Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Charles Dean Hood — A Letter from Death Row
Authorware Error Message »

A Chronology of Faux Scandals

From the the sorest losers in American history

The reason I haven’t written a single word about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firing of eight United States Attorneys  is because it’s another faux scandal in a long line of such “scandals”.

The charge from the left is that these firings were “political”.

Well, of course they were. And so what? When Clinton had Reno fire all of 93 U.S. attorneys — those were political firings, too.
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and he is entitled to have in place prosecutors committed to his law enforcement priorities.

________

Don Surber — who by the way is celebrating his second Blogiversary today — has an excellent post with a chronology of faux scandals perpetuated and whipped-up into a frenzy by the NY Times:

The firing of a few will-and-pleasure employees by the Bush administration is routine. But it is another in a series of faux scandals dreamed up by desperate Democrats who are the sorest losers in American history.

It began with the lie that Bush somehow stole the election in Florida. Al Gore was allowed to drag this nation’s electoral process through the mud by an anti-Republican media, led by the oafs at the New York Times. An unprecedented recount by the media proved Bush won. It made the back pages of the Times.

He goes on to list the subsequent line of faux scandals, ending with:

In the ensuing years, the NYT has tried to stir controversy where none exists. That Plame “scandal” was a typical Times lie. Joe Wilson lied about being sent to Niger by Cheney.

Then the Times lied that the White House “outed” Wilson’s wife to silence him.

But it turned out a war opponent — Richard Armitage — outed Plame.

Where is the apology from the New York Times?

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Monday, May 21st, 2007 | Trackback |

6 Responses to “A Chronology of Faux Scandals”

What a depressing post.

No one complained when Bush replaced the entire slate of USAs for politics (the implementation of policy). But it crosses the line to fire them for politics (the demand to attack your opponents on trumped up charges.)

Over and over the common thread among the fired attorneys is that they decided there were not grounds to bring charges against Democrats.

Al Gore was allowed to drag this nation’s electoral process through the mud by an anti-Republican media, led by the oafs at the New York Times. An unprecedented recount by the media proved Bush won. It made the back pages of the Times.

Incidentally this quote is false- the newspapers determined that a full recount would have resulted in a Gore victory. More to the point: Is asking for a recount ‘dragging the electoral process through the mud?

Left by Preston on May 21st, 2007 at 8:55 pm

“Incidentally this quote is false- the newspapers determined that a full recount would have resulted in a Gore victory.”

You are mistaken Preston. Using the chad-gazing rules advocated by both Bush and Gore at the time, Bush won.

There exists a set of chad-gazing rules that lets Gore win, but neither Gore nor Bush, nor anyone else suggested it be used at the time. This hypothetical method was devised by the newspapers long after the fact to allow them to save just a little face.

And Preston, never forget that the only way Gore even comes close in 2000 is if you allow him to disenfranchise thousands of U.S. military members serving overseas. Thus ever do Democrats ’support the troops’.

Left by Jim Howard on May 21st, 2007 at 10:21 pm

If you count every vote- Gore wins.

Only if by ‘disenfranchise’ you mean ‘allow to vote after election day’.

Also ‘never forget’ that the only way Bush even comes close is that thousands of people- largely African American- were unlawfully purged from the voting rolls (though presumably-GOP-voting felons with hispanic names were kept on the rolls). Add to that the inequity of voting conditions - long lines and confusing ballots, blah blah blah: yeah, Bush kicked ass.

The newspapers wanted to ’save face’? Is that what you call reporting? Lord, I don’t know how to say this in a way so that it’s not construed as an attack on you personally- but you have a seriously conspiritorial worldview.

In any case, that’s all water under the bridge. But the suggestion that Gore was somehow cheating or undemocratic by wanting to count the votes using the procedures suggested by the manufacturers of the voting machines is simply too much. I’m pretty sick of partisanship that is virtually eliminationist. If the point of elections is to allow people to determine who will represent them why is it too much trouble to count the ballots?

Left by Preston on May 22nd, 2007 at 4:52 am

More to the point of the post, the US Attorney scandal is one of the most disturing misdeeds of the Bush administration (preemptive war on false pretenses is first, of course), but it doesn’t fit onto a bumper sticker.

The US Attorney’s office has always been a politically appointed office doing its work in a nonpartisan fashion. I’ve known most of the recent USAs here in the western district of Missouri, which is turning out to be one of the ugliest abuses by Gonzalez, and they’ve always been fine lawyers with political connections. Yes, that absolutely includes the republican administrations.

What the Bush did in the firing scandal is to seek political hacks who would do partisan work.

That is simply wrong - and one of the most destructive things he could do to our federal system of justice.

It appears now that Gonzalez won’t last much longer, and that is good. I can only hope his replacement has more respect for our judicial system than for partisan politics.

Left by Dan on May 22nd, 2007 at 6:37 am

I say throw Gonzales out. The incident with Ashcroft in the hospital goes beyond the pale.

Bush hung on to Rumsfeld. Where did that get him? Gonzales doesn’t appear much better.

I’m a conservative, but I don’t believe in defending that which is not defensible irregardless of my politics. In the same vein, the Dems should throw out Jefferson, investigate Feinstein and Pelosi for their personal profit from legislation, and the list goes on. But, will the Dems do it? No.

I’m fed up with all of them.

Left by dianne on May 22nd, 2007 at 7:05 am

if there was an unethical and illegal “demand to attack your opponents on trumped up charges”, where’s the proof?

shouldn’t a united states attorney know that it’s in their best interest to document such demands by their superiors? shit, they are some of the most accomplished and influential attorneys in our society.
shouldn’t this also be documented for the good of the public? i would love to see the ethics violation reports of these alleged demands. until i do, regardless of the reasons of the dismissals, i’m glad their gone.

here’s an idea: let’s argue about who won the 2000 presidential election! i still haven’t figured that out. preston, tell us more about the conspiracy that allowed bush to be declared president. did all those poor black people really endure long lines and confusing ballots? please further enlighten us more from your nonconspiritorial worldview.

Left by adam on May 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 am

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.