| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"magilla" |
| Date: |
13 Mar 2007 10:04:57 AM |
| Object: |
Question for Fred Stone |
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
Chris
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
13 Mar 2007 10:45:49 AM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1173798297.497106.156460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
The phrase "[Clinton]...fired all 93 US attorneys" is all through the
literature on the subject.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_
21123146/pg_1
In this article, it reads "Upon taking office, in an unexplained
departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno
suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been
made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President
ordered it."
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
You might try doing your homework before you start trying to nitpick
others'.
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
I await your abject apology.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Memo to Democrats: When Dennis Kucinich has to scold you for lacking
courage, you need a serious search-and-rescue for your party's stones."
.
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
13 Mar 2007 02:14:01 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 11:45 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1173798297.497106.156460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddyb...@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
The phrase "[Clinton]...fired all 93 US attorneys" is all through the
literature on the subject.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_
21123146/pg_1
In this article, it reads "Upon taking office, in an unexplained
departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno
suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been
made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President
ordered it."
Well, once you remove the shrill invective, it's pretty content-free,
but the fact does remain- Reno did fire a passel of prosecutors.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
You might try doing your homework before you start trying to nitpick
others'.
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
I await your abject apology.
You're right. I apologize. I really should learn to recognize tu
quogue fallacies when I see them.
Thanks
Chris
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Memo to Democrats: When Dennis Kucinich has to scold you for lacking
courage, you need a serious search-and-rescue for your party's stones."
.
|
|
|
| User: "DH" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
13 Mar 2007 04:30:52 PM |
|
|
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173813241.087098.304100@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 11:45 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:1173798297.497106.156460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddyb...@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
The phrase "[Clinton]...fired all 93 US attorneys" is all through the
literature on the subject.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_
21123146/pg_1
In this article, it reads "Upon taking office, in an unexplained
departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno
suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been
made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President
ordered it."
Well, once you remove the shrill invective, it's pretty content-free,
but the fact does remain- Reno did fire a passel of prosecutors.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
You might try doing your homework before you start trying to nitpick
others'.
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
I await your abject apology.
You're right. I apologize. I really should learn to recognize tu
quogue fallacies when I see them.
Thanks
Chris
I google that a bit and found no links to the original story in '93. Not a
huge surprise, that's almost pre-history for the Internet. However,
"demanded the resignations" does not necessarily even mean they all left
office (which would be "accepted the resignations"). As Paul Harvey would
say, "What's the rest of the story?"
Also Bork's article mentions specifically the investigation of Rostenkowski,
who ended up getting indicted and sent to the slammer, anyway. So, if Reno
did appoint replacement prosecutors, she certainly didn't take maximum
political advantage of the situation.
As opposed to the current situation where prosecutors are selectively fired
and the failure to hound the political opponents of the Bush Administration
is a recurring theme among those terminated.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
13 Mar 2007 04:42:12 PM |
|
|
On Mar 13, 5:30 pm, "DH" <d...@stargate.com> wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173813241.087098.304100@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 11:45 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"magilla" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:1173798297.497106.156460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddyb...@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
The phrase "[Clinton]...fired all 93 US attorneys" is all through the
literature on the subject.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_
21123146/pg_1
In this article, it reads "Upon taking office, in an unexplained
departure from the practice of recent Administrations, Miss Reno
suddenly fired all 93 U.S. attorneys. She said the decision had been
made in conjunction with the White House. Translation: The President
ordered it."
Well, once you remove the shrill invective, it's pretty content-free,
but the fact does remain- Reno did fire a passel of prosecutors.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
You might try doing your homework before you start trying to nitpick
others'.
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
I await your abject apology.
You're right. I apologize. I really should learn to recognize tu
quogue fallacies when I see them.
Thanks
Chris
I google that a bit and found no links to the original story in '93. Not a
huge surprise, that's almost pre-history for the Internet. However,
"demanded the resignations" does not necessarily even mean they all left
office (which would be "accepted the resignations"). As Paul Harvey would
say, "What's the rest of the story?"
