[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > I just checked here at the cafe, and it seems > > that my computer logged me in to not just the > > cafe's free WiFi connection, but *also* to a > > couple of unsecured connections from apartments > > in the vicinity. So it looks as if posts that > > I sent yesterday went out once to the server/ > > FFL Web viewer, but multiple times to the folks > > who read the list via email. Sorry. I think > > I've corrected it now. > > Great. Windoze. If you connect to a WiFi site once and then don't disconnect manually, Windoze marks that site as 'Automatic' and then tries to log you in again without telling you next time you're near it. I hadn't encountered this problem before, but now am hip to it. Thanks for letting me know about the multiple posts; I wasn't seeing them on the FFL Web viewer, and probably wouldn't have known about them if you hadn't mentioned it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:29 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: I just checked here at the cafe, and it seems that my computer logged me in to not just the cafe's free WiFi connection, but *also* to a couple of unsecured connections from apartments in the vicinity. So it looks as if posts that I sent yesterday went out once to the server/ FFL Web viewer, but multiple times to the folks who read the list via email. Sorry. I think I've corrected it now. Great. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 15, 2007, at 4:27 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple posting, a lot? I didn't. I'm really pressing the Send key only once, but I'm On The Road, posting from a cafe using its WiFi connection. Let me know if this one appears more than once, Ok. On the FFL Web viewer, I've been seeing only one copy of each post made yesterday. Then again, one of them never appeared at all, and was sent directly to the moderators instead. Go figure. This and the one following are fine. Hopefully the problem, whatever it was, is resolved. Thanks. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> > I didn't. I'm really pressing the Send key only > once, but I'm On The Road, posting from a cafe > using its WiFi connection. Let me know if this > one appears more than once, Ok. On the FFL Web > viewer, I've been seeing only one copy of each > post made yesterday. Then again, one of them > never appeared at all, and was sent directly > to the moderators instead. Go figure. We did not get some of your postings ? Oh' dear, what a great loss for us. haha
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Cool. > > > > > > As long as you're into semantics today, could you > > > clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? > > > > Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple posting, a lot? > > Not on the FFL website...maybe a server issue? I just checked here at the cafe, and it seems that my computer logged me in to not just the cafe's free WiFi connection, but *also* to a couple of unsecured connections from apartments in the vicinity. So it looks as if posts that I sent yesterday went out once to the server/ FFL Web viewer, but multiple times to the folks who read the list via email. Sorry. I think I've corrected it now.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Cool. > > > > > > As long as you're into semantics today, could you > > > clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? > > > > Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple > > posting, a lot? I didn't. I'm really pressing the Send key only once, but I'm On The Road, posting from a cafe using its WiFi connection. Let me know if this one appears more than once, Ok. On the FFL Web viewer, I've been seeing only one copy of each post made yesterday. Then again, one of them never appeared at all, and was sent directly to the moderators instead. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Today, a new report concludes that Bush's actions were completely > unprecedented. > Apparently the first president to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys, en masse, was Bill Clinton, an act which up till then was unprecedented. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > willytex@ writes: > > > > jstein wrote: > > > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > > > > > What's up with this: > > > > Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned > to > > pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative > > opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two > were > > apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and > > three resigned after questionable conduct. > > > > Some more nice reading on the matter > > Were you under the impression that what Willytex > posted somehow refuted what I wrote? > > _OpinionJournal - Featured Article_ > > (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html? id=110009784) > > Wow, what a dishonest column. Good old Wall Street > Journal. > Its the old "two wrongs make a right" approach.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, > > willytex@ writes: > > > > jstein wrote: > > > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > > > > > What's up with this: > > > > Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned > to > > pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative > > opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two > were > > apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and > > three resigned after questionable conduct. > > > > Some more nice reading on the matter > > Were you under the impression that what Willytex > posted somehow refuted what I wrote? > > _OpinionJournal - Featured Article_ > > (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html? id=110009784) > > Wow, what a dishonest column. Good old Wall Street > Journal. It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind.--Stuart Gerson, assistant attorney general under George H.W. Bush
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > jstein wrote: > > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > > > What's up with this: > > Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to > pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative > opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were > apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and > three resigned after questionable conduct. > > > > The Law > 3-2.120 Appointment > > United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and > consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon > expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the > duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are > subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, > 167 U.S. 314 (1897). Were you under the impression that this refutes anything I've been saying?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > jstein wrote: > > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > > > What's up with this: > > Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to > pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative > opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were > apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and > three resigned after questionable conduct. > > Some more nice reading on the matter Were you under the impression that what Willytex posted somehow refuted what I wrote? _OpinionJournal - Featured Article_ > (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784) Wow, what a dishonest column. Good old Wall Street Journal.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jstein wrote: > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > What's up with this: Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and three resigned after questionable conduct. The Law 3-2.120 Appointment United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897). ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > How many U.S. Attorneys did Bush fire when he took office? > > > > jstein wrote: > > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > > > What's up with this: > > Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to > pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative > opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two > were apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior > and three resigned after questionable conduct. Exactly. Thanks for confirming. >From the same article: Today, a new report concludes that Bush's actions were completely unprecedented. The study was conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) and released by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers and Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Linda Sánchez. The CRS found that of the 486 U.S. Attorneys confirmed in a president's initial term since 1981, 54 left voluntarily before completing a full four-year term. Of those, no more than three had been forced out under circumstances similar to the current situation. The examination is ongoing because the Bush Administration has refused to cooperate with the CRS' investigation. "I intend to do everything within my power to obtain the necessary information and get to the bottom of this growing scandal," Conyers said. > Source: > > http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/182 >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/14/07 1:25:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jstein wrote: > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > What's up with this: Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and three resigned after questionable conduct. Some more nice reading on the matter_OpinionJournal - Featured Article_ (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009784) ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> > How many U.S. Attorneys did Bush fire when he took office? > > jstein wrote: > Almost all of them. Same with Reagan. > What's up with this: Forty-eight of the fifty-four U.S. Attorneys studied had resigned to pursue other jobs, such as federal judgeships or more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. Of the remaining eight, two were apparently dismissed by President Reagan for specific behavior and three resigned after questionable conduct. Source: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/182
