellent performance ratings?
Clinton fired the U.S. Attorneys at the start of his term?
Very disingenuous, Michael. That is, lacking in candor and frankness.
You completely ignore what I previously posted:
"Written Statement of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. Mcnulty to the Senate
Judiciary Committee for Hearing on Appointments and Resignations of U.S. Attorneys
Washington, DC
February 6, 2007
When a presidential election results in a change of administration, every U.S. Attorney leaves and the new President nominates a successor for confirmation by the Senate"
Those U.S. Attorneys automatically lost their jobs when Bush Senior lost the election. What Clinton did do was not rehire them rather than fire them.
Not rehiring the U.S. Attorneys from a former administration from the opposite party is an accepted practice.
It is critical to keep in mind that the U.S. Attorneys that President Clinton did not rehire were from the opposing party. It makes extremely good sense for a president to want to have U.S. Attorneys who are from the same party he is. It is for that very reason that it is an accepted practice for an incoming president to hire U.S. Attorneys who are loyal to him rather than to his predecessor.
All of the U.S. Attorneys which President Bush fired were from the same party and all but one had performed excellently for him.
Posted by Truth on March 29, 2007 07:46 AMWho hired the U.S. Attorneys who President Bush fired?
"THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms."
Who hired the U.S. Attorneys who President Clinton did not rehire at the beginning of his term?
President Bush (senior), not President Clinton.
Posted by Truth on March 29, 2007 07:53 AM"I think it is clear from that statement that removing a U.S. Attorney for purely political reasons or to thwart an investigation is not something that is considered proper. Why else would Gonzales make such a statement if that were not the case?"
Because it is the politically correct thing to say and saying otherwise (even though it goes on in both parties) would bring him a lot of grief in the press.
"Who hired the U.S. Attorneys who President Bush fired?"
'THE PRESIDENT: Earlier today, my staff met with congressional leaders about the resignations of U.S. attorneys. As you know, I have broad discretion to replace political appointees throughout the government, including U.S. attorneys. And in this case, I appointed these U.S. attorneys and they served four-year terms.'
So, you can only fire someone if he was hired by someone else?
"It makes extremely good sense for a president to want to have U.S. Attorneys who are from the same party he is."
It also makes sense for a president to fire attorneys who aren't prosecuting in the manner he wants; Carol Lam for example. Her prosecutions were down overall and she wasn't aggressively prosecuting border crimes. I would have fired her, too.
Posted by Mike on March 29, 2007 08:07 AMMike, you and I have had this discussion before. I am not aware of any high profile person who agrees with you that it is OK to fire a U.S. Attorney for purely political reasons. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does mean that you have no support from any substantive person. There may well be a good reason for that.
We both agree that politicians do things for political reasons but lie about it and claim it is for other, more acceptable reasons. Where we disagree is that you condone the practice whereas criticize it. I think we should encourage our representatives to be truthful; apparently, you don't think that is important.
I have the impression that Carol Lam is not one of those who received excellent evaluations on her performance, so that her firing may indeed be performance related. That is what Gonzales said was the basis for all of the firings before it became clear that he was lying. You seem to think that such lying is OK. I don't.
An interesting article:
"Fired San Diego U.S. attorney Carol Lam notified the Justice Department that she intended to execute search warrants on a high-ranking CIA official as part of a corruption probe the day before a Justice Department official sent an e-mail that said Lam needed to be fired, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Sunday."
Another one:
"By the close of 2005, amid a series of San Diego scandals, U.S. Attorney Carol Lam had quietly become one of the most powerful people in the region.
That summer, her office had secured the convictions of two City Council members on extortion, fraud and other charges in a bribery case involving a strip club.
A grand jury was wrapping up its investigation into the city's billion-dollar pension deficit debacle and would hand down indictments at the start of 2006.
And in a case that reverberated across the country, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham of Rancho Santa Fe pleaded guilty to conspiracy and tax evasion charges. He admitted accepting more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors.
Lam's work was widely hailed in a region weary of investigations and allegations. It was an appealing narrative: a fearless prosecutor taking on the local establishment. "
Posted by Truth on March 29, 2007 09:04 AM"Mike, you and I have had this discussion before. I am not aware of any high profile person who agrees with you that it is OK to fire a U.S. Attorney for purely political reasons. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but it does mean that you have no support from any substantive person. There may well be a good reason for that."
I would wager that a lot of high profile people agree with me; they just would never publicly admit it.