Also Bork's article mentions specifically the investigation of Rostenkowski,
who ended up getting indicted and sent to the slammer, anyway. So, if Reno
did appoint replacement prosecutors, she certainly didn't take maximum
political advantage of the situation.
As opposed to the current situation where prosecutors are selectively fired
and the failure to hound the political opponents of the Bush Administration
is a recurring theme among those terminated.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
And, as I noted previously, Frederick Black, the US Prosecutor for
Guam, was appointed by G.H. Bush in 1991, and served through the
entire Clinton administration. Funny, that.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
13 Mar 2007 04:29:31 PM |
|
|
On 13 Mar 2007 08:04:57 -0700, in alt.atheism , "magilla"
<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> in
<1173798297.497106.156460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
And Shrub did it in 2000 and no one complained. And I bet that A.G.
A.G. is going to go down for this. But I want a full investigation,
particularly of those who did *not* resist the political pressure and
did bring bad cases. How much electoral tampering has this admin done?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
14 Mar 2007 09:53:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:04:57 -0700, magilla wrote:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second term.
The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it would be
too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the Federal
prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
What's actually interesting about this case isn't the firing per se.
It isn't necessarily all that unusual for an incoming administration (or
AG) to want to "clean house". One of the reasons we bother electing
Presidents is quite often to, well, clean house.
But whatever Clinton/Reno did or didn't do, they did *not pre-emptively
get a loophole written into law that enabled them to bypass the
Constitution's "advise and consent" provision on appointments.
Further, whatever Clinton did or didn't do, there's serious evidence of
political manipulation of the DoJ. Which no administration can claim to
have been--as it were--without sin. But what does that have to do with it?
Why do they think "Clinton did it" has any relevance to anything? I can't
help but be put in mind of that old saw my mother would rattle off. As in
you want to ask them, "If Clinton jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!" as their
defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush good for?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
14 Mar 2007 10:24:58 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in
news:pan.2007.03.14.14.52.59.523580@com.mkbilbo:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:04:57 -0700, magilla wrote:
Hey Fred,
In message
<Xns98ECD37EAC5BEfreddybear@194.177.96.26>
you wrote that no one got upset when Clinton fired all the Federal
prosecutors, but the Democratic congress and the press are all over
Bush for canning just a few.
Today there's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_co/congress_prosecutors
that says Bush's counsel, the inestimable Harriet Miers, suggested
firing all the Federal Prosecutors at the start of Bush's second
term. The DoJ, apparently, thought this a terrible idea, saying it
would be too disruptive. The implication here is that firing all the
Federal prosecutors rarely, if ever, happens.
Now, we know that Clinton didn't fire _all_ the prosecutors. We know
that because one Federal Prosecutor had been appointed by George H.W.
Bush, and served through Clinton's term, to be fired by George W.
Bush. In addition, Federal prosecutors serve 4 year terms. Some
undoubtedly leave after 4 or 8 years (if reappointed).
So my question is, did you just make that up about Clinton firing all
the prosecutors? Did you just grab a line out of thin air and try to
use it to defend the actions of G.W. Bush? If not, where did you get
the list of attorneys that were fired? It seems like a purge of that
proportion would make the news, and I didn't hear about it.
Just wondering, Fred.
What's actually interesting about this case isn't the firing per se.
It isn't necessarily all that unusual for an incoming administration
(or AG) to want to "clean house". One of the reasons we bother
electing Presidents is quite often to, well, clean house.
But whatever Clinton/Reno did or didn't do, they did *not
pre-emptively get a loophole written into law that enabled them to
bypass the Constitution's "advise and consent" provision on
appointments.
Further, whatever Clinton did or didn't do, there's serious evidence
of political manipulation of the DoJ. Which no administration can
claim to have been--as it were--without sin. But what does that have
to do with it?
Why do they think "Clinton did it" has any relevance to anything? I
can't help but be put in mind of that old saw my mother would rattle
off. As in you want to ask them, "If Clinton jumped off a bridge,
would you do it too?"
