Right-wing hypocrisy on prosecutor purge.
By on Mar 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Right-wing hypocrisy on prosecutor purge.
Glenn Greenwald: “Republicans sought in 1993 to depict the routine and standard replacement of U.S. attorneys by the Clinton administration as some sort of grave scandal which threatened prosecutorial independence and was deeply corrupt. Yet now, people like The Wall St. Journal’s Paul Gigot — one of the most vocal critics of the 1993 U.S. attorneys replacement — insist that the President has the absolute right to fire any U.S. attorneys at any time and for any reason.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Criticism is well within the First Amendment, but did Paul Gigot call for their resignations or impeachment?
March 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pmso can we call the little f**ker out on it then??
March 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pmNeoCons = Hypocrites R Us
March 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pmThe left in full desperation. I can only believe that the dismal protest weekend has them all upset. The fact remains the President of the United States, whether they be the corrupt Clinton or the heroic George W. Bush can fire any member of the executive branch at any time for any reason.
Don’t be so down moonbats, maybe someone will show up at your next protest.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pmRight wing, hypocrisy? Say it ain’t so. Say it ain’t so.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:52 pmJake sez:
As usual, Jake, your comment is irrational. Are you seriously attempting to make the case that calling for the resignation or impeachment of an elected official is not protected speech?
Please explain your point (assuming you do, in fact, have one).
March 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pmwe need to get rove under subpoena… rove is a political operative, working inside the white house, paid for by taxpayers’ money… by all rights, he should be over at the republican headquarters, paid by republican money… if he doesn’t respond to the subpoena, hold him in contempt of congress and incarcerate his ass…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
March 19th, 2007 at 12:54 pmIf the choice is between power and hypocracy, the right wing always chooses the former.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pmAnd Patrick(army of 1), hows the bootlicking going, comrade?
Hypocrisy. That is the word that best describes the righties with their phony outrafe and faux victimization complex
March 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pmPatrick1,
I already posted your comment of the day for you on the Think Fast thread (see #17), so shut up and get out of here. You have nothing further to say.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmor the heroic George W. Bush Patrick1
UHHHHHHHHH Patrick……………
Tell me again why Dubya going AWOL fron his NG unit which kept himf from going to Vietnam was heroic?? And what else has that Scumbag EVER done that was heroic, except get a lot of people killed and maimed for power and money?
Can’t wait to hear your response to this one!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 12:56 pmthis is nothing spectacularly new.It falls into the same do-as-i-say-not-as-i-persecute flavor to it that the redudlicans have had for decades. Just like Cheney curdling Wolf’s milk for asking about his gay daughter, whilst the Reduds continually smash’n'bash on da gays…
March 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pmGigot… isn’t that, er, um FRENCH ?!? gasp!
March 19th, 2007 at 12:58 pmGeorge W. Bush believes the United States of America deserves to be defended against the Islamo Fascists who attacked at will under the liberal Clinton years and their current allies in the American left.
That makes him heroic.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThe corrupt and ignorant can say anything they want. It doesn’t make it right or legal. Just as a lawyer can be disbarred for illegal practice, so should media be held accountable for promoting propaganda. Freedom of speech and press does not mean freedom to promote hate and falsehood.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pmPatrick1 sez: “The left in full desperation”.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:03 pmAfter taking control of the House and the Senate, and with President’s favorables in the low 30s, the only desperation is from you and the other moronic trolls on this site.
Nice work on Glenn Greenwald’s part digging up all those quotes of outrage. Do the Republicans really not understand that stuff like this will come back to haunt them? They seem to be operating under the belief that no one will keep any record of what they write or say, so that when it becomes politically expedient to say just the opposite, they can do so freely.
Of course, the MSM is painfully unwilling to pick up on the hypocrisy, just as they have failed over and over to remind their audience of the Republican hypocrisy over criticizing the Commander in Chief. Bosnia? Huh, what? Never heard of it.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pmOf course the right-wing quickly moved on when Vince Foster turned up dead in a corn field. Suddenly, there were bigger scandals to fry.