"We both agree that politicians do things for political reasons but lie about it and claim it is for other, more acceptable reasons. Where we disagree is that you condone the practice whereas criticize it. I think we should encourage our representatives to be truthful; apparently, you don't think that is important."
Actually, I think it is VERY important. It will never happen, though. I would never be elected to any office, because I would answer EVERY question honestly. You can ask me any question (provided it's not information that I am not allowed to divulge regarding my employment, or what my credit card numbers are, etc...) and I will answer it directly and honestly. Politicians don't operate that way.
I am aware of the information you provide about Lam, and her work in the Duke Cunningham case probably did contribute to her forced resignation. I would have fired her because her prosecutions were down 38%.
Politicians doing things for political reasons apparently don't bother me as much as you, because I have resigned myself to that reality.
We do agree that more honesty and ethical behavior is desired. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.
Posted by on March 29, 2007 09:17 AMSorry, that was me above. Whenever I copy a line from a previous post, I forget to put my name in.
Posted by Mike on March 29, 2007 09:18 AMWell, now… this is indeed interesting…
It seems our friend Truth is suffering from a bit of Multiple Personality Disorder.
It appears that he posted a civil response to me yesterday at 7:00 PM, and signed his handle, “Truth.” And then he posted a much more hostile (some might say “snide”) response at 7:24 PM which he chose NOT to sign.
Golly, Truth, could that be in any way related to the way I eviscerated you a couple days ago? Are you, perhaps, a slow learner?
In fact, Truth, you go to considerable lengths to try to say you are a Republican in the second, insulting post, what- to hide your identity? Well, this must be rather embarrassing, then, since you responded twice again, and with another schizophrenic display of two entirely different tones, but accidentally signed your second post this time… Would you say this is “lacking in candor and frankness”? Well, in charity, I won’t dwell on it. Here is the response to your “arguments,” both the one you signed both times, and the one you wrote with your “Secret Identity!” (Hmmmm… there’s a thought- do you write the ones you don’t sign after putting on a cape and leotards?) (ok, yes, you have caught me out… I admit I was teasing when I said I wouldn’t dwell on it from charity…I fully intend to dwell on it.)
Truth:
The fact that the Attorney General says he would not fire a US Attorney if it would jeopardize an ongoing investigation has, obviously, no bearing on the authority of the president to fire a US Attorney for any cause, or for no cause at all. Further, you can assert that the firings were done for the purpose of interfering with an investigation, but at this point that is merely an opinion.
Super-Masked-Poster-Man (oh, dear, that’s rather sexist, isn’t it- here, let me try again…)
Super-Masked-Poster-Person (much better reagrding sexism, but it does rather beg the question regard what, exactly, he might be the poster-person FOR, doesn't it? Oh, well, you can only go so far for political correctness...):
Of course I ignored what you posted previously. My assertion, which I cited a reference for, is that Clinton tossed out all US Attorneys when he took office, essentially immediately, and including one who was working on a Clinton scandal directly, and one who was working on another scandal involving a high ranking Democrat (who was eventually convicted and subsequently pardoned by Clinton,) and that this was unprecedented- NOT that this was outside of his authority. Republicans did not make a big deal about those firings, since they viewed it as the president’s prerogative. The source I cited specifically says that Reagan and Carter both replaced US Attorneys as their terms ran out, rather than in mass. Apparently, Gonzales was encouraged to consider a mass firing, and recommended against it due to the crippling effect that such a “house cleaning” would have on the Justice Department. In the end, Gonzales’ recommendation carried the day (strange position for a man who, your side is suggesting, INTENDED to interfere with investigations). So, if you care to respond with actual facts regarding what previous presidents actually did, I will be interested in reading it. But I have no interest in reading the “report” you cite about general practices, since my argument is not about general practices, but rather about actual precedent in regard to which presidents did exactly what. Now, if you don’t care to address that directly, by all means, feel free to go “Up! Up! And AWAY!”
Read today's colum on Comcast.net, with the testimomy - or pre-testimony - of one of the bosses in the AG's office.
He says they were fired because they didn't meet "Bush standards"; and that politics and performance on the job are one and the same thing. (That was, if I read right, "standards of supporting Bush in everything, everywhere, regardless.)
Didn't we have an AG who went to prison a while ago in time, because he participated in the White House "Standards" of actual criminal activity? Bet we did?