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:37 PM, authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:16 PM, authfriend wrote: >> >>> The scandal is that they were removed not for >>> incompetence or malfeasance, but because they weren't >>> serving the political purposes of the administration. >> >> Supposedly they weren't investigating enough Democrats prior >> to the election. > > And/or that they were investigating too many > Republicans. IOW, doing their job--can't have that. > Somebody did a bit of research and discovered that > about seven times as many Democrats as Republicans > have been investigated during the Bush administration. > At least some of the folks who were fired had > apparently not gotten with the program.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Somebody did a bit of research and discovered that > about seven times as many Democrats as Republicans > have been investigated during the Bush administration. > At least some of the folks who were fired had > apparently not gotten with the program. > You need to check your research, Judy - this has already been totally debunked. You need to stop posting political propaganda to this forum. >From what I've read, there are some very significant methodological problems with the research: "Their claim is flat wrong. It is incumbent on the authors to disclose their methods and selection criteria, so we may determine whether their omission was intentional or inadvertent." http://tinyurl.com/39ovto
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Another word used to describe these firings is > "unprecedented." > Oh my Gawd! A politician that fires political appointees. The so-called controversy over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys is not much of a scandal. The Bush administration had serious misgivings about how vigilantly the attorneys were pursuing voter fraud investigations and other issues and decided to make a switch. But this does go to show just how desperate the Dems are to create a scandal where there is none. Here's an idea: Let's get Bush to appoint another Special Counsel, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald again. Then maybe we could uncover another scandal like who outed the secret agent girl, Valerie Plame! Another idea: Let's give Sandy Burgler a lie detector test!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:16 PM, authfriend wrote: > > > The scandal is that they were removed not for > > incompetence or malfeasance, but because they weren't > > serving the political purposes of the administration. > > Supposedly they weren't investigating enough Democrats prior > to the election. And/or that they were investigating too many Republicans. Somebody did a bit of research and discovered that about seven times as many Democrats as Republicans have been investigated during the Bush administration. At least some of the folks who were fired had apparently not gotten with the program.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:16 PM, authfriend wrote: The scandal is that they were removed not for incompetence or malfeasance, but because they weren't serving the political purposes of the administration. Supposedly they weren't investigating enough Democrats prior to the election. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were > > replaced by Bush in 2001? Bush could have fired all > > 93, so are these 8 the only changes he made out of > > 186 opportunities? Where's the scandal? > > > MDixon wrote: > > The real scandal was that Bush was trying to reach > > across the isle when he took office and didn't clear > > out all of the Clinton appointees when he should have. > > > So, when Clinton took office he fired ALL the U.S. Attorneys, > including the one from Arkansas that was probing his links to > Rostenkowski, Rostenkowski was indicted a year later by a Clinton- appointed U.S. attorney. > but when Bush took office he fired NONE, No, he fired almost all of them. but Judy says > that almost all incoming presidents fire their U.S. Attorneys from > previous administrations, but now there is a scandal because Bush > fired eight who apparently weren't doing their jobs? The evidence is that they *were* doing their jobs. > So, why do you suppose that Judy didn't mention this? Didn't mention what, your misrepresentations? > > New York Times: Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt > resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal > prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could > be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan > Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. > > 'Attorney General Seeks Resignations From Prosecutors' > By David Johnston > New York Times, Wednesday March 24, 1993 >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 9:12:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Question: How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were > replaced by Bush in 2001? Almost all of them. > Bush could have fired all 93, so are these 8 the > only changes he made out of 186 opportunities? Where's the > scandal? No, he fired most of the 93 Clinton appointees in 2001. The eight he just fired were all his own appointees. The scandal is that they were removed not for incompetence or malfeasance, but because they weren't serving the political purposes of the administration. U.S. attorneys, once appointed, become part of law enforcement and should be entirely independent of politics. Another part of the scandal is that various members of the administration, including the attorney general, appear to have lied to Congress during the initial hearings into the firings. And still another part of the scandal is the distinct possibility that the attorneys who kept their jobs may have done so because they acceded to administration political pressure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were > replaced by Bush in 2001? Bush could have fired all > 93, so are these 8 the only changes he made out of > 186 opportunities? Where's the scandal? > MDixon wrote: > The real scandal was that Bush was trying to reach > across the isle when he took office and didn't clear > out all of the Clinton appointees when he should have. > So, when Clinton took office he fired ALL the U.S. Attorneys, including the one from Arkansas that was probing his links to Rostenkowski, but when Bush took office he fired NONE, but Judy says that almost all incoming presidents fire their U.S. Attorneys from previous administrations, but now there is a scandal because Bush fired eight who apparently weren't doing their jobs? So, why do you suppose that Judy didn't mention this? New York Times: Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton. 'Attorney General Seeks Resignations From Prosecutors' By David Johnston New York Times, Wednesday March 24, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > U.S. attorneys normally serve for the entire time the > > president who appointed them--usually at the beginning > > of the first term--is in office. Once they're appointed, > > it's rare for them to be fired. If the president serves > > two terms, the attorneys typically stay for the second > > four years. > > > How many U.S. Attorneys did Bush fire when he took office? Almost all of them. Same with Reagan.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > U.S. attorneys normally serve for the entire time the > president who appointed them--usually at the beginning > of the first term--is in office. Once they're appointed, > it's rare for them to be fired. If the president serves > two terms, the attorneys typically stay for the second > four years. > How many U.S. Attorneys did Bush fire when he took office?