Sometimes our government really makes me question their credibility. I mean, first they fire 8 US attorney's, ok, old news by now, but then President Bush comes out yesterday and says he will only allow questioning not under oath and with no transcripts. This is just one big scheme on Mr. Bush's political agenda. It's [cabbage] to put it bluntly.

They do this with every president nearly... its not a big deal :/.

Never mind that it was perfectly legal for Attorney General Gonzales to fire them and appoint new judges with Congress's approval. Never mind that the attorneys serve at the will of the President, and by extension, the Attorney General.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The primary charge is not that the dismissals were against the law (because they weren't), but that they were politically motivated. I find that ironic considering that this whole "scandal" seems to be a Democrat-majority Congress trying to stir up trouble for a Republican administration which several of them hate.

The primary charge is not that the dismissals were against the law (because they weren't), but that they were politically motivated. I find that ironic considering that this whole "scandal" seems to be a Democrat-majority Congress trying to stir up trouble for a Republican administration which several of them hate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democrats have obvious motivation for pursuing this... politics as usual, sadly. However, that doesn't mean they don't have a point. The emails that have been found make it look like they WERE politically motivated. Most of them had gotten excellent job reviews, and there was seemingly no reason for them to be fired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wasn't aware that Congress even needed the president's permission to interview people under oath. I was under the impression that Congress had the power to conduct this sort of thing by themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silly me... I thought we still had checks and balances. :wall:

TEHE UNDEROATH!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:-$

Sometimes our government really makes me question their credibility. I mean, first they fire 8 US attorney's, ok, old news by now, but then President Bush comes out yesterday and says he will only allow questioning not under oath and with no transcripts. This is just one big scheme on Mr. Bush's political agenda. It's [cabbage] to put it bluntly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything wrong in the United States that needs fixing and Democrats try to give Bush bad press over 8 attorney's being fired? You're playing right into this ridiculous mess. This isn't a scheme, this is Bush's way of saying, "quit playing games, you're being ridiculous."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who knows anything about political history realizes this is just a ploy by the Democrats to cause Bush more grief through the press. People like you who are clueless about politics play right into their hand.

And I'll have to agree with Intarweb there :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mostly democrats in congress = able to give bush bad press = bush looks real bad = republican party looks bad = democratic party looks better = Democrat pres. favored = D.P. elected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's all a pre-election scheme I tell ye :anxious:

Bush: Well, sure you can question them, as long as they can lie during the interview. Deal? Kthxbye (goes on vacation)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

Sometimes our government really makes me question their credibility. I mean, first they fire 8 US attorney's, ok, old news by now, but then President Bush comes out yesterday and says he will only allow questioning not under oath and with no transcripts. This is just one big scheme on Mr. Bush's political agenda. It's [cabbage] to put it bluntly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything wrong in the United States that needs fixing and Democrats try to give Bush bad press over 8 attorney's being fired? You're playing right into this ridiculous mess. This isn't a scheme, this is Bush's way of saying, "quit playing games, you're being ridiculous."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who knows anything about political history realizes this is just a ploy by the Democrats to cause Bush more grief through the press. People like you who are clueless about politics play right into their hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except that I am against Democrats and for Republicans. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not one of those impeach Bush 9/11 was an inside job people, I am simply upset over the fact Bush won't allow transcripts. If it's his way of sticking it to the man, well it's not very good, he'll just get criticized. The whole thing's blown out of proportion by the liberal media, but still it is a political agenda in my opinion.

Except that I am against Democrats and for Republicans. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say you were FOR either, I said your lack-of-knowledge concerning political history makes you buy into Democratic-anti-Bush propaganda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not one of those impeach Bush 9/11 was an inside job people, I am simply upset over the fact Bush won't allow transcripts. If it's his way of sticking it to the man, well it's not very good, he'll just get criticized. The whole thing's blown out of proportion by the liberal media, but still it is a political agenda in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is it a political agenda? The political agenda is the people being subpoenaed in the first place. This is Bush's way of saying, "Back off," because they are acting ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The reason you don't understand this is because you don't realize that attorneys are fired like this all the time. There is NO REASON for these people to be subpoenaed in the first place. Why wasn't this a big deal when Bill Clinton fired 92 attorneys? Because it is COMMON PRACTICE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no reason for them to be testifying at all, and so Bush is fighting back. It might not be the best PR move, but it certainly isn't an "agenda." If you knew anything about the political process and American history, you'd understand this. But then again, you think the President has veto powers over the Supreme Court so I should expect this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's the Democrats with the agenda here, but you're too blind with your anti-Bush rage to understand this.

The whole thing's blown out of proportion by the liberal media, but still it is a political agenda in my opinion.

 

 

 

You're one of the ones that are blowing this out of proportion. You talk about how they are doing it; look at what you're doing! You are so upset about something that you know nothing about, and it's ridiculous. How are you one to say what is and isn't political agenda, I mean, you are just a teenager after all, and you don't actually have a clue as to what is going on behind our goverment. In fact, everything that you know comes from the 'liberal media' that you were complaining about in your previous post. So please, less contradictions and rants. And try to at least know what you're talking about.

Hold it, none of you have mentioned this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pres. Clinton fired 93 attorneys just because of political gain and to have his own guys on. Sure, you'll never hear that on the left-wing media because they love Democrats. Also, Gonzolas fired those 8 attorneys because one wasn't doing his job and seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let's compare Clinton firing 93 attorneys and Gonzolas firing 8 attorneys for those who didn't get what I typed:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the fired 93 attorneys were doing their job right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the 8 fired attorneys were NOT doing their job right. However, seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There, I think I am the only guy who posted this :|

Hold it, none of you have mentioned this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pres. Clinton fired 93 attorneys just because of political gain and to have his own guys on. Sure, you'll never hear that on the left-wing media because they love Democrats. Also, Gonzolas fired those 8 attorneys because one wasn't doing his job and seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let's compare Clinton firing 93 attorneys and Gonzolas firing 8 attorneys for those who didn't get what I typed:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the fired 93 attorneys were doing their job right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the 8 fired attorneys were NOT doing their job right. However, seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There, I think I am the only guy who posted this :|

 

 

 

Yeah, I actually didn't know any of that. Source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard of it happening before though, so when I heard about this I just blew it off like every other time. I only posted to point out the contradictions and lack of knowledge coming from the Author of this topic.

well, after the FNC show Hannity's America pointed this out, I looked it up on the net (not Wikpedia as they covered up a bit of the important parts) and although I forgot which ones I found, pretty much, anybody majoring for history or wanting to should mention that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, any link I have will pretty much be conservative and won't be something that Liberals would pick up, (even then, I don't want to start any flame wars on one link as I don't remember that website.)

Political appointees can be fired at any time without any reason at all, it happens every election. They know their job can be thrown away in an instant before they get into it.

Hold it, none of you have mentioned this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pres. Clinton fired 93 attorneys just because of political gain and to have his own guys on. Sure, you'll never hear that on the left-wing media because they love Democrats. Also, Gonzolas fired those 8 attorneys because one wasn't doing his job and seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, let's compare Clinton firing 93 attorneys and Gonzolas firing 8 attorneys for those who didn't get what I typed:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the fired 93 attorneys were doing their job right

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the 8 fired attorneys were NOT doing their job right. However, seven were corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There, I think I am the only guy who posted this :|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I did mention it. You just can't read.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political appointees can be fired at any time without any reason at all, it happens every election. They know their job can be thrown away in an instant before they get into it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Everyone on this board knows how the American political process works except for Vickie. You'll just have to excuse him for having no brain.

I'll have to agree with Intarweb there

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah. Everyone on this board knows how the American political process works except for Vickie. You'll just have to excuse him for having no brain.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's too caught up learning the Euro political processes ;)

other news about Attorney General Gonzales...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teen sex scandal ignored by AG, others for 2 years

 

 

 

Probe widened, involving hundreds of complaints of sexual abuse in system

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sgt. Brian Burzynski

 

 

 

The Texas juvenile justice sexual abuse scandal ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton are accused of failing to take action ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ is a broader scandal that was covered up for two years, involving hundreds of serious complaints and investigations against dozens of staff members, according to officials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Texas Youth Commission scandal went unnoticed, says Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski, despite his numerous attempts, beginning in early 2005, to get local, state and federal prosecutors to investigate allegations teachers, administrators and guards had sex with minor male inmates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burzynski exposed the situation March 8 in testimony to the Texas legislature's Joint Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC. He stated he began his investigation Feb. 23, 2005, after a phone call from a teacher at the West Texas state school in Pyote, Texas, alleging another teacher at the school was involved in sexual misconduct with boy inmates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In his testimony, Burzynski detailed being rebuffed by federal, state and local prosecutors for two years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burzynski presented a timeline asserting his investigation was, in turn, stonewalled by Ward County District Attorney Randall Reynolds, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All refused to prosecute, he claimed, despite being presented evidence of sexual abuse at the Pyote school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sutton also is under fire for decisions to prosecute two Border Patrol agents and Deputy Sheriff Gil Hernandez after the alleged intervention of the Mexican government. Gonzales faces heavy congressional pressure in the controversy over the recent forced resignations of eight U.S. attorneys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54882

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, both already under siege for other matters, are now being accused of failing to prosecute officers of the Texas Youth Commission after a Texas Ranger investigation documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the institution's teenage boy inmates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ray Brookins, one of the officials named in the report, was a Texas prison guard before being hired at the youth commission school. As a prison guard, Brookins had a history of disciplinary and petty criminal records dating back 21 years. He retained his job despite charges of using pornography on the job, including viewing nude photos of men and women on state computers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Texas Youth Comission controversy traces back to a criminal investigation conducted in 2005 by Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski. The investigation revealed key employees at the West Texas State School in Pyote, Texas, were systematically abusing youth inmates in their custody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=54861

So....any response, original thread starter?

So....any response, original thread starter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The media is powerful, no?

Sure....what does that have to do with this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were you i would look at the fact that the appointees made by the Bush administration are results of a piece of the Patriot Act that allows the President to appoint attorneys general without Senate confirmation (interim, of course), whereas I'm assuming the attorneys general replaced by the Clinton administration, prior to 2001 and the Patriot act, were confirmed by the Senate?

Sure....what does that have to do with this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were you i would look at the fact that the appointees made by the Bush administration are results of a piece of the Patriot Act that allows the President to appoint attorneys general without Senate confirmation (interim, of course), whereas I'm assuming the attorneys general replaced by the Clinton administration, prior to 2001 and the Patriot act, were confirmed by the Senate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's CNN"s phone number, enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(404) 878-2276

Don't you understand Chris? Vickie never does anything wrong. If he screws up or makes a mistake it's someone else's fault. This time poor little Vickie was taken advantage of by the big bad media. :cry:

 

Sure....what does that have to do with this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were you i would look at the fact that the appointees made by the Bush administration are results of a piece of the Patriot Act that allows the President to appoint attorneys general without Senate confirmation (interim, of course), whereas I'm assuming the attorneys general replaced by the Clinton administration, prior to 2001 and the Patriot act, were confirmed by the Senate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's CNN"s phone number, enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(404) 878-2276

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What on earth is up with your condescending attitude? YOU started the thread, and should at least have the courage to defend your original statements.