Thursday, March 15, 2007

The Surge To Get Bush

"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." ~ A. J. Liebling

The Democrats are once again calling for the resignation of a Bush administration Cabinet member. This time it's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that has somehow fueled the Democrats feigned outrage. I say feigned because if the Democrats were truly interested in doing what's right, they would all resign out of remorse for their failure to serve the American people.

William Jefferson would be gone. So would Alcee Hastings. So would Harry Reid. So would Hillary. So would...well, you get the idea. In fact, if all the Democrats were fired for unethical and/or illegal conduct, there would likely be few Democrats left in the halls of Congress. If any.

But I digress.

One thing that keeps leaping out at me is that this seems to be another attempt to oust a member of Bush's administration. One by one, the Democrats are attacking Bush's Cabinet and calling for their firing, resignation, or impeachment. Obviously, their aim is the eventual impeachment of the President. But since they have nothing on him (such as perjury before a Grand jury) they are content in trying to undermine his appointed office holders.

They went after Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, they got John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfield, they are continuing to go after Dick Cheney, and of course, President Bush himself. It is painfully obvious what their agenda is.

Of course, it has been pretty much common knowledge among Conservatives that the Democrats have been angling to get rid of Gonzales even before he was appointed AG.

Which influential Democratic leader said Gonzales was a poor choice for AG because he is Hispanic? I confess I don't remember who it was, but that's only because the Democrats say so many racist and outrageous things I can't keep track of them.

I came across an interesting article about this latest brouhaha. It references the LA Slimes article that ostensibly blows the whistle on poor old Alberto.

The problem is, apparently the LA Slimes left out some very important information that was also found in the e-mails from whence they got their incriminating circumstantial evidence of malfeasance on Gonzales's part.

The following paragraphs are a teaser intended to draw your attention to the aforementioned article:

The L.A. Times has a big story about internal White House e-mails regarding the Bush Administration’s decision to oust eight U.S. Attorneys. But as far as the actual firings themselves go, the real story appears to be that the White House had legitimate reasons for firing many of these folks.

The e-mails certainly don’t appear to corroborate the allegation Democrats keep repeating: that U.S. Attorneys were fired for going after Republicans, or for failing to go after Democrats. Instead, judging from the e-mails, it appears that the White House was genuinely concerned with performance issues, such as a failure to go after drug smugglers, and — hold onto your hat — an insufficient focus on illegal immigration cases. Yes: the White House fired a U.S. Attorney for going too easy on those illegal aliens!

The article referenced here simply points out more typical misinformation from the Liberal LA Slimes.

Now, this morning, the AP has picked up the ball and begun running with it. When I signed on to AOL this morning, this story hit me in the face. following is an excerpt from that article that exemplifies what the Democrats and again, their willing accomplices in the media are continually trying to do, which is to "get Bush". That is the real agenda here. They care nothing for these eight prosecutors.

It's customary for new presidents to bring in their own team of prosecutors when they take office. Democrats say the Bush administration singled out some of its own nominees because they chafed at the president's priorities and Republican efforts to influence political corruption investigations.

"Eight U.S. attorneys who did not play ball with the political agenda of this administration were dropped from the team," said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois. "We have a right to ask what that political agenda was and whether or not it was a reasonable firing and dismissal."

This, I agree with, except if Durbin and his Democratic cohorts really wanted to know, all they would have to do is read the e-mails in their entirety, instead of reading only the parts the media chose to publish. Then they would see, and probably already have, that the prosecutors were fired for not doing their jobs. The same reason most people get fired in this country.

But see? That would only serve to prove there is nothing behind the latest charges of corruption in the Bush administration. They can't have that.

That wouldn't provide them with the ammunition necessary to impeach Bush, which, as I said, is their true agenda.

Personally, I think if the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media like The New york Slimes, The Washington Compost, and the LA Slimes, spent half as much energy supporting our troops and the war on terror as they do in trying to "get Bush", this war might well be won and over, and the international terror syndicate would be destroyed.


Dan Trabue said...

"In fact, if all the Democrats were fired for unethical and/or illegal conduct, there would likely be few Democrats left in the halls of Congress."

Now, we know historically over the last few decades, that both Dems and Republicans have been involved in misconduct. But, it has been Republicans who have been convicted more often or had to step down.

Anyone can accuse an individual, but our system is not based upon rumors and innuendos. Jefferson, for instance, looks guilty and if he is convicted, he should be held accountable.