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Here's what I actually said, a little over two > years ago: > > "The entire administration should be thrown in > jail, if not put before a firing squad." > Without a trial? There must be thousands of people in the entire administration. > (For semantics aficionados, the implication of "if > not" here is a little ambiguous; what I meant to > suggest was that they might *deserve* to be put > before a firing squad, but that such a punishment > was too extreme.) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Cool. > > > > As long as you're into semantics today, could you > > clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? > > Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple posting, a lot? > > Sal > Not on the FFL website...maybe a server issue?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Cool. > > > > As long as you're into semantics today, could you > > clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? > > Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple posting, a lot? > > Sal > He's so excited by his own messages that his hand trembles and he hits the send button/key twice.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Cool. As long as you're into semantics today, could you clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? Barry, do you realize you're double and even triple posting, a lot? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:53 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: > > >> Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet > >> that the entire Bush administration should be shot. > > > > Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure > > that she'd opt for lethal injection. Shooting is > > reserved for TM critics. > > > What happened to killing them with coherence? > Nothing. it still works.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 9:12:45 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Question: How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were replaced by Bush in 2001? Bush could have fired all 93, so are these 8 the only changes he made out of 186 opportunities? Where's the scandal? The real scandal was that Bush was trying to reach across the isle when he took office and didn't clear out all of the Clinton appointees when he should have. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/14/07 9:26:22 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > it's *customary* for the president > not to fire U.S. attorneys without cause, except at > the beginning of the first term. > > *Customary* seems to be the key word. The real question is, is it *legal*? Of course it's legal, but then nobody has disputed that, so it isn't the "real question" after all. Another word used to describe these firings is "unprecedented."
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/14/07 9:26:22 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: it's *customary* for the president not to fire U.S. attorneys without cause, except at the beginning of the first term. *Customary* seems to be the key word. The real question is, is it *legal*? ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > > > * They all lie. > > > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > > > * They are bad people. > > > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > > > * They all lie. > > > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > > > * They are bad people. > > > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > > > > > > > Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet > > > > that the entire Bush administration should be shot. > > > > > > Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure > > > that she'd opt for lethal injection. > > > > Here's what I actually said, a little over two > > years ago: > > > > "The entire administration should be thrown in > > jail, if not put before a firing squad." > > > > (For semantics aficionados, the implication of "if > > not" here is a little ambiguous; what I meant to > > suggest was that they might *deserve* to be put > > before a firing squad, but that such a punishment > > was too extreme.) > > Cool. > > As long as you're into semantics today, could you > clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? (I'm *always* into semantics.) Sure, sorry you were confused by them. The first is hyperbole, the second metaphor: > "Folks who abandon their animals should be shot, BTW." > > "I shoot the messenger when the messenger deserves > to be shot." Those really all you could find in a search for "shot" in my posts? Here are some more you might try: hanged decapitated stabbed to death nuked drowned wiped out castrated beaten to a bloody pulp smashed into a little grease spot torn limb from limb I'm sure I can come up with some others. I'll let you know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/14/07 9:23:32 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Er, this is a federal position... Errr... so, does that change anything in this case? ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:30 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: As long as you're into semantics today, could you clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? "Folks who abandon their animals should be shot, BTW." "I shoot the messenger when the messenger deserves to be shot." Wow, that's a lot of violent metaphors. What's that about? Level of consciousness?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 14, 2007, at 10:53 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet that the entire Bush administration should be shot. Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure that she'd opt for lethal injection. Shooting is reserved for TM critics. What happened to killing them with coherence?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > > wrote: > > > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > > * They all lie. > > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > > * They are bad people. > > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > > * They all lie. > > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > > * They are bad people. > > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > > > > > Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet > > > that the entire Bush administration should be shot. > > > > Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure > > that she'd opt for lethal injection. > > Here's what I actually said, a little over two > years ago: > > "The entire administration should be thrown in > jail, if not put before a firing squad." > > (For semantics aficionados, the implication of "if > not" here is a little ambiguous; what I meant to > suggest was that they might *deserve* to be put > before a firing squad, but that such a punishment > was too extreme.) Cool. As long as you're into semantics today, could you clear up these two quotes of yours for us as well? "Folks who abandon their animals should be shot, BTW." "I shoot the messenger when the messenger deserves to be shot." :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 3/13/07 5:26:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Only if she fires the ones she hired without cause. > > In a lot of states you don't have to show cause to fire somebody. Non sequitur. In the first place, the question to which the above was a response was speculating about how the media would react, not the legal situation; in the second place, this is federal, not state; in the third place, it's *customary* for the president not to fire U.S. attorneys without cause, except at the beginning of the first term.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 5:26:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Only if she fires the ones she hired without cause. > > > > In a lot of states you don't have to show cause to fire somebody. > ** AOL now offers free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.com. > Er, this is a federal position...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > * They all lie. > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > * They are bad people. > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > * They all lie. > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > * They are bad people. > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > > > Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet > > that the entire Bush administration should be shot. > > Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure > that she'd opt for lethal injection. Here's what I actually said, a little over two years ago: "The entire administration should be thrown in jail, if not put before a firing squad." (For semantics aficionados, the implication of "if not" here is a little ambiguous; what I meant to suggest was that they might *deserve* to be put before a firing squad, but that such a punishment was too extreme.) Shooting is > reserved for TM critics. > > :-) >