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!" as
their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush good
for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it, why is
it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President to fire
all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political cronyism of
his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after 2009 if
a Democrat wins the White House?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
14 Mar 2007 03:51:17 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!" as
their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush good
for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it, why
is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President to
fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political
cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this
because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after 2009
if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will deserve
the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
14 Mar 2007 07:54:14 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!" as
their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush good
for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it, why
is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President to
fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political
cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this
because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after 2009
if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will deserve
the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's wrong.
If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
15 Mar 2007 04:13:47 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in
news:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!"
as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush
good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President
to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political
cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this
because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
15 Mar 2007 04:44:17 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98F4AF44F4BBDfreddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote in
news:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!"
as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush
good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President
to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political
cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this
because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
No. But the fact that Clinton fired all (or most or whatever) is irrelevant
to the firing of the 8 US attorney's by Bush.
But you don't care about that, do you Fred?
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 06:55:02 AM |
|
|
"G-Ride" <gridenospa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. But the fact that Clinton fired all (or most
or whatever) is irrelevant to the firing of the
8 US attorney's by Bush.
Clinton "Fired" them in the same sense he "Fired"
Poppy Bush's Secretary of State... Defense...
Energy... heck, the entire cabinet!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
15 Mar 2007 04:46:08 PM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 11:13 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote innews:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much about
"restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than Clinton!"
as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard, what's Bush
good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first* President
to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did some political
cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was lily-white on this
because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
Was it wrong for GWB to do the same at the beginning of his first
term? This is a different situation, since it occurred not at the
beginning of GWB's term, but in the middle. I am surprised you don't
understand that.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
15 Mar 2007 08:32:15 PM |
|
|
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173995168.066314.144920@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 15, 11:13 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote
innews:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much
about "restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than
Clinton!" as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard,
what's Bush good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first*
President to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did
some political cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was
lily-white on this because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
Was it wrong for GWB to do the same at the beginning of his first
term? This is a different situation, since it occurred not at the
beginning of GWB's term, but in the middle. I am surprised you don't
understand that.
That's not what I asked you, Dave. Try to concentrate. Was it wrong for
Clinton to fire all 93 US attorneys?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "G-Ride" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
15 Mar 2007 08:53:52 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns98F4DB1733BF6freddybear@194.177.96.26...
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1173995168.066314.144920@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 15, 11:13 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote
innews:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much
about "restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than
Clinton!" as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard,
what's Bush good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first*
President to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did
some political cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was
lily-white on this because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
Was it wrong for GWB to do the same at the beginning of his first
term? This is a different situation, since it occurred not at the
beginning of GWB's term, but in the middle. I am surprised you don't
understand that.
That's not what I asked you, Dave. Try to concentrate. Was it wrong for
Clinton to fire all 93 US attorneys?
Fred Stone doesn't concern himself with relevancy. Or even factual accuracy
for that matter.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 12:50:03 PM |
|
|
On Mar 15, 3:32 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1173995168.066314.144920@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 15, 11:13 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote
innews:pan.2007.03.15.00.54.13.812467@com.mkbilbo:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:51:17 -0500, towelie wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
I can't help but be amused that the people who yapped so much
about "restoring integrity" now resort to "he's no worse than
Clinton!" as their defense. If "Clinton did it" is our standard,
what's Bush good for?
It's called "precedent", Mark. If it was OK for Clinton to do it,
why is it wrong for Bush to do it? Clinton was the *first*
President to fire all 93 US Attorneys all at once, and he did
some political cronyism of his own. Don't claim that he was
lily-white on this because he wasn't.
Is "Bush did it too" going to be off-limits as an argument after
2009 if a Democrat wins the White House?
No. If a Democrat does some of the things Bush has done, he will
deserve the same treatment Bush himself has gotten.
Fascinating mental process going on there. If Clinton did X, it's
wrong. If Bush did X, it's okay because Clinton did X.
Was it wrong that Clinton fired all 93 US attorneys?
