US Attorney Firings “Scandal”
I've stayed off this one. Today, however, the pinion Journal points out something that bears repeating. Yes, 8 US attorneys were removed by the administration of GW Bush.
The Clinton White House fired ALL 93 US attorneys. Every. single.One.
How does "World News with Charles Gibson" do it? For the fifth time in seven weeks, the ABC newscast the week before last drew the biggest audience on average (8.4 million) of the three network evening-news shows. Marveling at the newscast's ascendancy after two years of turmoil in ABC's anchor ranks, media observers tend to dwell on the unexpected old-shoe appeal of Mr. Gibson. But there may be another explanation. Facing up to the reality that, alas, many folks these days like to get their news from "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," ABC News has added comedy to the mix.
How else to explain those hilarious skits when Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos reports on the brouhaha over the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys while the proverbial elephant in the room is lurking just off-camera?
Mr. Stephanopoulos doesn't mention his own valuable expertise on the subject of fired federal prosecutors, the kind of expertise that might help place the current mess in context. Mr. Stephanopoulos was the Clinton White House communications director in 1993 when the Justice Department cleaned its slate of all 93 U.S. attorneys, and he was central to the administration's finessing of the episode–just the sort of insider experience, presumably, that prompted ABC News to hire Mr. Stephanopoulos fresh out of the White House in 1996.
And yet even when Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos engage in the sort of exploratory anchor-reporter chitchat that is a staple of network news nowadays, somehow the two manage not to crack up as they rake over the latest sinister developments in the fired-prosecutors "scandal" without acknowledging that one of the newsmen knows a good bit more than he lets on about how these things work.
Tough to keep a straight face on this latest "scandal", isn't it? I've seen a few left-wing bloggers try to explain why this action by Bush is different than the wholesale slaughter Clinton indulged it.
By syn, Monday, 2 April , 2007 @ 6:47 am
Yesterday on Fox with Mike Wallace Joe Biden attempted to explain the differnce between what CLinton did and what Bush did by stating that ‘the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President not the dictates of the President’.
I can’t keep a straight face when I think of how many Americans will buy Biden explanation.
By Bill Franklin, Monday, 2 April , 2007 @ 8:50 pm
Just to be clear, are you implying that Dubya didn’t “clean the slate” and fire all of the U.S. attorneys when he took office? Because you certainly make it sound like Clinton did something Dubya did not do. Clinton did what most Presidents do, *including Dubya* - clean slate when they first take office.
What is unusual in this case is that Dubya fired multiple attorneys that he put in place that weren’t playing ball.
And personally, I don’t have a problem with that at all.
But don’t try to make it that Clinton did something worse, because that is distorting the truth.
By Gaius, Monday, 2 April , 2007 @ 9:58 pm
No, Bill. The post is about the raging double standard - the press and the left are pushing this issue as if it has never, ever happened in the history of the entire universe.
Which is completely and utterly false.
That is the problem, here - and the point of the post.
Incidentally, what do you think of the continued “get Bush, no matter what” agenda and the complete failure of the Dems to get their campaign promises through - or very nearly so. Where is that minimum wage increase these days?
By Bill Franklin, Tuesday, 3 April , 2007 @ 3:49 pm
> the press and the left are pushing this issue as if > it has never, ever happened in the history of the
> entire universe. Which is completely and utterly
> false.
Nothing of this magnitude has happened before. As I said in my first post, most Presidents bring in their own U.S. attorneys. Clinton did, as did Dubya. Occasionally a President will let one of the US attorneys he brought on go during the course of his term. But letting go, what, 7 or 8 attorneys *is* unprecedented. To which I say- who cares?!? It’s fully within the power of the President to do it. There’s really no difference between letting 1 go or 10 go. A bad apple is a bad apple.
But lying under oath about the firings, as some believe Gonzales did, is a problem.
> what do you think of the continued
> “get Bush, no matter whatâ€
Considering how well the country did under the “get Clinton, no matter what” years, I’m all for it! It diverts energy from lawmakers taking my money and passing more useless laws.
> Where is that minimum wage increase these days?
Did it die? Thank heavens. Maybe someone picked up an Econ 101 book and (re)discovered the Laffer curve. More likely lawmakers are preoccupied with getting Dubya instead of passing more stupid laws. Whatever works.