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 9:23:12 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Or, the left-wingers could be just simply inventing a scandal for political purposes and trying to take advantage of the public's ignorance. You don't seem to be able to cite any evidence that there's a scandal or that any laws were broken. A popular Democrat tactic to regain power when they have lost it. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > Usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > > > Apparently all the U.S. Attorneys who were fired had been on > the job for over four years, so they probably should have resigned > without being fired. From what I've read, U.S. Attorneys serve four > years after being appointed, not four years of the President's term. U.S. attorneys normally serve for the entire time the president who appointed them--usually at the beginning of the first term--is in office. Once they're appointed, it's rare for them to be fired. If the president serves two terms, the attorneys typically stay for the second four years.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 5:26:07 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only if she fires the ones she hired without cause. In a lot of states you don't have to show cause to fire somebody. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > TurquoiseB wrote: > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > * They all lie. > > * They have concealed motives. > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > * They are bad people. > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > * They all lie. > > * They have concealed motives. > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > * They are bad people. > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet > that the entire Bush administration should be shot. Yeah, but that was back then; these days I'm sure that she'd opt for lethal injection. Shooting is reserved for TM critics. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > Apparently all the U.S. Attorneys who were fired had been on the job for over four years, so they probably should have resigned without being fired. From what I've read, U.S. Attorneys serve four years after being appointed, not four years of the President's term.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
TurquoiseB wrote: > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > Uncle - You forgot to mention Judy's suggestion on Usenet that the entire Bush administration should be shot.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > > > H... > > > > > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > * They all lie. > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > * They are bad people. > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > > * They all lie. > > > * They have concealed motives. > > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > > * They are bad people. > > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > > > These lists which you attribute to me sure are > > an indication of *your* state of attention. > > Perhaps. :-) It just struck me that every time > you run into...uh...problems trashing the TM > critics, you dive for the security of politics, > so that you can play "pile on" with the politicians > you seem to hate with equal fervor. I figured it's > because you think no one will notice how much you > hate Cheney and Bush, whereas they DO notice when > you hate other members of FFL. > > My comment is simply, "Different target, same hate." Barry, GET SOME HELP. Your fantasies are out of control.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > > > H... > > > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > * They all lie. > > * They have concealed motives. > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > * They are bad people. > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > > * They all lie. > > * They have concealed motives. > > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > > * They are bad people. > > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > > These lists which you attribute to me sure are > an indication of *your* state of attention. Perhaps. :-) It just struck me that every time you run into...uh...problems trashing the TM critics, you dive for the security of politics, so that you can play "pile on" with the politicians you seem to hate with equal fervor. I figured it's because you think no one will notice how much you hate Cheney and Bush, whereas they DO notice when you hate other members of FFL. My comment is simply, "Different target, same hate."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > H... > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? These lists which you attribute to me sure are an indication of *your* state of attention.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > H... > > Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Judy Stein on Republicans: > * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. > * They all lie. > * They have concealed motives. > * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. > * I am right about them, no matter what they say. > * You should agree with me *because* I am right. > * They are bad people. > * They deserve retribution, and soon. > > Coincidence, or indication of state of attention? > How's that moral attention practice thing you told us about coming, Unc?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
H... Judy Stein on "anti-TMers": * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. * They all lie. * They have concealed motives. * They intend to do harm to peace-loving TMers. * I am right about them, no matter what they say. * You should agree with me *because* I am right. * They are bad people. * They deserve retribution, and soon. Judy Stein on Republicans: * They are all untrustworthy, without credibility. * They all lie. * They have concealed motives. * They intend to do harm to peace-loving Democrats. * I am right about them, no matter what they say. * You should agree with me *because* I am right. * They are bad people. * They deserve retribution, and soon. Coincidence, or indication of state of attention?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
>From an email from Kyle Sampson, who just resigned as Gonzales's chief of staff, to Harriet Miers, January 9, 2006: ...Once confirmed by the Senate and appointed, U.S. Attorneys serve for four years and then holdover indefinitely (at the pleasure of the President, of course). In recent memory, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, Presidents Reagan and Clinton *did not* seek to remove and replace the U.S. Attorneys they had appointed whose terms had expired, but instead permitted those U.S. Attorneys to serve indefinitely under the holdover provision. [emphasis in original]
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
MDixon wrote: > > Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past > > couple of days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole > > bunch when he first took office. > > jstein wrote: > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > their resignations by a newly elected president. > > The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual > are simply trying to take advantage of the public's > ignorance. > Or, the left-wingers could be just simply inventing a scandal for political purposes and trying to take advantage of the public's ignorance. You don't seem to be able to cite any evidence that there's a scandal or that any laws were broken. Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations. But according to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment and morale problems in Ryan's office.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
sparaig wrote: > Only if she fires the ones she hired without cause. > President Clinton fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> > ...why didn't you mention that President Clinton > > fired all U.S. Attroneys? > > jstein wrote: > Because an incoming president *always* does that, > as you know. > Bush didn't, so it's not a case *always*, is it? > > Another question: Where's the scandal from firing > > only eight by Bush? > > > They weren't fired for cause, they were fired because > what they were doing didn't meet the White House's > political needs. > Says who? You seem to have an inside track here - what were the exact reasons that the fired 8 were not meeting the political needs of the White House? MDixon wrote: > > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires > > a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal > > out that? > > > Most likely not unless she fires them in the middle of > their terms because they resisted White House political > interference (see responses to 1 and 2 above). > Question: How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were replaced by Bush in 2001? Bush could have fired all 93, so are these 8 the only changes he made out of 186 opportunities? Where's the scandal?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