But he maintains his innocence and in our system, we are innocent until proven guilty. I'm not about to railroad innocent people.

Let the system work and, if people are found guilty, let them face full consequences.

But let's not take part in any trial by the media.

Just as a reminder, Republican convictions off the top of my head:

Reagan administration: 32 convictions (many for what amounts to lying about war crimes in the Iran Contra terrorist scandal).

[As a comparison, there were only 3 Clinton administration convictions - one for lying about a blow job...which, as horrible as thatt is, doesn't quite rise to the level of war crimes and support of terrorists.]

Then we have...

Ney, Fletcher, Frist, Cunningham, Abramoff, Murkowski, Noe, Roland, Ryan, Taft, Foley, Packwood, Santorum... the list goes on and on.

I'm no defender the Dems, they've got serious problems and plenty of corruption on their side, too (not as much, it would appear by conviction rates, but plenty nonetheless). It's just that I hate to see them lambasted as the ONLY party with corruption when there's doesn't appear to be as bad as the Republicans.

What this SHOULD encourage us to do is to work for reform in our system, which invites abuse. We, the people, should unite together as Left and Right and in-between and demand changes that would cut back on corruption.

Mark said...

Come on, Dan, this is old ground. You know as well as everyone else the reason for that is because Republicans accept the responsibility and the consequences for improprieties and Democrats offer excuses and weave intricate cover up schemes to avoid prosecution. Do we have to continue these pointless arguements?

And your statement about Jefferson is just ridiculous. Video tapes, cold hard evidence found in his freezer, and guilty pleas by the other participants leavbe only one conclusion. The only thing left to do is throw the bum out of Congress and into a jail cell. But the Democrats will go on defending him and raising distractions such as this stupid non-issue over Gonzales to avoid doing what's right. Typical Democrat tactics.

Mark said...

You are right, Dan. "Anyone can accuse an individual", and the Democrats consume way too much time and taxpayers money doing just that, especially when there is nothing to accuse them of.

Jefferson, on the other hand, has been caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar and still continues to deny it. Everyone knows he is guilty, even the Democrats. they just don't care. After all, he is one of them.

Dan Trabue said...

"You know as well as everyone else the reason for that is because Republicans accept the responsibility and the consequences for improprieties and Democrats offer excuses and weave intricate cover up"

And so in the case of ALL these repeated convictions of Republicans, do you suspect a conspiracy involving the juries of the People? Are the juries all-Democrat or do you suspect that they had their children kidnapped so that they'd put Republicans behind bars?

Who do you suspect is behind this conspiracy to convict all these innocent Republicans? CIA? FBI? DNC?

My, someone should really expose this vast leftwing conspiracy. These evil Dems must be stopped before they convict more innocent, God-fearing Republicans and before they seduce more innocent God-fearing Republicans into affairs and affairs with boys.

Poor Republicans.


Anonymous said...

Clinton fired 96 Attorneys from his staff, no one said a thing. This is just one of the many examples where Republicans are held to a higher standard and I guess they should be. Real leadership is tuff.

Lone Ranger said...

I quote from the loathed Ann Coulter -- loathed because she DARES to speak out against the Democratic Red Guard.

Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.

As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.

Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.

Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh was subjected to a three-year criminal investigation for allegedly buying prescription drugs illegally to treat chronic back pain. Despite the witch-hunt, Democrat prosecutor Barry E. Krischer never turned up a crime.

Even if he had, to quote liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz: "Generally, people who illegally buy prescription drugs are not prosecuted." Unless they're Republicans.

The vindictive prosecution of Limbaugh finally ended last year with a plea bargain in which Limbaugh did not admit guilt. Gosh, don't you feel safer now? I know I do.

In another prescription drug case with a different result, last year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Democrat), apparently high as a kite on prescription drugs, crashed a car on Capitol Hill at 3 a.m. That's abuse of prescription drugs plus a DUI offense. Result: no charges whatsoever and one day of press on Fox News Channel.

I suppose one could argue those were different jurisdictions. How about the same jurisdiction?

In 2006, Democrat and major Clinton contributor Jeffrey Epstein was nabbed in Palm Beach in a massive police investigation into his hiring of local underage schoolgirls for sex, which I'm told used to be a violation of some kind of statute in the Palm Beach area.

The police presented Limbaugh prosecutor Krischer with boatloads of evidence, including the videotaped statements of five of Epstein's alleged victims, the procurer of the girls for Epstein and 16 other witnesses.

But the same prosecutor who spent three years maniacally investigating Limbaugh's alleged misuse of back-pain pills refused to bring statutory rape charges against a Clinton contributor. Enraging the police, who had spent months on the investigation, Krischer let Epstein off after a few hours on a single count of solicitation of prostitution. The Clinton supporter walked, and his victims were branded as whores.

The Republican former House Whip Tom DeLay is currently under indictment for a minor campaign finance violation. Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle had to impanel six grand juries before he could find one to indict DeLay on these pathetic charges — and this is in Austin, Texas (the Upper West Side with better-looking people).

That final grand jury was so eager to indict DeLay that it indicted him on one charge that was not even a crime — and which has since been tossed out by the courts.

After winning his primary despite the indictment, DeLay decided to withdraw from the race rather than campaign under a cloud of suspicion, and Republicans lost one of their strongest champions in Congress.

Compare DeLay's case with that of Rep. William "The Refrigerator" Jefferson, Democrat. Two years ago, an FBI investigation caught Jefferson on videotape taking $100,000 in bribe money. When the FBI searched Jefferson's house, they found $90,000 in cash stuffed in his freezer. Two people have already pleaded guilty to paying Jefferson the bribe money.

Two years later, Bush's Justice Department still has taken no action against Jefferson. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently put Rep. William Jefferson on the Homeland Security Committee.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat, engaged in a complicated land swindle, buying a parcel of land for $400,000 and selling it for over $1 million a few years later. (At least it wasn't cattle futures!)

Reid also received more than four times as much money from Jack Abramoff (nearly $70,000) as Tom DeLay ($15,000). DeLay returned the money; Reid refuses to do so. Why should he? He's a Democrat.

Former Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger literally received a sentence of community service for stuffing classified national security documents in his pants and then destroying them — big, fat federal felonies.

But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo's wife.

Bill Clinton was not even prosecuted for obstruction of justice offenses so egregious that the entire Supreme Court staged a historic boycott of his State of the Union address in 2000.

By contrast, Linda Tripp, whose only mistake was befriending the office hosebag and then declining to perjure herself, spent millions on lawyers to defend a harassment prosecution based on far-fetched interpretations of state wiretapping laws.

Liberal law professors currently warning about the "high price" of pursuing terrorists under the Patriot Act had nothing but blood lust for Tripp one year after Clinton was impeached (Steven Lubet, "Linda Tripp Deserves to be Prosecuted," New York Times, 8/25/99).

Criminal prosecution is a surrogate for political warfare, but in this war, Republicans are gutless appeasers.

mom2 said...

Republicans are gutless appeasers.> yes, and Democrats are shameless hypocrites! But, but, but, give Dan some time to hunt up a couple of examples that he can use against Republicans and he will be right back. He may even tell you how he was a Reagan Republican (har, har,har), my foot! He has a virtue(?), hang in there and keep on trying......somebody may fall for it.

Dan Trabue said...

So, is that a "Yes, there IS a giant leftwing conspiracy that convinced or forced all these juries of American Citizens to falsely convict poor Republicans. Meanwhile, the Dems are being ignored for their crimes - nevermind that Starr went on a witchhunt after Clinton spending millions of dollars and all he could find was a lie about a blowjob."?

Believe that all you want, but it really sounds a little pathetic.

For my part, I've no special loyalty to the Dems. I thought Clinton's perjury (even over a ridiculous non-related sexual offense) was horrid and he should have stepped down. As I do about most Dems who've been caught being naughty.

The difference between me and you Republican apologists appears to be that I'm not defending the Dems who are guilty. I'm just saying that they're not the worst offenders - according to the actual evidence of convictions.

But, oh yeah, there's that whole vast conspiracy thing...

Abouna said...

Dan trabue:

Why is it that more Republicans than Democrats get convicted? Something stinks in Denmark, because everytime the Dems, and especially the Clintons were investigated, it always came out that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. That is just plain Bull Shit, when people are convicted for crimes with much less evidence.

I can tell of another Democrat member of congress from MA that should have been convicted for very serious crimes against children, biut nobody bothered to do a proper investigation. I'll mention names and crimes and if those ass holes in congress want to sue me, bring it on. I'm sorry, but just because they haven't been brought to court, does not make them innocent and I don't give a damn who likes it. Where there is smoke, there is fire.

If any body out there wants to know the dirt on Barney Frank, just send me an email and I will send you info that will shock you. And that Pervert is still in congress, but of course, he is a Democrat.

Trader Rick said...

