Gibson Baselessly Attacks Stephanopoulos For Not Defending Bush’s Prosecutor Purge
Gibson Baselessly Attacks Stephanopoulos For Not Defending Bush’s Prosecutor Purge
On Fox’s “The Big Story,” John Gibson recycled the well-worn strategy that the right-wing has turned to often whenever they’re in trouble — blame Clinton. To focus attention away from Kyle Sampson’s testimony today, Gibson turned his sights on former White House communications director and current ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos.
“As partisans and pundits circle the White House like vultures,” Gibson said, “there’s one man keeping his mouth shut — that is George Stephanopoulos.” Gibson claimed the ABC newsman is “not talking about his own personal experience as President Bill Clinton’s White House communications director back when Clinton ordered Janet Reno to fire every single U.S. attorney.” He decried “silent Stephanopoulos” for “sitting back now and letting the public beat up on Bush for doing the same thing Clinton did.” Watch it:
Gibson is grossly misleading his viewers about both the Stephanopoulos record and the Clinton record. Two important points need to be made in response:
1) Unlike pundits at Fox News, it’s not Stephanopoulos’ job to defend President Bush. As an objective journalist, Stephanopoulos hasn’t stayed “silent” on the attorney scandal. He has covered the issue for ABC, even acknowledging on his Sunday show (3/18) that he testified under oath before Congress with a transcript when he worked in the White House.
2) Bush’s purge is unprecedented; not the same thing as what Clinton did. Mass firings are common when a president takes office. Reagan and Clinton fired 89 prosecutors early in their administrations, and Bush fired 88. But as current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors for partisan reasons is unprecedented.
Transcript:
GIBSON: But as reporters, partisans and pundits circle the White House like vultures, there’s one man raising suspicions, keeping his mouth shut — that is George Stephanopoulos. He is now ABC’s chief Washington correspondent, host of the prestigious ABC Sunday political show. And he’s covering the story. But what he’s not talking about is his own personal experience as President Bill Clinton’s White House communications director back when Clinton ordered Janet Reno to fire every single U.S. attorney — all 93 of them. There was no fuss over the issue then, so why is silent Stephanopoulos sitting back now and letting the public beat up on Bush for doing the same thing Clinton did?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Screw John Gibson. Pasty faced albino.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pmbut…but…but…Clinton!
March 29th, 2007 at 7:13 pmAs far as I can recall, it was mentioned on This Week a couple of weekends ago. Gibson’s gone over the edge. What a maroon!
March 29th, 2007 at 7:14 pmBoth Clinton (in 1996) and Carter (in 1978) fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pmbush’s effort to replace the usa’s without senate confirmation is what is unprecedented. this doesn’t get mentioned enough, imho.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmWe’re no longer a two party system. The republican party has become some sort of weird sub-culture.
There’s republicans, and then theres everyone else.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmYes, at the begining of their terms, just like Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr.
That is an old tired debinked, not relevant talking point.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:16 pmAs usual, when republicans are in deep s**t, they say “Clinton did it”.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pmDon’t you have a real job, Jake…..
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pmAh yes, here we go again! When you have no arguments left, blame Bill Clinton or one of his people. In this case George Stephanoulos. Pathetic as always. Troll apperance in 3, 2, 1,…..
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pmI doubt George knows about either, though — he was basically demoted after the first 6 months in office — so I could care less if he stays silent. I do want to know what Bill Clinton or John Podesta think about this issue.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pmAnd, once again, let’s all repeat together: “BUSH DID IT IN 2000, TOO!”
March 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmAw Jake, first one here. What a surprise!!
March 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmGibbie’s gettin’ a suh-weet bonus check this quarter. Either that or he’s not going to get fired. I guess those are probably your only two choices when you work for that kind of outfit.
when/why did “Glengarry Glenross” become “the definitive blueprint for American success”?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:18 pmRick:
I’m retired. Quick though, was either 1978 and 1996 the “beginning” of Carter and Clinton’s terms?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:20 pmTP, thank you for continuing to hammer away at the difference so that uninformed people will know.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pmSo Jake, you’re an old stubborn man.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:25 pmBoth Clinton (in 1996) and Carter (in 1978) fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
So did Bush. Or didn’t you know that he purged the attorney bench when he took office?
Its common for incoming Presidents to replace sitting federal prosecuters with his own selections. Everyone expects that. As long as that prosecuter is not involved in an investigation in which he has a reason to impede, its completely normal.
