Captain's Quarters -

If you look at how the US attorney's are ranked, it's not by "job performance," but by "loyalty" and towing the administration line... NOT by how well they serve the public.

the post quotes Justice officials as follows:

"They also said the new documents show that political motivations were not a factor in the firings."

Fitzgerald was in the midst of the Ryan (R-IL) corruption trial (which led to a conviction) when these rankings were released. That's a pretty major case, one with links to the death of a family on I-94 in a crash with a trucker who illegally received a license.

He was also in the midst of the CIA leak investigation. He's also a man, as the story points out, that led the successful trial against the guy who bombed the Trade Center in '93.

If you recall, BEFORE the Plame investigation, when Fitzgerald was appointed, EVERYONE had nothing but praise for the man.

Now many on the right speak of him with disdain.

The fact that Fitzgerald got an "undistinguished" rating and looking over how these ratings were decided, it certainly DOES seem that politics played a LARGE part in how these attorney were ranked, and subsequently fired.

That's the stroy here.

And for those who's opinion of FItzgerald has diminished after the Libby trial, why exactly?

He conducted the Plame investigation and could not find enough evidence to bring a charge in outed her as a covert agent.

BUT, within the investigation, a key witness seemed to lie to him. If you recall his press conference announcing no indictment in the outing of Plame, he cited one reason the possible obstruction by Libby. He made the analogy of an umpire having dirt thrown in his eyes as he's calling a play.

This wasn't just a lie that was didn't have much to do with the investigation, but KEY testimoney that hindered Fitzgerald's ability to accurate know what occurred. So he brought perjury charges. And remember, perjury charges are hard to get convictions on. The fact that he did shows how blatent an act this was and how hard it would have been for Fitzgerald to just ignore.

Again, I ask, how did Fitzgerald fail in his job during this case? Why the disdain for him... could it be for (gasp) POLITICAL reasons?

25 year standard? What are you smoking?
clinton *fired* *all* federal prosecutors before his new ones were even nominated. He did it for strictly political reasons.
Why Republicans are cooperating with dhimmicrat hackery is beyond me. Why allegedly conservative commentators are cooperating in this as well disgusts me.
Captain, you had best check your navigational charts.
This is something like the third major navigational error you have made in the last year, choosing to sail with guns corked directly into lefty hack fire.

Cap'n, you are walking down the same road that has led to incorrigible chappelles within the CIA and State Dept, who do not respect the authority or mandate of any President to overrule the in-house consensus. In fact, respect for their SOP is a yardstick by which the Democrats measure candidates--remember the "global test"? Trusting to inertia and disorganization in the name of "purity" is a sure way to ruin the outfit.

Before starfleet_dude, jerry and the yell and others all jump back into the fray, a couple of thoughts.

The long-term consequences of incompetent administration will affect us all - why? Because of what the administration is doing to try to manage and contain the scandal.

It is releasing tons of internal documents. Executive privilege is often abused, but sometimes for political reasons it is not invoked when it should be. Personnel decisions are some of the most sensitive matters in any organization, and this whole brouhaha is going to make it that much harder for future presidents to run their own branch of government.

Mind you, this one was an unforced error (to use the baseball analogy). Congress or the Dems didn't force anyone to fire these attorneys. If it had been handled properly, it would never haved needed to appear on CQ.

This administration should become the case study for how not to manage the executive branch.

The price of incompetence for GWB is that he is rapidly becoming persona non grata in his own party, and being known as his friend is death to any political career.

Yell, bashing bureaucracies is easy. Guiding them is hard. But we can't make gov't work without them. So maybe the GOP should find people who know how to tame bureaucracies instead of just alienate them.

Captain, you and perhaps others forget ... the "standard" is the Constitution, and applicable Federal laws, period. By the applicable "standard", all US Attorneys serve "at the pleasure of" the President. That is precisely the same standard that Clinton applied when he fired all 93 serving US Attorneys in 1993 (somehow you forget that that was only 14 years ago ... not 25). There has never been an iota of evidence presented that President Bush and his Attorney General have ever abused their power to fire and hire US Attorneys, period. It does not matter what logic or internal measuring system is used, the President has the full right to hire and fire political appointees at his pleasure, period.

The only mistake made by the Bush Administration in this particular matter of the 8 USAs was failing to stipulate up front that such was the US constitutional and statutory justification for the firings, and as a result they invited an unnecessary and unjustified political attack by the Democrats, as led by Schumer, for purely partisan objectives ... which speaks far more of leadership defectiveness on the Dem's part than of the President or his Attorney General. As for Republican Members of Congress who are not defending the President and his AG, that unfortunately appears to be the "standard" of party discipline in effect since the November 2006 elections ... i.e., "every man for himself."

I agree that the President can fire federal prosecutors at will, but that doesn't make it right for him to do so outside of allegations of specific malfeasance...

Not even for poor job performance? At least five of those US Attorneys had been ranked poorly in their jobs, and one, while competent, created serious managerial and morale problems in his staff. OF the lot, only the Yglesias firing is even mildly controversial.

