WSJ Opinion "The Hubbell Standard"

[OldMercsRule]

Hi Folks, This is a political opinion piece from the WSJ.
(Mark42, please do not read this as it may cause concern). It is about the current contraversy about the US Attorneys that the LIberal MSM, (WbW's guys), may decide not to report to us, (so we need to do a little extra to learn both sides: as always). Hope you enjoy! JR

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Our Judicial system should never be Politicized. Yet every President does it his best to do just that. Doesn't make it right just cuz others have done it before. But the memos between Harriet Meiers and Gonzales's aide appear to be awfully conspitratorial in content. Their motives seem far less than honorable. Far closer to vindictive than justified (I hear).

Among the fired are Duke Cunningham's prosecutor and the attorney that appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to the Plame leak case.

 

[PW2]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

First of all, Willy, You assume the WSJ article has its facts straight, which is a huge assumption.
The US attorneys are political appointments, and I have no doubt Clinton appointed people he liked.
Similarly, Bush did the same thing, which is his right.

The difference now is that all of the US Attorney candidates required Senate confirmation, which by design is supposed to weed out the pure partisan hacks. That is no longer the case with a provision of the new Patriot Act, where the President can appoint anyone he wishes and skip the Senate confirmation process.

And if the President, six years into his term, still has a partisan democrat as a US Attorney in Washington State, as that editorial alleged, I would be shocked. I seriously doubt it is true, but if true, his administration is even more incompetent than I could have imagined.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Doesn't seem to matter much what the political subject is, always someone making the point that two wrongs make a right. :/

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

First of all, Willy, You assume the WSJ article has its facts straight, which is a huge assumption.
The US attorneys are political appointments, and I have no doubt Clinton appointed people he liked.
Similarly, Bush did the same thing, which is his right.

The difference now is that all of the US Attorney candidates required Senate confirmation, which by design is supposed to weed out the pure partisan hacks. That is no longer the case with a provision of the new Patriot Act, where the President can appoint anyone he wishes and skip the Senate confirmation process.

And if the President, six years into his term, still has a partisan democrat as a US Attorney in Washington State, as that editorial alleged, I would be shocked. I seriously doubt it is true, but if true, his administration is even more incompetent than I could have imagined.

PW2, I guess you haven't followed the Politics in your home town. The WSJ is spot on here. Maria Cantwell beat Slade Gorton under similar circumstanses, (not quite as blatent as the Govenor's theft, which the WSJ is exactly right). I guess you have some information that make you a better source then the WSJ please share. JR

 

[Coors]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Clinton fired 93, all on the same day(one was investigating whitewater), what hypocrisy the dems have.

 

[treedancer]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

That’s old news (yesterdays) here is a sample of today’s news, any predictions for tomorrows, as in the Attorney General has resigned?

<<I think that those firings were typical of an administration beginning a new term. The current firings are completely without precedent (for 25 years I read) with documented evidence that they were completely politically motivated. Your crony was installed and you were pleased. Emails said it stemmed from the WH Political office? WHich office?>>

<<In another development, ABC News reported that top White House aide Karl Rove played a larger role in the firings than the White House has acknowledged. ABC cited e-mails from government officials that hadn't been released.>>

<<New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who is leading a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings, said Justice Department officials -- whom he declined to name -- confirmed that the e-mails show Rove was involved.>>


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auufQUERd1Ik&refer=home

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

That’s old news (yesterdays) here is a sample of today’s news, any predictions for tomorrows, as in the Attorney General has resigned?

<<I think that those firings were typical of an administration beginning a new term. The current firings are completely without precedent (for 25 years I read) with documented evidence that they were completely politically motivated. Your crony was installed and you were pleased. Emails said it stemmed from the WH Political office? WHich office?>>

<<In another development, ABC News reported that top White House aide Karl Rove played a larger role in the firings than the White House has acknowledged. ABC cited e-mails from government officials that hadn't been released.>>

<<New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who is leading a Senate Judiciary Committee inquiry into the firings, said Justice Department officials -- whom he declined to name -- confirmed that the e-mails show Rove was involved.>>


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auufQUERd1Ik&refer=home

Wow let's impeach Bush!:}:}:}:}

 

[treedancer]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Yea Omer this two day old chum you threw out finally got a nibble ,I was bored.8)

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Yea Omer this two day old chum you threw out finally got a nibble ,I was bored.8)

I know what ya mean Tree, I don't think people know that the President can fire any US attorney for any or no reason any time any where and 25 years does not mean much in a country over 200 years old. That's why I clowned ya! 8)8)This is just a Democrat and MSM inspired conflict. Where is Crunch n' 12 Footer? JR

 

[PW2]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

The point is, Murky, That if President Bush appointed a Democratic party hack to be US Attorney in Washington State, he deserves what he gets. I have a hard time believing he did that.