Your replacing the former Presidents selections with yours. Quite normal.
But to replace that many in mid term? Ones that YOU picked?
He can do it, but if there is any reason to suspect it was done to in any way impede or hamper current or future investigations, then Congress has the Constitutional right to call hearings, and get at the truth.
But you knew that didn’t you?
You just want to turn our country into Nazi Germany, don’t you?
Jackass.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pmJake = sure stupid for being retirement age. most people that live that long wise up along the way.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:27 pmquick jake, did either clinton or carter attempt to appoint new usa’s without senate confirmation? didn’t think so.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:28 pmwhen/why did “Glengarry Glenross†become “the definitive blueprint for American success�
Comment by tom baker — March 29, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Thats exactly the kind of talking to this president, and the congress needs.
…
March 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pmName the time, and the circustances jake. otherwise you’re just another repub blowhard. What exactly were the “political reasons for the “alleged” firing? Feel free to post to “for the record” since I’m on the “my fingers are in my ears and I’m singing really loud” list.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pmI doubt George knows about either, though — he was basically demoted after the first 6 months in office — so I could care less if he stays silent. I do want to know what Bill Clinton or John Podesta think about this issue.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Why don’t you get on the horn and give ‘em a call?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:31 pmFluffer.
Gibson knows his audience won’t check out his crap for themselves.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pmHe’s very safe in his little Fox world.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
gibson: Throw enough sh*t and hope some of it sticks. Unfortunately for most faux news viewers, they’ve been dining on cow pies for a long time.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pmenglish teacher:
No (because that was not the law in 1978 or 1996 — I believe the current Administration has already stated it will not attempt to bypass Senate confirmation of these new U.S. Attorneys either — if the Dems keep it up though, all bets are off). Care to answer my question now: was either 1978 and 1996 the “beginning†of Carter and Clinton’s terms?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pmmore chin dribble by Jako
what part of “current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors for partisan reasons is unprecedented.” do you not understand?
Do you ever actually read the article before posting?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmFscking Moron….
Scary thing is some people take Gibson for his word and believe him!
that is scary indeed.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pmstated it will not attempt to bypass Senate confirmation of these new U.S. Attorneys either — More chin dribble by Jako
They already did, so that makes you and them Liars.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:42 pmwhy would i defend a statement i didn’t make? are you channeling hannity here or something?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:44 pmFor anyone actually interested in whether previous dismissals of U.S. Attorneys were done by Democratic Presidents (OTHER THAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS — as if that makes this suddenly horrible procedure of dismissing for political reasons O.K.?) don’t believe me:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,916110,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919302,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,915957,00.html
March 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pmBork sucks it’s all his fault.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pmenglish teacher:
I am not asking you to defend a statement you didn’t make, nor am I channeling Mr. Hannity here or something — I was asking you a very simple question based on whether you knew Carter started his term in 1977 and Clinton started his term(s) in 1993 — I guess you aren’t a history teacher, huh?
March 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pmBut Jake you said the attorneys served at the presidents pleasure.
Now your waffling all over the place. Firing all of the attorneys when one takes office is pretty standard pleasure. Firing them years into this administration is not standard. Besides Sampson says it was wrong. Heh.
BTW Bork really does suck.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pmFor the record, I never said either Carter’s or Clinton’s replacements WELL INTO THEIR TERMS was wrong. I just wish Democrats who were defending those replacements wouldn’t use a double-standard now.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pmWe don’t need your links Jake, we know there have been limited cases where they were fired for particular cause, and there has been a questionable one or two as well, that escaped oversight.
But nothing like this.
And its not just the sweeping multiple firings, but the problem you have is the stated reasons you provided do not hold up under examination.
Thats your problem skippy.
Not to mention then proceeding to lie to congress about it.
Lying to congress is criminal.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pmthe weirs thing is, already today ive read trolls repeating this old saw like its the first time theyve ever heard it.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:53 pmYo Jake! In 1996 ONE of Clinton’s USA appointees was fired, that’s kind of right.
Not quite, though. Kendall Coffey resigned “amid accusations that he bit a topless dancer on the arm during a visit to an adult club after losing a big drug case”.
Same thing as eight well-respected and high-performing USAs dumped for reasons that keep changing? Not even close.
So can you PLEASE drop this stupid “Clinton did it” crap? I know you won’t, even though it’s been totally debunked time and time again.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pmBoth Clinton (in 1996) and Carter (in 1978) fired U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
B*llsh*t – *sshole.