MDixon wrote: > > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and > > fires a whole bunch of them, will the media make > > a big deal out that? > > jim flanegin wrote: > I think it depends on how many times she screws up before that. > Maybe so, Jim, but if the radical left partisans have their way, Hillary won't be nominated by the Democratic Party. She's already screwed up big time according to some factions, when she voted to authorize the president to use force for Iraq regime change. "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > > > > > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton > > > fired all U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the > > > scandal from firing only eight by Bush? > > > MDixon wrote: > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires > a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal > out that? > Probably not - but have you ever seen a politician NOT appoint political appointees? New York Times: "Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton." Source: 'Attorney General Seeks Resignations From Prosecutors' By David Johnston New York Times, Wednesday March 24, 1993
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires > > a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal > > out that? > > I think it depends on how many times she screws up before that. The media will make a big deal out of that if she fires them in the middle of their terms for political reasons regardless of how much she's screwed up before that. The Justice Department and the U.S. attorneys, again, are *supposed to be independent of politics*. Their appointments may be political to begin with--each party will tend to appoint USAs of the same party-- but they're appointed to be *part of law enforcement* and as such strictly apolitical. Republican USAs aren't supposed to go after Democrats who aren't guilty of anything while leaving corrupt Republicans strictly alone in order to facilitate the election of Republican candidates, for example.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > > > > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > > > > their resignations by a newly elected president. > > > > > > > > > > They always OFFER their resignations. > > > > They're *expected* to offer their resignations. > > > > Whether or not > > > the resignation is accepted depends on the President > > > and what position the person currently holds. > > > > But usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > > There are exceptions. I don't know if any AGs ever survive > from one president to the next, but other political > appointees have... Yeah. Usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > [...] > > > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > > > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > > > their resignations by a newly elected president. > > > > > > > They always OFFER their resignations. > > They're *expected* to offer their resignations. > > Whether or not > > the resignation is accepted depends on the President > > and what position the person currently holds. > > But usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > There are exceptions. I don't know if any AGs ever survive from one president to the next, but other political appointees have...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:12:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, > > > willytex@ writes: > > > > > > MDixon wrote: > > > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > > > > > > > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President > > Clinton > > > fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used > > the > > > mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire > > > the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. > > > > > > > Were they union? > > > > > > > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their > > > jobs, out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply > > > good candidates for replacement. > > > > > > Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past couple of > > > days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole bunch when he first > > > took office. > > > > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > > their resignations by a newly elected president. > > > > They always OFFER their resignations. They're *expected* to offer their resignations. Whether or not > the resignation is accepted depends on the President > and what position the person currently holds. But usually U.S. attorneys' resignations *are* accepted. > > > The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual > > are simply trying to take advantage of the public's > > ignorance. > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:12:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, > > willytex@ writes: > > > > MDixon wrote: > > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > > > > > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President > Clinton > > fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used > the > > mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire > > the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. > > > > > Were they union? > > > > > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their > > jobs, out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply > > good candidates for replacement. > > > > Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past couple of > > days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole bunch when he first > > took office. > > Political appointees--especially if they were appointed > by a president of the other party--are always asked for > their resignations by a newly elected president. > They always OFFER their resignations. Whether or not the resignation is accepted depends on the President and what position the person currently holds. > The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual > are simply trying to take advantage of the public's > ignorance. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:14:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > jstein wrote: > > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > > > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton fired all > U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the scandal from firing only > eight by Bush? > > Only if she fires the ones she hired without cause.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:12:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > MDixon wrote: > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > > > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton > fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the > mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire > the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. > > > Were they union? > > > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their > jobs, out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply > good candidates for replacement. > > Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past couple of > days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole bunch when he first > took office. Political appointees--especially if they were appointed by a president of the other party--are always asked for their resignations by a newly elected president. The right-wingers who are pretending this was unusual are simply trying to take advantage of the public's ignorance.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > > > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton > fired all U.S. Attroneys? Because an incoming president *always* does that, as you know. > Another question: Where's the scandal from firing > only eight by Bush? They weren't fired for cause, they were fired because what they were doing didn't meet the White House's political needs. > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires > a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal > out that? Most likely not unless she fires them in the middle of their terms because they resisted White House political interference (see responses to 1 and 2 above).
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, authfriend wrote: > > >>> in particular the U.S. attorney firings, > >>> which is currently in the process of going nuclear. > >> > >> Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make > >> any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw. > > > > This one's getting a lot more attention in the > > mainstream media than I would have thought. It's > > pretty inside-baseball; what's scandalous about it > > isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as in the Walter > > Reed scandal or the Libby scandal or the FBI > > scandal. I think if I were your average minimally > > informed citizen, I'd be having trouble figuring > > out what the big deal is, especially the fact that > > even leading *Republicans* are calling for Gonzales's > > head. > > Supposedly he's now "taking responsibility," whatever that means in > this administration. I'll believe it when I hear the resignation. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo paraphrases his press conference thus: "I'm going to get to the bottom of what Harriet [Miers] and I did."
