PDA

View Full Version : Three Corrections



troutman
03-22-2007, 08:34 AM
Number 1: US Attny firings. The media keeps allowing this bit of BS to go uncorrected. Clinton, like all new presidents especially from the other party, got rid of the US Attnys then in office. They were Reep appointees who are often active politically at the local level. Clinton also replaced agency heads. All presidents do this because the voters have selected him and his vision. YOU CAN'T IMPLEMENT LIBERAL PROGRAM WITH A STAFF OF CONSERVATIVES APPOINTED BY THE GUY AHEAD OF YOU. Jeez.
Number 2: Walter Reed is Army not VA. The VA will I hate so say screw up but they haven't done it yet. They just sent me a letter notifying me they owe me money. VA is understaffed and overworked and facing budget cuts. Their hospital near the U of P is immaculate and efficient.
Number 3: After 9/11 and prior to the current war no one ever advoacted turning our safety and security over to the UN. Just heard a perfectly nice looking reep from Kansas who probably goes to church again spreading that lie.

LeeG
03-22-2007, 08:49 AM
got anything about wmd?

Greg Nolan
03-22-2007, 09:17 AM
As to no. 1 -- when Clinton replaced the US Attorneys, his candidates were subject to congressional scrutiny and approval. Bush, under guise of the "patriots" act, hired replacements that were not subject to such scrutiny and approval. Ever hear of the checks and balances that are supposed to be part of our governmental system, and which serve to limit, at least a little bit, the sort of blatant partisanship and political witch-hunting that Bush clearly seeks?

Bruce Hooke
03-22-2007, 10:12 AM
Number 1 is a red herring. Yes, almost all Presidents replace all the U.S. Attorneys immediately after they take office. I have heard this addressed in the media a number of times, but it is generally dismissed pretty quickly because there is no issue of improper influence if all U.S. Attorneys are dismissed across the board as a normal part of a change of power. The issue of improper influence is, on the other hand, very much in question if a selected group of U.S. Attorneys are dismissed in the middle of an administration for reasons that are not being made clear. A mid-term dismissal of U.S. Attorney is very different from what has happened before at the start of a new President's term in office.

On Number 2: I may be missing this mistake because my ears are not attuned to it, but I agree that media should get this one right. My perception is that the media I have been listening to most have generally been getting it right.

On Number 3: I did not hear the Republican Senator from Kansas that you mention, but I agree that it is quite false that anyone significant wanted to turn our safety over to the UN after 9/11.

John of Phoenix
03-22-2007, 10:36 AM
On number 1: If it's about Clinton and it's on FauxNews, it's written in stone. Waaaay into some folks history books at this point. Lotsa luck turning that one around.

On number 2: The media seems pretty good on this one, but the public is so used to hearing blood chilling stories about the VA, they just make the jump. Makes you wonder why we've put up with the VA getting the shaft for so long.

On number 3: Why would we turn national security over to anyone else, regardless of credentials (or lack thereof), when we have Herr Chertoff and his boys at The New Improved Department of Homeland Security?

Got duct tape?

troutman
03-22-2007, 01:59 PM
Chertoff is a pet peeve of mine. You got a war and you head up homeland security with a lawyer who became a judge. Dah?? Thats a job of massive staff and budget and who but a general or admiral has that kind of experience on that scale. Never did hear anyone point out the absurdity of giving homeland security over to a lawyer. But then I've never really felt threatened that is until the FBI started mass printing of National Security Letters. I tell the kids not to miss this. History is being made every day with this bunch.

Nicholas Carey
03-22-2007, 03:12 PM
Number 1: US Attny firings. The media keeps allowing this bit of BS to go uncorrected. Clinton, like all new presidents especially from the other party, got rid of the US Attnys then in office. They were Reep appointees who are often active politically at the local level. Clinton also replaced agency heads. All presidents do this because the voters have selected him and his vision. YOU CAN'T IMPLEMENT LIBERAL PROGRAM WITH A STAFF OF CONSERVATIVES APPOINTED BY THE GUY AHEAD OF YOU.every president does this.

When a new president takes office, every political appointee is expected to tender his or her letter of resignation to the president. Whether that letter of resignation is accepted, is of course, another matter. Although the incoming president, regardless of party affiliation, usually winds up replacing most if not all legacy appointments (who wouldn't want to have their own people on the team?), a change in party on the part of the incoming president, pretty much guarantees the replacement of all appointees, sooner rather than later.

If you want to whine about Clinton replacing Bush pere legacies, you might as well whine about Reagan replacing Carter legacies or Carter replacing Nixon/Ford legacies: every president has the right to and selects their own appointees.

In the case of US attorneys, who serve 4 year terms like the president, most such terms run coincident to the president's.
There's a reason most appointments like this are either completely "at will" or for terms of 4 years or less.