BF2S Forums Where were the Democrats....

Last edited by Fen321 (2007-03-26 19:13:36)

The_Mob_Returns wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Your point?

Wow, if you don't get the point you haven't heard much, if any, news lately.


Clinton's administration fires all 93 attorneys...no news.
Bush's administration fires 8 attorneys...endless stream of news.

Get my point?

The_Mob_Returns wrote:

David Limbaugh wrote:

But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys even before successors were lined up to take their places?

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 … -8863r.htm

I think you get the point now, but I wanted to make sure I didn't sound tooooo biased in my sources.
So, I included sources from the Washington Post, Fort Wayne (IN), California (twice!), Pittsburgh, and Mississippi.

dsouth wrote:

To save everyone time, the difference is explained here:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/ar … 10193.html

To summarize:  Presidents always appoint new US attorneys, replacing the existing ones.  Both Clinton and Bush did this when they took office.  The reason many on the left *and* right are upset by the firing of these 8 are that they were replaced long after Bush took office for what appears to be political reasons and (thianks to the Pat. Act, without confirmation legislative.  Wether or not politics wa actually the sole motivation is still being investigated.

The_Mob_Returns wrote:

when Janet Reno fired ALL 93 attorneys nearly immediately after becoming Attorney General?

David Limbaugh wrote:

But where were Democrats when Janet Reno, almost immediately after becoming attorney general, took the unprecedented action of firing all 93 U.S. Attorneys even before successors were lined up to take their places?

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2 … -8863r.htm

Tim Graham wrote:

suggesting that Janet Reno's firing of 93 U.S. attorneys "raises suspicions that the Clinton administration is willing to put politics above enforcing the law."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11418

Leo Robinson wrote:

Doesn't anyone remember President Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno? Doesn't anyone remember that shortly after her nomination was confirmed she announced the firing of all 93 U.S. attorneys, something no other AG had ever done before?

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/op … 627282.php

David Savage wrote:

fired all 93 U.S. attorneys

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgaz … 966482.htm

L. Brent Bozell III wrote:

Didn't Bill Clinton's brand-new attorney general, Janet Reno, demand resignations from all 93 U.S. attorneys on March 24, 1993?

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu … 98287.html

Gene Lyons wrote:

“In March of 1993,” an editorialist rationalizes, “Bill Clinton’s newly sworn-in Attorney General — Janet Reno — fired every single U.S. attorney in the country, all 93 of them, in the opening salvo of the Clinton years ... the most comprehensive, unmistakable, unprecedented and politically motivated dismissal of federal prosecutors in American history.”

http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local … ndarystory

Ernest Hampson wrote:

The president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at his discretion, without explanation. When Janet Reno arbitrarily fired all 93 U.S. attorneys, at the behest of Bill Clinton, no reasons were offered. Not one word was heard from the Democrat-dominated Congress or the liberal media.

However, when Alberto Gonzales canned eight U.S. attorneys for failure to fulfill the duties of their office the Democrats in the Congress were outraged and the secular progressive media went bonkers. Why?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cct … 974899.htm




I think you get the point now, but I wanted to make sure I didn't sound tooooo biased in my sources.
So, I included sources from the Washington Post, Fort Wayne (IN), California (twice!), Pittsburgh, and Mississippi.

Thoughts?