The replacement of attorneys at the beginning of terms are transparent acts, governed by Senate confirmation – as were all previous dismissals/replacements.
This administration fired Attorneys for the express purposes of interfering with their duties, and had every intention of hiding their dismissal, while replacing them without confirmation and without transparency. There is no precedent for this act before now.
You’re an idi*t jake.
As for the time articles, you’re welcome – since I supplied you the resource – dum bass. The part you’ll particularly want to read, is where Carter was *investigated* and *proven* not to have dismissed the Attorney for political reasons.
Whereas what do we have today – a *proven* situation where the President’s men did the opposite.
You’re a st*pid child – jake. When your b*lls drop, maybe you’ll be worth something. Today, you’re just a useless bag of st*pid sh*t.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:55 pmFor the record, I never said either Carter’s or Clinton’s replacements WELL INTO THEIR TERMS was wrong. I just wish Democrats who were defending those replacements wouldn’t use a double-standard now. Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
No, the double standard is you saying they have a right to do so without formal investigations – despite GOP claims to the contrary in the past. The double standard is you – j*ck*ss.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:56 pmSo can you PLEASE drop this stupid “Clinton did it†crap? I know you won’t, even though it’s been totally debunked time and time again.
Comment by jake is an idiot — March 29, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Jake only speaks trailer trash. That’s what happens when your family tree only has one branch.
March 29th, 2007 at 7:57 pmJake, you didn’t read the articles you posted.
The only thing those articles prove is that the Republicans decried the removal of Attorneys just as the Democrats are doing today.
So Jake, can you say GOP Hypocrites?
And Bork still sucks. =)
March 29th, 2007 at 7:59 pmNow show some proof that Clinton or Carter fired some of their appointed USAs when they were in the middle of investigating friends of Carter or Clinton.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pmn69n:
It’s not the “first time” by any means — I’ve brought up Marston several times myself and you can look it up with Google just as easy — there was NO “investigation” that cleared either Carter or Clinton. But I guess it’s O.K. if you only fire ONE U.S. Attorney at a time for political reasons. My bad.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:01 pmI just wish Democrats who were defending those replacements wouldn’t use a double-standard now.
Comment by Jake
I just smacked that talking point down with your own posted article.
I wish those Whiney GrOPes then wouldn’t be using a double standard now. BTW Jake when are you, as an Independent, going to support anyone but GrOPers?
I heard a rumor that Bork was gay
March 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pmjake,
if carter and clinton did the same thing: firing USA’s to obstruct justice “allegedly” or becuase they didn’t follow partisan political directives, then they should have been hammered. I followed the last link in your wayback machine to 1978 and the story itself states that the firing of the att. was ok, the timing was questionable. are you claiming that the firing of Lam was ok, it was just the timing? are you saying the firing of Iglesia was ok, it was just the timing? feel free to respond to “setting the record straight” since we don’t have diplomatic relations at the moment…
March 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pmjake you have me confused with some other poster with regard to the years you mention. either that or you are engaged in classic straw man argumentation, because i never said anything about clinton or carter, except to say that replacement appointments would have to have been approved by the senate. so stop putting words in my mouth.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmFor the record, Clinton fired BOTH the U.S. Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the U.S. Attorney looking into Whitewater — there was NO INVESTIGATION of either of those because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time — use Google, it’s your friend.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmenglish teacher:
I do not have you confused with any other poster, and I did not put words in your mouth. I asked you a simple question which you refused to answer. Have a nice life.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:08 pm#45, 49
March 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pmI didn’t realize you had to be “investigated” to be clear. Is it your contention that you are guilty until you are “cleared”. I guess in a republican world this works well.
There is no doubt that if the republicans still controlled congress we wouldn’t be having any of these hearings. Elections have consequences.
there was NO INVESTIGATION of either of those because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time — use Google, it’s your friend.
So your saying that if Republicans controlled congress this would not be happening?
Well I guess then you should blame Karl, he had the numbers didn’t he?
Bwhahahahaha.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pmthere was NO INVESTIGATION of either of those because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time.
Comment by Jackass — March 29, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Yea.
Guess it kinda sucks for you that they control it now too, huh?
