Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About those fired U.S. Attorneys
Power Line ^ | March 13, 2007 | Paul Mirengoff

Posted on 03/13/2007 9:01:20 PM PDT by neverdem

The alleged scandal over the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys has made it to the front page of the Washington Post as today's top headline. Let's take a look at the Post's story and the "scandal."

The Post breathlessly informs us that the "Firings Had Genesis in White House." Reading on, we learn that President Bush told Attorney General Gonzales he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud invesitgations. Voter fraud is a serious offense, and both political parties say they oppose it. So it seems perfectly proper for the president to pass along a complaint that some prosecutors weren't pursuing such investigations. The question would then become how Gonzales followed-up and whether he did so fairly. More on this in a moment.

The Post also says that Harriet Miers recommended that all U.S. Attorneys be fired. Gonzales wisely rejected this blunderbuss recommendation. It's worth noting, though, that such a mass firing would not have been unprecedented. President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.

This time, eight prosecutors lost their jobs. It's not implausible to think that out of 93 U.S. Attorneys, eight might be good candidates for replacement. But let's take a quick look at some of the specifics. According to the Post, three of them had low ratings -- Margaret Chiara in Michigan, Carol Lam in San Diego, and Bud Cummins in Little Rock. Cummins was replaced by Tim Griffin, whose career Karl Rove apparently wanted to advance. There's nothing novel in appointing a rising star with good connections to the job of U.S. Attorney. I've seen no evidence that Griffin was unqualified and, as noted, Cummins had received a poor rating.

Two of the fired prosecutors -- Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque -- received strong evaluations. But according to the Post, Ryan's firing "has generated few complaints because of widespread managment and morale problems in his office."

The focus instead is on Iglesias because, in addition to the strong evaluation, he was not on the original list of prosecutors recommended for removal by Gonzales' aide Kyle Sampson. Rather, he apparently was added as a candidate for removal in response to complaints from New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici and other New Mexico Republicans that he was not prosecuting enough voter-fraud cases.

Is the firing of Iglesias a genuine scandal? As David Frum notes, it depends on the facts: was there a serious problem of voter fraud in the state, was Iglesias sluggish in dealing with it, and did the administration act even-handedly by insisting that its U.S. Attorneys adequately deal with serious allegations of voter fraud lodged by both political parties?

Until we see good evidence that the answer to one or more of these questions is "no," the firing of Iglesias is not scandalous.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt, a liberal blogger and criminal lawyer whose work I respect, argues that

The travesty of the current U.S. Attorney firing scandal is not that U.S. Attorneys are being replaced. That is expected after an election, such as the one in 2004. It's that it's happening in 2007. . .In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified.

But Merritt doesn't really explain why this is so. She agrees that U.S. Attorneys "serve at the pleasure of the President." So why shouldn't a U.S. Attorney be replaced at any time if he or she is not performing well overall, or if his office is plagued by morale problems, or if she is not enforcing the immigration laws, or if he is not dealing adequately with substantial allegations of voter fraud? That's the way it works for all other presidential appointees; why not U.S. Attorneys?

The issue should be the merits of the individual decisions, not the violation of some presumption that U.S. Attorneys will only be removed at a designated point in the political cycle.

To comment on this post, go here.

Posted by Paul at 08:39 AM


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: usattorneys; voterfraud
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 03/13/2007 9:01:21 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So, Gonzales was justified, and he still fired his aide?

I just don't get why this Administration keeps blinking every time a Dem challenges them.


2 posted on 03/13/2007 9:03:33 PM PDT by airborne (Airborne! Ranger! Vietnam Vet! That's why I support DUNCAN HUNTER 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

The President needs his spine back. It is there when it comes to the WOT. Then it goes in a lock box.


3 posted on 03/13/2007 9:06:18 PM PDT by Brimack34 (Rino's need not apply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just more Dim-driven non-news


4 posted on 03/13/2007 9:10:23 PM PDT by CountryBumpkin (Don't get dropped into the liberal thunk tank. Use the brain God gave you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Another Keystone-Cops moment for the Bush administration. They should have fired these clowns on day 1 and be done with it.

