Remember this as Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media whip up Firinggate into a frenzy.
The latest is that Liberals--er, Citizens Blogging for Responsibility and Ethics wants a special prosecutor appointed to crucify Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, and anybody else in the administration they can cast blame on.
But CREW, like Shakespeare's Sister, TPMMuckraker, and the Carpetbagger Report must not know what political appointments are.
Political appointments serve at the will of the President. They can be fired for any or no reason whatsoever. U.S. attorneys fall into this category.
More importantly for the moonbats shrieking about the eight fired U.S. attorneys, President Bush isn't the first person to fire U.S. attorneys. Bill Clinton did it, too. I don't have a direct link to the article because it requires a subscription, but here's the text from Redstate:
Attorney General Janet Reno today [March 24, 1993] demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.
Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.[...]
At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.
But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
"This case has been conducted with integrity," Mr. Stephens said, "and I trust the decisions in this case will not be made based on political considerations."[...]
Mr. Rostenkowski has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, and he has not been accused of any impropriety. But if he is indicted, he would be forced by House rules to relinquish his chairmanship, a development that some lawmakers have said could seriously jeopardize Mr. Clinton's efforts to steer his economic and health-care proposals through Congress.
The story goes on to point out that the attorneys serve "at the pleasure of the President, just like Cabinet members."
So, where's the scandal?
One argument against the Administration that I have heard advanced from the right is that the Department of Justice besmirched the reputations of the eight by publicizing that their firings were performance related. Too bad. Perhaps the Justice Department could have handled their removal more diplomatically. But, the attorneys took political positions willingly, and politics ain't bean bag. Some say that their replacements are wholly unqualified to be US Attorneys and that this is simply an effort by the Bush Administration to build a farm team of experienced conservative lawyers.
Moreover, Mark expresses my growing exasperation with this gaming by the Democrats.
I am tired of Democrats and the media blowing everything that the Bush Administration does into an earth stopping scandal, like no US Attorneys were ever fired for political reasons and no Congressman ever contacted any US Attorney to check on his potential opponent's legal liabilities. What's next? A Congressional hearing into Bush's choice of tie color?
You can expect more witch hunts by the Democrats over the next two years. Remember, this is what people should have expected when they wanted to "get the Republicans' attention."
UPDATE: Patterico explains how the supposedly damning e-mails do a pretty good job explaining why these attorneys needed the boot...and it's not just political.
|