I'll agree the Administration has handled the public and Congressional relations side of this badly, but that's on a par with the rest of their public affairs: look at what a lousy job they've done getting the message out on a consistent basis since we liberated Iraq.

One wonders why Bush hasn’t fired Fitzgerald. After all, if Bush had it out for US Attorney I can see no better person to ax then they guy who went after his staff. Could it be that he understands that you can’t remove a prosecutor who is prosecuting your staff? I suppose that Bush is now committed to giving Fitzgerald a judgeship or something because after all not reappointing him would constitute political retaliation. In this bizarre would of Democrats and horrified Republicans you reward your enemies and punish your friends.

I have become pretty much frustrated by this debate. On the one hand we have a bunch of so-called good government Republicans (goo-goos) who cannot be associated with a hint of the appearance of “impropriety” and would rather have the Democrats destroy any possibility of implementing our agenda The goo-goos were the Republican establishment before Newt Gingrich took over as minority leader and changed the rules of the game. This overthrew the nice comfortable position that the Republicans “enjoyed” in their permanent minority status. They were as happy to see Gingrich go as the Democrats. Now they can get back to being a whiney ineffectual minority that they were for 50 years. Habits die hard

On the other hand, the Democrats show that they will stop at nothing in their war on not just Bush but on the Republican Party in general. Like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, the Democrats show by their words and actions that they are not bound by custom, law or the Constitution.

The failure of many of the left to comment on Bill Clinton’s removal of all the prosecutors while some even defend this action as somehow normal and proper demonstrates the above the law attitude of the Democrats. Of course the Captain doesn’t want to hear about this either because we are “too good” to engage in partisan politics. It never occurs to either goo-goos or the Democrats that Clinton fired all 93 because he only wanted to fire one, i.e., the US Attorney in Little Rock who was investigating Whitewater. By firing all of them it would allow the Clinton Justice Department to claim that no single US Attorney was singled out for dismissal. His move was as corrupt as you can get.

I agree with Tip O’Neal, who was a good friend of President Reagan, “politics ain’t beanball.” The Republicans will return to permanent minority status unless they begin to fight back against Congressional infringement of Presidential prerogative and Separation of Powers. I believe that governing is both about the rule of law and the struggle of political will. We will all “sin” but as Martin Luther said “be a sinner, but sin boldly.”

And ODM, I this is my last word on the subject.

I think it's the elected portions of our governments being tamed and guided into agreeing that propriety and respect for tradition, means not firing the hired help for mere disloyalty, disobedience, etc.

Clinton "fired" the 93 prosecutors at the beginning of his Presidency -- not mid-term for either himself or the prosecutors involved. It's a specious comparison on its face and substantively. You argue correctly that USAs are political appointees, then you argue that Clinton did something equally wrong or worse by appointing his own selections. Bush fired people he had appointed himself in the middle of his term, something only done eight times in the previous 25 years, and almost all of them for obvious cases of malfeasance.

I'm not arguing that what he did was illegal. I'm arguing that it was stupid, unnecessary, and needlessly provocative.

jerry,

Not meant as a criticism, just an attempt to shift the focus for a bit. Please never take any comment of mine to mean you should be quiet - I like this blog and it's commenters. I don't think I fully agree with anybody here, but that's why I like it. If I just wanted to hear one's man's voice I would listen to Limbaugh.

I fundamentally agree with this administration on a lot of their policy issues and objectives. What I have disagreed with for years is the means they adopt to get to where they want to go.

The AG firing is just another in a long list of instances where the lack of people skills has cost the administration, the GOP and our nation dearly.

The first real sign for me (well before 9/11) was when they pretty much blew off Congress even though they controlled it. Why in blazes do you run roughshod over your friends and allies if you don't have to? In hindsight, I think that was because even though they were a Republican Congress, they weren't GWB's friends. Whether you are GWB's friend apparently makes all the difference in how you are treated by this administration.

The Captain is right on point - how they did it was the problem, not what they did.

I am going to make exception to my no more comments statement...

Ed, I am claiming he fired 92 to cover up fireing the one he wanted...the US Attorney in Little Rock who was investigating Whitewater. Can you understand that?

Dick Morris explained exactly why this story is a bunch of crap, on the H&C show last night. Dick gave the audience a government 101 walk through the legality of this action and the need to maintain the integrity of this system.

I'm all for a complete house cleaning of the current batch of politicians; get rid of them all and start over. But then I wake up and realize that I was only dreaming. When the old media and the Democratic Party decides to police their own, then and only then will I hold out any hope for the future of American politics.

William Jefferson, Sandy Behttp://sigmundcarlandalfred.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/slippery-slopes-sandy-berger-and-legacies/rger, Leaky Leahy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton; just to name a few criminals that continue to walk free, while receiving nothing but praise from their constituents.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14686
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/infocus/whitewater/timeline1.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/17/95105.shtml

Holier-than-thou....
When Liberals start cleaning up their own house, then and only then will I care to listen. The house cleaning needs to be a two way street.