This is what you get for trying to play nice with a group that has no intention of returning the favor.

5 posted on 03/13/2007 9:14:30 PM PDT by Washi (Support the country you live in, or go live in the country you support.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

The aide gave incorrect information that was presented to the congress.


6 posted on 03/13/2007 9:16:46 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

there's a reason why people call the dems the "evil party"

and the pubs the "stupid party".


7 posted on 03/13/2007 9:19:42 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brimack34

[The President needs his spine back.]


The "compassionate conservative" with "the new tone" has never had a spine when it comes to domestic policy issues. I voted for him twice because I'd much rather have this moderate Republican than either of the two buffoons Gore or Kerry, but it's simply not in this President's nature to put up a fight when the opposition gets vicious.

In my opinion, this is because he takes his Christian beliefs very seriously and prefers to turn the other cheek to those who strike him in the face.

I'm only voting for a presidential candidate in '08 who can convince me that he'll be willing and able to dispense to his enemies, foreign and domestic, a lot more hurt than they can give him.


8 posted on 03/13/2007 9:20:37 PM PDT by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

If that's accurate,then I'm wrong and he should have left.


9 posted on 03/13/2007 9:33:38 PM PDT by airborne (Airborne! Ranger! Vietnam Vet! That's why I support DUNCAN HUNTER 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Court Rejects Strict Gun Law as Unconstitutional

The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.

Ginsburg & Souter, who knew?

The Myth of Moderate Mullahs

The All-American Gun

Did you know that in New York City, through 1969 virtually all the public high schools had riflery teams?

Thousands of students carried their rifles on subways, buses and streets on their way to school, when they went to practice in the afternoon and on their way home. And until 1963, all commercial pilots were required to carry guns and were allowed to carry guns until 1987.

From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

10 posted on 03/13/2007 10:12:29 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; airborne
They all serve at the President's pleasure.....

Appointees and replacements in the Executive Branch aren't really subject for dispute beyond confirmation processes.
11 posted on 03/13/2007 10:23:23 PM PDT by BIGLOOK (Keelhauling is a sensible solution to mutiny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


12 posted on 03/13/2007 10:31:33 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Berosus; Cincinatus' Wife; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
Thanks ND.
President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing.

13 posted on 03/13/2007 10:32:19 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Sunday, March 11, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: airborne

Chuck Schumer didn't say boo when the Clinton's fired everyone but Chertoff.


14 posted on 03/13/2007 10:49:30 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

give me a gop candidate willing to take the mike and say 'i'm paying for this microphone' in response to 'rat attack and sycophant media shrieking

we've warned this tone deaf president repeatedly about failing to fire back in kind and win news cycles, but i conclude he is hopeless and a complete naive fool


15 posted on 03/13/2007 11:17:41 PM PDT by Enduring Freedom (what does al qaeda and bush have in common? caves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: airborne
I just don't get why this Administration keeps blinking every time a Dem challenges them.

Cowardice.

Someday a real Republican with stones will laugh in the scumbag liberal newsrooms' faces and then rub their noses in more of whatever got their panties in a bunch. Gonzales should have turned around and fired a few more US attorneys just for poops and giggles.

16 posted on 03/13/2007 11:24:28 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Merrit was a Clinton knee-padder. How does her statement that the attorneys should not be fired in '07 square with Schumer's call for Gonzales to resign? Shouldn't he have to wait till '09 when the new president is sworn in ?


17 posted on 03/13/2007 11:25:37 PM PDT by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just now, on the hourly news, my local (Sacramento) radio station announced Chuckie Schumer is complaining about the firings, and then added: "Former President Clinton fired all of the Attorneys General when he first took office." Nice to see at least a little of the other side of the story.


18 posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:55 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw

Oops. I meant "US Attorneys," not, of course, "Attorneys General." Our newly elected lamebrain moonbat AG Jerry Brown must be on my mind. Sorry.