March 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pmI asked you a simple question which you refused to answer. Have a nice life. Comment by Jake
There is no clause that states people have to answer your question Jake.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:13 pmwhat do i care about your stupid question, shitbird? it is irrelevant because those replacements would not have been brought in without a senate hearing.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:15 pmThis is to be expected. Obfuscate is the name of the game here. If I were Gibson, or anyone else who does it, I would be ashamed to keep bringing up Clinton during these issues.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:18 pmor the record, Clinton fired BOTH the U.S. Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the U.S. Attorney looking into Whitewater — there was NO INVESTIGATION of either of those because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time — use Google, it’s your friend.
Comment by Jake
What? The Republicans took control back in what 1995?, wasn’t that in Clintons term from 1993 to 2001?
Noo, they were more insterested in Monicas sweater than terrorists.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:19 pmJake: “for the record” google is my friend, but I think he’s about to go on your “ignore list”….
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703160009
March 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pmBush’s purge is unprecedented; not the same thing as what Clinton did.
No, Clinton’s firing was worse. Answer to Jeopardy question; Who’s Jay Stephens?
But as current and former administration officials have confirmed, Bush’s purge of well-qualified prosecutors for partisan reasons is unprecedented
Former administration officials? You mean professional liar, John Podesta? Bwhahahahaha!
Finally, Carter lied and fired for partisan reasons. Not only at the beginning of his administration. “Unprecedented” is a lie. How ’bout Truman? Roosevelt?
So TP has been caught lying again with it’s special pleading false arguments. Nothing new.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:22 pmNoo, they were more insterested in Monicas sweater than terrorists.
Um, it was Clinton who was more interested in Monica than terrorists.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pmUm, it was Clinton who was more interested in Monica than terrorists.
Comment by memphis minnie
Oh Please, Bill tried to pass all kinds of terror legislation but the Borkers kept blocking it.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmWhat is astounding is the unmitigated gall of neocons like jake the jerk to call this a witch hunt.
After the fiasco they pulled over a simple blow job, you’d think these guys wouldn’t dare complain about a few senate hearings.
But look at em sqauwk.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:26 pmU.S. Attorney Frederick A. Black, had served as acting US attorney for Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands since 1991, when he was named to the post by the president’s father, President George H. W. Bush.
Black was going after Abramoff and the protection of the underage sex trafficking.
How’s that for bringing SEX into a thread, Jake?
March 29th, 2007 at 8:27 pmWhere are the people responsible for the first attack on the world trade center? in jail thanks to clinton.
Where are the people responsible for the second attack on the world trade center? free, thanks to bush.
go away minnie
March 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pmBut look at em sqauwk.
Comment by I WORFEUS
They’re the whiney kids from the schoolyard all grown up — and still whining.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmWhen Clinton had all the cruise missles fired at bin Laden’s camps, all the righties yelled “Wag the Dog” he’s trying to distract us from Monica!
March 29th, 2007 at 8:29 pmWrong!
The Republicans took over Congress in 1994. So, if they didn’t investigate something in 1996, it was probably because they were so worried about Clinton’s blow job.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pmFinally, Carter lied and fired for partisan reasons.
Same thing the Bush hypocrites today are doing, hypocrite.
Speaking of lies, “Our troops will not be used for nation building” -GWB
March 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pmNaahhh Zooey, they were the bullies.
Trust me, they were the bullies.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:30 pmNo, Clinton’s firing was worse. Answer to Jeopardy question; Who’s Jay Stephens? Comment by memphis minnie — March 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Bullsh*t. You need to get back in the trailer minnie, you sound st*pid on jeopardy today! As for who was Jay Stephens, he was one of the entire list of Attorneys replaced at the *beginning* of Clinton’s term – a normal and standard practice. He was also replaced by a *senate* confirmation.
Answer to Jeapordy question – who thinks memphis minnie is a trailer trash idiot?
Former administration officials? You mean professional liar, John Podesta? Bwhahahahaha! Comment by memphis minnie — March 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
This is what’s referred to as a “Projection” in psychology circles.
Finally, Carter lied and fired for partisan reasons. Not only at the beginning of his administration. “Unprecedented†is a lie. How ’bout Truman? Roosevelt?
So TP has been caught lying again with it’s special pleading false arguments. Nothing new.
Comment by memphis minnie — March 29, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
Only one *caught-lying* is you – nothing new! You’re such an idiot.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pmThey’re the whiney kids from the schoolyard all grown up — and still whining. Comment by Zooey
Helo Zooster! Howz things?
Karl never got over being beat up by a girl who supported Kennedy. =)
March 29th, 2007 at 8:33 pmAnswer to Jeapordy question – who thinks memphis minnie is a trailer trash idiot?