Was it wrong for GWB to do the same at the beginning of his first
term? This is a different situation, since it occurred not at the
beginning of GWB's term, but in the middle. I am surprised you don't
understand that.
That's not what I asked you, Dave. Try to concentrate. Was it wrong for
Clinton to fire all 93 US attorneys?
Having problems with your reading comprehension, Fred? The fact is
that Clinton did what Bush did at the start of his term. Was that
wrong?
I posted this in another group, and I think it is relevant here as
well.
Has anyone else noticed that, when it comes to the prosecutor firing
scandal, the two or three remaining Bush supporters have the
following
strategy (if that is what you want to call it):
1) Say Clinton did the same thing, only worse because he fired 93
prosecutors. When it is pointed out to them that, not only did Bush
do
the same thing, but the situation is different (beginning of 1st term
vs. middle of 2nd term), we hear...
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the right
to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out that
this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically motivated,
they go back to #1...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 03:24:18 PM |
|
|
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the right
to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out that
this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically motivated,
they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part of those
who are whining and complaining about the firings, you all have a serious
liberal meltdown.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq, where
there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to protect
them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 05:13:22 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
And when we point out that the political motivation
is on the part of those who are whining and
complaining about the firings, you all have a serious
liberal meltdown.
If that were true, why would you idiots have invented the
myth that "Clinton did it, too"?
"Bush did nothing wrong, yet I can't justify his actions
without lying."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 06:30:09 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1174083202.084474.211380
@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
And when we point out that the political motivation
is on the part of those who are whining and
complaining about the firings, you all have a serious
liberal meltdown.
If that were true, why would you idiots have invented the
myth that "Clinton did it, too"?
"Bush did nothing wrong, yet I can't justify his actions
without lying."
If precedent doesn't matter, why is it that *you* morons keep invoking it
going forward when you try to frighten us with President Wannabee
Hildabeest?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq, where
there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to protect
them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 11:27:37 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
If precedent doesn't matter,
There is no precedent, "Fred." The 2006 exchange
(which you were pretending took place BEFORE the
Cunningham investigation) even pointed out that
Clinton DID NOT do this.
I posted the URL in it's own thread. Read it for
yourself. And, yeah, pay closer attention to the
dates this time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
17 Mar 2007 08:19:55 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:27:37 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
If precedent doesn't matter,
There is no precedent, "Fred." The 2006 exchange
(which you were pretending took place BEFORE the
Cunningham investigation) even pointed out that
Clinton DID NOT do this.
I posted the URL in it's own thread. Read it for
yourself. And, yeah, pay closer attention to the
dates this time.
What does precedent have to do with it anyway? Murder has precedent. It's
been going on since the dawn of time. When was the last time a murderer
was acquitted on the basis of not being the first?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
17 Mar 2007 03:51:16 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
What does precedent have to do with it anyway? Murder
has precedent. It's been going on since the dawn of
time. When was the last time a murderer was acquitted
on the basis of not being the first?
Well that's a constant problem with "Fred." Not only does
he base his opinion on fantasy, but it's not even consistant
with that fantasy!
As I pointed out, in the actual message sent from the DOJ to
the Whitehouse, they bring up the fact that Clinton did not
do this!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
18 Mar 2007 08:40:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:51:16 -0700, JTEM wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
What does precedent have to do with it anyway? Murder
has precedent. It's been going on since the dawn of
time. When was the last time a murderer was acquitted
on the basis of not being the first?
Well that's a constant problem with "Fred." Not only does
he base his opinion on fantasy, but it's not even consistant
with that fantasy!
As I pointed out, in the actual message sent from the DOJ to
the Whitehouse, they bring up the fact that Clinton did not
do this!
Doesn't matter either way. If an incoming administration sweeps out the
political appointees of the previous, nobody blinks an eye.
If an administration sneaks provisions into bills to enable them to duck
the Constitutional provision for "advice and consent" on appointments then
cans people in a push to politicize the DoJ, eyebrows get raised.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
18 Mar 2007 08:56:02 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 08:40:05 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:51:16 -0700, JTEM wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <g...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
What does precedent have to do with it anyway? Murder
has precedent. It's been going on since the dawn of
time. When was the last time a murderer was acquitted
on the basis of not being the first?
