Alphecca

Cases on point:

1. This morning Valerie Plame is at this momment giving a political hit speech, stage by the Democrats with the help of the media, over the blown cover of a CIA spook that really was neither. Just to deflect she calls her "blown" cover a political hit job. Kettle meet pot.

2. The last few days I see the media and even some mornic Republicans as well as all Dems wringing their hands over the firing of 8 US Attorneys. I don't think that Clinton's firing of 93 of the then 94 USA's even made the TV news over a decade ago.

Nope, no media bias here. Those who don't think it exists nee to clean the sand out of their ears after extricatig their heads from subterrainia.

Holy crap Ron, it is standard procedure for a new administration to ask for the resignations of the the former president’s attorneys—particularly if the former president was from the other party. U.S. attorneys serve for four-year terms, so when a new administration begins, their terms are about to expire and they are often asked to leave.

Ronald Reagan did in 1981. Bill Clinton in 1993. Likewise, in 2001 the Bush Administration replaced Democratic prosecutors with Republican prosecutors. This was expected, and there is absolutely NOTHING unusual or controversial about this at all—Presidents routinely fire U.S. attorneys from the previous administration at the beginning of a new administration.* But Clinton's appointees stayed for his second term. Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.

So just to make this absolutely clear, because you guys seem to not understand this: mass firings of U.S. attorneys are common and expected when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. It is especially unusual for an administration's own appointees to be replaced in mid-term except for cases of gross misconduct, which doesn’t seem to be the case with the attorneys the administration has purged so far.

*Nonetheless, in 1993, Republicans raised a huge stink when Janet Reno made the very routine and long anticipated request for the resignation of the Republican-appointed attorneys, which was all of them.

Republican's may have raised a stink in 1993, but did it get the hype that we now see? I think not.

Also, so what if he is canning 8 USA's. He can do what he chooses, as these are political appointments, as Guav even notes in his post.

Why the big deal now? Because the Dems are on the attack and if the Bush admin so much as sneezes they will attack, attack attack, claiming cover up or conspiracy. Don't get me wrong, I am not a Bush fan on many, many issues (immigaration, spending to name a few) but this USA rant is wholly manufactured.

Just a note on FNC's (not Fox, which is the network which puts on the Simpsons and Family Guy)supposed bias: I remember a media survey a few years back which rated most major outlets on a liberal/conservative scale, with 1 being the most liberal, 100 the most conservative, and 50 right down the middle.

FNC scored a 43, which actually puts them slightly left of center. They're only "conservative" when compared with the other major outlets, which, IIRC, mostly scored in the low 30s and leftward.

The American Marxists Dems just don't like them because they actually question what they say instead of sycophantically treating it as self-evident gospel.

ron - the issue is not that he fired 8 at once, it is WHY they were fired. I guess it all comes down to how you interpret "serves at the pleasure of the president." so if the administration doesn't like the cases they're working on they can get fired? legally, maybe. ethically, no way.

ok, need to stop spending time here and get over to the OTHER site I should be at :) -see rumbler joke from other post-

They were fired for political reasons, there is no question whatsoever that that is true. Now that that is out of the way, what exactly is the big deal. No one has explained that to me yet. You all talk about it being an ethical issue, but by that standard evey president that takes office and cans staff, attorneys etc is not acting "nicely". Suspicious? My feeling is that it is a manufactured suspicion. Are you folks out there so blind that you actually do not see the media and the left's agenda here to dog Bush until he is out of office. At least be intellectually honest about the fact that this is occurring. Or are all of you from the "Bush is the devil" school.

A note to those who can't help but see these antics through their liberla prism, from the AP today:

"Still, Plame's appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was a moment of political theater that dramatized Democrats' drive to use their control of Congress to expose what they see as White House efforts to intimidate dissenters."

Gee, sounds like the same play the Dems are using to whip up a frenzy on the firing of the USA's. I rest my case.