They got computers in them places now? Well not to worry in about an hour they will probably be too drunk to type and wander outdoors and start yelling incoherent obscenities at the police who came to arrest the prostitute next door.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:37 pmHelo Zooster! Howz things?
I’m great, Zepster. :)
How are you?
Karl never got over being beat up by a girl who supported Kennedy. =)
Comment by Zep Tepi
If I ever meet him, he’ll never get over being beaten up by a liberal. :D
March 29th, 2007 at 8:38 pmNaahhh Zooey, they were the bullies.
Trust me, they were the bullies.
Comment by I WORFEUS
Them, too. Remember the little bastards who used to hide behind the bully and egg him on? That’s Chimpy.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pmAnswer to Jeapordy question – who thinks memphis minnie is a trailer trash idiot?
Comment by Zep Tepi
Ooooo, ooooo, I know Alex!
Me.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:42 pmenglish teacher sez:
’shitbird’. Nice. Looks like you’ve got our old pal Shakey Jake pegged.
Well done.
And that’s the point that Shakey just can’t seem to wrap his little brain around. Under normal circumstances, even if a president dismissed a U.S. attorney, the replacement would need to undergo Senate confirmation, providing a vital check on the president’s power. With that requirement removed as a result of the language snuck into the Patriot Act renewal (allegedly by Specter’s ‘aide’), that vital check is removed, and the balance of powers is upset. It was precisely this unbalance that this administration intended to exploit to install Republican political operatives in U.S. attorney positions.
At this point, Jake will doubtless protest that the offending clause in the Patriot Act was removed. Apparently, because this imbalance has been redressed, we’re supposed to forget that this administration attempted to exploit it for partisan political gain.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pmVenusAnus rebuts with name calling and ignorance, no facts. Typical.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:47 pmHow are you? -Zooey
Fanfabusome, Thx.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm“We’re no longer a two party system. The republican party has become some sort of weird sub-culture.”
“You’re either with us, or you’re with the enemy.” You mean those repubs?
Or was it the OTHER repubs: “Ahm a yooniter, nawt a divider, heh heh.”
March 29th, 2007 at 8:49 pmVenusAnus rebuts with name calling and ignorance, no facts. Typical.
Comment by memphis minnie
It appears he’s got you pegged….
March 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmHere’s a fact:
Three of the fired were in the top five performers of all attorneys. They were allegedly fired for being poor performers.
March 29th, 2007 at 8:51 pmFanfabusome, Thx.
Comment by Zep Tepi
Wow. That’s really good. :)
March 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pmOn Nov. 18, 2002, Frederick Black issued a grand jury subpoena to the Guam Superior Court to turn over all records involving the lobbying contract with Abramoff. One day later, Black was demoted.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:08 pmWithin 24 hours of US ATTY Carol Lam issuing subpoenas to Dusty Foggo, an e-mail said she was to be fired.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:11 pmFox pundits, rightwing-nuts, propagandists; they are collectively growing insane. They are backed into an indefensible position and they are desperate.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:16 pmiglesias was just on larry king. he stated that the target of the investigation domenici called him to “inquire” about has now been indicted by iglesias’ replacement. the indictment came down this afternoon, even though, as iglesias told king, he didn’t find enough evidence to indict this individual, who is some sort of democratic new mexico pol.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:36 pmOh, just STFU Gibson, and stick with surfing the Internet looking for former male TV child actors from the 70’s who take off their shirts and post pictures of themselves on the Webs.
(A little background for those not in the know: about 6 weeks ago Gibson told his audience that he frequently surfs the Internet looking for stories for his show. He told viewers that he recently found some pictures of Danny Bonaduce, from the Partridge Family, all shirtless and muscular, and proceeded to invite him on the show for a segment to ask him, among other things, why he posed semi-nude and put the pics on the Web. I kid you not.)
March 29th, 2007 at 9:51 pmVenusAnus rebuts with name calling and ignorance, no facts. Typical.
Comment by memphis minnie
Yeah, you posted no facts, m&m, thats for sure.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:07 pmYour “facts” have been debunked already.
Hi people, this one over at Redstate is just cracking me up (or should I say it’s a such pleasure to watch them crackup?)
WE Suck Worse
Yeah, Redstate, you really do.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmHaven’t read all the postings here, so sorry if this has been discussed.