Well that's a constant problem with "Fred." Not only does
he base his opinion on fantasy, but it's not even consistant
with that fantasy!
As I pointed out, in the actual message sent from the DOJ to
the Whitehouse, they bring up the fact that Clinton did not
do this!
Doesn't matter either way. If an incoming administration sweeps out the
political appointees of the previous, nobody blinks an eye.
If an administration sneaks provisions into bills to enable them to duck
the Constitutional provision for "advice and consent" on appointments then
cans people in a push to politicize the DoJ, eyebrows get raised.
Hopefully, a damn lot more than eyebrows get raised.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
17 Mar 2007 08:45:37 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:27:37 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
If precedent doesn't matter,
There is no precedent, "Fred." The 2006 exchange
(which you were pretending took place BEFORE the
Cunningham investigation) even pointed out that
Clinton DID NOT do this.
I posted the URL in it's own thread. Read it for
yourself. And, yeah, pay closer attention to the
dates this time.
What does precedent have to do with it anyway? Murder has precedent. It's
been going on since the dawn of time. When was the last time a murderer
was acquitted on the basis of not being the first?
In the mind of the hardline Bush supporter, there is
less moral opprobrium associated with being the one who
commits, rather than being the inventor, of any
particular moral transgression.
Originality is bad, mmmkay?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 10:57:07 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the right
to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out that
this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically motivated,
they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part of
those who are whining and complaining about the firings, you all have
a serious liberal meltdown.
And Repubs don't do the same thing?
I don't usually like that excuse, but you've played the "Clinton did it!"
card so many times that I can take a cheap shot every once in a while.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 04:30:11 PM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 10:24 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the right
to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out that
this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically motivated,
they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part of those
who are whining and complaining about the firings, you all have a serious
liberal meltdown.
Fred, it is clear the administration misled Congress about the
firings. It is also quite possible that the firings were political, in
that the prosecutors who were fired were not political enough to suit
the administration. That is not whining, that is a fact. Indeed, the
only one whining here is you, whining that everyone is out to get
Bush. That is not the case. If he had been honest about this, if he
hadn't selected an incompetent crony as his AG, there wouldn't be
whining. Even Republicans are now admitting that Gonzales is
incompetent, so that is not whining ether. If you don't like the fact
that the self-destruction of the Bush administration is proceeding
apace, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps you have put your faith
in the wrong people...
Boo-hoo!
8^)
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 06:25:17 PM |
|
|
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174080611.306817.114690@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 16, 10:24 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the
right to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out
that this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically
motivated, they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part of
those who are whining and complaining about the firings, you all have
a serious liberal meltdown.
Fred, it is clear the administration misled Congress about the
firings.
Dave, the only thing that's clear is that the Democrats are making their
usual mountains out of molehills. They've changed stories a half dozen
times in their search for a "scandal" in these firings.
It is also quite possible that the firings were political, in
that the prosecutors who were fired were not political enough to suit
the administration. That is not whining, that is a fact.
Sounds like whining to me.
Indeed, the
only one whining here is you, whining that everyone is out to get
Bush. That is not the case.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
If he had been honest about this, if he
hadn't selected an incompetent crony as his AG, there wouldn't be
whining. Even Republicans are now admitting that Gonzales is
incompetent, so that is not whining ether.
Oh, right, if it's bipartisan whining it isn't whining.
If you don't like the fact
that the self-destruction of the Bush administration is proceeding
apace, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps you have put your faith
in the wrong people...
The only "fact" here that is not to my liking is the way all you
gullible fools suck up all this Washington donkeyshit and proclaim it to
be delicious.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
16 Mar 2007 06:39:44 PM |
|
|
On Mar 16, 1:25 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1174080611.306817.114690@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 16, 10:24 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the
right to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed out
that this firing is unprecedented because it is so politically
motivated, they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part of
those who are whining and complaining about the firings, you all have
a serious liberal meltdown.
Fred, it is clear the administration misled Congress about the
firings.
Dave, the only thing that's clear is that the Democrats are making their
usual mountains out of molehills. They've changed stories a half dozen
times in their search for a "scandal" in these firings.
No, Fred, you have it wrong. The WH has changed its story a dozen
times. And, that is the problem .
It is also quite possible that the firings were political, in
that the prosecutors who were fired were not political enough to suit
the administration. That is not whining, that is a fact.
Sounds like whining to me.
Obviously, you don't know the difference between valid complaints and
whining...
Indeed, the
only one whining here is you, whining that everyone is out to get
Bush. That is not the case.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Fred tries to ignore the fact that he is the one who is whining...
If he had been honest about this, if he
hadn't selected an incompetent crony as his AG, there wouldn't be
whining. Even Republicans are now admitting that Gonzales is
incompetent, so that is not whining ether.
Oh, right, if it's bipartisan whining it isn't whining.
Fred, you may not like it, but the Bush administration has royally
screwed up, again. You should be used to it by now.
If you don't like the fact
that the self-destruction of the Bush administration is proceeding
apace, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps you have put your faith
in the wrong people...
The only "fact" here that is not to my liking is the way all you
gullible fools suck up all this Washington donkeyshit and proclaim it to
be delicious.
Fred, as usual, you have it all wrong. It is you who is drinking the
***** flavored kool aide from the administration, and calling it fine
wine. Of course, in your case, that is fine whine...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Question for Fred Stone |
17 Mar 2007 08:14:23 AM |
|
|
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1174088384.172176.33090@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 16, 1:25 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174080611.306817.114690@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On Mar 16, 10:24 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
"Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote
innews:1174067403.054611.226630@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
2) They serve at the pleasure of the president, and he has the
right to fire them whenever. And, of course, when it is pointed
out that this firing is unprecedented because it is so
politically motivated, they go back to #1...
And when we point out that the political motivation is on the part
of those who are whining and complaining about the firings, you
all have a serious liberal meltdown.
Fred, it is clear the administration misled Congress about the
firings.
Dave, the only thing that's clear is that the Democrats are making
their usual mountains out of molehills. They've changed stories a
half dozen times in their search for a "scandal" in these firings.
No, Fred, you have it wrong. The WH has changed its story a dozen
times. And, that is the problem .
No, Dave, you have it wrong. The Democrats keep changing their story
every time they find some innocuous tidbit that they can gasp over. And,
that is the problem .
It is also quite possible that the firings were political, in
that the prosecutors who were fired were not political enough to
suit the administration. That is not whining, that is a fact.
Sounds like whining to me.
Obviously, you don't know the difference between valid complaints and
whining...
I know you are but what am I?
Indeed, the
only one whining here is you, whining that everyone is out to get
Bush. That is not the case.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
Fred tries to ignore the fact that he is the one who is whining...
I know you are but what am I?
If he had been honest about this, if he
hadn't selected an incompetent crony as his AG, there wouldn't be
whining. Even Republicans are now admitting that Gonzales is
incompetent, so that is not whining ether.
Oh, right, if it's bipartisan whining it isn't whining.
Fred, you may not like it, but the Bush administration has royally
screwed up, again. You should be used to it by now.
I know you are but what am I?
If you don't like the fact
that the self-destruction of the Bush administration is proceeding
apace, that is your problem, not mine. Perhaps you have put your
faith in the wrong people...
The only "fact" here that is not to my liking is the way all you
gullible fools suck up all this Washington donkeyshit and proclaim it
to be delicious.
Fred, as usual, you have it all wrong. It is you who is drinking the
***** flavored kool aide from the administration, and calling it fine
wine. Of course, in your case, that is fine whine...
I know you are but what am I?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The one thing we must not do is to confuse the real country of Iraq,
where there is a real war, a real population, and a real obligation to
protect them, with the parallel-universe "quagmire Iraq" of popular
imagination."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
