An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings

March 14, 2007

Times Trash

Filed under: Cow pies, From the Left, Moonbats & Other Animals, Opinion — olbroad @ 8:37

Politics, Pure and Cynical

We wish we’d been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration’s sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power’s sake.

The New York Times sounds like a shill for the far left looneys, but this comes as no surprise.

Time and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney’s vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove’s fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

Put the doobie down, get some sleep and please try to wake up in the real world. Did the Times publish an editorial such as this when the Clinton administration pretty much fired everyone from the previous administration?  They even made up crap to justify their actions, and ruined people’s lives, all in the name of “power for power’s sake”.

In firing the prosecutors and replacing them without Senate approval, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales took advantage of a little-noticed provision that the administration and its Republican enablers in Congress had slipped into the 2006 expansion of the Patriot Act. The ostensible purpose was to allow the swift interim replacement of a United States attorney who was, for instance, killed by terrorism.

If a U.S. attorney is not doing his or her job, shouldn’t they be canned? Seems to me that guy who failed to prosecute what was obviously a violation of the law, should have been fired before now, even if he was doing a great job in every other area. If you are an officer of the court, you don’t get to pick and choose which laws to uphold.

But these firings had nothing to do with national security — or officials’ claims that the attorneys were fired for poor performance. This looks like a political purge, pure and simple, and President Bush and his White House are in the thick of it.

National security doesn’t only cover threats from outside. It also involved threats from within. Hmmm…. perhaps there should be a few indictments in D.C. There sure are some major threats from within going on in that town.

Among the documents is e-mail sent to Ms. Miers by Kyle Sampson, Mr. Gonzales’s chief of staff, ranking United States attorneys on factors like “exhibited loyalty.” Small wonder, then that United States Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego was fired. She had put one Republican congressman, Duke Cunningham, in jail and had opened an inquiry that put others at risk, along with party donors.

What a crock! I didn’t see any Republicans squawking about Cunningham’s prosecution. He deserved what he got!

Read the rest. No doubt you’ll see the same tired old bias that the Times always exhibits.



  1. I hope this will make my Karl Rove stocks go up so I make some money on it 🙂

    Comment by waitmyturn22 — March 14, 2007 @ 11:34

  2. You do realize that there is a difference between the editorial page and the paper, right? I won’t give you too much grief for badly missing the points made in the quoted paragraphs by citing things completely irrelevant to what its talking about, because unlike many of your persuasion, at least you’re reading a newspaper.

    Comment by Will — March 14, 2007 @ 12:59

  3. Which part of “serves at the will of the President” is confusing people? That means the president can fire them for any reason or no reason. The problem was that they gave a reason instead of shutting up. Once they said “performance related issues” the attorneys rightly got their knickers in a knot since that damages their reputation. If they had just said, “The President no longer wills that they hold the job” there would be no discussion.

    Comment by rosettaresearch — March 14, 2007 @ 8:02

  4. This is my blog, I’m the only one who gets to be sarcastic. Plus Will, I’m not going to even bother to give you a response. I’m too tired, and I’m afraid I’d lose my ladylike veneer.

    Ro, I don’t know why the moonbats don’t get it. The difference is, Chlinton’s canning of the 93 attorneys was barely a blip. At the time, they said “that’s what new presidents do. sigh… They’ll never get it. It’s a tactic to distract us from the serious business of getting those looney back out of DC. 🙂

    Comment by olbroad — March 14, 2007 @ 11:26

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: