18 day e-mail gap

[ParanoiA]

I love how even CNN feels compelled to slip in the obvious disclaimer which should put to rest this entire mess: "The president has the right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys at will. "

 

But wouldn't you agree that the right to hire and fire at will does not grant elevation above the law? IE...If these firings do have something to do with stopping investigations to protect guilty republicans, shouldn't that be questioned and exposed?

 

I'm not saying that the democrats are legitimately pushing this mess, I think it's trumped up to continue the chaos theme. But, their motivations only matter to a certain extent. At some point the administration needs to prove themselves - whether they deserve to be obligated to or not. The checks and balances are legitimate, regardless of intent.

 

I don't think EVERYTHING is just anti-bush trashing, but things like this can make it appear that way.

 

I respectfully disagree. I do think it's mainly anti-bush policy. Because one thing I've learned about my country's government, politics and power trump all else. The war in Iraq, terrorism - all take second place to the power struggle. How is setting a timeline for withdrawl good for Iraq? How is that good for those poor people? How is stifling war funding good for our troops?

 

None of these decisions are good for anybody other than selfish democrats. Those in this country who don't care about the mess in Iraq want to pull out and leave them to fend for themselves...just like last time. Break their house down and then leave because we can't seem to fix it in a timely manner. What a noble position that is.

 

But that's not how it's described is it? No, no. It's described by using comparisons and "anti" ideology. We're going to stop Bush's war. We're going to pull out of Iraq and bring our soldiers back home. We're going to cut Bush's funding so he can't afford to wage war anymore. It's misdirection by using Bush as the polarization point. Instead of looking at the little people, the Iraqi common person just trying to get by in their newly war torn country courtesy of America - left to go rebuild it and fight for survival amidst the power struggle of brutal warloards and oppressive neighbors that we, again America, have left for them.

 

Kind of like how they want to "go after" corporations and big business (like Wal-Mart) here in America, while stepping on small business owners struggling to make it.

 

I believe much of the democrat agenda, and indeed much of the country, is content in anti-republican / anti-Bush agendas. Forget about the little people and the common man that used to be their focus - they can be stepped on as long as your sights are on countering conservatives.

[john5746]

I respectfully disagree. I do think it's mainly anti-bush policy. Because one thing I've learned about my country's government, politics and power trump all else. The war in Iraq, terrorism - all take second place to the power struggle. How is setting a timeline for withdrawl good for Iraq? How is that good for those poor people? How is stifling war funding good for our troops?

 

OK, so the Repubs are pro-Bush policy. They just want to save face, with blood of the troops? Just because you cannot see the logic in someone's actions does not mean they must be unethical.

 

I do not understand why Bush rushed into Iraq instead of finishing Afghanistan, but I don't think it was because of oil or Haliburton or payback for his dad.

 

Many of the politicians are sheep going with the crowd, but they do represent the people that voted for them and many ran on the idea of ending the Iraq war.

 

Who is our enemy? The shia? The sunni? Al-Queda? Who will be there 20 years from now? The shia and the sunni.

 

poor people of Iraq? What happened to "taking the fight over there, so it doesn't come over here" We want to keep them screwed up so we can attract all the terrorists(as if there is a fixed number) and wipe them out in Iraq.

[ParanoiA]

Many of the politicians are sheep going with the crowd, but they do represent the people that voted for them and many ran on the idea of ending the Iraq war.

 

Yes, I know, all of them ran against Bush, even though Bush wasn't running for anything.

 

Who is our enemy? The shia? The sunni? Al-Queda? Who will be there 20 years from now? The shia and the sunni.

 

And Al Queda. And Iran. And Syria or whoever else feels like nabbing a chunk of oil producing land with any half assed army at their disposal. These power junkies are justing waiting for you to leave. If you leave before Iraq has a formidable defense, then you have successfully ousted their leader and handed them over to a different tyrant. Great job. If you leave when they're ready, and listen to the experts on warfare, then they might have a fighting chance.

 

poor people of Iraq? What happened to "taking the fight over there, so it doesn't come over here" We want to keep them screwed up so we can attract all the terrorists(as if there is a fixed number) and wipe them out in Iraq.

 

Interesting. You chose the "anti" technique to reply to a question about the poor Iraqi people....making my point for me. Thanks.

 

See what I mean? The focus is on fighting Bush, proving the republicans and the administration wrong - NOT on doing what's right. Screw the Iraqi people right? When anybody asks about those poor victims, just redirect them and remind them that the republican technique was "taking the fight over there, so it doesn't come over here". That makes it ok to act just like GWB and friends and screw them over - and continue to ignore their plight that you have caused.

 

Gee...I'm so proud to be an american...

[Haezed]

But wouldn't you agree that the right to hire and fire at will does not grant elevation above the law? IE...If these firings do have something to do with stopping investigations to protect guilty republicans, shouldn't that be questioned and exposed?

 

I expect those investigations to continue. Does anyone know anything to the contrary?

 

I doubt this has anything to do with particular investigations. THe problem, I'd wager, is that they white house felt there was an anti republican bias that would be very correctable but for the left's media lap dogs.

[bascule]

I doubt this has anything to do with particular investigations. THe problem, I'd wager, is that they white house felt there was an anti republican bias

 

I'd wager the problem was a lack of pro-administration bias

[bascule]

That liberal digital rag Salon claims that Rove and other such as Abramoff communicated via 3rd party GOP controlled e-mail addresses. The contents of that e-mail were just sent to Congress:

 

http://ww1.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/03/29/attorney_firings/?source=whitelist

[Haezed]

I'd wager the problem was a lack of pro-administration bias

 

I'll wager these former Clinton appointees were pereceived as having an anti-republican bias.

[bascule]

I'll wager these former Clinton appointees were pereceived as having an anti-republican bias.

 

Unless I'm confused on the matter Bush appointed them all... as to whether Clinton did as well that's another point entirely, but unless I'm mistaken these people aren't exactly the result of Clinton's legacy, they have their positions presently thanks to Bush's appointments.