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 10:14:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > jstein wrote: > > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > > > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton fired all > U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the scandal from firing only > eight by Bush? > > > > > > > > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires a whole bunch of > them, will the media make a big deal out that? I think it depends on how many times she screws up before that. With Bush, I can't think of a single thing he has done right- that's why so many dislike him- me included. He's just incompetent, and as a result bad for the country.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 10:12:38 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MDixon wrote: > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. > Were they union? > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for replacement. Thank you. That is what I've been hearing for the past couple of days and I do remember Clinton firing a whole bunch when he first took office. I think Chuckie Shuma just needs some camera time. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 10:14:24 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jstein wrote: > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton fired all U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the scandal from firing only eight by Bush? Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal out that? ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:47 AM, authfriend wrote: >>> in particular the U.S. attorney firings, >>> which is currently in the process of going nuclear. >> >> Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make >> any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw. > > This one's getting a lot more attention in the > mainstream media than I would have thought. It's > pretty inside-baseball; what's scandalous about it > isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as in the Walter > Reed scandal or the Libby scandal or the FBI > scandal. I think if I were your average minimally > informed citizen, I'd be having trouble figuring > out what the big deal is, especially the fact that > even leading *Republicans* are calling for Gonzales's > head. Supposedly he's now "taking responsibility," whatever that means in this administration. I'll believe it when I hear the resignation. > It remains to be seen whether the media can make > a convincing case to the public. Most people won't > be surprised to hear the administration has been > caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, but > this may not have quite the visceral impact as some > of the other smoking guns (block that metaphor!). > > So given that the media is leading the charge--as > opposed to reflecting massive citizen outrage--a > Cheney resignation that forced the media to focus > on something much more concrete might just work. > > It wouldn't stop the congressional investigations, > but it could provide cover for the administration to > stonewall with regard to subpoenas and providing > information, and just generally relegate the whole > thing to the back burner. > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jim flanegin wrote: > > You can't just make stuff up to prove your point. > So, Jim, did I make up anything that Clinton said about Iraq and the reason for he wanted a regime change? jstein wrote: > Sure he can. He does it all the time. That's what trolls *do*. > Stop the lying, Judy. I can post what Bill Clinton said about his obsession with Al Qaeda in Iraq. You first brought up the subject. So, why was Bill Clinton obsessed with Al Qaeda in Iraq? "This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance." - Bill Clinton, 1998 Full text: 'Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike' CNN, Wednesday, December 16, 1998 http://tinyurl.com/5gm9 > > > "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with > > > a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace > > > with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of > > > its people." - Bill Clinton > > > > > > Read more: > > > > > > 'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance' > > > CNN, December 16, 1998 > > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> > So, where's the scandal? > > jstein wrote: > What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys > a president has appointed before the president's term > is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. > According to Iglesias he lost his job as the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico after rebuffing Republican pressure to speed his investigation of Democratic officials in the state. Apparently only three of the eight fired U.S. Attorneys received low rankings. > The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- > are supposed to be independent of political influence. > But the U.S. Attorneys are political appointees that serve at the discretion of the President. So, where is the scanadal? Why are you so reluctant to say why the attorneys were fired? Reuters: "Although most of the ousted prosecutors had received positive job reviews, the Justice Department said they were largely dismissed because of employment-related matters or policy differences. Republicans in several states, including some where the party suffered narrow losses to Democrats, had complained about alleged voter registration fraud in the 2004 elections." Full story: 'Justice aide resigns over prosecutor firings' By James Vicini Reuters, March 13, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2lc4ls
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly > > elected president to ask for the resignations of > > political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, > > especially if they were appointed by the other party. > > > So, where's the scandal? What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys a president has appointed before the president's term is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. > > > What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys > > a president has appointed before the president's term > > is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. > > > According to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated > very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment and > morale problems in Ryan's office. What do you think? > > > In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that > > the "cause" in question was these attorneys' > > unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by > > the White House and Justice Department for political > > purposes. The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- > > are supposed to be independent of political influence. > > > So the fired U.S. Attorneys were political appointees. Where's the > scandal? Try reading what I wrote: The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- are supposed to be independent of political influence. > > > The even more important question here is, how many > > of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their > > jobs because they *did* submit to political influence? > > > Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco > and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly > elected president to ask for the resignations of > political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, > especially if they were appointed by the other party. > So, where's the scandal? > What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys > a president has appointed before the president's term > is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. > According to the Washington Post, the firing of Ryan has generated very few complaints. Maybe that's because of widespread managment and morale problems in Ryan's office. What do you think? > In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that > the "cause" in question was these attorneys' > unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by > the White House and Justice Department for political > purposes. The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- > are supposed to be independent of political influence. > So the fired U.S. Attorneys were political appointees. Where's the scandal? > The even more important question here is, how many > of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their > jobs because they *did* submit to political influence? > Apparently two of the fired prosecutors, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco and David Iglesias in Albuquerque, got good evaluations.