Lazy
 

Ex-Bush Aide Won’t Discuss Dismissals

By DAVID STOUT and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 11, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11cnd-attorneys.html?hp
Insult to injury, I think Mr. Cummins should sue her for defamation of character.

And replaced by a former aid to Rove................WTF!

Lazy............you mean like taking more time off and on vacation more than any other US president in history?

They are experts on "Lazy", I'll give them that much.

Clinton did this kind of stuff all the time. It never got a whisper in the press. Why all the scrutiny now?

You mean Clinton had United States attorneys fired because they did not follow an agenda? Proof please. This is not about Clinton anyway.

An agenda included not dropping corruption investigations because the offenders contributed to the GOP or it involved cases they (the Whitehouse) just wanted to go away?

Re: Lazy
 

I'm not a fan, but do people really feel that the President gets even one day off. He's the president. He doesn't ever get a day off. Maybe he gets a day when he only has to listen to a few hours of briefing, but a day off, I highly doubt it.

Michael

It took you a whole 6 minutes to blame Clinton - was your network connection down or something?

This is obviously a liberal site but here's the left side of this:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

I think you have confused "blame" with "making a comparison".

They serve at the pleasure of the President. If he doesn't want them, they dont serve. Case closed. It happened with all the past Presidents, nothing new with this one. Lets move on to something REALLY important.

No comparison. The reasoning behind the "firings" is what IS relevant. Forget political affiliation and just look at the Machivillian mechanics at work. How ANYONE can defend the "circle the wagons" mentality of our leadership is beyond me. If it were one issue, OK. But so many things are going wrong. How many misleading statements...How many claims that have been proven false...how many really stupid moves does it take to crack the loyalists? Would we all be better of with a dictatorship or a monarchy? Now move on to something important...an administration that picks and chooses which laws to follow and which are irrelevant. AN administration that preys on fear and simultaneously refuses to speak directly with people it dosn't like? An administration that counts among its friends nations like Saudi Arabia that has one of the worst records in the way it treats its citizens?

No matter who the next president is, no matter the party...I pray for a little less of the authoritarian and a bit more of the rational.

Let's get real, folks...We have all been fed a bill of goods and some are asking for seconds.....

Hasn't this "talking point" gotten about as tired as the "jobs American's won't do" slogan? Bob's post is spot on, and I'm ready for a good long "fast" instead of the bs we're being served.

Yep. Bob nailed it. B2 has politicized every aspect of this gov't. It's all ideology-based, with any dissent or failure to totally embrace this ideology crushed. Other than that, they're all doing a wonderful job. ;)

I think you're looking at it backwards. The press/Dems have politicized every decision Bush has made.

how does your Kool-Aide taste, Chris? Enough sugar in it? :p

Bush really blew it. He should have done what Clinton did and fired every one of them. Then the press and the Democrats wouldn't have said a thing about it. Yea right.

All sides politicize. It is the duty of the "loyal opposition" to do precisely that. It is the responsibility of the leadership to act for the betterment of the electorate. If they do not, then the "loyal opposition" has every right to point this out. The Republicans didn't politicize Clintons misdeeds now, did they? It always seems that the degree to which something in politics is "wrong" depends upon whether your party is doing the "wrong". The president listens to the people. He follows the advice of his military leaders. He weighs possible outcomes of his actions. The Vice President is an honest and forthcoming individual; never acting in his own behalf or having his pwn personal agenda. Those who disagree with the administration are respected and listened to. All is well in Washington and we can breathe easier because of the efficient, well organized and honest government we have in this country.

That's a good link, lots of information there, thanks.:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Marshall

The scary part of this whole mess is not the actual firings, but rather the little provision slipped into Patriot Act II which allowed the President to appoint their replacements for indefinite terms without Senate confirmation.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Patriot_Act_appointments_0116.html

In other news, they busted another Republican c0ck-sucker (literally) in Florida http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/13664897/detail.html

The president doesn't need a reason to fire attonerys general. What is this thread even about? When you get to the white house, you get rid of the people you don't want around any more and you bring in your own people.

It doesn't matter if they're lazy or they're pedophiles or if they're Clarence freakin' Darrow. You run them out of there and get whoever the hell you want to be your attorneys general. Same as you do for your cabinet.

I don't care if H. E. Cummins III is the illegitemate offspring of Johnny Cocran and Melvin Beli. If Bush doesn't want the lazy prick, he's history.

Maybe Bush should have kept Madeline Allbight as secretary of state. She did a hell of a job slobbering all over Yassar Arafat.

He's being reported as McCain's FL campaign co-chairman. McCain campaign is really starting to suck, too. :D

Total BS imo. Of course you are correct to some degree, but Bob's post says it better than I ever could. If the firings are the result of someone not adhering to "marching orders" from the WH, while it may not technically be "obstruction of justice" imo, it so severly comprimises the independence of the justice dept. that it's scary. Politcal appointees are one thing, the WH having "puppet strings" over the justice dept is quite another. I'm a registered republican, so any arguements about what Clinton, or others might have done doesn't really matter to me...I'm concerned about where THIS administration has taken us.

I'll concede that this administration is directing the attorney general's office, but that's the whole point of appointing your own people!

There is a finite amount of prosecution that can be done at the federal level. If the administration wants to go after drug dealers, or organized crime, or tax cheats or abortion clinic bombers or counterfeiters, they would direct the attorney general's office to proceed with that direction.

If a prosecutor was unwilling to go along, I would move that person out and get someone in there who would follow directions. W doesn't seem much interested in prosecuting illegal immigration. Clinton went after abortion clinic bombers and right wing tax exempt organizations. You have to pick your spots.

We'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this one, but I know the "abuse of power" when I see it, and it's scary imo. Do you want a justice department that "follows WH directions" instead of "following the law"? I would assume from your perspective, that replacing appointees for ANY agency (i.e. FBI, IRS, etc.) that don't "follow directions" is appropriate too :(? I don't care WHO is in power, the "checks and balances" provided by the separation our branches of government are important, and there for a VERY good reason imo.

Keith, I may need to go back and review my civics 101. Is the Attorney General part of the Executive branch or the Judicial? It's Judicial right?

Traditionally, the president gets to appoint the Attorney General with Senate approval. And he gets to appoint federal prosecuters. That system seems flawed to me as the line between checks and balances overlap. But W didn't come up with that system, he just used it.

The president does appoint the director of the FBI, CIA etc with Senate approval, but those are definitely Executive branch.

They are NOT part of the judicial branch. They are part of the exec. branch. DOJ is a federal agency. US Circuit Courts and the SCOTUS are not part of the exec. branch. Exec. branch cannot fire anyone in the judicial branch, but they can fire anyone they want at DOJ.

In a nutshell, employees not performing in the manner expected were let go, isn't that about it?

The head of the executive branch fired a few guys in the AG's office because they were not doing what he wanted them to do. If you were the President, is this better or worse than firing them solely because they were hired by the guy who sat in the big chair before you and have values and priorities that are inconsistent with your own?