Note to radical left-wing: Democrats do not have the balls to cut funding for the war or impeach the President. Leaky Leahy might subponea, but the White House will claim executive and the Supreme Court will uphold. It must SUCK knowing Bush is going to complete his term.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:05 pmTripMaster Monkey:
I am seriously attempting to make the case that if Gigot did not call for resignations or impeachment (all protected speech, which Gigot has not stated otherwise) then he is not a hypocrite — did you even read the thread title?
VerbalKint:
I’m not going anywhere since I have never stated “Two wrongs make a right.” My argument is that Clinton had the absolute right to fire any U.S. Attorneys at any time and for any reason, and Bush has that same right. Keep bringing up my name in vain though — makes my job easier.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pmHow did that Senate vote go last week “Mr. Control”?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:07 pm#20- About as well as the House vote went, “Mr. Pimple-popper”.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:12 pmGeorge W. Bush believes the United States of America deserves to be defended against the Islamo Fascists who attacked at will under the liberal Clinton years and their current allies in the American left. Patrick1
And tell me again what Iraq had to do with any of this? Why didn’t he go after OBL and still go after him instead of illegally invading a different country? Maybe because there was no oil there?
And how are you defending his Vietnam dodging issue?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pmIncredible, the author of this article must have not realized that by pointing to the hypocrisy of the Republicans, he was also pointing out to the hypocrisy of the Democrats!
In 1993, it was Clinton and his cronies the ones that defended vehemenly the firing of the attorney generals, Democrats and the media also defended it. Today, they attack it, just like Republicans attacked it in 1993.
so the conclusion to all this? BOTH PARTIES ARE HYPOCRITES, BOTH!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:17 pmJake, You have stated that no one on the right made a fuss about it when Clinton did it.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pmthis is as politicized as it was back in 1993. Republicans are being bitten by the same tactics that they used on Clinton back in 1993.
what is surprising, well not really, is that Democrats promised to not use the same dirty politics that Republicans had used on them. The sad thing is that many Americans believed them.
Once again, both parties are being huge hypocrites on this matter.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:20 pmGeorge W. Bush believes the United States of America deserves to be defended against the Islamo Fascists
Two words assbite.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pmTora Bora.
Iraq was a supporter under Saddam of the international terrorist network. allowed Al Qaeda to operate in the country and gave medical aid to Al Qaeda members. He was in pursuit of WMDs and ignored countless of the left’s beloved UN resolutions, and now he is dead.
Good.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pmupside00,
can you please explain how it was illegal for President Bush to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein?
Just remember that under the United Nations, Gulf War I never, ever ended. Just like the Korean War has never ended. A truce was signed by both sides, but no peace treaty was ever signed. Thus, if you argue purely on international law, the Iraq War of 2003 was just an extension of Gulf War I back in 1990.
furthermore, if you look at the details of the truce between the UN and Iraq it clearly states what Saddam had to do in order for this truce to stay in place. Stop human right violations, that by all accounts from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were as bad as to what is going on in Darfur today. No WMD weapons or programs. No missles that could reach Israel, Europe, etc. etc, etc, etc….
We all know that Hussein violated the human rights of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqis, we know that he had missles that were illegal according to the UN truce….WMDs, still a question of whether he had them or not. But for the sake of argument let us say he didn’t have them….Clinton ordered American troops into Kosovo for a lot less.
so, once again, how is it illegal?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:26 pmFurthermore, Iraq had become a huge training ground for terrorist. Hussein was funding Palestinian terrorists. All in clear violation of the truce signed with the UN back at the end of Gulf War I.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#27 Patrick - And you REALLY believe all that NeoCon Bullsh#t? You and the rest of the 29%ers are truly deluded! Anything to justify this illegal action. Things must be getting desperate.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:28 pm#30 – Of course they do – they’re fundies.
The ever-gullible and faithful followers
March 19th, 2007 at 1:36 pmThey are much like puppets on a string
Blind faith loses all the power of reason
And gains the ability to justify anything
I’d like to take alla you trolls huntin’, if ya know what I mean.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pmEvilpoet, you describe well the moonbats on the left…..
March 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pmgoose1:
You have stated that no one on the right made a fuss about it when Clinton did it.
Prove it. What I said is that no one resigned or was impeached over it back when the Democrats did it.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:44 pmwhat’s your previous name howsad? can you spell sockpuppet?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:45 pmhowsad – It’s all about perspective. Both sides think that poem is meant for the other.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:49 pmProve it. What I said is that no one resigned or was impeached over it back when the Democrats did it. Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Ah, Jake’ing all over yourself again today, with hair-splitting and *weasel-words*? You’re such a wimpy little loser!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#14
George W. Bush is IN BUSINESS and IN BED with the ISLAMOFASCISTS!
Bush and Cheney REFUSED to testfiy UNDER OATH to the 9/11 Commission, which they resisted forming for over a year…
They REFUSED to SWEAR TO GOD TO TELL THE TRUTH about their involvement with 9/11 and the Bid Ladens.
TRAITOR Bush is a MURDERER coxucker PUNK, and this includes Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc.
along with you Nazi azzhole-lickers.
May you ALL BURN IN HELL for your MURDER, LIES, TORTURE, and THIEVERY (think Halliburton, for ONE…)
God Bless America, the Democrats, and the WORLD!
March 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pmPatrick: you may want to review the news in 2001. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. The worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in America’s history and Bush ignored the warnings and continued to read a children’s book after being told “The United States in under attack.”
Bush is not heroic. He is an incompetent coward.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pmShocker
The Repugs attempted to make a political show Trial out of the Clinton purge did like the Dems are doing today. It is sad how both parties use this stuff for political gain. Maybe if both parties are so upset about this stuff they should change the law because currently purging poltical appointees is perfectly legal regardless of the reason. Hell, an administration can purge them for no reason at all which is what Clinton did. This stuff has happened throughout the history of America and the opposition party never fails to try and make political points out of it. I guess political points is all you can score when what happened was perfectly within the rights of a sitting president.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:55 pmSHOCKER! Roger_roger distorts again!!
It’s not about the FIRINGS!
It’s the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by Gonzales and TRAITOR Bush,
March 19th, 2007 at 1:58 pmSTUPID!!!!
Furthermore, TP is suggesting the repugs that think nothing went wrong in this situation are hypocrits because they went after Clinton for doing the same thing. I agree with TP but I am confused as to why TP calls them hypocrits. To do that would be suggesting that the repugs were correct in going after Clinton and are incorrect for backing Bush. I thought the TP cover story for this poltical show trial was that Clinton had the right to purge political appointees while Bush has no right to purge political appointees.
If you want to claim that Bush did it to stop investigations of Bush’s friends you can, but I can name US attorney’s that got purged while they were investigating Clinton’s buddies. Now I am not defending either side here. I think both are stinky, but I also think this is currently not a story as both men did something perfectly legal and within their rights. This is a poltical show trial (just like what the repugs did) because they start the investigation fully knowing it is impossible for a crime to have occured.
I look at this as a waste of time when we have so many important pressing situations the Dems could be handling. Global warming is the world’s largest looming problem and all they have done so far is set up a committee. The Iraq war is supposedly a big problem and is killing Americans and the Dems brush it off and even vote to support and extend it. Seems like they are putting little time and focus to the “big” problems while focusing on these political show trials. At least investigate stuff you have some confidence in that a crime was committed. Investigating stuff you know was perfectly legal is a scary waste of tax payer money and time.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:20 pm#41 THe new political appointee can certainly pick up where the old attorney left off. There is no reason these investigation cannot continue. Of course, Bush is perfectly free to purge them again. Maybe congress should focus on changing the law instead of looking for poltical points while ignoring how to fix this?
March 19th, 2007 at 2:21 pm#29 Howsad:
Furthermore, Iraq had become a huge training ground for terrorist.
Typo there. Should be “has”. Quite right. As Dubya said, “Mission accomplished”. Well done, George.
Cheers,
March 19th, 2007 at 3:36 pmLet me just update that a bit:
Same shit, different smell. Only political hacks like Greenwald and the team at Think Progress think they’re fooling anyone by pretending to be above hypocrisy.