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MDixon wrote: > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > > > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton > fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the > mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire > the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. As Willytex knows, it's standard practice for a newly elected president to ask for the resignations of political appointees, including U.S. attorneys, especially if they were appointed by the other party. What's highly unusual is to fire individual attorneys a president has appointed before the president's term is up. When that happens, it's almost always for cause. In these cases, it's becoming increasingly clear that the "cause" in question was these attorneys' unwillingness to allow their work to be affected by the White House and Justice Department for political purposes. The U.S. attorneys--and the Justice Department-- are supposed to be independent of political influence. The even more important question here is, how many of the attorneys who were *not* fired retained their jobs because they *did* submit to political influence? > > Were they union? > > > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out > of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for > replacement. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > Did you have a sensible comment or question? > Yes, I do - why didn't you mention that President Clinton fired all U.S. Attroneys? Another question: Where's the scandal from firing only eight by Bush?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
MDixon wrote: > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? > They all serve at the discretion of the President. President Clinton fired all of the U.S. Attorneys after he was elected. Clinton used the mass firing as a means of covering up his real intention -- to fire the U.S. Attorney in his home state of Arkansas. > Were they union? > No. From what I've read, only eight prosecutors lost their jobs, out of 93 U.S. Attorneys. Maybe the eight were simply good candidates for replacement.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/13/07 8:18:40 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make any difference. > Then again, this could be the final straw. > > Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? Were they union? Did you have a sensible comment or question?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/13/07 8:18:40 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw. Is there some reason why he couldn't fire them? Were they union? ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" > wrote: > > > > sparaig wrote: > > > Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored > > > terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance > > > were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a > > > network of independents could be a threat because Condi > > > couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. > > > She did her PhD work on Soviet issues. > > > > > What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda? > > > > "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new > Iraqi > > government -- a government ready to live in peace with its > neighbors, > > a government that respects the rights of its people." - Bill > Clinton > > > > Read more: > > > > 'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance' > > CNN, December 16, 1998 > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ > > > You can't just make stuff up to prove your point. Sure he can. He does it all the time. That's what trolls *do*. If you read the > article you quote, Clinton doesn't mention Al Qaeda at all. > > What's this obsession with Clinton anyway? I don't recall a similar > thing going on after Reagan f*cked up the country and Clinton came > in. You know why? Clinton was competent, and didn't rely on a bunch > of goons in the press to slander his predecessor. Bush on the other > hand is grossly incompetent. Talk about a mental midget. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > sparaig wrote: > > Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored > > terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance > > were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a > > network of independents could be a threat because Condi > > couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. > > She did her PhD work on Soviet issues. > > > What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda? > > "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi > government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, > a government that respects the rights of its people." - Bill Clinton > > Read more: > > 'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance' > CNN, December 16, 1998 > http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ > You can't just make stuff up to prove your point. If you read the article you quote, Clinton doesn't mention Al Qaeda at all. What's this obsession with Clinton anyway? I don't recall a similar thing going on after Reagan f*cked up the country and Clinton came in. You know why? Clinton was competent, and didn't rely on a bunch of goons in the press to slander his predecessor. Bush on the other hand is grossly incompetent. Talk about a mental midget.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/12/07 9:20:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > She'd be black AND female, vs the two top Democratic contenders who are > black OR > female. She'd be arch-conservative but... she'd be black and female. > > Yikes, what an interesting mess. > > > > And you know, the South would vote for Condi in a heart beat to shake the > racist image of the past. Gee, just what we need, another Bush, only with *less* experience.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > This one's getting a lot more attention in the > mainstream media than I would have thought. > So where is the scandal - is the firing of Iglesias scandalous? Powerline: "Is the firing of Iglesias a genuine scandal? As David Frum notes, it depends on the facts: was there a serious problem of voter fraud in the state, was Iglesias sluggish in dealing with it, and did the administration act even-handedly by insisting that its U.S. Attorneys adequately deal with serious allegations of voter fraud lodged by both political parties? Read more: 'About those fired U.S. Attorneys' Posted by John Hindraker: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017018.php
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
In a message dated 3/12/07 9:20:24 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: She'd be black AND female, vs the two top Democratic contenders who are black OR female. She'd be arch-conservative but... she'd be black and female. Yikes, what an interesting mess. And you know, the South would vote for Condi in a heart beat to shake the racist image of the past. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
sparaig wrote: > Bush believed that the real threat was government-sponsored > terrorism. Al Qaeda's only governmental ties of significance > were with the Saudis, our allies. Bush couldn't see how a > network of independents could be a threat because Condi > couldn't. Condi couldn't because she was a Cold Warrior. > She did her PhD work on Soviet issues. > What about Bill Clinton's obsession with Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda? "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." - Bill Clinton Read more: 'Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance' CNN, December 16, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > wrote: > > > > > Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be > > > history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? > > > Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will > > > replace him? > > > > I think it would be terrific. > > > > I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you > > never know. > > It occurs to me that one reason they might actually > jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be > to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding > scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings, > which is currently in the process of going nuclear. > So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved > in that one. > So far just a bunch of blabbing by the Democrats, as Bush gets stronger. Just yesterday the Dems decided to remove any Congressional authorization for Bush to attack Iran. Bush, his adminstration, and his wars are increasingly unpopular, but he is getting more powerful, not less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:00 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > > > It occurs to me that one reason they might actually > > jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be > > to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding > > scandals, > > Whatever the reason, it would be great to see him go. > > > in particular the U.S. attorney firings, > > which is currently in the process of going nuclear. > > Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make > any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw. This one's getting a lot more attention in the mainstream media than I would have thought. It's pretty inside-baseball; what's scandalous about it isn't anywhere near as clear-cut as in the Walter Reed scandal or the Libby scandal or the FBI scandal. I think if I were your average minimally informed citizen, I'd be having trouble figuring out what the big deal is, especially the fact that even leading *Republicans* are calling for Gonzales's head. It remains to be seen whether the media can make a convincing case to the public. Most people won't be surprised to hear the administration has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, but this may not have quite the visceral impact as some of the other smoking guns (block that metaphor!). So given that the media is leading the charge--as opposed to reflecting massive citizen outrage--a Cheney resignation that forced the media to focus on something much more concrete might just work. It wouldn't stop the congressional investigations, but it could provide cover for the administration to stonewall with regard to subpoenas and providing information, and just generally relegate the whole thing to the back burner.