I don't find it amazing that in bizarro world that activist judges are ONLY termed activists when you don't agree with them, they are WONDERFUL if they are toeing your party line. Same thing with these prosecutors and US Attorneys. Great when with you, bastards when they are not ...

I want to correct one thing which was erroneously writted about in one of the above comments. Unless these attorneys had all of a sudden became lax on their job they had all just received passing grades in their annual performance appraisals.

Now we can disagree on whether this was political, we can disagree on whether or not this was the President's right, but what we can AGREE on is that this is just yet another bonehead act by a bonehead administration. I am not sure why we still find these things NOT the norm for this group in the whitehouse.

it seems the Clintons broke this standard long ago...

In a nutshell from this mornings New York Times, why Gonzales is toast:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales was “extremely upset” that his deputy told Congress last month that a federal prosecutor had been fired for no reason, according to e-mail released Monday by the Justice Department.

Mr. Gonzales believed that the prosecutor, H. E. Cummins III, the United States attorney for Arkansas, was dismissed for performance reasons, the e-mail suggested. But his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, testified that Mr. Cummins had been replaced to create a vacancy for J. Timothy Griffin, a political ally of the White House political adviser Karl Rove.

At this point, the resignation of Gonzales should not and will not end a matter that clearly involves the White House and Karl Rove, who will be asked to testify before Congress under oath about the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

regardless, once again we have a Democrat Partisan witch hunt on our hands, and it would be nice to see some energy by the American Public to vocalize some disgust for this political effort led by Chuck Schumer.

i am not excusing the mistakes of the Administration, just wishing to remind many of the primary focus, which should be upon those who are unethically trying to undermine for personal political gain.

the Democrat Party

Sounds like Patterico and the Captain are talking about the new act, Full Employment Act for Attorneys and, in Particular, US Attorneys.

I was unaware of any such act, but it's nice to know about it, so that firing a US Attorney can be construed as an attack against the State, because it's obvious that US Attorneys have a God-given right to serve 4/8 years, unless they bite a go-go dancer.

Get serious, Capt! When haven't appointees been held to a standard of representing their client? In this case, their client is... the President of the United States!

Captain, is it true what has been reported, that you have some allegiance to lawyers?

Broken Record Department.

The only hope for the GOP in 2008 is to start NOW running AWAY from Dub Yuh. I've tried my best to support him, but time and again over the last few years he has proven to be a disaster on so many issues.

We can't afford to be tarred with the Dub Yuh brush any longer.

I sympathize with Ed, up to a point. He's thankfully not living in denial by at least recognizing this is a serious matter and not just bleating "Comrade Bush is Always Right!" like the GOP partisan sheeple are doing. At the same time, he's playing down how the blatantly political nature of the firing of those U.S. attorneys leads straight to the White House and Karl Rove. As John DiIulio said, politics dictates everything this White House does, and Karl Rove dictates everything that's political. Neither Sampson or even Gonzales himself can be a fall guy for Rove now.

rightwing:

Point of Clarification

These attorneys represent the United States - they do not represent the President - anymore than a District Attorney represents a mayor. Their job is to enforce the laws of the U. S.

And you are missing the point - How it was done is the problem, not why the attorneys were let go.

I have seen several commenters bashing those who disagree with their own position - how useless - it neither bolsters their position nor diminishes another's. Why don't we leave insults to the liberals?

The President called his AG...

"President Bush sent a powerful message of support Tuesday for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, calling his longtime friend to express unwavering support in the face of calls for his resignation.

The White House also denied reports that it was looking for possible successors for Gonzales. "Those rumors are untrue," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said."

not so fast CHUCKY...

Dems get nervous?

or do they feel they have the power?

I guess we can all agree to post in English.

Beyond that...

Does anyone remember if Rumsfeld got a phone call?

OldDeadMeat, I distinctly recall how President Bush lied to reporters about the status of Rumsfeld days before Rummy was canned, so I guess a phone call is a safer way to look good with regard to the status of Gonzales now.

"When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job."

Guess what liberal, slanted, America-hating, godless secular news agency printed this? Yep, you guessed it. Fox News.

For all you devout Clinton bashers out there, please realize that Reagan fired them all too, just like Clinton.

Please, enough with the limitless hatred for all things Clinton. If Clinton was wrong to do it, so was Reagan.

Website taken from:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html

Let's just get the facts, straight, ok? We can all agree to Bush's unlimited ability to fire and hire USA's at will, but we should be careful. McNulty, Sampson, Gonzalez - all of them have contradicted themselves over the past few weeks. The ratings seems inconsistently applied, there are high rated people who were fired, low rated people who were kept, accusations of voter fraud that couldn't be validated by normal standards of evidence. And lastly,if Clinton would have fired a USA the DAY of an email stating that the Democratic USA was widening an investigation into Democrats, I think many of the people on this site would LOSE THEIR MIND with outrage over the "coincidence."

To say there is no evidence, well, that's nonsense. There are way too many discrepancies in multiple DOJ employees to waive it away as "What's your problem, Bush can do anything he wants." That's just "tribal Republicanism," as the Captain said.

R

In this matter, Cap'n, you are arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "At the pleasure" and Executive Priviledge are quite enough for me.
Bush is simply not the strong, clear-eyed man some of us earlier thought he was. Throwing people off the troika to the wolves, or at the least seeming to consider doing so, does not inspire loyalty when loyalty is critically important to mission execution.

"The failure of many of the left to comment on Bill Clinton’s removal of all the prosecutors while some even defend this action as somehow normal and proper demonstrates the above the law attitude of the Democrats. It never occurs to either goo-goos or the Democrats that Clinton fired all 93 because he only wanted to fire one, i.e., the US Attorney in Little Rock who was investigating Whitewater. By firing all of them it would allow the Clinton Justice Department to claim that no single US Attorney was singled out for dismissal."

I don't think anyone objects to a newly elected President replacing the US attorneys from the previous administration with his own appointees. Assuming, however, that Clinton did more than that, and fired all 93 US attorneys in order to get rid of the one who was investigating him, then it would indeed be hypocritical to say that was OK while condemning what this administration just did with the termination of 8 US attorneys

It would be equally hypocritical to condemn what Clinton did while insisting that it's perfectly ok for Bush to terminate US attorneys for any reason at all, including insufficient political loyalty, but I'm sure no one here would do that.

And Gonzales isn't analogous to Berger at all. Gonzales should be fired for incompetence, whereas Berger should be in jail.

In this matter, Cap'n, you are arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. "At the pleasure" and Executive Priviledge are quite enough for me.
Bush is simply not the strong, clear-eyed man some of us earlier thought he was. Throwing people off the troika to the wolves, or at the least seeming to consider doing so, does not inspire loyalty when loyalty is critically important to mission execution.

For me anyway; the main difference between now and the past 25 years (or any other reference to the past few decades), is that we are at war with an enemy that attacked the American homeland. Leaks coming from all kinds of different sources (most notably the NYT) have occured during a time of war.

Principles are principles, I agree with CE on this; however, war is war and decisions must be made abroad, as well as at home. The Commander must have the integrity of the system in tact. We all know only a little; we know nothing as compared to the information hitting the desk of the Commander. More will be revealed in time, as historians write this story. For now, we have a war to win...

a good post.

beating the "Clinton did it" drum is not working, all but the faithful see through that analogy. The Griffin appointment reeks and does not pass the smell test, the Lam situation appears suspicious. As the Captain says, the standard of specific malfeasance was broken, incompetence was claimed in cases where it was clearly not incompetence, and the administration appears to have been untruthful in some of its explanations.

hope the first mate is well

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of Alberto & Karl starring in the new White House presentation of "Justice Is Served"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Bush caves the way Fred Astaire danced. NATURALLY.

Very few people are bothering, now, to care much. He is what he is. A president with many weaknesses. And, he has lousy staff. So they contribute to this, too.

In other words? Bush doesn't want arguments. He doesn't want to see issues debated. He wants to see grown men, in suits and ties, being polite. And, hiring affirmative action people. So when you see the White House, these days, it's not just run amok. It's got the assorted characteristics that should have made the democraps happy. But didn't.

Instead? The donks just take advantage.

And, this issue, in particular? Not woth a hill of beans outside the beltway.

Of course, everything in life has unintended consequences. For the donks? They don't seem to be gaining voters.

And, Bush? He's not shedding the GOP. He just not having any influence on anyone running.

In a similar vein; Maliki "suddenly" discovered it pays to cooperate with the USA military. What gave him this prod? Is it possible, as ugly as the scum in the streets look, when they hold up signs to bring our troops home ... Can it be? This is what scared Maliki? Nothing else explains it.

Nothing else will explain, ahead, that Bush isn't running for president. HE IS. And, he's been this way for six years. Rather passive. But not prone to sleeping around with interns. Or getting drunk. So you take what you can out of what is going on.

And, you realize our economy is also good.

Sometimes, that's what a president needs. Not to be tested on the stuff that doesn't matter. But to be in the driver's seat when things are going well. He'll get all the credit.

Blame? He's got characters like AG Gonzales, and Harriet Miers, for that.

While if you want an issue to chew; over at InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds is linking to Mark Tapscott. It seems the congress critters are not just slobbering over pork. They're lacing their pork with arsenic. Since they're handing it out only if a congress critter is willing to vote against our military.

Well, who put those chaps in there? WE DID!

And, off to the side, it seems there are "some" politicians who are very serious about changing the dynamics of politics. So that both extreme groups, left and right, will have less leverage in 2008.

Some good things are ultimately the results of consequences. When you just can't figure out what's best, in terms of decision-making possibilities.

While overall? The mainstream is looking for less frictions. And, much less incompetence from its elected leaders. And, that's just the way it is.

