Just a quickie here from an insomniac that should be in bed. Lord knows why I'm not there. I have a beautiful wife there, a soft pillow, a hard side of the bed .... Yeah, I should be there, but for some odd reason I can't seem to shut the voices in my head off right now. So, I'm here for you -- our near and dear readers.
Hillary Clinton finally piped up about the attorneys being fired and calling this a pot-and-kettle moment is an understatement:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday blamed the Bush administration's fear of scandal for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals she said were virtually unprecedented.
The New York senator dismissed any comparison between the midterm firing of the federal prosecutors last fall with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband, Bill Clinton, took office in 1993.
"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.
True that an incoming president does have a prerogative to dispense with the old and bring in the new when they arrive in office. I'l give Senator Clinton that level of leeway, but I'll take issue with the idea of giving them a wide latitude. They operate at the behest of the president and the Dep[artment of Justice. If they're asigned to investigate what others believe to be crimes, their job is to investigate. For two atorneys in particular, that was their jhob. They were supposed to be investigating instances of voter fraud. One in New Mexico and one in Washington state. The Justice Department, along with the president, didn't feel that they were doing their jobs all that wel, and they were fired.
The difference, in Senator Clinton's eyes, is that they shouldn't have been fired. They should have been kept on board despite their seemingly apparent incompetance. That, folks, is the difference between the right and left.
We keep people on board based on merit and accomplishemtns. They keep them on, well, because they're doing their best. But what if their best isn't good enough. In other words, when do you cut them loose? Do you do it after they've already wasted time and money on an investigation that either isn't going anywhere or one they're dragging their feet on? Or, do you get rid of them when it becomes apparent that they're not doing their best.
If I don't give my employer 110% everyday, I'm going to get fired. They're not going to keep me around if I'm not giving my best. And I'm not going to hang my head, and accuse them of acting in a partisan fashion if they have a record of my paltry accomplishments. In addition, it should be noted in her husband's case that a couple of atorneys who were working on a case against him were fired, so I don't want to hear this BS out of her that these eight were fired so the Bush administration could avoid any sort of a scandal. They weren't investigating the administration. They were investigating supposed crimes committed.
They didn't do their jobs properly, and were caned for it. End of story. Senator Clinton, and her colleagues on the Left ought to simply keep quiet about this. There was no scandal in these firings. There was no partisan purpose for the firings. They were done solely on merit; merit that was apparently lacking. Blame Gonzales, Miers, or the president if you want, but please quit making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's just not a fitting comparison to the 93 attorneys fired in 1993 based on the incoming president's prerogative.
Publius II
Hillary Clinton finally piped up about the attorneys being fired and calling this a pot-and-kettle moment is an understatement:
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday blamed the Bush administration's fear of scandal for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, dismissals she said were virtually unprecedented.
The New York senator dismissed any comparison between the midterm firing of the federal prosecutors last fall with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband, Bill Clinton, took office in 1993.
"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Once U.S. attorneys are confirmed, they should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit, she said.
True that an incoming president does have a prerogative to dispense with the old and bring in the new when they arrive in office. I'l give Senator Clinton that level of leeway, but I'll take issue with the idea of giving them a wide latitude. They operate at the behest of the president and the Dep[artment of Justice. If they're asigned to investigate what others believe to be crimes, their job is to investigate. For two atorneys in particular, that was their jhob. They were supposed to be investigating instances of voter fraud. One in New Mexico and one in Washington state. The Justice Department, along with the president, didn't feel that they were doing their jobs all that wel, and they were fired.
The difference, in Senator Clinton's eyes, is that they shouldn't have been fired. They should have been kept on board despite their seemingly apparent incompetance. That, folks, is the difference between the right and left.
We keep people on board based on merit and accomplishemtns. They keep them on, well, because they're doing their best. But what if their best isn't good enough. In other words, when do you cut them loose? Do you do it after they've already wasted time and money on an investigation that either isn't going anywhere or one they're dragging their feet on? Or, do you get rid of them when it becomes apparent that they're not doing their best.
If I don't give my employer 110% everyday, I'm going to get fired. They're not going to keep me around if I'm not giving my best. And I'm not going to hang my head, and accuse them of acting in a partisan fashion if they have a record of my paltry accomplishments. In addition, it should be noted in her husband's case that a couple of atorneys who were working on a case against him were fired, so I don't want to hear this BS out of her that these eight were fired so the Bush administration could avoid any sort of a scandal. They weren't investigating the administration. They were investigating supposed crimes committed.
They didn't do their jobs properly, and were caned for it. End of story. Senator Clinton, and her colleagues on the Left ought to simply keep quiet about this. There was no scandal in these firings. There was no partisan purpose for the firings. They were done solely on merit; merit that was apparently lacking. Blame Gonzales, Miers, or the president if you want, but please quit making a mountain out of a mole hill. It's just not a fitting comparison to the 93 attorneys fired in 1993 based on the incoming president's prerogative.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home