Lazy

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

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

Quote:

Ms. Taylor, 32, expressed contrition when Ms. Feinstein brought up an e-mail message that Ms. Taylor sent in February to D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which Ms. Taylor said H. E. Cummins III was being removed as United States attorney in Arkansas because he was “lazy.”

“What led you to conclude that Mr. Cummins was lazy?” Ms. Feinstein asked.

“That was an unnecessary comment,” Ms. Taylor replied, “and I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. Cummins. It was unkind, and it was unnecessary.” She added that she had heard that Mr. Cummins was lazy. “That may not be fair,” she went on, apologizing again for any embarrassment she had caused.

The dismissal of Mr. Cummins has been of considerable interest to senators, since he was replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser. Ms. Taylor described Mr. Griffin as a lawyer of impeccable credentials and integrity.

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the panel’s ranking Republican, pressed Ms. Taylor on whether, in fact, Mr. Cummins was forced out to make room for Mr. Griffin. The witness said she was not certain.

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.

legion · 07-11-2007, 10:41 AM

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

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by legion
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?

mtelliott · 07-11-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kach22i

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

[/B]

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

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

Quote:

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

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

David · David's Garage

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

legion · 07-11-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
It took you a whole 6 minutes to blame Clinton - was your network connection down or something?

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

strupgolf · 07-11-2007, 06:01 PM

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.

Moneyguy1 · 07-11-2007, 08:25 PM

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.....

KFC911 · 07-12-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strupgolf
They serve at the pleasure of the President...

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.

Jim Richards · 07-12-2007, 05:53 AM

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.

legion · 07-12-2007, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jim Richards
B2 has politicized every aspect of this gov't.

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

Jim Richards · 07-12-2007, 06:10 AM

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

Rearden · 07-12-2007, 06:15 AM

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.

Moneyguy1 · 07-12-2007, 06:16 AM

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.

kach22i · kach22i's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 125shifter
This is obviously a liberal site but here's the left side of this:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10193.html

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

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

Quote:

Josh Marshall added this morning:

First, we now know — or at least the White House is trying to tell us — that they considered firing all the US Attorneys at the beginning of Bush’s second term. That would have been unprecedented but not an abuse of power in itself. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired and the fact that the White House intended to replace them with US Attorneys not confirmed by the senate. We now have abundant evidence that they were fired for not sufficiently politicizing their offices, for not indicting enough Democrats on bogus charges or for too aggressively going after Republicans. (Remember, Carol Lam is still the big story here.) We also now know that the top leadership of the Justice Department lied both to the public and to Congress about why the firing took place. As an added bonus we know the whole plan was hatched at the White House with the direct involvement of the president.

And Clinton? Every new president appoints new US Attorneys. That always happens. Always…. The whole thing is silly. But a lot of reporters on the news are already falling for it. The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired — a) because they weren’t pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that’s a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they lied to Congress about why it happened.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

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

cmccuist · 07-12-2007, 10:53 AM

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.

Jim Richards · 07-12-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by widebody911
In other news, they busted another Republican c0ck-sucker (literally) in Florida http://www.local6.com/problemsolvers/13664897/detail.html

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

KFC911 · 07-13-2007, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cmccuist
The president doesn't need a reason to fire attonerys general. What is this thread even about?....

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.