I believe it was on Countdown tonight that Keith raised the following issue and this is the first I’ve heard it mentioned. Using Carol Lam as an example, if her performance was such a problem with Gonzo and the DOJ (and the Pres), why wasn’t she pulled aside and any concerns discussed with her? Instead, she was simply fired for “poor performance.”
Thoughts?
March 29th, 2007 at 10:12 pmblameaclinton- easy to do- he got a BJ, ?why couldn’t YOU?
’cause you’re a loser, CONTURD, Republi-Scum, and you’re a pedophile, too…………………….
blameaclinton- c’mon, CONTURDS-there’s two-
Seriously, folks, THATS’ _ALL_ the CONTURDS/ Republi-SCUM- have.
March 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pmNotice how Jake exhibits typical pedophile/rapist behavior. As soon as he sees a new name he engages that person.
At 75 years old he’s had many years to perfect that winnowing out the weak from the herd. Of course as soon as he finds that person is wise to him he strikes back and gives up the “grooming phase” of the victim. After all if he’s not getting anything out of it why pretend to be nice.
So Jake is that how you “found Jesus?” Did your attorney tell you judges go easier on defendents who are “born again”?
March 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pmHow do these folks keep their job LYING the way the do… Most know Clinton replaced the 93 attorneys with his regime change As ALL new presidents do after a party change.
Gibson/Faux you have reached an all time low – this is so unbelievable.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pmPUT A LID ON IT Gibson, YA FOUR-EYED CRETIN AND BOMBASTIC IMBECILE!!!!! “DEFEND Bush”? DON’T MAKE ME LAUGH, Gibson, YOU PAID TOADY OF Bushland Uber Allies and NAZI-FASCIST SCUM!!!!! CHIMPya NEEDS TO BE ATTACKED and ASSAILED AT EVERY CORNER, EVERY CHANCE WE GET!!!! DEFEND, INDEED!!!!! LUDICROUS PIG!!!!!
March 30th, 2007 at 1:22 amRemember the story of the newly elected mayor who asked his predecessor if there was any advice he could offer on leaving office. The former mayor said, “Not really, but I do have three envelops – marked 1, 2, 3 – in the right hand desk drawer. Use them when you find yourself in trouble.” Within a year the new mayor ran into his first crisis. So he opened the first envelop, which said “Blame everything on your predecessor”, which worked fine for a while. In his second year in office, the mayor was forced to open the second envelop, which said “Appoint a blue ribbon commission to study the problem”, which rescued him for a fair amount of time. In the following year, the mayor faced a crisis of major proportions – so he rushed to open the third envelop, which simply read “Prepare three envelops”.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:30 amwhy is silent Stephanopoulos sitting back now and letting the public beat up on Bush for doing the same thing Clinton did?
There, in a nice, concise statement, we have a description of how FauxNews “journalists” see themselves: they are Bush apologists. Nothing more. Nothing less.
They are here to defend Bush’s record against (gasp!) attacks from “the public”. Obviously, criticism of elected officials by the people (ie, the very essence of a democracy) is not only an attack but also heresy in the minds of these 21st century Brownshirts.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:46 amDid John Gibson include Stephanopolous on the list of Anti Christmas,and Anti- Easter’s ‘bunny’? !!!
March 30th, 2007 at 8:30 amFor the record, if I had information that would save an innocent person from death row, I would have a moral obligation to come forward, “journalist” or not.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:48 amFor the record, Clinton fired BOTH the U.S. Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowski and the U.S. Attorney looking into Whitewater — there was NO INVESTIGATION of either of those because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time — use Google, it’s your friend.
Comment by Jake — March 29, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Why do you keep recycling the same debunked talking points? There’s only one case between Clinton and Carter where it appears that an attorney was fired for political reasons and that’s the David Marston firing.
March 30th, 2007 at 9:03 amI like when the wingers jump in here to assure us the Democrats did the same thing. They seem unaware that this is a virtual confession–”Hey! Everybody does it!”
March 30th, 2007 at 9:03 amHow about when the wingers jump in and spew facts they’ve “learned” on Fox News. Anybody with a brain can watch Fox and realize they are less reliable than the National Enquirer. But our trolls recite what they’ve heard there like they do their gospel.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:10 amJohn Gibson and Fox News are a disgrace! Partisan politics pretending to be a news outlet is absolutely hilarious. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are making a fortune making fun of fake and distorted news. Unfortunately so are John Gibson, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. The good news is that their influence is diminishing as more people realize that right-wing Republicans are a bankrupt and ignorant group. Don’t watch Fox!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:49 am