Pardon me while I innocently go get a coupla grand from the freezer to pay the Pizza Guy...

Mark said...

No Dan, it's just that I am not going to continue going over old ground with you as I indicated on my first comment. The lack of convictions of Democrats has been explained over and over ad nauseum, and we all know it has nothing to do with a conspiracy and everything to do with a breakdown of integrity among power weilding Democrats and appeasement from gutless Republicans, as Lone Ranger stated.

Why don't you stop beating the dead horse and just comment on the subject of the blog entry?

For someone who claims he's no fan of Democrats you certainly expend a lot of energy defending them.

Dan Trabue said...

Fine, y'all believe any nutty ol' thing you want.

The truth is what it is. More Republicans get convicted than Dems. There is a culture of corruption in politics in general and its evermore present on the Republican side.

Facts is facts. Believe it's all about conspiracies or whatever if you want, but you're only alienating yourself further from the population at large when you do so.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, let me try another approach.

Let's be reasonable, shall we? What is it exactly that you're asking?

You're asking us to believe that the Dems are generally (always?) more corrupt, and that the Republicans are generally (always?) more honest than the Dems? Is that it?

And, are you asking us to - what? Remove Dems from office? Arrest them and convict them without a trial? Or are you just asking us to beware of Dems in general and trust Republicans in general?

I'm assuming it's the latter, that you're just concerned that the Dems are more corrupt than the Republicans and you're not advocating removing them from office or anything, just encouraging everyone to be aware of the Dems' generally corrupt nature - is that a fair account of your position and why you'd make these charges?

But then, I might (I'm not, but I might) counter with similar charges - that the Republicans in power are generally corrupt and are not to be trusted.

So, why should we believe you and not me? On what basis shall we decide? Your say-so? Rumors and innuendo? Circumstantial evidence?

You tell me:

My position is that the evidence is clear that Republicans have been convicted more often of more severe crimes and have been forced to step down because of corruption than the Dems, WHO ALSO have too often been convicted of crimes and been forced to step down because of corruption - just not as often.

Thus, my position is that we ought to work to change the system so that it is less conducive to corruption.

Your position, as I understand it, is that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans, who are generally honest. You think this because of William Jefferson and because Clinton committed perjury when he lied about a blowjob and because of other unsubstantiated or less-substantiated accusations.

You're not offering proof that Dems are generally corrupt and Republicans are not, just pointing to a few isolated cases and making an assertion based upon your hunch.

Now, reasonably, why should I accept your position over mine? On what basis?

And Mark, please, please, do not answer by saying, "Because everyone knows Dems are corrupt and Republicans are generally honest." or I will be forced to send you to bed without dessert.

mudkitty said...

I'm getting that this thread is about deflecting the attention onto any body BUT Gonzales.

Marshall Art said...

I wish I knew how to create a link. Over at, the good Sister has a post on the firings. In the comments section, there is a link to a column that has a good description of why this whole thing is much ado about nothing.

The surge to get Bush is an ongoing mission of the Democrat Party and their peripheral moonbat supporters. If they can't get Bush, they'll go after anyone they can. This was most recently seen in the Scooter Libby case. It doesn't matter what or if the target did anything wrong. The point is to get someone, anyone from the Bush administration for anything at all. This is their idea of making our country great. I guess you have to do something when you're without real ideas.

mudkitty said...

So lying under oath is ok when republicans do it, but not when a democrat does it.

Jim said...

abouna said, "Clintons were investigated, it always came out that there wasn't enough evidence to convict."

Hmmm why was that? Because there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Do you think Republican partisan Ken Starr spent $30 Million dollars investigating the Clintons and blew off all sorts of crimes that he had evidence for just to catch Clinton in a perjury trap?

The reason there were no convictions of the Clintons is because there was no real evidence of wrong-doing. Read The Hunting of the President. It's all in there.

Goat said...

Hattip, Mark, well said, I won't need to waste energy, grin. Oh, I heard the Eagles outnumbered the moonbats at many demonstrations. OOHRAH!

ELAshley said...

What sickens me most about all this is the Democrats sychophantic liberal hordes are too ignorant to see the deception being foisted on them. Even worse, they enjoy the spectacle blood and congressional hearings like spectators at the Coliseum, foaming at the mouth in exultant glee... not because the victim in the ring is guilty but because of the color of the victims skin... his political/ideological skin. They are political racists and demogogues. White-hooded, fear-mongering cross burners. It is sport for them to lynch the ones they despise. They clap themselves on the back and call themselves great Americans and patriots... Defending the constitution their hateful ideology has rewritten in the hearts and minds of the American people and on the worm-eaten benches of the Liberal judiciary.