And Gonzales isn't analogous to Berger at all. Gonzales should be fired for incompetence, whereas Berger should be in jail.

Excellent comment.

and not just bleating "Comrade Bush is Always Right!" like the GOP partisan sheeple are doing.

(rolls eyes) Save it for the proletariat, starfleet. Repeat after me: US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President.....US attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President......

There. I knew you could.

Capt: aside from the 93 US Attorney's that Clinton fired when he came into office, with the Leftists, and their sockpuppets on this board will tell you was "okay", because it happened at the beginning of his term, and thus was "okay"; desipite the fact he did it to interrupt two Federal Investigations into his own, and friends of Bill & Hill corruption issues; Clinton fired 30 MORE US Attorney's over his last six years in office, or an average of 5 per year!

Ah, where's your outrage over that Capt, and where's the outrage of the Left, and MSM, over that?

Just checking......??

could not disagree more Carol...

did GW cave in to the Baker surrender plan?

to the Democrats killing the Patriot Act?

to the DNC desire to raise taxation?

the negative view of this President continues to be overt from many who should thank the Man.

one of the few in Washington remaining, who is still willing to fight on in the GWOT.

the short memories, patience, objectivity, of some Conservatives, in regards to those who are serving their interests is rather regretful.

not only do they get slandered from the left, many Conservatives on the right, act like they know everything, and could easily govern from their keyboards...

The second paragraph you quoted shows why Fitzgerald was rated in the middle bracket.

The top bracket was good performers who also strongly following the Administration's priorities.

The bottom bracket was poor performers who opposed the Administration's priorities.

The middle bracket -- where Fitzgerald was placed -- included good performers who had not strongly supported the Administration's priorities (and also, I assume, poor performers who had supported them).

Bear in mind, this is not talking about personal loyalty to the President. That's the media spin. It's talking about whether a US attorney followed the priorties set by his boss.

That's a fair criterion on which to judge an employee.

The Senate just voted 94-2 to stop Gonzo from appointing new US Attorney's without their approval! Wow. For those of you who thought this was a non-story it sure has gotten the attention of at LEAST 40+ GOP Senators who I guess are tired of being lied to and being hung out to dry and in Rush's own terms, "carrying the water" for this president and his men (and women).

I guess the "be scared be VERY scared" Patriot Act take a back seat to scandals and lieing to the Senate!

The little non story that could continues to gather power.

A call from Bush ... the death nail ... bye bye Gonzo.

monkei,

Does "separation of powers" have any meaning to you. This raw, raw, yippie "boy we got another Bush guy" stuff is going to harm this country as we go on from here. But then again, seeing the "bigger picture" is obviously not one of the strong suits of those so inflicted with BDS...

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

Now we have a situation where Congress is demanding an approval process for the appointment of USA's. Does this bother any of you trolls? The day will come when the table is turned. This "gotcha" crap is mighty dangerous.

More diversionary tactics from the White House on this matter, sad to say:

According to MSNBC just now, White House counsel Fred Fielding offered that Karl Rove and other White House officials be interviewed, but the testimony would be unsworn, behind closed doors, and no transcript would be permitted.

Both House and Senate Democrats already plan to vote on issuing subpoenas later this week.

Update: On CNN, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) just told reporters that “[Fielding] said he wanted this to be a conversation rather than a hearing. A conversation’s fine. But let’s have a conversation under oath with a transcript so we can see what has happened and weigh the testimony of these particular witnesses against the others.”

White House offer considered and refused, Mr. Fielding. (Pat Leahy had already nixed it also, a fact Fielding I'm sure knew.) Let's hope Congress doesn't have to resort to having its Sergeant-at-Arms all but frogmarch Karl Rove up to Capitol Hill to testify now.

Keemo, you're complaining about "gotcha" crap?

This ain't "gotcha" crap, this is possible firing of US attorneys -- not because of job performance, but for political purposes and replacing them without Senate approval.

THIS is gotcha crap:

Independent counsel Kenneth Starr was appointed in 1994 to investigate President Clinton's involvement in the failed Whitewater land development deal. Starr's flagging $40 million, four-year investigation was reinvigorated when his office learned of Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and her plans to deny the relationship in a Paula Jones trial deposition.

Starr's neutrality has been questioned because of his longtime Republican Party ties, links to Jones' lawyers and pattern of prosecutorial zealotry. Despite criticism, in September 1998, Starr delivered a referral to Congress that outlined 11 possible grounds for removing the president from office, all related to Lewinsky, not Whitewater.

Captain,I CANNOT believe you used the words "competent and intelligent" in the same sentence as the word government.
Talk about an oxymoron.
If government was competent and intelligent,then every two years we would have a completely new House of Representatives and every six years a new Senate,as well as every four years a new president.
That is the type of government that I think the Founding Fathers had in mind,that legislators and presidents would be citizens first and politicians second and NOT politicians FIRST,LAST and ALWAYS.
A la clinton,byrd and anyone who thinks that his political position is a gift from God and is his/hers until time ends.
No,there is absolutely nothing competent and intelligent about government,especially our government as it currently constituted.