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than > Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism. > Clinton was obsessed with the threat. Bush ignored > it. > Thank you for pointing out Bill Clinton's obsession with Al Qaeda's connections to Iraq. Clinton ordered the bombing of a soap factory and killed a camel inside a barn, but he failed to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. But in a previous post didn't you made the claim that there were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraq regime and that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Go figure. "The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program." ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection. Read more: 'The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties' by Stephen F. Hayes Weekly Standard, December 29,k 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3fjp2
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:00 AM, authfriend wrote: It occurs to me that one reason they might actually jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding scandals, Whatever the reason, it would be great to see him go. in particular the U.S. attorney firings, which is currently in the process of going nuclear. Yep, yet another major scandal that probably won't make any difference. Then again, this could be the final straw. So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved in that one. Sal
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > > > wrote: > > > > > Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney > might be > > > history in a couple of weeks, due to health > problems, supposedly? > > > Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do > you imagine will > > > replace him? > > > > I think it would be terrific. > > > > I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, > you > > never know. > > It occurs to me that one reason they might actually > jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be > to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding > scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings, > which is currently in the process of going nuclear. > So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved > in that one. This firing of the attornies is going to really blow-up. Bush's hubris is finally going to catch-up to him. He forgot that he's not king! > > > > > > I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi > Rice. > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ~--> > Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See > the new email design. > http://us.click.yahoo.com/lOt0.A/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM > ~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be > > history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? > > Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will > > replace him? > > I think it would be terrific. > > I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you > never know. It occurs to me that one reason they might actually jettison Cheney--sooner rather than later--would be to create a distraction from the *other* unfolding scandals, in particular the U.S. attorney firings, which is currently in the process of going nuclear. So far, Cheney doesn't appear to have been involved in that one. > > I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi Rice. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine > wrote: > > > Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be > > history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? > > Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will > > replace him? > > I think it would be terrific. > > I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you > never know. > > I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi Rice. > And from there, she'd be the logical one to replace Bush. Talk about a political nightmare for both political parties: She'd be black AND female, vs the two top Democratic contenders who are black OR female. She'd be arch-conservative but... she'd be black and female. Yikes, what an interesting mess.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be > history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? > Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will > replace him? I think it would be terrific. I don't think it's likely, but with this bunch, you never know. I'd guess the probable replacement would be Condi Rice.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
On Mar 12, 2007, at 5:42 PM, authfriend wrote: The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism. Clinton was obsessed with the threat. Bush ignored it. Judy, what do you think of the idea that Cheney might be history in a couple of weeks, due to health problems, supposedly? Think it's going to happen, and, if so, who do you imagine will replace him? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jstein wrote: > The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than > Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism. > Clinton was obsessed with the threat. Bush ignored > it. > No matter what you say, the record shows that Bill Clinton failed to act against terrorism. "Instead, Clinton knew at the time that his top military and intelligence officials were dragging their feet on going after bin Laden and al Qaeda. He gave up rather than use his authority to force them into action." Read more: 'No matter what he says, the record shows he failed to act against terrorism.' By Byron York NRO, September 24, 2006 9:40 AM http://tinyurl.com/gvwrd
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than > > Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism. > > Clinton was obsessed with the threat. Bush ignored > > it. > > > Non sequitur. > > Bill Clinton failed to kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance. He > let up all down big time. This is a fact. The *fact* is that Clinton did *far* more than Bush to attempt to protect the U.S. from terrorism. Clinton was obsessed with the threat. Bush ignored it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
jim flanegin wrote: > Apparently Bush has decided that *killing* the Iraqi civilian > population will comply with UN resolution 688. After all the > Iraqi civilian population can't be repressed if they're dead, > right? > Bush isn't *killing* any Iraqi civilians, Jim. The terrorists kill Iraqi civilians. 296 U.S. Representatives voted in favor of the resolution to use force to unseat Saddam. What kind of word games are you trying to play? Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002: That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That isn't what they voted for, as Willytex knows. > > > Willytex knows that 296 U.S. Representatives voted in favor of an > authorization for use of military force against Iraq. > > 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002' > > 296 Representatives voted in favor of the resolution. > > Read more: > > 'Iraq Resolution' > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution > Interesting paragraph in the Resolution: "Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';" Apparently Bush has decided that *killing* the Iraqi civilian population will comply with UN resolution 688. After all the Iraqi civilian population can't be repressed if they're dead, right?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush's bad ju-ju...
> That isn't what they voted for, as Willytex knows. > Willytex knows that 296 U.S. Representatives voted in favor of an authorization for use of military force against Iraq. 'Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002' 296 Representatives voted in favor of the resolution. Read more: 'Iraq Resolution' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