These fools sicken me. I can't help but pity them. I desire to see their minds and souls cleansed of filth. I'd like to open up the windows of their souls and let a little sunshine and fresh air in, but sadly, their ideological masters have nailed all the windows shut to the willing acquiesense of their rabid pets.

The problem with Dan's first statement is Democratic misconduct isn't as assiduously tried and convicted in the media fomenting sychophantic outrage and kangaroo special prosecutors-- William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, Harry Reid, et al --as is Republican misconduct. Democrats, kissing cousin bum-buddies to Big Media, are willing to overlook the most blatant of crimes and hypocrisies if they involve Democrats, whereas Republicans should all be impeached, lynched, and drawn and quartered for as little as jaywalking and the color of their political skins. Dan, though he wears a mask of "Let's be Fair and Judicious" is anything but. The mask he wears, by its very nature, is a lie. What's sad, however, is he appears genuinely ignorant to both the hypocrisy he wears, and the agenda driven hatred of his masters... the ones holding his leash. Sadder still, he's only one of millions.

mudkitty said...

It would be expected that rightwingers would shy away from the notion of accountability and justice.

Dan Trabue said...

Eric made the accusation about me:

"The mask he wears, by its very nature, is a lie."

Then I shall ask you again, as I always do (and rarely if ever receive an answer): Tell me where I've lied. Tell me where I've misrepresented anything. What "mask" am I wearing? Cite page and verse.

You are making horrible accusations against me and my brethren, but are you willing to back it up with some real evidence?

Or is it more of the sort of vague slander that Mark is engaged in here: "I THINK that Dan/Dems/Liberals are more corrupt than Republicans/Conservatives, therefore they are. I don't need to offer any evidence because it is obvious to everyone."

Come on. Y'all are more adult and fair-minded than that, aren't you? Do you really want to railroad people based upon unfounded accusations?

IF I've truly lied or been hypocritical, then point it out to me and you'll be helping me out. But to just slander my name and not offer any evidence is just a bit pathetic and shameless.

Jason H. Bowden said...

"This is their idea of making our country great. I guess you have to do something when you're without real ideas."

Home run!

ELAshley said...

Dan has hotdogs in his ears. He can't hear anything we say. He clings to the tissue-thin 'conviction comparison' defense, as if a conviction alone can damn a man as guilty. John Cooey was guilty of killing Jessica Lundsford before the jury convicted him. Sandy Berger was guilty of treason before he got a slap on the wrist. Bill Clinton, the Commander in Chief, was guilty of adultery-- still punishible by Court Marshal --setting a fine example of 'do as I say, not as I do' before the men he commands (a heinous double standard!) the men who would not get off so lightly were they caught with their pants down in the throes of adultery.

The vast majority of Democratic crooks are scoff-laws because they know full well the media will not do to them what they do to their republican counterparts. They know full well their peers in the 'Hallowed' halls of government won't hold them accountable.

Our laws DO afford criminals the presumption of innocense, but that presumption hardly negates the guilt of any man. A verdict of 'Innocent' cannot negate the sure knowledge of guilt in the minds of anyone who possesses such knowledge of the accused. His guilt remains, despite his fortuitous verdict.

But not so with Dan and the rest of his scoff-law buddies. They are enlightened and have surpassed the rest of us mean, base, and obtuse Republicans, because Dan and his buddies are able to remember their sins no more, to count them as having never happened; and they are equally able to allow these men to escape just punishment... all the while castigating and demanding the heads of their ideological inferiors for the smallest of infractions and "appearances" of impropriety. O, how magnificently enlightened is sensei Dan and his masters-- the ones who hold his leash.

Conclusion? Dan won't believe any democrat is an evil crook until a jury declares him one.

He wants to roll his eyes, and Call us 'conspiracy theorists'... call us pathetic. But only someone as blind as Dan can call perjury before a Federal Grand Jury, a 'lie about a blowjob', thereby 'blowing' off any Republican charges as frivolous, though very impeachable charges.

He is wholly deficient of intellectual honesty. He claims he's not a big fan of the Democratic party yet defends them by trying to paint them as innocnt choir boys suffering brutal attacks of rumor and innuendo... baseless charges all until a jury convicts them-- assuming a jury is ever sat. Republicans, however, are painted as purveyors of rumor, innuendo, and suffering from delusions of democratic and media persecution.