Regardless of what Gigot or Greenwald say, the President has the absolute right to fire any US attorney at any time for any reason. Thus, again, for Greenwald and Think Progress to pretend otherwise shows how incredibly dishonest and hypocritical they are.
It’s in the same league of hypocrisy as pretending that all of a sudden the appointment of US attorneys is not political.
Instead of a discussion about whether or not the system should be this way, the complete retards at Think Progress and the Left are just hypocritically attacking their favorite piñata, Bush, with it.
How about a discussion on how we can take the politics out of US attorney appointments? How about a discussion on the way in which these attorneys are to be hired and dismissed?
No, no, no, that would be too intellectually honest and would actually require reflected thought, two things that are incongruent with Think Progress.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmWow. I agree with Lucifer. Maybe I’d better stop posting.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pmPaul Gigot is a joke.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pmWow. I agree with Lucifer. Maybe I’d better stop posting.
Comment by Jake — March 19, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Wow. Maybe Lucifer is paid to post. After all, no sane intelligent person can really believe the crap he writes.
March 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pm#48 You see, it isn’t about believing or not believing. He simply posted that Bush has the legal right to fire them anytime he wants for any reason he wants. That point isn’t something we can argue about, its fact. #45 Actually has another good point. TP why not have a solid post with some idea’s of how to change the system to take the poltics out of these positions? They are currently political appointments. Would you rather continue this BS story even though most the USA public can see right through it? You can talk about it for days, but once the simple fact comes out that this was all legal, the story becomes uninteresting other then the fact it shows the Dems wasting time.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pmAs usual, the rightwingers like Gigot think their farts don’t stink.
March 19th, 2007 at 5:42 pmEverything a democrat does is suspect, questioned, challenged – but anything a rethug does is well within their rights as sanctimonious, self-righteous snobs who have God on their side.
Isn’t the point of the matter that Bush removed his own appointed attorneys for political purposes?
March 19th, 2007 at 5:49 pmThey serve at the pleasure of the president, all right, but as judges, they are to be apolitical – and judge cases on their merits. So to fire Lam because she had prosecuted Cunningham, and was prepared to investigate Foggo and any connection he had to Cunningham (and the White House) was political and an obstruction of justice.
To remove a well-qualified and highly rated attorney in AR, in order to make room for a political operative who has no courtroom experience, but has spent his legal career as an aide to Rove in researching law for the RNC is also a political maneuver and worthy of investigation.
This is a matter of the RNC believing they can accuse Clinton of mismanagement (when what he did has long precedent) and denying the Dems to investigate Bush for what has no precedent and may be illegal.
Marie,
They serve at the pleasure of the president, all right, but as judges, they are to be apolitical – and judge cases on their merits.
Were you born yesterday, or does your hair just naturally look like that?
This is a matter of the RNC believing they can accuse Clinton of mismanagement (when what he did has long precedent) and denying the Dems to investigate Bush for what has no precedent and may be illegal.
The RNC was full of shit then, the DNC is full of shit now. Figure it out. On what basis do you claim that this “may be illegal”? There is zero basis for that politically convenient notion, one taught to you by your DNC puppet-masters here at Think Progress.
Do you seriously think that Cunningham and Foggo are going to walk? No, they aren’t. For all you know, the new attorney might be even tougher on them.
Either you fight to change the system or you play political parlor games with Think Progress. Take a choice and stop being a dupe.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:03 pmYou don’t think aattempted obstruction of justice is illegal?
March 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pmThe RNC investigated Clinton for what was a well-accepted practice- yet they cry foul when Bush is accused of varying that practice for political gain.
Lucifer, do you always sprout a tail or only when you come here?
Iraq was a supporter under Saddam of the international terrorist network. allowed Al Qaeda to operate in the country and gave medical aid to Al Qaeda members. He was in pursuit of WMDs and ignored countless of the left’s beloved UN resolutions, and now he is dead.
Good.
Comment by Patrick1 — March 19, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Ummmm…no.
In early to mid 2001 both Colin Powell and Condi Rice said that Iraq was contained, they were not a threat to their neighbors nor to the U.S., the sanctions were working, and Iraq did not have the capacity to restart any WMD programs, including producing nuclear weapons. Powell said the sanctions had been reworked to make sure they remained effective.
