IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Clinton replaced them all at the BEGINNING of his first term
-- just like Bush ALSO DID, at the beginning of HIS first term.

Sure, they "serve at the president's pleasure", yadda yadda... AFAICS, yes, that means they *are* political appointments -- in the sense that you want people with generally sound viewpoints there to begin with. But they're appointments to *a-political* positions; a bit like their direct boss, the Attorney General, they're supposed to be *U.S.* attorneys first, not the White House's or currrent administration's.

So if Bush starts screwing around, in the middle of his second term (and using the convenient "bypass Congressional confirmation" provision tucked into the otherwise unrelated Patriot Act, under the pretext of being for terrierist emergencies), with a *selected* bunch of them (who just "happen" to have nailed crooked Republicans / failed to nail Democrats that the Republicans would have liked to have been crooked), that kind of looks the *teensiest* bit as if his problem isn't with their "generally sound viewpoints" -- they already were politically vetted back when he appointed them -- but with the fact that they're applying them in a non-partisan manner, looking only to uphold the law regardless of party politics.

You know, like they -- and their direct boss, the Attorney General -- are *supposed* to do. (And the "performance" ruse they tried for a while doesn't cut it either -- if anything, these guys are apparently getting fired because they performed *too well*.)

How the heck is that NOT a scandal; and how the fuck can you be so wilfully blind as to not SEE that it is? But no -- you have to go and play the [link|http://idrewthis.org/d/20051103.html| Clinton card] again.

Sheesh.


   [link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
New I guess everyone else read the archives, too
===

Kip Hawley is still an idiot.

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
New Im at August 14 last year. I'll catch up, then go to bed :-)
     US Attorneys being fired? - (static) - (36)
         Seems to be holding up - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
             Josh Marshall has been on this for a while now. - (Silverlock) - (2)
                 In today's dead-tree Milw. Journal-Sentinel - (jb4)
                 A decent apology to Josh from Time's DC bureau chief - (rcareaga)
             new insight into the issue - (boxley) - (3)
                 I don't think it's happend this late in a term before... - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Along with the fact - (lincoln)
                 This is different - they were threatened - (tuberculosis)
             There's something I can't help thinking. - (static) - (2)
                 Re: There's something I can't help thinking. - (JayMehaffey)
                 The press is no longer fully complicit - (tuberculosis)
         Washington Post blog series about Gonzales. Part 1 of 4. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             Same as the former CO at Walter Reed - (drewk) - (5)
                 Y'know what that sounds like? - (static) - (4)
                     Nah, I don't think that was quite DrooK's point. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                         "The past exonerative" - (Another Scott)
                         [dup] -NT - (static)
                         Fine distinction, there. - (static)
         DOJ plan to appoint replacements without Sen. confirmation - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Once again, it's the imperial presidency and un-American! -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         This is all pretty darned funny - (bepatient) - (15)
             Stay tuned. Well that didn't take long. Perjury, anyone? - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 So they should have replaced all 93 for the 2nd term - (bepatient) - (2)
                     No. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         Impeach him then. - (bepatient)
             Clinton replaced them all at the BEGINNING of his first term - (CRConrad) - (2)
                 I guess everyone else read the archives, too -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                     Im at August 14 last year. I'll catch up, then go to bed :-) -NT - (CRConrad)
             You missed my point. - (static)
             The inane "Clinton did it too" defense - (lincoln) - (4)
                 the height of intellectual dishonesty == Repo.SOP() - (jb4) - (3)
                     Yeah. What I don't get... - (CRConrad) - (2)
                         My take (FWIW) - (jb4) - (1)
                             It isn't really worth that much. - (bepatient)
             Justice Dept. Would Have Kept 'Loyal' Prosecutors - (lincoln) - (1)
                 #278282. :-) - (Another Scott)

Hail Eris.
188 ms