XPost: alt.impeach.bush, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa.republican   
   From: Nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com   
      
   "Starkiller©"  wrote in message   
   news:o6gav2lpp50hb9sa75kuair06j7q7eh7p6@4ax.com...   
   > On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:10:59 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>"Starkiller©"  wrote in message   
   >>news:2vm9v255tsmc6k3qvmt7euuda614ksmu81@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:20:21 GMT, "Nebuchadnezzar II"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"Daniel"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:1173672897.599166.238990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>>> On Mar 12, 12:12 am, "Nebuchadnezzar II"   
   >>>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Daniel"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> news:1173671161.270612.304010@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> > On Mar 11, 8:23 pm, "Nebuchadnezzar II"   
   >>>>>> >    
   >>>>>> > wrote:   
   >>>>>> >> Quite a few Bush apologists are squealing about Clinton firing   
   >>>>>> >> US   
   >>>>>> >> Attorneys.  The fact is Clinton never fired a single US   
   >>>>>> >> Attorney.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> > Of course, you are lying. But that is nothing new.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The link definitively proves it and was prepared by a federal   
   >>>>>> government   
   >>>>>> agency, but I see you'd rather stay ignorant and falsely accuse   
   >>>>>> others   
   >>>>>> of lying.  This behavior is nothing new for Reichtards.  If   
   >>>>>> that's   
   >>>>>> the   
   >>>>>> bed you choose to lay in, be my guest.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The FATC that Clinton fired EVERY US attorney cannot be refuted,   
   >>>>> but   
   >>>>> if you think you can, be my guest.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>If you want to believe that and wallow in your ignorance, I don't   
   >>>>care.   
   >>>>It's a ridiculous premise.  Be sure and tell everyone you know about   
   >>>>your revelation.  I'm particularly amused when Reichtards   
   >>>>demonstrate   
   >>>>their ignorance and I'm sure there are others around you who are   
   >>>>just   
   >>>>as   
   >>>>amused.   
   >>>>   
   >>> The Clinton administration fired all 93 US attorneys.   
   >>   
   >>The Bush administration fired all 93 US attorneys in 2001.   
   >>   
   >>Both statements are equally true, but both are also inaccurate.  Bush   
   >>replaced every single one of the 93 US Attorneys when he took office   
   >>in   
   >>2001 just as Clinton did in 1993.  Every single one of them was a   
   >>Democrat and every single one of them knew they would be replaced by a   
   >>Republican if a Republican won the Presidency and that's exactly what   
   >>happened.  All of this is beside the point.  If you don't know how and   
   >>why Presidential appointments work, you should better educate   
   >>yourself.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> The Bush administration fired 7   
   >>   
   >>Actually 8.   
   >>   
   >>> Ya'll want to say that Bush fired the attorneys then it is fair to   
   >>> say   
   >>> the same about Clinton since it was the Justice Department in both   
   >>> instances that did the actual firing.   
   >>   
   >>No it's not.  If you believe as much, you are wrong.  Between 1981 and   
   >>2006, only two US Attorneys were fired.   
   >   
   > Janet Reno fired 93 US Attorneys.   
   > Look it up.   
      
   I'm sure you think Clinton fired the entire Bush41 Cabinet also.  Every   
   administration cans the previous administration's US Attorneys.  This is   
   particularly true when there is a party transfer of the Presidency.  The   
   Democrats never so much as mentioned the Bush43 replacements as it is   
   traditional to replace all the US Attorneys.  The only reason the 93   
   that Clinton replaced made the news at all was because the Republicans   
   of the day made a stink about it because they were saying Clinton was   
   protecting Rostenkowski.  The Republicans at the time knew it was   
   bullshit and they were only doing it to score points with the press.   
   Rostenkowski was prosecuted by a Clinton appointee.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> OR   
   >>> Since Clinton technically fired no attorneys then it must be said   
   >>> that   
   >>> Bush technically fired no attorneys therefore ya'll are bitching   
   >>> over   
   >>> nothing.   
   >>   
   >>Wrong again.  The Bush administration fired or demanded the   
   >>resignation   
   >>of 8 US Attorneys.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > The Justice Department fired the Attorneys.  Not Bush personally.   
   > If you have proof of otherwise then please post it.  Otherwise you're   
   > doing nothing but playing with semantics.   
      
   I specifically said the Bush administration.  The DOJ is part of the   
   executive branch.  Look it up.  And if it was just the DOJ, as you   
   claim, why was Rove and Myers involved?  This has already been   
   substantiated by email and memo traffic, so good luck denying that one.   
      
   > Seems you want to apply one set of rules to one administration and   
   > another to the next in order to suit your needs.   
      
   Bullshit.  Bush replaced every single US Attorney that Clinton hired,   
   just like Clinton replaced every single US Attorney that Bush41 hired.   
   If you have proof of otherwise, then please post it.  I'll give you a   
   hint.  Mary Jo White was the only one that stuck around and even then   
   only because she was investigating the Mark Rich pardon (an   
   investigation that went nowhere).  Even at that, she was gone by 2002.   
      
   Have a nice day.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)