Ship,

You've got to be kidding me; you're smarter than that Tom. Many of your comments here at CQ (for a troll) have been worth reading Tom. Lately, you have gone off the deep end. I fear BDS is creeping in.

Breaking news:

*THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE U.S. ATTORNEY MATTER SHORTLY AFTER RETURNING FROM KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AT 5:45 PM, EDT, TODAY, MARCH 20, 2007, IN THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM

"Now we have a situation where Congress is demanding an approval process for the appointment of USA's. Does this bother any of you trolls?"

Keemo, this was the law prior to the Patriot Act. You know, the Act the contained many provisions that critics said were too knee-jerk and should be reconsidered... well, this was one of them. This isn't a threat to seperation of powers... it's "checks and balances."

Ah, much ado about nothing much as it turns out:

Update: From CNN just now: "What is expected from the president is that he will say that Attorney General Gonzales has his full, unyielding support."

Still, the fact that President Bush has to say it yet again today is an indication of a little bit of panic at the White House.

It turns out that there's an assistant attorney general in there by the name of McNulty. The American Spectator writes about this today. A number of other people have been writing about it. Here's what the Spectator says: "The Republican staff on the Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, is looking into improper sharing of Department of Justice personnel records by career DOJ employees with members of the legal community. 'We've seen evidence that some state and federal judges with ties to the Democrat Party were given personnel and performance review materials about certain U.S. Attorneys across the country,' says a Judiciary Committee staffer. 'Some of the review materials were never seen by the Attorney General and his staff, but were reviewed within the Deputy Attorney General's office, as well as by professional staff at the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. [The leaks were] clearly part of a campaign to embarrass the U.S. Attorneys.' Meanwhile, The American Spectator has learned that members of McNulty's staff are supporting the possible nomination to one of the vacant U.S. Attorney slots of a former government lawyer who had an affair with a colleague and now resides with not one, but two women in what some in the DAG's office have termed a 'tri-sexual' relationship. 'That residential situation would be adjusted if the name was put forward,' says someone familiar with the thinking in McNulty's office."

SCHUMER: Yeah, this is much too serious to be about politics, and the bottom line is our committee is simply looking into the misdeeds in the executive branch, in the justice department, in the administration. Anything that has to do with any elected official, any congressman, any senator, will be handled by the ethics committee. So there's no conflict whatsoever.

Yeah, well, what are the odds he'll be drawn before the ethics committee? He's using the testimony he gets here and then taking it to the Democrat Senate Campaign Committee, and putting it up on their website, as he did with Domenici. But anyway, that's beyond the point. "Much too serious about politics." That's all this is. The war in Iraq, the surge in opposing it, securing defeat for our troops -- all of this is about electoral politics for 2008! Everything the Democrats are doing is about electoral politics for 2008 -- and nobody, nobody over the weekend asked Schumer about the letter he wrote to the assistant attorney general demanding to know what was happening with the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's name.

I read that letter. It was a letter of interference; it was a letter demanding to know things he's not entitled to know; it was a letter commanding certain action take place now. He was behind that whole thing. He was behind the appointment of independent counsel. He was the one that pushed it and so forth -- and, of course, it's "not about politics." (RL)

A "performance" excuse for one of the U.S. attorney firings is trashed, big time:

Ousted Hispanic Prosecutor Was "Diverse Up-and-Comer"

In April, 2004, times were different. U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias hadn't yet drawn the ire of prominent conservatives by failing to indict a Democratic state senator shortly before the election or declining to pursue their pet voter fraud cases.

Then, he was in no danger of being fired. Rather, he was on the short list for being promoted to be the Director of the Executive Office of the United States Attorney. At least, that's according to an email from Kyle Sampson that listed U.S. attorneys who "might be enticed to leave their districts and come to Washington to run EOUSA."

Iglesias, who is Hispanic, appears on the list as a "diverse up-and-comer; solid."

Now, Iglesias, of course, didn't get the job. Michael Battle, formerly the U.S. Attorney for Buffalo (and, as an African-American, also "diverse") did. And irony of ironies, it was Battle who ended up making the call to fire Iglesias this past December. Battle tendered his resignation in January; his last day was Friday.

The Mayberry Machiavellis strike again.

Here's the entire article...

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11165

Congratulations, Captain Ed, for taking a principled stand. If all you did was to repeat GOP talking points, you wouldn't be worth reading.

By all means, stick with the theme of competency. The next election can be won by a "Competent Conservative", someone who is not closely associated with the bunglers now running the show.

I think the whole thing is stupid. I watched that compound in Waco go up in flames and Reno did not even lose her job..

And people are having a cow over this???

Well I know folks like Monkei think that one rule applies to Democrats and one applies to Republicans, but I am getting tired of conservatives going belly up everytime things get difficult.