19 posted on 03/13/2007 11:27:53 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I tried to post this info on Powerline ...to no avail

(if anyone can post it ...go ahead)


From Alb Journal:

Written by Bruce Daniels - ABQnewsSeeker
Friday, 09 March 2007
Pundit Fred Barnes finds nothing wrong with calling prosecutors about ongoing cases.

8:20am UPDATE: Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren White, an outspoken Republican, just got through with a phone interview with 770 KKOB Radio's morning show fill-in host Pat Frisch, telling Frisch and listeners that complaints about fired U.S. Attorney David Iglesias's performance had been circulating since at least 2004 and not from politicians, but from federal law enforcement officials (none of whom were named).

White also claimed that New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, who chaired Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Iglesias and other fired U.S. attorneys testified, was being hypocritical. Schumer, White said, had himself leaned on federal prosecutors early in the push to find whoever leaked the name of former CIA operative (and soon-to-be Santa Fe resident) Valerie Plame Wilson to the media.

http://www.abqjournal.com/abqnews/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2857&Itemid=2






20 posted on 03/13/2007 11:37:29 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: woofie

Sherrif Darren White should become the voice of reason for this story. He is really good


Attention Media Folks
Hannity,OReilly, Limbaugh


21 posted on 03/13/2007 11:40:53 PM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh brother ...


22 posted on 03/13/2007 11:44:54 PM PDT by zeaal (SPREAD TRUTH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
In my opinion, this is because he takes his Christian beliefs very seriously and prefers to turn the other cheek to those who strike him in the face.

You may be right. If that's the case then he is wrong. Whenever he doesn't stand up and shout the truth, he is committing a sin of omission by allowing a lie to stand.

23 posted on 03/13/2007 11:54:31 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IncPen; BartMan1

ping


24 posted on 03/14/2007 12:08:52 AM PDT by Nailbiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

It does not matter a whit what he does - the dems will just move on to another area where they can instill doubt in the president and his administration.

The dems have the media that carries the plan for them and we have never learned to fight back against the dems. We just jump on the bandwagon and complain about Bush.

So, all the while criticizing Bush we might just look at how we allow the dems to be corrupt without repercussions, allow them to tell our administration what must be done, allow them to make black white, allow them to tell us what words we can use.

We are idiots for not throwing these accusations, wherever they appear, right back at them and then ignore them. Same as they do to any of our complaints - ignore and do exactly what they want to do.

Will we ever, ever learn we are stronger when we work together in the party instead of continually eating our own under the guize of "pure conservatism" or, in reality, purely childish tirades to boost our own petty egos?

I would frankly like to see a few just stand up here and let the dems know - "back-off".


25 posted on 03/14/2007 1:06:30 AM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Oh puh-leaze. Even if Gonzalez did anything worthy of being fired, I wouldn't want to get rid of him with Harry Reid's filibuster-happy crowd in control of the Senate. They haven't yet voted on a replacement for John Bolton, have they?


26 posted on 03/14/2007 2:29:09 AM PDT by Berosus ("There is no beauty like Jerusalem, no wealth like Rome, no depravity like Arabia."--the Talmud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The real scandal is that NOBODY ever gets fired in the DC bureaucracy! The great Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, would famously demand of his managers that the cull out the lowest 10-20% of performer each year, arguing that there is always a bell-curve, and that there always are sub-par performers (by definition). Only in government bureaucracies does incompetence get rewarded again and again by that blind eye of neglect.


27 posted on 03/14/2007 5:10:58 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("Salvation is not free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
The great Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, would famously demand of his managers that the cull out the lowest 10-20% of performer each year.

My old firm did exactly that, and I'm sure we were not alone.

28 posted on 03/14/2007 6:30:04 AM PDT by Loyal Buckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Was it not Clinton who, in 1993, fired all but one U.S. Attorney--most appointed by Republicans? Where was the outcry then?


29 posted on 03/14/2007 6:36:43 AM PDT by boris (The deadliest weapon of mass destruction in history is a leftist with a word processor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
No modern president ever launched a more aggressive attack on a federal prosecutor than Bill Clinton did against Kenneth Starr. This was a 24/7 smear campaign designed to turn public opinion against Starr and subvert his investigation. It ptobably involved illegal acts such as leaking grand jury testimony and then accusing Starr of doing it.

What we have here is a handful of Republicans making requests for prosecutors to investigate allegions of election fraud, at a time when allegations of such fraud were very much in the air, on both sides. I don't know if that's proper or not, but it was hardly a full-scale, coordinated effort at "intimidation." And I would be amazed if no Democrat ever called a friendly prosecutor to try to get him to investigate this or that. In fact, knowing what I know of Democrats, it is unthinkable that they wouldn't have done that.

So where was Chuck Schumer when Clinton was waging war against Starr?
30 posted on 03/14/2007 7:22:17 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
"President Clinton, through Janet Reno, fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. They didn't call Clinton "Slick Willie" for nothing."

I'm seeing conflicting reports on this and I don't remember myself which is correct:

Did GWB also fire all (or most) US Atty's following is election or did he not?

31 posted on 03/14/2007 8:15:41 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: norton; Berosus

Dunno yet. Found this though:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZmMzQ5Zjg4ZGI1OTgxODA1OWM5YzFjYTRmYTlhNzk

"One of President Clinton’s very first official acts upon taking office in 1993 was to fire every United States attorney then serving — except one, Michael Chertoff, now Homeland Security secretary but then U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who was kept on only because a powerful New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bill Bradley, specifically requested his retention."


32 posted on 03/14/2007 8:34:27 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Sunday, March 11, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

you might be interested in this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=giuliani


33 posted on 03/14/2007 9:44:53 AM PDT by dervish (Remember Amalek)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
[Whenever he doesn't stand up and shout the truth, he is committing a sin of omission by allowing a lie to stand.]


I agree with this (and I know I'll make a few people angry by saying this) but too many Christians interpret the "turn the other cheek" lesson as an excuse to do nothing in the face of adversity. In W. Bush's case it means he allows greedy, corrupt politicians to win the day by not being more aggressive in his opposition to them, but it also happens that many "pacifists" stand by and allow genuine brutality against the innocent to take place while they shake their heads and tsk-tsk about how it's such a shame that things like that have to happen.
34 posted on 03/14/2007 10:08:28 AM PDT by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: norton
"Did GWB also fire all (or most) US Atty's following is election or did he not?"

It's customary for most attorneys to be replaced when there is a change of administration, and that happened under Bush as well as Clinton. What made the Clinton situation different is that they were fired all at once, in a very abrupt and peremtory manner. They were told to go - NOW. The usual situation is that the old attorneys are eased out over a period of months.
35 posted on 03/14/2007 12:21:17 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
My father-in-law(a liberal) just said that the clinton administration did not get rid of the US attorneys. Any help in refuting him will be greatly appreciated.
36 posted on 03/14/2007 12:24:56 PM PDT by KYGrandma (Kentucky girl who wants to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Hope that you don't mind the late reply.

The dems have the media that carries the plan for them and we have never learned to fight back against the dems.

Reagan never seemed to have that problem, did he.

37 posted on 03/14/2007 10:44:59 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
but too many Christians interpret the "turn the other cheek" lesson as an excuse to do nothing in the face of adversity.

I certainly agree with that!

38 posted on 03/14/2007 10:46:45 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I found this little exchange at NPR (it doesn't matter who, just a couple of pant stains posing as NPR journalists). I just marvel at the amount of shit these guys can shovel and not gag on the stench.




How unusual is it for a U.S. attorney to be fired?

It's very unusual. Richard Nixon fired one when he was in office. [Jimmy] Carter fired a U.S. attorney who was making an investigation of a Democratic House member that he wanted to keep in office. Bill Clinton fired one. But it's really very rare for this to happen.

In this case it was eight attorneys.

That is close to unprecedented. … I did a book on the Justice Department, and I just have never seen something like this.

Now, that being said, when a president comes into office, historically, all the U.S. attorneys leave. And he appoints a new set of these individuals — there are about 90 of them.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8356415


I guess we're supposed to learn from this exchange that when Bill Clinton came into office and all 93 U.S. attorneys abruptly cleaned out their offices and left at the same time to be replaced by a new set of individuals it was NOT because they were FIRED by the new administration. No, of course not. They just LEFT. Because that's what HISTORICALLY happens. ALL the U.S. attorneys JUST LEAVE. On their OWN. For NO REASON!


Pardon me if I sound a little bit incredulous.


39 posted on 03/15/2007 12:29:10 AM PDT by spinestein (There is no pile of pennies so large that I won't throw two more on top.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KYGrandma

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v50/ai_21123146


40 posted on 03/15/2007 8:22:11 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (I last updated my profile on Sunday, March 11, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Oh yes he did.

In fact, I tended to believe the media that he was merely an empty suit led by those around him. I did not have a clue that he was religious. I remember hearing that he slept through meetings.

In those days, I was not "into" politics - I learned from the sound bytes in the media. So, I never knew until much later that a great president had occupied the office.
41 posted on 03/21/2007 11:30:04 AM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

I wasn't into politics much in those days either but Reagan was known as The Great Communicator. If you Google it you get Reagan tributes.


42 posted on 03/21/2007 12:14:46 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
The press did try to muzzle Reagan but he wouldn't let them. So they tried making him look a fool saying he fell asleep in meetimgs. He went on camera and said: "I've laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it's in the middle of a Cabinet meeting."
Reagan was much more visible and verbal than Bush.
43 posted on 03/21/2007 12:25:18 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Well, that is that. Reagan is gone.

We have a George Bush and I am thankful we had him as I can not imagine going through 9/11 with Al Gore.

We failed in not giving support to him and in not fighting the democrats each and every turn. So much easier to feel we are being conservative by threatening to withdraw support if Bush does not do............

We are a bunch of idiots who will never, ever be able to band together and fight. We are lazy, childish, and unrealistic.

And the democrats never give up - but, oh, we do. You see it was because Bush was not perfect - not anything to do with our laziness, childishness, and total inability to stand and fight.


44 posted on 03/21/2007 2:59:20 PM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
I can not imagine going through 9/11 with Al Gore.

Oh Lord! The very thought!

We failed in not giving support to him

WE?! Listen, GW palmed off the "Uniter" crap on people that trusted him. The voters. WE have been screaming since he let Clinton off the hook for trashing the WH. DON'T even go there.

45 posted on 03/21/2007 3:14:02 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

As I have said many times on here. If you want only to blame George Bush - go to DU.

I will not waste time giving you more and more opportunity to bash the only man in Washington doing anything FOR us. You don't complain about the congress, you don't complain or fight the democrats - you, in your superiority, choose only the cowardly, easy attacks on George Bush.

You are not needed here if that is your goal.


46 posted on 03/21/2007 3:16:29 PM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"we learn that President Bush told Attorney General Gonzales he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud invesitgations"

The Dems are really after Heather Wilson (R-New Mexico) and her compalaining about the US Attorney's office. There were a lot of irregularities in 2000, 2002, and 2006 in New Mexico. I don't believe the US Attorney ever moved on this, at least I never heard a thing about it, and I wondered why.

47 posted on 03/21/2007 3:24:56 PM PDT by cookcounty (Army Vet, Army Dad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ; Jim Robinson
You don't complain about the congress, you don't complain or fight the democrats - you, in your superiority, choose only the cowardly, easy attacks on George Bush.

And you know this how? That's some of the silliest crap that I've read in awhile. I wasn't elected President. Fighting Dems wasn't my job.

You are not needed here if that is your goal.

Last time I checked, JimRob runs FR.

48 posted on 03/21/2007 3:28:14 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ

AND, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. And no man is my god.


49 posted on 03/21/2007 3:29:28 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

And apparently your job is to trash George Bush while ignoring what is going on in our government.


50 posted on 03/21/2007 3:50:20 PM PDT by ClancyJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson