For those who want info on the US Attorney story

sjmom2329 · March 16, 2007, 5:39pm

I think mini is very even-handed in his posts against both Democrats and Republicans. While I seldom agree with him, he is consistent, and seems only to find opposition when his point is derogatory toward Democrats. Otherwise, you all seem quite ready to agree with him and validate his opinions.

BedHead · March 16, 2007, 6:05pm

Well, who’s being partisan now?

Actually I thought the statement that Mini would be making love and ranting and raving about his obsession just about says it all.

I have respect for him up to the point that he is awkardly obsessed. I am, for instance, going to buy the book that he recommended by Toulmin 'cause it looks fascinating.

I wouldn’t care if he were talking about W, if he tied every conversation back to how W, for instance, was a deer in the headlights on 9/11, even though I might agree with it, I would begin to conclude he was partly addled-headed and frankly somewhat infirm…

And it runs counter to his objectives. At a certain point, I was interested in learning what facts he had to justify his incessant claims. Now my eyes just glaze over.

BedHead · March 16, 2007, 6:12pm

Now, back to the topic at hand: the definition of a double standard:

March 16, 2007 | Whatever else Bill Clinton is or was or someday may become, he will forever remain the favorite scapegoat for Republicans in trouble. When they’re caught, they always point at him – just as they are doing now in the midst of the scandal over the political dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys and growing demands for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his role in the matter. 

From the Drudge Report to the Fox News Channel to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the usual suspects are shrieking in unison: 

Bill Clinton fired a lot of U.S. attorneys too! In fact Clinton was worse because he fired all of them at once! And the Democrats didn’t complain when Clinton did the same thing! 

If those wails are loud enough, hapless mainstream journalists tend to repeat the same bogus accusations. Phony analogies and bad history gush out in a toxic stream of informational sewage. Then somebody (sigh) debunks those claims, just like someone hoses down the street after a parade of circus elephants. 

So let’s begin this journalistic sanitation project with a question. Was the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by George W. Bush last December in any way comparable to the dismissal of the entire corps of U.S. attorneys by Clinton in 1993? Even the dumbest pundit in America should be able to figure out that the answer is no – because every president receives the resignations of all political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, at the beginning of his term. 

Outraged Republicans can reassure themselves on this matter by forgetting about Clinton for a moment and thinking back to the dawning days of the sainted President Reagan. On May 9, 1981, according to the Washington Post, the Reagan administration was well on its way to replacing all of the U.S. attorneys. A Justice Department spokesman told the Post that William French Smith, the new attorney general, had received nominations for 55 of the 94 U.S. attorney positions so far. Smith was taking nominations, of course, because those positions needed to be filled. As the Post helpfully explained: “Although U.S. attorneys are appointed for four-year terms, it is customary for them to submit their resignations at the start of a new administration.” 

When the president fires a carefully selected group of his own U.S. attorneys in the middle of his second term for reasons that appear to be political, that’s different from what Clinton (and Reagan) did. The difference is not in the rule that allowed Bush and Clinton and Reagan to dismiss U.S. attorneys – which is that those appointees serve at their pleasure – but in the reasons behind their actions. 

Yet certain conservatives now claim – as some of them did in 1993 – that Clinton fired all of those U.S. attorneys merely as a smoke screen for his real motive. They insinuate that he wanted to protect Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, the powerful Illinois Democrat then under investigation by Jay Stephens, the Republican U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. (A few have also suggested that Clinton wanted to get rid of the Republican U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Ark., to protect himself and his friends from investigation, a completely fraudulent claim that I examine in the current edition of the New York Observer.) 

By firing Stephens, Clinton supposedly meant to hobble the Rostenkowski probe. Peevish about his firing, Stephens himself held a press conference to voice the same suspicions. 

There is one pretty obvious flaw in that theory. 

On May 31, 1994, Eric Holder, the Democratic successor to Stephens, brought a 17-count indictment against Rostenkowksi – who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud and went to prison. This outcome, with an indictment of one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress arriving in the middle of the midterm election campaign, scarcely helped Clinton or the Democratic Party. Many observers believed, on the contrary, that the Rostenkowksi indictment helped the Republicans win the sweeping November victory that gave them control of the House of Representatives for the first time in more than four decades. 