What about the leaks in the papers and the voter fraud and immigration laws that are not enforced? Do these people have any standards? Is that whole thing about the pleasure of the President just so much nonsense that applies only to Democrats?

Clinton not only fired all those attornies when he took office, he fired 30 more over the next 6 years and needless to say no one gave a damn.

So now the standard is unless these people in government are perfect, then the pundits and the base will abandon them? Well hell, none of us are perfect. I like the Captain, but he is not perfect. We know that people like Monkei and starfleet are not perfect. Carol is not perfect and neither am I. But Gonzales has to be or the chattering classes and the partisan Democrats will eat him up.

Pathetic.

A call from Bush ... the death nail ... bye bye Gonzo.
Posted by: Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 20, 2007 02:11 PM

Who would have thunk it; the President has spoken, and the monkei is dead wrong once again...

The President has spoken; explaining the law regarding this issue; called the Democrats out for the pathetic display of partisan garbage behavior that these fools have displayed for far too long; offered up thousands of documents to Congress for their review.

And btw before we call these people bunglers it should be remembered that once upon a time something like this would not have been discussed on something called the internet 24/7 by a bunch of people who really don't know what they are talking about half the time. And that includes myself.

I am not sure it is possible for any administration of either party to avoid being called bunglers when an entire inudustry has grown up dedicated to nonstop bitching and kvetching and demanding and speculating and accusing and second guessing.

Sometimes I wonder if it is them, or US that has the problem.

The bottom line is Bush has the right to fire these people for any reason. That is the Constitution. If you don't like it, make them government employees. We all know you can't fire them. Ever.

"Clinton not only fired all those attornies when he took office, he fired 30 more over the next 6 years and needless to say no one gave a damn."

Terrye - do you use fabrictaed statements and numbers to try and deceive, to try and make the Capn look foolish for including a link that specifically refutes you claim, or just because you have no interest in actually reading the post and researching the issue?

Keemo, Bush was has a complete laundry list of idiotic moves and actions ... all that is left is his slap on the back and uttering the lines, "your doing a heck of a job ______ (you can fill in the blanks here, Brownie, Rummy, Gonzo)

You come to me asking ME about separation of powers? Have you slept through this administration and the lack of oversight Congress laid on them in the past 6 years? There were so many chances, choices, options that this Congress could have and should have stopped to look into instead they rubber stamped this admnistration and we pay for it today as we referee a civil war in Iraq, bankrupt the country, and lose more of a national resources, the real heros, each and every day and we reward them with a broken VA that does it's best to deal with the issues but was not ready to accept this badly planned war and it's results. What I would have given for just 20 or 30 GOP congressman and even more Democratic congressman to take a step back 5 years ago and say wait a minute Mr President. Lets look at the real intelligence here and see whats going on. Instead we have people like you out there who wave the American flag and claim the rest of us are not "with it" since we don't support your war time president, You moan and groan about leaks, yet there are PLENTY of leaks coming out of the whitehouse on their behalf. You complain about special prosecutors, yet you probably supported Kenneth Starr, you complain about activitist judges, but you have no problem with activist judges who would overturn Roe V Wade. You are a Bush man through and through, you will support him to the bitter end which is thankfully coming in 2008. At which time he can pardon Libby for lieing (something I guess you are ok with), he can even pardon Duke Cunningham and hopefully by that time Tom DeLay also.

Keemo, usually YOU are somewhat believable, but in your haste to support the chimp you are becoming incredibly wrong. No matter what this guy does you support him. You are truly one of the 30 percent who will support Bush because you did in the past. Good luck with that.

BDS ... what's that your new O'Reilly or Limbaugh term for the day?

Regarding your comments on the approval of US Attorneys by Congress ... check on your facts Keemo, all that was overturned, like I said, was something that was taken away from Congress and given to this President once again by the BE SCARED BE VERY SCARED Patriot Act. Does it bother you that 92 out of 100 US Senators agreed?

Your support for this President has blinded you, you used to have at least one good eye, now you have none.

The bottom line is Bush has the right to fire these people for any reason. That is the Constitution. If you don't like it, make them government employees. We all know you can't fire them. Ever.

Assuming that Bush understands the US Constitution is a real stretch.

As far as firing government employees ... another stretch this time by you, I can give you a list plenty long of people who have been fired that I personally know about in my 30 years working for the government. It's just another one of those myths that keep circulating by people who like to complain about government workers. So by all means, keep complaining. Maybe someday Halliburton can run the whole government.

BTW, US Attorneys, albiet Presidential appointees, are still government workers.

This has to be a Democrat strategist's dream - a crony of mediocre ability hanging on to one of the most senior positions in government. His major qualification is that he is near the top of the list of the loyal Bushie's . He will not be a part of any future administration. Maybe he'll hang on long enough to be nominated as a federal judge, (but that would require confirmation hearings). He isn't worth defending, but the Dems won't push too hard too long becuase he best serves their purpose exactly where he is.