The Bush administration didn’t make tracking terrorists a top priority when the came into office. They didn’t even have a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until Sept., right before the 9/11 attack.
Tell us, oh Patrick1, what Bush did to punish Osama when it was revealed that his terrorist group was responsible for bombing the U.S.S. Cole. Not a g*d damned thing.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:29 pmComment by howsad — March 19, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Please see my response to Patrick1.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm#41 THe new political appointee can certainly pick up where the old attorney left off. There is no reason these investigation cannot continue. Of course, Bush is perfectly free to purge them again. Maybe congress should focus on changing the law instead of looking for poltical points while ignoring how to fix this?
Comment by Roger_Roger — March 19, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
But did the new appointees pick up any investigations in progress? If they did, the WH certainly isn’t taking advantage of that news and putting to rest the accusations of obstruction of justice.
One of the fired attorneys has already called out Bush for lying about performance issues with the 8 attorneys. It’s under the Cummins thread from a few days ago if you dare to go read it.
Apparently you think it’s just fine for all attorneys appointed by a Democratic president to go easy on Democratic politicians and anyone, corrupt or not, with ties to the Democrats, including the President. And you can substitute “Republican” for the other side.
Maybe you can tell us why the administration lied about their performance.
March 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pmOh, and Roger (and all the other idiot trolls here)…
Bush personally blocked an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility in the Justice Department — the office responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct involving Department attorneys — which repeatedly attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President’s warrantless eavesdropping program, but finally stopped their investigation because the President refused to give them the security clearances they needed to conduct the investigation.
Bush had no problem, however, granting security clearances, some to civilians, when he wanted to check into the leak of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program.
But see, you idiots don’t see a problem with this. That, or you are so far up Bush and the Republicans as*es that you don’t WANT to see a problem. Archie Bunkers…each and every one of you.
If Bush will personally block something like this, it’s not too much of a stretch of the imagination to conclude he’ll take any action to prevent investigation of any wrongdoing by his administration or any of his cronies.
But then again, you don’t have any imagination. You don’t question the “what if.” On another thread, it seems that Carol Lam was considered a “problem” by Gonzo’s assistant Mr. Sampson shortly before she was fired, and it looks like she was going after more Republicans based on info that came out in the Duke Cunningham investigation. I doubt that “problem” had anything to do with poor performance as Bush as suggested.
March 19th, 2007 at 7:06 pmPaul Gigot: “Do As I Say, NOT As I Do”—–SHEER HYPOCRISY!!!!!
March 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm“Gigot” Means “Leg of Lamb” in French–Paul SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE SLAUGHTER–”Lamb TO THE SLAUGHTER,” ANYONE??????
What does one expect from a man (Gigot)…
…who writes on toilet paper (WSJ)?
March 19th, 2007 at 10:36 pmOf course the right-wing quickly moved on when Vince Foster turned up dead in a corn field………
Note to radical left-wing: Democrats do not have the balls to cut funding for the war or impeach the President. Leaky Leahy might subponea(SIC), but the White House will claim executive (executive what?) and the Supreme Court will uphold. It must SUCK knowing Bush is going to complete his term.
Comment by Liberals Heart Terrorists —
To Neo-Cons Fart Terrorists:
March 20th, 2007 at 3:46 amEven Ken Starr, hardly a friend to the Clintons, refuted your bogus rightwing claims about Vince Foster’s death. To quote from wikipedia:
“Law partner and personal acquaintance of Hilary Clinton, found dead in a Virginia park outside of Washington D.C. a day prior to announcing his resignation as White House Deputy Counsel, His death was ruled as a suicide by multiple investigations by the United States Park Police, the United States Congress, and Independent Counsels Robert B. Fiske and Kenneth Starr.[1] As CNN explained on February 28, 1997, “The [Starr] report refutes claims by conservative political organizations that Foster was the victim of a murder plot and coverup,”
To paraphrase you with language I normally don’t use,
“It must suck to be a hateful, neo-CON kool-aid addict like you.”