Posted by Old Grouch on March 29, 2007 09:37 AMYes, that 07:24AM was by me but the reason that my name isn't on it is that,like Mike, I forgot to sign it.
It's OK for you to go on a inane rampage after inane rampage after inane rampage about beetles but I'm not supposed to have my tongue in my cheek? Get real. It wasn't snide. The part about your paying me to do your research for you was a joke. You know about jokes?
The part about your asking others to do your research for you was not a joke. You have no business asking other people to do that.
As for as your eviscerating me, rather than rehash your opposition to child labor laws, food and drug laws, consumer protection laws, deceptive advertising laws, securities fraud laws, industrial safety laws, and the like, why don't you refer anyone interested (which would be no one) to the thread containing that discussion so people can judge for themselves whether you eviscerated me?
As for the rest of your bizarre post, not being a psychiatrist, I don't know what your problem is.
Posted by Truth on March 29, 2007 02:00 PMReally, Truth, isn't it time to put all this behind us? If you will go back and look objectively, I think you will find that I go out of my way to be polite so long as others are polite. When someone is insulting, well, I play that game rather well, too, if I do say so myself. So, you say you forgot to sign one post, and that the rest was in jest (except you say I shouldn't ask others to do my research). Fine, I accept you at your word. Thank you for telling me. Let us agree to be courteous in future, as I tried to do in my first response to you after our previous tiff. If you see the daggers come out, and you were joking, please say so and I will back off- perhaps even apologize, as I did previously with Guthrie when he misread something I said- or, perhaps, when I was less than ideally clear. Fair enough?
(by the way, I got a lot of positive feedback on the “inane beetle rampage.” But satire and sarcasm are touchy, so let me say I did not aim any of that at you, Truth- and if you got that idea from the beetle satire, I apologize. I fired those shots rather broadly, and perhaps something could have seemed to be directed at something said currently in the thread at the time- but that was not actually my intent.)
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 29, 2007 02:27 PMMichael, while I don't agree with your self-assessment, I do agree with your sentiments. As for my post about research, I regret that I decided to use that opportunity to jest.
Posted by Truth on March 30, 2007 10:15 AMExcellent! So, (even if you don't agree with me that I try to be polite), if you find me being rude, tell me plainly, and I will do the same (rather than my reactionary tendency to "strike back" immediately and harshly, a failing I readily admit to, and one I should control better), and I look forward to reading your thoughts here in future. Thank you for the courtesy of that gentleman's agreement!
Then, returning to the issue at hand, I will tell you, I am becoming concerned about Gonzales, after reading the testimony of his assistant today, who is indicating that Gonzales was less than forthright when he said he was not part of the fireing process. I am still not ready to say I think the purpose of the fireings was to intefere with investigation(s), but I am ready to say that, if, indeed, Gonzales tried to dodge responsaiblity rightfully his, then I will join in saying he has to go.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 30, 2007 12:22 PMThank you, Michael, for suggesting it.
Posted by Truth on March 30, 2007 06:42 PMThank you, one and all who posted their opinions of my oped. I have to say thank you to you all and excellent posts by all.
I’m inspired by both Michael and Truth for “agreeing to disagree” and who will continue to post on this blog with a gentlemen’s agreement between the two. Truly, agreeing to disagree is the very fabric of the current political environment of Washington and the rest of our country today.
A breath of fresh air from the 109th Congress and the past eleven years of a Republican majority or the “Contract with America” that, Newt Gingrich began in 1994.
It is the true conservatives and liberals, not the extremes of both parties, who can agree to enact into law those bills that benefit the majority of Americans or “Middle America”, that best suit our society as a whole. This is exactly what compelled me to write the editorial to begin with. Think about it, just this week, Democrats and now some Republicans are coming to the aid of those Republican Attorneys who were appointed by the current Administration and who have been fired in the middle of this Presidents’ second term.
Such action is truly, unprecedented and hopefully the investigation will expose the truth as Senator Patrick Leahy has pronounced. And it is only the truth that will be exposed through the “sworn testimony” of all involved through the insistence of Senator Patrick Leahy. God Bless the man. He is only seeking the truth so that all will be revealed to the public eye, of this Administrations’ actions behind the political scenes, and is not on a witch hunt.
God only knows of the other political dealings to forward the policies of a “one party rule”, the dream of Karl Rove, blindly in the face of the American People. It is my hope that through investigations such as, these that all will be revealed. Let’s not forget that this is the most secret of all Presidential administrations in comparison to the past.