BTW, US Attorneys, albiet Presidential appointees, are still government workers.

Ah, TURKANA BOY; that is AlbEIt, BTW...

And, even if they are "Government workers", the POTUS can STILL fire them ANYTIME he chooses!

HAH!

Deal with it!

"the POTUS can STILL fire them ANYTIME he chooses! HAH! Deal with it!"

As I recall, nobody complained that Nixon had broken any laws in the Sunday Night Massacre. Just because you can abuse power doesn't mean you should, or that it's right.

You know, I think this adds one more bit of suport to the idea that Bush manages the white house the way his MBA tells him to run a business. Everything runs smoothly and lawfully, but little or no consideration is given to hostile observers intent on public defamation. Can anyone tell me why we care about US attorneys?

About firing government workers: it is only Unionized government workers that are imposible to fire. Layers typically arn't unionized. But it can take years to fire a teacher.

Josh Marshall passes along some words of wisdom about what is key to this U.S. attorney scandal:

A knowledgeable observer on the White House's game: "The key issue isn't oath v. unsworn; it's that as to both the testimony and the documents, they're not willing to provide anything on communications inside the Executive Office of the President -- you know, in the place where the removals were actually decided and made."

Nothing less will do than the truth.

What fantasy world do you guys live in where it's easy to fire anyone that's not a member of a union? Ask anyone that works for a large corporation (even those without anything resembling ties to the state, government, etc.) if they could just fire someone at will.

Once they stop laughing then try this one, ask them if they could fire or ask someone to resign without giving the employee a reason why, then later when pressed give reasons that were either a. contradicted by the employees official job reviews or b. contradicted by internal emails from those doing the firing.

TS said:
''Starr delivered a referral to Congress that outlined 11 possible grounds for removing the president (Clinton) from office, all related to Lewinsky, not Whitewater. ''

Well, gee. Maybe if Clinton hadn't fired the US Attorney that was investigating Whitewater in mid-investigation...

dwight:

I saw the information concerning the additional thirty fired attornies over WSJ. Take it up with them if you think it is a lie.

As for what Bush knows about the Constitution I am wagering it is more than a bunch of people who do nothing but troll center right blogs so they can make life hard for the wingers. BTW, he kicked the best and brightest the Democrats could offer, so what does that say about you guys?

I hear the honeymoon is over for the Dems already. The new Democratic Congress is down to 28% in the polls according to Gallup. Bush beats them too.

So I guess the thing is here, if Bush had just fired all 8 of these people a year or so sooner along with 80 or 90 other people everything would have been just fine. So long as Rove did not talk to anyone of course. Rove emailing people is bad bad bad.

I still think it is a crock.

dwight:

I saw the information concerning the additional thirty fired attornies over WSJ. Take it up with them if you think it is a lie.

As for what Bush knows about the Constitution I am wagering it is more than a bunch of people who do nothing but troll center right blogs so they can make life hard for the wingers. BTW, he kicked the best and brightest the Democrats could offer, so what does that say about you guys?

I hear the honeymoon is over for the Dems already. The new Democratic Congress is down to 28% in the polls according to Gallup. Bush beats them too.

So I guess the thing is here, if Bush had just fired all 8 of these people a year or so sooner along with 80 or 90 other people everything would have been just fine. So long as Rove did not talk to anyone of course. Rove emailing people is bad bad bad.

I still think it is a crock.

Regarding the question of White House aides testifying before Congress, if President Bush thinks he can get away with what amounts to kinder, gentler stonewalling by refusing to let them answer questions under oath, he's wrong.

I shake my head when the hardcore conservatives on this site rip Bush a new one, but then these same people rip any democrats that dare to rip GWB. So its okay for them, but if we do it we have BDS.I'll never be able to figure that one out. Tonite on Billo's "No spin zone" that retired judge guy said ( and I'm paraphrasing here) the Bush admin would be foolish to try and fight the supoenas for rove and harriet miers.Congress can cite them for contempt of court. For anyone that says some of this is democratic partisan gotcha, I say sure it is, you think a Gop controlled congress wouldn't be throwing the kitchen sink at a democratic AG in the same situation? Lets not be naive on either side of the aisle. People like Rush started this bloodsport, dems are catching on real fast, we can play hardball too. The Bush admin ISN'T evil, just horribly incompetent and tactless, even its own supporters see what us dems saw 6 years ago.

Amazing how it took the democratic party only a short three months to step right into
the "mudhole" that they have detested since 94

At this rate, by the time the election comes around, I'm guessing the turnout will be at an all-time low. And simply because the public will be sick of politicians, subpoenas, investgations, and what ever else drives otherwise sane humans to feed on eachother.

And Dude, you and Karl have just got to get together and work things out. I'm sure he's in a forgiving mood.

A US Attorney can only distinguish himself if there are cases that come up within their district that would allow them to distinguish themself by prosecuting successfully.

Not all of those 93 Attorneys had high profile or controversial cases come up in their jurisdiction

You can not create caaes to distinguish youself on