Dan is every bit as much a liar for defending the indefensible as is the Democratic party, their rabid base, and the traitorous and treasonous Media for manufacturing far too many 'convenient' truths for Liberals, Democrats, and their lick-spittle defenders to use to shout down the truth.

He who shouts loudest and longest wins the argument, right? Well I don't intend to speak softly, nor do I intend to stop shouting that he and his ilk are dangerous, and do not have the best interest of this nation at heart.

Dan isn't interested in standing for justice. He'd rather stand for his masters, and wait to be given a treat and a pat on the head.

[pat, pat, pat...] "That's a good boy!"

As for 'vague slander' it's the most used club in his bag. He's all up in arms about being slandered, but cares nothing for the slander he pens, or allows to be penned to page.

Dan Trabue said...

Elashly just wrote a 600 word defense of nothing. He did not point to where I've lied or been hypocritical. Instead, he has said that I support the Dems, despite my repeated assertions that "they're only slightly less bad than the Republicans;" that, "The Dems quite often have proven themselves to be corrupt and beholden to special interests."

Is THAT the way one talks about the folk one is defending?

Again, I shall ask for the last time: ON WHAT BASIS should we accept your assertion (you who thusly assert) that the Dems are corrupt and the Republicans are choirboys? On what basis? On what basis?

If you just ignore the question yet again, then your ignore-ance will be there for everyone to see. The truth is already in the light of day: Many of you are making partisan claims based on rumors and heresay and unfounded claims.

We, the People, reject that sort of childish behavior as unbecoming a fellow citizen. By all means, if you have a hunch that the Dems are corrupt (I do), then run with it, believe it, succor that belief and nourish it all you want.

But if you make baseless accusations, don't be surprised if people choose not to believe you. Don't be surprised if people take you to task for rumor-mongering and chastise you as a gossip.

In short, don't be surprised if people just roll their eyes and laugh at you sadly.

Mark said...

Dan, you actually counted EL's words? (Rolling eyes and laughing sadly)

Seriously, Dan, before you jump on the Democrats bandwagon, you really should go read the e-mails in this case. You will see Gonzales and the Bush administration did nothing wrong.

Dan Trabue said...

Didn't actually count. Just copied and pasted into Word which gave me a word count.

And, again, I'm not jumping on the Dems' bandwagon, just pointing out that both sides have corruption and, if anything, the Republicans have it worse.

ELAshley said...

And all I'm pointing out is you're a koolaid drinker.

Dan Trabue said...

"You're a koolaid drinker..."

That's real helpful, brother.

mudkitty said...

The emails clearly show that the attnys were fired for political reasons, and not performance related reasons, which is unprecedented, not just in motivation but in scope. In the last 25 years, only 5 fed attnys have been fired mid-term.

This is not to say that ALL presidents don't replace the attnys at the beginning of their terms. We're talking about replacing Bush's own attny appointments, mid term, in a loyalty purge, and then covering up the true reason, which may not be an illegal abuse of power, but is certainly stupid, political in nature, and unprecedented as well. As is everything the Cheney/Bush Administration does.

ELAshley said...

So what! What part of "serve at the pleasure of the president" doesn't sink into your thick skull?

mudkitty said...

The part where you try to interfere with existing investigations?

What part of that do rightwingers not understand? Oh yeah! The accountability part.

mom2 said...

It is amazing how bad the memory of Democrats has been and is, down through the years. During the hearings about White Water and some other shenanigans dealing with the Clintons, I remember hearing "the smartest" woman in the world (Hillary) saying she could not recall or other such remarks. It did not seem to bother the Democrats that memory was bad. NOW, because an election is coming, all of a sudden all Republicans HAVE to have every detail out for Democrats political gain (they hope) and they want everyone under oath because they want to squeeze them until they make a mistake or something that they can put on the MSM friends sites to brag about. I cannot believe now that I was a Democrat for so many years. The old saying "too soon old, too late smart", I guess.
Let's hope Dan gets it some day.

mudkitty said...

The Clinton did it too defense? True or false, it's no defense.

Dan Trabue said...

mom2, you're gonna have to quit thinking about me so much. People are going to start to talk...

mom2 said...

Don't go get all puffed up, Dan. All thoughts of you are not complimentary. We try to love you, but you make it difficult. We really do wish the best for you, that's why we try to show you the foolishness of your arguments. Read 2 Peter 2.