Following the Rostenkowski indictment at least two more Democrats in Congress – Rep. Mel Reynolds, D-Ill., and Rep. Walter Tucker, D-Calif. – were indicted later that summer, as the fateful Election Day approached. Neither President Clinton nor Attorney General Janet Reno made any attempt to interfere with those decisions. 

As a method of escaping responsibility and distracting gullible commentators, the Clinton dodge is now a classic maneuver for Republicans and conservatives. Back in 2002, when Bush was in trouble over his friendship with Enron’s Kenneth Lay, the right-wing media insisted that Clinton had once hosted a White House sleepover for Lay. That diversion was an utter falsehood, as any of those who repeated it could easily have determined. It’s a fake this time, too – and it shouldn’t distract anyone from holding Gonzales, Karl Rove and all the other authors of the current disgrace to account.

sjmom2329 · March 16, 2007, 6:21pm

I’ve never claimed to be non-partisan.

weenie · March 16, 2007, 6:35pm

Did I just hear Katie Couric say that the White House is likely to fire Gonzales tomorrow?

Opie_ofMaybery2 · March 16, 2007, 6:37pm

“I think mini is very even-handed in his posts against both Democrats and Republicans. While I seldom agree with him, he is consistent, and seems only to find opposition when his point is derogatory toward Democrats. Otherwise, you all seem quite ready to agree with him and validate his opinions”

Did you EVEN bother to read what mini and I are talking about?

You aren’t even close as to the subject matter. Try again, read his, read mine and then comment. Go ahead I’ll wait.

BedHead · March 16, 2007, 6:45pm

But your criticism that I, or we, could/can only see things through a partisan lens implies that you rise to a larger standard. Or at least that I, or we, am/are so partisan I couldn’t see that Mini does.

But my problem is not that Mini is criticizing Clinton. My problem is that turning whatever subject at hand back to the accusations that Mini constantly makes goes quickly from intriguing to puzzling to stale to worrisome to ridiculous.

My problem is that turning whatever subject at hand back to the accusations that Mini constantly makes goes quickly from intriguing to puzzling to stale to worrisome to ridiculous.

It doesn’t get better or more valid, the more you repeat something, beyond a certain point.

sjmom2329 · March 16, 2007, 7:45pm

Opie, you can wait as long as you want. For the most part, I have ceased posting on CC because the belligerance and pugnacity are too unpleasant, as you have demonstrated above. It’s become a Pavlovian exercise – conservative poster says X, liberal poster responds Y and vice versa. There is little conversation between those of differing viewpoints – the only time I’ve observed civil discourse is when the parties agree and simply reinforce one another.

My comments about mini’s equal-opportunity bashing apply to a variety of threads. If you don’t like what I have to say, feel free to disregard it.

I would add that other posters, who have a strong liberal viewpoint, post non sequiturs all the time, without any comment from you or anyone on the left. And I’ve also yet to see anyone present evidence that mini’s claims regarding Clinton are wrong. As I mentioned above, I almost never agree with mini, but it can be difficult to refute the facts he presents.

BedHead · March 16, 2007, 8:46pm

Whether or not Mini or others post non sequiturs is not so much a problem for me unless it’s so much jibberish that it just takes the discourse down some notches. Maybe I have yet to see where he has aggregated his information on his incessant claims and maybe this occurred before I joined CC or started paying attention to some of these threads. I have just read what seems like five dozen posts from Mini that rant about Clinton the genocidier, to use the French term, without much relevance to the discussion at hand and often without providing a lot of data or explanation.

And whether he agrees with all the things I am saying or objects to my tone, I think Opie got it spot on when he said that what happened in 1995 is past. We are at war now. Iraqis are dying now. Yes, looking at how we were led or misled into war is relevant as it establishes credibility of those who did it. Clinton may share blame in that (I know, I know, Mini, you’ll chime in and say there’s no may about it, and largely I don’t disagree that that was the consensus pushed), but he is not in power now as President. End of story. It’s history.

The only reason I am bothering to be this harsh is because I actually appreciate Mini’s posts a lot more than those of others. Mini’s posts tend to not be predictable (with the glaring exception of what I am talking about) and are often intelligent or funny. Also, I think he worked in Iraq for awhile or provided aid from overseas, so that’s an interesting perspective.

Enough.

hayden · March 16, 2007, 9:47pm

I agree with sjmom that the level of civility on these threads seems to be on the downswing.

Look, I’m not one of the big posters. Like the little kid at the parade, I just kind of jump up and down behind the big posters, throwing out half-noticed posts once in a while.

But could we please, please get back to the topics? It seems we are starting to spend more time attacking other posters than talking about the topics - and I don’t mean just this thread, but more broadly across this forum (the recent thread on the CEO’s wife is an example). Could we please just give each other a break, and the benefit of the doubt?

As for mini, I myself have too much respect for him to try to come to his defense: he’s perfectly capable of standing on his splendid own.

weenie · March 16, 2007, 10:02pm

^ I agree with hayden. Really, it’s ridiculous.

From CBS News:

Clearly, the WH is scrambling, what with “hazy memories” and Snow admitting that “anything’s possible” (including Bush suggesting the firings).

You know why this is a big deal? It’s because they are LYING (what else is new) and Americans are sick of it. Instead of just admitting - “Hey, it’s a political thing. It’s an extortion thing” they tried to say “It’s poor performance.” But wait - all these US attorneys had excellent reviews up to that point, and their senator-sponsors, are like, What? We thought they were fine! You’d be PO’d too.

Alas, they must eat their own, elections are coming…

hayden · March 16, 2007, 10:18pm

(thanks, weenie)

Someone on the news tonight made the point that the people to watch are the Republican senators who are up for re-election in the next cycle. They will be pretty good bell-weathers of where public opinion is heading.

Boy, they must be a nervous bunch right now. Can you imagine those poor guys wincing at every new headline, and wondering what else they’ll have to put up with? This will be a very uncomfortable 2 years for them. My job is not much easier, though - just fewer perks.

citygirlsmom · March 16, 2007, 10:23pm

I jsut love how they pull this stuff out of the woodwork, the al queda guy who was apparently in the grassy knoll…his “confession” was very timely

citygirlsmom · March 16, 2007, 10:24pm

And the you have a general, out of no where create a big tadoo about gays in the military…and what happened to walter reed

Opie_ofMaybery2 · March 17, 2007, 1:18am

“Opie, you can wait as long as you want. For the most part, I have ceased posting on CC because the belligerance and pugnacity are too unpleasant, as you have demonstrated above”

What? asking if you knew what we were discussing when you threw you two bits in? I mean I capped EVEN, I guess that’s belligerent, I guess. I felt you were being pretty snide yourself dearheart as you really weren’t aware of what was being said, as your comment had no meaning to what we were posting about. Asking you to read the back and forth was trying to do you a favor, really. I mean if your gonna throw rocks at me, make sure that it’s about the subject at hand, otherwise the impact isn’t there. Instead it’s met with a huh?

As far as BC and your point.

I’m no fan of BC, but I’m really not a gw jr fan. But I guess it would seem I’m a big BC fan as well as others because everyday gw jr and his staff make BC look better and better. Jr should have listened to his dad. BC gets alot of credit because jr is so bad. That’s not my fault, my opion of BC hasn’t improved, it’s just everyday I watch this administration unravel by their own hands. I guess from where your standing it looks like so many are moving towards BC, that’s not the case. It’s the hole junior’s digging keeps getting deeper and deeper. Rather than think of it that way, some see it as the center moving away, rather than the administration digging the hole deeper. The center hasn’t moved.

sjmom2329 · March 17, 2007, 9:06am

Final post on this thread.

Unless you are a CC mod, it’s not up to you to tell anyone how or what or where to post. If you don’t like someone’s comments, you are free to disregard. If you want to have a private conversation with someone, there is always the PM function. But aggressive posts are just nasty, no matter how you try to repackage them. From your post #86

In real life, would you speak to someone you don’t know this way? If so, I’m glad this is a cyber conversation – I can leave when I feel like it.

Opie_ofMaybery2 · March 17, 2007, 2:56pm

That’ll leave a mark.

Again, you fail to see your point applies to yourself as well. Without sin, cast the first stone…

Have a great weekend.

For those who want info on the US Attorney story

CONNECT WITH US