Simply because you don't like the results of an election does not mean, necessarily, a crime was committed. The US Attorney's job is to investigate, and prosecute when appropriate, criminals and criminal activity--Not to further a particular political agenda

 

[WillyBWright]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

What's odd is that this was in midstream of the Bush administration. A few years ago, not back in 2000. That's the difference between the Clinton firings after 12 years of Republican domination of the appointments and Bush's replacing his appointments for questionable motivations with an an obvious end-run around the confirmation process compliments of the Big Brother Act (ineptly labeled "Patriot").

 

[PW2]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Yea Omer this two day old chum you threw out finally got a nibble ,I was bored.8)

I know what ya mean Tree, I don't think people know that the President can fire any US attorney for any or no reason any time any where and 25 years does not mean much in a country over 200 years old. That's why I clowned ya! 8)8)This is just a Democrat and MSM inspired conflict. Where is Crunch n' 12 Footer? JR

The difference is, Murky, they claimed that these firings were performance related, and these fired US Attorney's were somehow incompetent. While the president may have the right to fire who he chooses, this is not the Iraqi war, where you can float reasons out there, to see which one sells!

When you decide to impugn the professional reputation of these folks, you better have evidence. If you wanted to just ask them to resign, you should have said that in the first place.

Besides, you better hope that incompetence is not a disqualifier for this administration, or we'd have no one left!

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

The point is, Murky, That if President Bush appointed a Democratic party hack to be US Attorney in Washington State, he deserves what he gets.

[colour=blue]PW2: let me bring ya up to date. President Clinton fired every US attorney when he took office, (that did not get much attention as there had been three Republican four year terms since the last Democrat, and the MSM luvs Democrats and the Clintons: specifically). President Bush retained the Clinton apointees, and decided to fire a few of them recently. Does that help with your cornfusion?[/colour]

I have a hard time believing he did that.

[colour=blue]Huh?[/colour]

Simply because you don't like the results of an election does not mean, necessarily, a crime was committed. The US Attorney's job is to investigate, and prosecute when appropriate, criminals and criminal activity--Not to further a particular political agenda

[colour=blue]Some more news: It is a crime when dead people vote PW2! Democrat US Attorney McKay declined to investigate the Washington State election, as he was too envolved in other matters. There clearly was a crime, (as mentioned above), Ms. Gregoire lost the count on election day, and the first recount, but won the third count by 129 votes, (I think), the dead and homeless with a public building as an address provided her with a victory.[/colour]

PW2 You called into question the WSJ's reporting on these facts. Please share your take on what I know to be true as reported by the WSJ, that you CHOSE to question. JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Yea Omer this two day old chum you threw out finally got a nibble ,I was bored.8)

I know what ya mean Tree, I don't think people know that the President can fire any US attorney for any or no reason any time any where and 25 years does not mean much in a country over 200 years old. That's why I clowned ya! 8)8)This is just a Democrat and MSM inspired conflict. Where is Crunch n' 12 Footer? JR

The difference is, Murky, they claimed that these firings were performance related, and these fired US Attorney's were somehow incompetent. While the president may have the right to fire who he chooses, this is not the Iraqi war, where you can float reasons out there, to see which one sells!

[colour=blue]The politics of a President with a low approval rating are much more difficult. I admit that President Bush, (who ran as a "uniter not a divider") chose not to fire all the Pres. Clinton's US Attorneys. The fact of the mater is the media in this country is very partisn and the MSM has worked against President Bush from the outset of his term in office. The Democrats also were in no mood to cooperate after Algore was unable to be a gracious loser, (and Mr Gore IS A LOSER: PW2). Have the Dems, Libs working with their pals the MSM and a few wobbly Republicans manufactured a trivial scandle out of thin air? Why yes. Enjoy it while it lasts and hope for defeat in Iraq so your side can do their best to hammer this Great Country! I hope President Bush has a deep enough list to fire all the remaining US Attorneys so he can really stir things up and make ya real happy![/colour]

When you decide to impugn the professional reputation of these folks, you better have evidence. If you wanted to just ask them to resign, you should have said that in the first place.

[colour=blue]The WSJ can report accurate facts all they want, (it may not be pleasent for you and you may call BS, [but you appear uninformed to me]), it's called freedom of speech PW2. sorry it bothers ya![/colour]

Besides, you better hope that incompetence is not a disqualifier for this administration, or we'd have no one left!

[colour=blue]That is a label you Libs, Dems, and the MSM have hung on President Bush. The handling of these dismissals has not been the best, (and the political situation is difficult for the Administration). Since Anna Nichole Smith is fading a little, you and your buds can ignore the positive news out of Iraq and focus on trivial news, or awkward politics, (that are actually very incornsequential). The defeat your side wants real bad in Iraq is not incornsequential, BTW! JR[/colour]

 

[treedancer]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Quote Omer


<<Since Anna Nichole Smith is fading a little, you and your buds can ignore the positive news out of Iraq and focus on trivial news, or awkward politics, (that are actually very incornsequential). The defeat your side wants real bad in Iraq is not incornsequential, BTW! JR>>

I don’t know JR looks to me like your trying to divert everyone’s attention from the post that you started.:%

 

[PW2]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Are you suggesting, Murky, that this Wash St US attorney is the same one that Clinton appointed in 1993, and that Bush and Co. are just getting around to noticing that the guy is a Democratic partisan hack?

Surely even you can't believe that, can you?

 

[treedancer]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Drip, Drip, Drip.:%

More Documents in Fired Attorneys Fallout

March 16, 2007

<<ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Congressional sources tell ABC News they're expecting the Justice Department to release more documents today concerning the controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys last year. The documents weren't expected until tomorrow, but House and Senate are now anticipating they'll receive around 200 pages of documents by close of business today.>>

<<<Emails released earlier this week show back and forth communications over plans to fire the attorneys between Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff – who resigned Monday amid the controversy – and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. An email released late yesterday shows White House adviser Karl Rove asked about plans for the attorneys as early as January 2005.>>>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/more_documents_.html

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Quote Omer


<<Since Anna Nichole Smith is fading a little, you and your buds can ignore the positive news out of Iraq and focus on trivial news, or awkward politics, (that are actually very incornsequential). The defeat your side wants real bad in Iraq is not incornsequential, BTW! JR>>

I don’t know JR looks to me like your trying to divert everyone’s attention from the post that you started.:%

[colour=blue]Au contraire Mr. Tree! I wanted to expose this minor contraversy over nothing for what it really is! The President can, (and most do), change some of the US Attorneys during their terms of office. They do not need a reason to do it, (although there appears to be reasons for the terminations of some of the ones who have been replaced). The timing of this change also seems reasonable for President Bush, (but I am not a Bush hater). I knew the McKay story fairly well as we have the best Democrat Governor the Democrats can buy: right here in God's Country. If iboats members who have an interest, (like you and I have), can see how much of a fuss about nothing it really is, and employ critical thinkin' to evaluate our respective pols and the MSM, we will all be better off. PW2 seems very uninformed about his old home town, (but I live still live here, [in the area Bro Haut]). Respectfully, JR[/colour]

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: WSJ Opinion

Re: WSJ Opinion

Are you suggesting, Murky, that this Wash St US attorney is the same one that Clinton appointed in 1993, and that Bush and Co. are just getting around to noticing that the guy is a Democratic partisan hack?

Surely even you can't believe that, can you?

[colour=blue]
Of course I do, (as far as how McKay got the job)! Don't know about "partisan hack" as most US Attorneys do their job, and I lack information to label him that, (as you lefties seem to luv ta hang labels on people without any basis in actual fact that you have researched). It's really simple PW2: McKay lost is job because he serves a the pleasure of the President, and the President does not want him there. The WSJ thinks it is for a reason, but no reason is necessary. Now you called BS on the WSJ: whatcha got huh? JR[/colour]