One more BTW or Ps., Clinton didn’t even fire all the USAs when he took office in 1993. From wikipedia:
“Chertoff was asked to stay in his position when the Clinton administration took office in 1993, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley; he was the only U.S. attorney not replaced. Chertoff stayed with the U.S. Attorney’s office until 1994, when he entered private practice, returning to Latham & Watkins as a partner.”
Yes, that’s the same Michael Chertoff who currently serves as Director of the Dept of Homeland Security. And, yes, I realize facts seldom are allowed to get in the way of neo-CON talking points.

TPs entire post and argument was pointless and lame evidence by the fact that firing USAs at the beginning of a presidential term is wrong to begin with. So why are you defending the premise of the entire thread? What is your opinion of Clinton firing all of the USAs at the beginning of his term?

I asked you to produce names of USAs dismissed midterm (ie. not at the beginning of) Clinton’s presidency; you have produced none and are now even bringing up an irrelevant (or in your favorite word, “BS”) argument about what Bush Sr. did. TP has not been talking here about four-year terms that spilled over into the next presidency, and you still don’t get it, do you? Which is why your argument is so lame and pointless.
BTW, Rostenkowski, if my memory is correct, nevertheless, spent some time in prison.
Unless you can tell us who the supposedly many USAs fired by Clinton midterm into his presidency (not spillovers from Bush Sr. in 1993) your argument remains a lame and pointless strawman.

“Ps. Your final sentence “The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did” really doesn’t make much sense.”

I know you don’t understand why TP’s argument is so lame.

Yeah, but some of those USAs were still in their four year term evidenced by the fact that Bush Sr. didn’t fire ALL of the USAs when he entered office. He was in for only four years. Clinton fired ALL of the USAs regardless of whether their terms were up.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784

“At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: “All those people are routinely replaced,” he told reporters, “and I have not done anything differently.” In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.”

Jay Stephens for example was just about to indict Dan Rostenkowski and his term was not up when Reno called for his resignation. There were new USAs brought on board by Bush Sr. in the middle of his term in office which means their terms wouldn’t have expired till after Clinton entered office.

Can you give any specific names or examples? From what I’ve read so far, Clinton only let them go at the beginning of his term, as did George Bush Sr., BTW. Unless you can provide some specific names/examples, your argument is, to use one of your favorite terms, BS. Also, BTW, “irate” is correctly spelled with only one “r.”
Ps. Your final sentence “The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did” really doesn’t make much sense.

“I even agree that “they should” be able to “continue as long as they want,” but that isn’t the main issue here and is something for further discussion at another time.”

Considering the whole stink here is that the USAs were fired midterm is why this whole argument about the timing and motives is total BS. The fact that so many here are trying to defend a BS tradition of clearing the deck when a new administration comes in as being totally appropriate and when another administration breaks from the “norm” they get all irrate about it. Many of the USAs WERE in the middle of their four year terms when Clinton let them go BTW. The only thing I am debating here is TPs lame attempt to justify other administrations actions while piling on others for the SAME thing the previous one did.

That’s exactly the point: the USAs fired by this administration had good reviews and shouldn’t have been given the boot before their 4-year term expired. I even agree that “they should” be able to “continue as long as they want,” but that isn’t the main issue here and is something for further discussion at another time.

Not familiar with that one lefty. Please elaborate.

“TP mentioned that it is common for new presidents to fire prosecutors at the beginning of their term–which is what both Clinton and Bush did. ”

Who cares if it was common? I don’t agree with it in Clinton’s case OR Bush’s case to “clear the deck”. The law however says that Bush had the legal authority to remove whenever he wants. This tradition of clearing the deck at the beginning of an administrations term is bunk. Clinton clearing out all of the USAs at the beginning of his term WAS purely political as a matter of fact.

“What Clinton didn’t do and Bush did do is fire them at some point into his presidency.”

So what? It’s OK to remove at the beginning of a term but not OK in the middle? You need to get the “timing of the firing” out of your system. The point is that if they are qualified they shouldn’t have to leave untill their 4 year term expires and even then, if they have good reviews, they should continue as long as they want. The USAs serve the American people. Hell judges get to serve for life why not USAs?

“In fact, it’s because Austin tends to be a fairly liberal college town…”

Unfortunately, but hey, it’s the capitol…where state government power rests. Liberal love it there.

“Who you got over there working on it?”

Various people.

“How long you figure it’s gonna take?”

It depends. Could be a year from now, maybe ten years from now.

“You ready to ratchet up your taxes to pay the bill?”

No problem but I don’t think you need to as much as you think. Make cuts elsewhere. There are MANY opportunities in the federal budget.

“How will we be able to tell they are ready?”

When they can function at a decent level economically and politically.

“Sunni or Shites gonna do the job?”

Both, I hope.

I get the feeling you would have rather those Iraqis just continue to twist in the wind like they did when Sadamm was in control. You are aware that his sons were worse the he was…don’t you? Another 30 years after Saddam was gone and his sons in control would have been alright with you?

Whatever LITTE man or boy? Whichever.

“It is a tradition that whatever political party is in office gets rid of all of the former party’s people (wherein it is within their purvue and legal).”

Why are you so hung up on tradition? Again if they got good job performance reviews from the DOJ why, other that PURE politics, would an incoming administration need to get rid of them?

“How many presidents keep all the “qualified” staff that was left over from the previous administration?”

Staff and USAs are just a little different.

“What Clinton did not do was to try to fire US Attorneys who weren’t doing his bidding. ”

Either Clinton did pay attention or those he appointed were doing his bidding. If he came across one that wasn’t investigating as he saw fit then he would have fired them and he did when one of the USAs, Jay Stephens, was very close to indicting then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Clinton should have left Stephens there to finish this very important job, but instead fired him along with all of the others in 1993. The fact the Ronstenkowski still was convicted is irrelevant…he should have kept him on to finish his job.

“Who does the Attorney General and all the US Attorneys work for?”

The American people in order to uphold the Constitution. So what does this have to do with “clearing the deck” of qualified people when a new administration enters office?