Cymbalta weight. Side effects of cymbalta. Cymbalta….

I’m not saying you can’t make a comparison, but if you are going to do so with any sort of intellectual honesty you must admit this is a key difference.

o.k., i’ll admit that it’s a key difference, but SO WHAT?? Bush is the CEO of the U.S. he can hire and fire the USA’s any time he wants to. Big deal if it’s someone he hired. if the guy’s not towing the line, get rid of ‘em. it’s what any good CEO of any decent corporation would do.

it’s not so much the fact Bush fired them, as it is his prerogative to do so, it’s how he did it.

So now it’s ok to call congressional hearings, fire the AG and other subordinates because of how something was done?? never mind if it was illegal, if the process pisses off the democrats, then by god almighty, CALL A HEARING!!

sheesh.

Jones Zemkophill on March 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Bush is so lost he is not capable of making a decision to find another Attorney General. That would require leadership. Well, maybe he could find one in Mexico as he thinks more of Mexicans than he does USA Citizens.

He should go. He couldn’t even defend himself! He kowtowed to the Left and he deserves to be thrown out.

TheBigOldDog on March 15, 2007 at 9:09 PM

You Know… I was going to say that there’s no reason for Gonzales to resign….

But I tell you what. When your AG can’t effectively defend his perfectly legitimate actions and make his opponents look like the fools they are…

Yeah. He really does need to go. There are Millions of Attorneys in the US. surely, Bush could find 1 Republican Attorney that is a good prosecutor, AND doesn’t take crap from his political enemies?

Girl, watch your thoughts/tendencies, for your own good.

Wade, there will be Fred Thompson. Cheer up. The alternative is Socialism.

Entelechy on March 16, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Hey girl: you’re not referring to the “thought police” are you? I thought this was what you folks accused my side of being? (Sorry for the torturous syntax…)

If this administration was a horse, you’d put it out of its misery.

honora on March 16, 2007 at 9:48 AM

Girl, watch your thoughts/tendencies, for your own good.

Wade, there will be Fred Thompson. Cheer up. The alternative is Socialism.

AAAaargh!

Remember when Rove was finished? Remember when Cheney was toast? Bush and Gonzales better grow some, and damn soon.

How about firing all of the remaining US attorneys named by Clinton, and do it tomorrow. Better yet, do it in the middle of the night. Bush’s reason? Schumer pisses him off.

Eat that Dems, you whining, ever-complaining, ever-investigating, pack of jackals.

[vent over]

fogw on March 15, 2007 at 10:02 PM

I remember when there were MEN in the republican party. Men with balls and testosterone. No more, just spineless ‘girlie men’. The party is a disgrace and learned nothing from the 2006 elections. Looks like we will be kissing the presidency goodbye in 2008. As if we have the presidency now. Bush should resign for the good of the party.

Agreed. But did Bush even say this? Nope, just lies and deception.

JaHerer22 on March 16, 2007 at 11:29 AM

It doesn’t matter what Mr. Bush or any conservative says. “How to please a Democrat” is an impossible task, therefore a futile one. The reverse probably just as true.

Usually? Who else has ever fired the lot of them? Ever? Is once usually in your vernacular?

Pablo on March 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Only every President ever. When a new President comes in all political appointees from SecDef to USA’s either resign or are fired.

“Because I felt like doing it” is sufficient explanation.

Pablo on March 16, 2007 at 10:57 AM

Agreed. But did Bush even say this? Nope, just lies and deception.

Usually? Who else has ever fired the lot of them? Ever? Is once usually in your vernacular?

Pablo on March 16, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Pablo: think this through. The USAs in place are Bush appointees. How do you think this happened? Bush replaced Clinton’s as Clinton replaced Bush 1′s. Reagan did the same thing. Patronage.

I, for one, will be happy to see this pathetic flunky’s public departure, although I wish it had been earlier at Dubya’s instigation and not at the heels of a slavoring Democrat lynch mob. His maladroit handling of the manufactured controversy suggests why he should never have been hired in the first place, and his sorry hide is not worth using up presidential capital to save.

Even if he didn’t have anything to hide, the way he went about it makes it look like he did.

“Because I felt like doing it” is sufficient explanation.

I mean it’s true, I’ll give you that much, but it’s hardly relevent. USA’s are political appointees and are usually change when the administration changes.

Usually? Who else has ever fired the lot of them? Ever? Is once usually in your vernacular?

pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Again you miss the basic point: Clinton fired all of Bush Sr.’s USA’s and hired his own; Bush fired his own USA’s.

Yes he has the right to do that, but it’s not exactly standard operating procedure and it’s bound to garner unwanted attention. Before you make any comparison you must acknowledge the difference between firing political appointees from the previous administration, and firing the appointees you yourself hired just a few years ago. I’m not saying you can’t make a comparison, but if you are going to do so with any sort of intellectual honesty you must admit this is a key difference.

And as honora said, it’s not so much the fact Bush fired them, as it is his prerogative to do so, it’s how he did it. Instead of just announcing he was replacing these USA’s because (insert focus-grouped reason here), he tried to be all sneaky and behind the scenes about it. Even if he didn’t have anything to hide, the way he went about it makes it look like he did.

JaHerer22,
And furthermore, what Reno did was very unusual. Instead of waiting for the resignations of the holdovers and then accepting them in a slow fashion (in order to not be disruptive), she fired them in one clean swoop. I think most people are just really upset that the MSM and the democrats have such a selective memory. It’s yet another reason for the distaste and distrust that many people have for the MSM and the democrat party – do as I say, not as I do. Typical democrat bullsh*t.

pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9:41 AM

I think you have it backwards–people weren’t upset that Reno fired everyone and parenthetically without a solid replacement plan/timetable–people accepted the firings as not that unusual when a new party takes over (at the end of the day, call it what it is: patronage); people were upset at the sloppy, ill-conceived manner in which it was carried out as you describe.

JaHerer22,
the USA’s serve at the will of the POTUS. It doesn’t really matter when they are fired. If they aren’t towing the party line, that’s reason enough. Sketchy or not.
pullingmyhairout on March 16, 2007 at 9

:

And if they had said as much from the get-go (well maybe not the towing the party line part, but just hey, we don’t have to give a reason) there would have been a minor flare-up (maybe). But no, this WH’s motto appears to be “never miss an opportunity to lie about stuff when the truth would be fine”.

Famous Casey Stengal line: “Doesn’t anybody here know how to play this game?” If this administration was a horse, you’d put it out of its misery.

This is just the next calculated distraction of the People for Democrats. With the Libby case (for all intents and purposes) is behind us and the media needs its next plate of red-meat-conspiracy to push against the White House so that they dont have to report on the piss poor ‘leadership’ of the Democrats. See, its not so terrible convoluted, its pretty easy to see and understand.

I mean it’s true, I’ll give you that much, but it’s hardly relevent. USA’s are political appointees and are usually change when the administration changes. When Clinton was elected he fired all of Bush Sr.’s USA’s and hired his own. Regan did the same thing, it’s common practice.

What’s not common is to fire your own USA’s simply because you feel they aren’t toeing the party line close enough. That is sketchy and that is why there is controversy.