Thursday, March 15, 2007
I'm Shocked, Shocked
The New York Times continues in manufactured high dudgeon about the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys with an unintentionally comical editorial and an equally slanted news piece that Carl Rove showed interest by e-mail regarding the firings. So let me get this straight--the President's top political advisor showed an interest in the political effects of the perfectly legal but probably politically motivated firings of political appointees by other politicians in Washington, D.C. Oh, the humanity.
During the Gregoire 'count 'em until they come out right' disgrace in the state of Washington two and a half years ago, Stefan Sharkansky was discovering a boat load of fraudulent voter registrations and probably a lot of fraudulent ballots, but the crack, former U. S. Attorney, John McKay, has said concerning the allegations: There was no evidence.
That's good enough for the NYT editors, who go on to state not only that the Administration's reasons given for the firings were frauds but further: These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections.
Help Republicans win elections? Since when did a federal prosecution for voter fraud overturn a stolen election for Governor? I have to admit that I'm laughing at the editors here.
Regarding Rove and others in the administration, no reason for replacing some of the U. S. Attorneys is good enough. Witness:
The White House and Justice Department have defended the dismissals as appropriate, pointing out that the prosecutors are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. But some of the fired prosecutors told Congress that Republican lawmakers had pressed them about corruption or voter fraud investigations, provoking charges from Democrats that the dismissals may have been political and that they threatened the traditional independence of the prosecutors.
...the traditional independence of the prosecutors. Where do the NYT editors live, Pollyannaville?
This is a 'no there, there' sort of faux scandal which only begins to sour the more spineless the Attorney General and the President sound in defense of the firings. The Senate sub-committee will kick Mr. Gonzales around for a couple of hours and the Democrats will huff and puff afterwards and the partisan and ignorant will think something bad happened when it didn't. You know, the usual.
The U. S. Attorneys indeed serve at the pleasure of the President and George Bush was displeased with some who would not do or would not do with sufficient zeal what they were asked to do. Happens all the time.
...the traditional independence of the prosecutors. That's a good one. I'm still laughing at that one.
During the Gregoire 'count 'em until they come out right' disgrace in the state of Washington two and a half years ago, Stefan Sharkansky was discovering a boat load of fraudulent voter registrations and probably a lot of fraudulent ballots, but the crack, former U. S. Attorney, John McKay, has said concerning the allegations: There was no evidence.
That's good enough for the NYT editors, who go on to state not only that the Administration's reasons given for the firings were frauds but further: These charges, like the accusation that Mr. McKay and other United States attorneys were insufficiently aggressive about voter fraud, are a way of saying, without actually saying, that they would not use their offices to help Republicans win elections.
Help Republicans win elections? Since when did a federal prosecution for voter fraud overturn a stolen election for Governor? I have to admit that I'm laughing at the editors here.
Regarding Rove and others in the administration, no reason for replacing some of the U. S. Attorneys is good enough. Witness:
The White House and Justice Department have defended the dismissals as appropriate, pointing out that the prosecutors are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. But some of the fired prosecutors told Congress that Republican lawmakers had pressed them about corruption or voter fraud investigations, provoking charges from Democrats that the dismissals may have been political and that they threatened the traditional independence of the prosecutors.
...the traditional independence of the prosecutors. Where do the NYT editors live, Pollyannaville?
This is a 'no there, there' sort of faux scandal which only begins to sour the more spineless the Attorney General and the President sound in defense of the firings. The Senate sub-committee will kick Mr. Gonzales around for a couple of hours and the Democrats will huff and puff afterwards and the partisan and ignorant will think something bad happened when it didn't. You know, the usual.
The U. S. Attorneys indeed serve at the pleasure of the President and George Bush was displeased with some who would not do or would not do with sufficient zeal what they were asked to do. Happens all the time.
...the traditional independence of the prosecutors. That's a good one. I'm still laughing at that one.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:14 PM 
