Quote:This current brewhaha about the US attorney firings is another politically motivated hachet job. While, the Clinton firing of ALL 100 of the US Attorneys (including the ones investigating him) were never questioned.
As I said earlier, justice should be done *regardless* of whose political ends it serves. Saying that "oh, well, so-and-so did this, and nobody complained" is not justice, it's an excuse. I am uncertain as to the circumstances under which Clinton removed the whole body of attorneys. If it smels bad, it should be investigated. It is the public who deserves justice here, as everywhere.
(Edit: As far as I can discern, Clinton's changing of the guard is apparently normal, the kind of thing that happens under every president at the beginning of their administration. Bush's mid-term firing of his own appointees for failing to toe the line is something quite else. The attempt to conflate appears to be the noise machine trying to drown out the scandal with "yes but".)
The existence of that case has no bearing whatsoever on the firing of specific attorneys by Gonzales for clearly political motives. Calling it a "politically motivated hatchet job" strikes me as ironic, especially given that these attorneys were fired (hatcheted) for clearly political motives. Should the public stand for administrations stacking public service with cronies, and firing competent people because they are politically opposed to the current president? Absolutely not. What possible argument could there be against that? That it is perfectly okay to turf people out of government jobs for their political beliefs?
On the Libby affair, I am entirely unsure why Fitzgerald did not pursue a broader investigation, or lay charges against anyone higher in the administration, notably Armitage and Cheney. Nor am I sure why the administration, and especially Cheney, has decided to take the tack that they are above or immune to such investigations. Smells terrible to me, reminiscent of Watergate, or Iran-Contra. The President is not a monarch, and yet the arguments in favour of executive priveledges seem to creep ever forward. I somehow doubt Jefferson would be impressed.
Given the laws in place, Scooter Libby clearly violated them, and was charged appropriately. He was convicted in a fair trial. What is your argument against this? That people should not be tried for their crimes?
-Jester