Of course he did fire all of his at the beginning of of the first term as an "orderly transfer of power" according to the Bush transition team in January of 2001. Of course Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, did as well as part of an orderly transfer of power. You get power you get to appoint the executive branch... duh!
In 1993, the Republicans cried "FOUL! You fired all of our Reagan appointees! NO FAIR!" The Republicans of course were beginning to feel their oats and their turn as majority party was about to begin. The tables have turned and the irony is that Republicans are now using the tired old saw, "Blame Bill," to JUSTIFY the presidents new action.
"And as Arch-Pundit documents, the practice of replacing all U.S. attorneys at the start was customary even before the Reagan administration. What the Clinton administration did (that provoked such contrived outrage) was what every administration had been doing and is what the Bush 43 administration itself did back in 2001.
What none of those administrations did -- until now -- was cherry-pick a list of prosecutors to be fired in the middle of the administration for clearly political purposes and then lie to Congress (and the country) about what happened. Why -- when journalists hear the "Clinton-did-it-too" claim or the "there-is-nothing-wrong-with-firing-prosecutors" excuse -- are they so incapable of just pointing out these easily discovered facts?"
Read a complete and well documented version from Glen Greenwald HERE. (Scroll down to Monday March 19).
It's business as usual folks. Politics is the way the game of governance is played. Absolute loyalty to the Leader is the sole standard of excellence. The only qualification for employment that matters is party loyalty. Everyone who is not in the party is an enemy, to be vilified and marginalized. Folks, it's gotten so bad that the party is beginning to eat its own. How long until the next presidential election?
Update; March 21, 2007
Last night on "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart invited John Bolton to join him as a guest. Mr. Bolton's reasoned, passionate defense of "business as usual" made for an interesting bit of interplay. Mr. Bolton essentially stated clearly and unequivocally that Mr. Bush was supposed to find "sympathetic" partisans to fill the posts in his administration. Because Mr. Bush was duly elected by the people, his service to them required that he put in place his crony's, friends, "loyal Bushies," and partisan sympathizers. Mr. Bolton went on to say that President Bush is entitled to appoint whomever he needs to impliment his policies with complete loyalty. This is the validation of the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Only a radical idealogue could say this about effective governance. Only a radical could be so willing to marginalize "unbelievers." Only a radical could say that 36% is plenty of mandate for a validation of policy. Amazing!
Update again; March 21, 2007
This morning we are greeted with the news that President Bush will fight any attempt to require White House staffers to testify under oath to Congress, in essence hiding behind Executive Privilege. Again, because of bumbliing and stumbling, Mr. Bush's administration is playing fast and loose with one of the most important powers of the Executive Branch. Our president needs confidentiality in the Oval office as policies are being developed and implimented. The Executive Branch would be severely hampered if this confidentiality were compromised. Yet, in the case of the Gonzales 8, WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? Why not "man up" and just say, in the open, what they were doing! President Bush is probably correct in saying that there was nothing illegal done, so what's the problem? Simply stand up and say that these prosecutors just weren't loyal enough! Cowardice or Courage?
No comments:
Post a Comment