http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx The White House most likely did itself little public good with its decision yesterday to keep Karl Rove and Harriet Miers from testifying under oath in the US attorneys controversy. That said, history has shown that whenever presidents stand up to Congress,en-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96504Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:24:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96504Marty in Kansas CityQuote... "It's time for Heather Wilson to release her phone records and come clean. It's time for Heather Wilson to tell the full truth." A republican tell the truth, I don't believ that's possible. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96556Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:14:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96556J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NYI just don't understand why Republicans have such a double standard when it comes to investigating possible wrongdoing. I seem to recall the Clinton administration being harangued by a Republican led mob in congress, about the firings of people in The White House Travel Office. The travel office for God's sake! This time we're talking about federal prosecutors who were let go because they wouldn't engage in political witch hunting against Democrats. Isn't THAT a hell of a lot more important than a travel office? .....And what's the big deal about tetsifying under oath? If Rove and Miers have done nothing wrong, and if they tell the truth, they have nothing to fear from anyone. Isn't that right? I mean, even if they aren't under oath, they intend to tell the truth anyway, don't they? So why not swear in, with confidence, and assure The American People that there was no political trickery intended or involved in the firing of these prosecutors. See.....the thing is, that this White House has gotten away with doing whatever it wanted to do,..... whenever it wanted to do it,.....with no congressional oversight.....for so long, that it's throwing a tantrum now when checks and balances are applied. Too bad! We live in an open Constitutional Society where the people rule and the truth takes precedence. It's time for Bush and Co., to come clean and face Congeress and The American People under oath. Let the chips fall where they may. All they have to do is tell the truth. Now that's not so hard, or is it? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96564Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:17:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96564Carrie, NW IowaWhat amazes me is that Bush actually thinks he is making a reasonable offer. Sure, you can talk to the key people involved, but you can't make a transcript and they won't be under oath and it won't be in public. I mean, if they can lie behind closed doors with no record of it, and thus no fear of being held accountable in the courts for anything they reveal, is that really offering anything at all?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96566Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:20:12 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96566Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo.I don't know why the dems won't accept Bushies offer after all they are all accomplished liars. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96573Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:24:14 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96573Ryan, MichiganWhat I find amazing about this is that this should be a non-story. If it wasn't for the White House bungling its release this would've never happened. Presidents can hire or fire whichever US Attorney he wants. He can be as partisan as they want. Often times as tenures run out US Attorney's are replaced with "party people". The president can fire an attorney for tying their shoes wrong if he wanted to. No crime has been committed here. The only thing wrong is the fact that the White House can't seem to put out a half way decent press release. I will give the Bush critics one thing, this administration has bungled so many stories. They are in desperate need of a PR person. From Dubai Ports to Plame...Valerie Plame and from the War on Terror to Katrina, this administration has a major communication problem.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96577Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:29:03 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96577James, downstate IllinoisI just loved Bush's assertion that the Democrats were 'playing politics' with this issue. First of all, everything in Washington is played for maximum political gain by both sides. Apparently, Bush believes that the Republicans make every move with purely altruistic motives. As has been said before, if they have nothing to hide, why not testify in public and under oath? That's the same argument that has been used to justify their domestic spying campaign. The only people that should be concerned are the 'evil-doers', not the average citizen who has nothing to hide.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96578Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:29:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96578JIrby, Colorado SpringsBush has come up with something that could put an entirely different spin on the Gonzales flap. Quoth Bush: "...we will not go along with a partisan fishing expedition aimed at honorable public servants." So far, he hasn't informed us of which honorable public servants he may be talking about. The ones who were fired? This makes the most sense, but he could surprise us and bring a half dozen or so honorable public servants out of the closet and into the sunlight. We don't know. But gosh oh gee, why are we just now hearing about these people? Are they interns? There is one other consideration that may need to be factored into the equation. The fact that Bush in a no good, stinking, rotten, lying wad of armadillo road kill vomit. So when you add that into the mix, you could come up with the very high probability that A. Bush is lying as usual. And B. Just like always, Bush doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I tried to get some news about this on Good Morning America, but two minutes after they came on, they interrupted the Gonzales thing to bring us wall to wall coverage on the boy scout that had been found in the woods. With that going on plus all the Anna Nicole Smith foo-foo-rah, the Iraq war could be over before we know whatever happened with the Gonz. I urge all reasonable people, (excluding any reasonable Republican that may have sneaked under the wire), to write your congressman and tell him to please try to do something about the boy scout story that has taken over the liberal-biased media.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96580Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:31:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96580Still Crazy After All These Years"I Shot the Sheriff.But I Did Not Shoot the Deputy"-Eric Claptonhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96582Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96582Robert Catalano, Salem, ORHistory has shown that Executive Priviledge is a tightly interpreted concept where a President's broad interpretation of it is seldom honored by the courts or Congress. Nixon claimed the priviledge with his tapes and lost. Yesterday, Dick Armey, the former Republican House leader said if he were in the same position as Leahy (the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman), he would issue subpoenas and reject Bush's offer. Armey was also one of the leading advocates against Clinton. The President does not want his people testifying because he knows Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this fiasco. He wants to protect his strategist, his hatchet-man, and his friend. Who says there is no honor among thieves? This being said, even if Congress does subpoena the White House aides and ultimately cite them for contempt if they do not appear, the man who has to decide whether or not to prosecute would be the US Attorney in the District of Columbia who, incidentally, was appointed by Gonzalez. I am just wondering if this US Attorney will do his job or fall back to the kind of political loyalties which started this mess in the first place.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96583Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:34:29 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96583James, downstate IllinoisRyan - It may or may not rise to the level of a crime, but that's not the only issue. If these firings happened to either thwart active investigations against Republican allies or to punish attorneys for not fast-tracking investigations that would help Republicans in the November '06 elections, this would compromise the independence of the US Attorney offices. The US Attorneys should not be political operatives to be manipulated for the gain of the President and his allies.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96588Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:38:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96588Flat-earther, Georgia"What we have here is a failure to communicate." ..."Thank you sir. May I have another?" Both, CoolHand Luke. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96589Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:39:53 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96589Carrie, NW IowaRyan - note what you said - as tenures run out. That's not the situation here. People were fired, and the reason given was incompetence. What about the careers of those that were fired for being incompetent? Do you not think it is wrong that someone who has been appointed to office to uphold the rule of law is fired because he won't prosecute the right people to suit the president's political agenda? They are NOT political appointments, not in the same way many other appointments are. We are talking about the justice system. If political agendas are allowed to dominate the justice system, we are seriously screwed. This is a country of laws, not men. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96596Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:43:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96596Seattle SueRyan,Mich.---We just won't know if a crime was committed or not unless there is an investigation with all involved sworn to tell the truth. You tell me what is wrong with testifying under oath,in public and with a transcript. My common sense says if they don't want to testify under oath then they are planning to lie. Remember it was Scooter that lied under oath (his choice)and is faceing jail time. Please don't tell me that no law was broke in the Plame case because prejury is a crime. Apparently a crime or ethnics are based on the firing of these USAs. I know Bush/Cheney doesn't believe in testifing under oath as they refused to do so before.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96612Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:50:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96612nc, new hampshireWhile it is true that the firing of the US Attorneys is within the purview of the President, the complete lack of inquiry by the previous Repub-controlled Congress into such fiascos as the Iraq war, the FEMA ineptitude in New Orleans or the nomination of Harriet Myers (!!) to SCOTUS has only whetted the Congressional appetite for some actual oversight. It's time this imperial administration realized just what sepapration of powers means. I approve of the valid actions of the Judiciary Committee.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96614Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:52:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96614R.MerrellThe White House credo as practiced by Bush, Cheney, Rove and the rest of that crowd: Always tell the truth. Even if you have to make it up. ~Author Unknownhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96624Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:59:51 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96624rickRyan, what you say is true, but there is a big difference in that Senator Spector slipped into the "Patriot Act" a provision to do away with Senate confirmation. (And shame on the Democrats for not catching this when it was voted on.) Then Karl Rove, a political advisor, starts a process to get rid of US Attorneys who won't initiate political prosecutions and replace them with political hacks who don't have to be confirmed by the Senate. So in the past, a President could be as partisan as he wanted IF he had Senate confirmation. Why would you, as a conservative, be in favor of such a radical change to confirmation procedures? Once again, I ask the question that I've so often heard neocons ask: "If they don't have anything to hide, why are they so afraid of testifying in public and under oath?" And I wonder, if everything is normal and proper, why does the White House story change so frequently? The administration has a problem alright, but it involves a lot more than just communication.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96625Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:59:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96625rickRyan, what you say is true, but there is a big difference in that Senator Spector slipped into the "Patriot Act" a provision to do away with Senate confirmation. (And shame on the Democrats for not catching this when it was voted on.) Then Karl Rove, a political advisor, starts a process to get rid of US Attorneys who won't initiate political prosecutions and replace them with political hacks who don't have to be confirmed by the Senate. So in the past, a President could be as partisan as he wanted IF he had Senate confirmation. Why would you, as a conservative, be in favor of such a radical change to confirmation procedures? Once again, I ask the question that I've so often heard neocons ask: "If they don't have anything to hide, why are they so afraid of testifying in public and under oath?" And I wonder, if everything is normal and proper, why does the White House story change so frequently? The administration has a problem alright, but it involves a lot more than just communication.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96629Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:01:22 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96629M.E., Albany, Ga.Ryan- "...this administration has a major communication problem.". CNN's report last night on "Illiterate America" could be the answer to that prob in this administration. They reported that one in three people in Washington,DC are "functionally illiterate". Now...out of these three, i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rove, any idea who the "one" is? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96630Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:01:47 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96630Dave, TnWell I really don't know who Heather Wilson is, but that's an easy one to bat down. Just make an ad with Schumer's letter to James Comey on January 22, 2004 interfering with the Plame Leak case. A privilege for democrats is a crime for Republicans. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96634Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:04:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96634Vridar, SeattleI have a question that I have not seen addressed in the media. Does the Congress' revocation of Gonzales' authorization to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate confirmation apply to those who were dismissed in December? That is, will those who are chosen to replace the fired U.S. Attorneys have to obtain Senate confirmation or are they already in place? It is relevant because I think it curious that the Attorney chosen to replace Bud Cummins in Little Rock was "important to Rove and Miers." It has been widely reported that regardless of their personal opinion of her, GOP operatives roundly acknowledge her formidability in a general election: as Clinton herself said, she knows how they [the GOP] thinks, how they fight, and how to beat them. Rove too has said she is a "formidable candidate," and as such, it would not surprise me if he (as the White House's political guru responsible for recouping Congressional losses in 2008 and avoiding the reality, perceived or otherwise, of Bush presiding over the demise of the GOP) pushed to install a hand-selected partisan in Little Rock in order to dredge up further mud related to Whitewater, etc., in order to assault her candidacy as the campaign progresses. I, personally, think the GOP is terrified of Hillary and not so much of Obama.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96638Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:07:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96638jeani o, saint inigoes mdRyan - Should justice be partisan? What I'm getting out of this story is that they are trying to determine if these people were fired for poor performance or because they weren't doing what the prez wanted. If this is a partisan fishing expedition, the original firings were based on a partisan fishing expedition - part of the criteria for staying or going was whether or not they were "loyal Bushies," per Kyle Sampson. If justice is supposed to be about justice, how does "loyal Bushie" fit into the scenario? Something smells fishy and I'm betting Gonzales resigns before long because of it.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96642Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:10:52 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96642Vridar, SeattleI should add to my previous comments that the dredging up of Hillary and Bill's Little Rock past would be damaging not only because it would call into question their integrity in the minds of some, but much more importantly, would play to American's desire to leave that era behind them. It would basically remind them of the baggage Hillary brings to office, a politically shrewd move, on Rove's part. Let's just see if, given the publicization of the firings, they get away with it. Remember, we were never supposed to know that Cummins in Little Rock was replaced with hand-selected choice of Rove. This revelation by McNulty to Congress in February, these new documents reveal, incensed Gonzales and it is now widely known that it was a political appointment. We'll see. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96645Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:14:18 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96645Owen Vander, Evansville, INRyan MI -whether this should be an issue or not is moot, it has become one. What the issue is now is 'If the administration has nothing to hide, why not provide testimony under, recorded and in public?' If everything is legit, aren't they incredibly foolish thinking it will all go away with such a suspicious offer? If there is something fishy, don't you think it will come out one way or another, with or without their cooperation? I feel as if they are trying to pull a fast one here, once again taking the opposition for fools. It won't work, this group has wasted any credibility they had by previous ducks and dodges. If this was totally above board, why not come out from the shadows and 'let it all hang out'? Ryan, if you were innocent of a perceived wrongdoing and could prove it, wouldn't you go on the record and testify to set the record straight? Under what circumstances would you take the 'backdoor' approach, talk off the record, with no witnesses(the media) and not be beholden to telling the truth(no oath)?? "Where there is smoke, there is fire" http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96650Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:17:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96650Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo.J.Merle it is extremely hard for anyone in this administration to tell the truth. If you try to put Karl Rove under oath and you say "do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" He would say I don't know how to do that.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96653Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:19:50 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96653Brian, Cedar Hill, TXI really enjoy seeing this no-account President and his administration whining and squirming under their new lives with accountability. They'd better get used to it, they've got a lot to answer for and 2 years of more of the same. I strongly suspect that if they think they can get away with it, they'll somehow manufacture a big, fat terror crisis of some kind to divert the attention of the masses. How this guy still has an approval rating in the 30's amazes me.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96655Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:20:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96655Vridar, SeattleRyan from Michigan, you're correct that Presidents can be as partisan as they want--George Bush has proven this resoundingly. They do not, however, do so in a vacuum and without oversight by Congress, unless, of course, you mean a GOP Congress. It is not clear, however--and will probably not become clear unless administration officials testify under oath--that the law has not been broken in this case, as you claim. If, indeed, certain prosecutors were forced out because they were prosecuting embarassing corruption cases involving Republican Congressmen and e-mails or testimony establish this evidentially, that's obstruction of justice, a felony, I believe. It's only a non-story if you care not for the rule of law, the foundation of American democracy.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96662Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96662M.E., Albany, Ga.NY Post said when Cheney was asked about a pardon for Scooter, "he smiled and said, 'You can imagine how I feel about that'.". It says "Scooter himself was seated in the front row.". What I'd like to know......Was the Scoot "smiling" back? Did they share a ride to the Club? AND, Has the dick invited him "hunting" yet? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96681Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:34:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96681Vridar, SeattleIt appears First Read didn' post the comment I referred to above. I'll repeat: Does anyone know if the Attorneys chosen to replace those fired in December will have to undergo Senate confirmation given Congress' revocation of Gonzales' authorization to appoint them without doing so? This is important because it is clear that Rove hand-selected a replacement for Bud Cummins in Little Rock, possibly an attempt to install a partisan who would dredge up Whitewater and such, reminding Americans of Hillary's baggage, if not actually resulting in charges. Why would Rove, the White House political advisor, care who is the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, if not to influence the politics of the 2008 election?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96685Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:35:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96685J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NYRyan in Mich. I tend to disagree with you. If these prosecutors were fired specifically because they refused to investigate and persecute DEMOCRATS-ONLY for so-called election fraud; that is to say, if they were being pressured to fraudulantly make up charges against someone,.....it would indeed be a crime! I don't know the specific charge by name and statute. ("Filing false charges" or "making a false complaint" comes to mind.) But, this is still The United States of America. You cannot purposefully, or willfully, investigate or prosecute someone just because you "wanna'".....when you know damn well they have'nt done anything wrong. Furthermore you cannot coerice anyone else into doing it for you. Prosecutors and Presidents have to follow the law just like everyone else does, regardless of what party they belong to, or what they think the guy before them did. By the way, the notion that a good P.R. man could make all the problems that Bush has caused this country go away is absurd. Bush needs to start following the law and stop the political trickery. That, my friend, is the problem. Not "public relations."http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96690Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:39:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96690Vridar, SeattleBoy, haven't we inflated Ryan from Michigan's ego with our full-court press. Perhaps we First Readers should all take a vow not to respond to patently absurd comments. Unlikely, I'm sure.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96691Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:39:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96691Still Crazy After All These Years"Yesterday, All my troubles seemed so far away, Now it looks as though there here to stay. I believe in yesterday"-Yesterday-Paul McCartneyhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96692Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:41:13 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96692Dave, TnWell I really don't know who Heather Wilson is, but that's an easy one to bat down. Just make an ad with Schumer's letter to James Comey on January 22, 2004 interfering with the Plame Leak case. A privilege for democrats is a crime for Republicans. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96701Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:48:15 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96701Barbara, Dalls TXVridar, Seattle Well said! Isn't is amazing that even the Republicans voted to stop Gonzales and future AG's from making these appointment by removing this clause from the Patriot Act. Did anyone in the Bush Administration give one small thought about the reputation of those fired and how it would effect their ability to be hired by a good Firm? I think not. It is surprising though, that some of the fired attorneys were Republicans. Seems like they are eating their young!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96710Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:56:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96710Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West VirginiaRecognizing that executive privilege is necessary, and most probably does have merit, in that some advice given a President of the United States and those who give it, does not have to be shared with the Nation has a whole is justified. However, like everything else about the Bush Administration, the usual privileges, courtesies, and mundane policies, have been used as tools to prevent the Administration from having to tell the truth...and there is no question, that by and large the Bush presidency is populated by those with an aversion to the truth. If anyone thinks that inviting Karl Rove in for coffee, with no cameras, no recordings, and no legal obligation to be truthful, will result in the truth being told, than they have lived in a bubble since the day George W. Bush, unelected by the people, was handed the Presidency by a divided USSC. The threatre that is involved in issuing the supoenas, ignoring the supoenas, the legal battles, and ultimately the USSC once again coming down on the side of the Bush Administration, is probably an exercise in futility. The questioning of Rove and Meirs is very narrowly focused, on their involvement in firing US Attorneys, not for poor job performance, but because they apparently failed to aggressively mount investigations against the President's enemies, while investgating those the President and his Administration would seek to protect. Executive privilege was not designed to allow liars to escape the consequences of the lies...however, that is exactly, what Bush is seeking, and in all probabilty what the USSC will allow him, should it reach that stage. No one should be surprised with the actions of Bush, he resisted allowing Secy Rice being put under oath for the 9/11 Commission, an investigative body into the most egregious attack on American soil since December 7, 1941, and certainly warranting truth from anyone called to testify, including members of Bush's inner circle. Once again the "democracy" we hold so dear, is in fact a fiction. Hopefully, the horrors of the two terms of the Bush Presidency, from a war based on lies, to outing a covert CIA agent, will never, never happen again. Should our Nation ever end up with an immoral President like George W. Bush, by USSC appointment again...then we may as well burn the Constitution and admit to the world that our Nation is a fraud.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96711Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:58:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96711John Stout WD, IL.J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY--- Is that all the conspiracy you have? When are your great American Dems. going to actually start doing their jobs? Next month, next year...? Why not take your money and pay them directly and give us ours back. Fair is fair, I don't care if these guys are elected or not but for God sakes do the job you are elected for. This is a waste of time whether you care to admit it or not. The rest of us in the real world can only go fishing on our time - not our employers time. You don't leave work to go fishing! This will end badly for your 'hunters". Schumie will resign in disgrace! The only question now is how much and how long do you want to pay him, from your pocket, until this happens?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96718Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:00:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96718John Stout WD, IL.Barbara, Dalls TX-- No barbie, Whats anazing is how little you pay attention and how little you know. Now thats amazing!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96729Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:06:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96729Some really stupid monikerRIGHT WING APOLOGIST AND OBFUSCATORS! YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE! If the attorneys were fired for not prosecuting Democrats, or for prosecuting Republicans ala PURE PARTISANSHIP, then it's WRONG, whether your leathery, sun-baked heads can absorb that, or not. Stretch your thinking process and imagine PRESIDENT EDWARDS dismissing, hell, TWO atterneys in '09 for not going after republicans - you'd squeel like STUCK PIGS even if the republican was a child molester. You lock-step automitons squeeled like stuck pigs over a BJ! "Obfuscate, Denigrate, Reiterate" - K. Rovehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96731Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:07:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96731AsadI find the role reversal very interesting. When the White House claimed that it has the right to read our mail and listen to our phone calls, they said that if we have nothing to hide then we shouldn't worry. We then said that it's a matter of principle that the government shouldn't spy on it's citizens no matter the circumstances. ....Now, Congress is trying to question the Administration's advisers under oath and saying that if the Administration has nothing to hide then it shouldn't worry. The Administration now says that it's a matter of principle that advisers shouldn't have to testify under oath no matter what the circumstances. ... "What goes around comes back around" - Justin Timberlakehttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96732Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:07:41 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96732Al, Burlington KSCan you spell N-I-X-O-Nhttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96742Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:10:27 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96742The Edge, Macon, GAIf Rove, etal are not allowed to go on the record, can Congress use our "it's-not-torture" techniques to extract the truth? Afterall, they were party to that bit of legal hopscotch.....http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96748Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:14:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96748DesmondSenator Domenici (Republican) hired a lawyer after his phone call to the U.S. attorney in his state was revealed. He could possibly face an indictment,for pressuting a U.S. attorney about a possible grand jury case. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96751Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:14:40 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96751I'LL BASH IF I WANT TODam NEOCON-NAZI-BABY KILLER REPUBLICANS! Forget the investigations! We know they are guilty, arrest them all in the W/H and send them to The Hague. Kick Devil-Bush out of the W/H and put Pelosi in as President. She'll pull those killers out of Iraq. Send the troops home - we don't need them anyway. The troops are a waste of money. This whole lie of a war on terror is costing too much time and too much money. Anyway, what terrorist? that’s a lie too. No one is going to do anything to us! Bush-Devil knew about the attacks in NY before they happened, they were told exactly what was going to happen and when and deliberately let it happen to improve his popularity! Put them all in jail!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96753Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:15:24 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96753Tim M, Ithaca NYAs expected, Congress is focusing on everything but the two issues that got the Dem's elected: the war in Iraq and Congressional corruption! This is a complete smoke screen to the American people! Ultimatly the President has the authority to hire and fire U.S. attornys as he pleases, just this President, as usual, decided not to let Congress know what he was doing and now they're whining about it!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96775Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:30:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96775kim, crofton, mdBush has no choice but to offer to have Rove and Miers come before Congress in closed, secret meetings. If they were sworn in, he knows they would perjure themselves to avoid revealing the corrupt workings of his administration, and then there would be criminal activity to worry about. This way he can make it appear as though he wants to cooperate, but the Democrats are only after partisan gain. If Bush wanted the truth to come out, he could easily waive executive privilege, allow his aides to testify under oath, and the matter would be over. The fact that he is resisting, shows he has something to hide. Drawing up "loyalty rankings" of federal prosecutors undermines the basic fairness of the justice system in this country. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, you should recognize the threat this poses to our democracy.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96780Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:33:32 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96780John Doe, The Peanut GalleryDave - I googled Schumer's letter and I don't see what your point is. Schumer was asking for an update on a case. That is not what happened with Domenicci and Wilson's phone calls to the US Attorneys. Domenicci and Wilson threatened these attorneys with the loss of their jobs if they didn't stop investigating Republicans or fast track indictments (that never materialized -even after the new attorneys were set up in office) for Democrats so as to aide in the 2006 midterms. One is a request for a satus update, the other was a threat designed to influence our Justice System in for partisan gain. The right wing's lack of concern for the foundations of our justice system is really very concerning. Imagine what your reaction would be if the same situation had occured during the Clinton administration. Republican's would go through the roof. But, hey! When it's your side it's all fair play, huh? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96808Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:52:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96808Mark Y; Westlake Village, CAThis blog contains some thoughtful arguments, funny insights, and zingers...until John Stout WD...Dave-TN is not much better in contributing content and discussion points, either. As far as the subject, a President has the right to remove US attornetys, which supports Ryan-Michigan. What I object to, as with most others on this blog, is the selective way laws appear to be enforced. If you believe the President, Repub or Dem, also has the right to enforce the law in a partisan matter, then yes, the left is wrong on this issue. However, if you believe laws should be enforced regardless of political affiliation, then the bush supporters would be wrong. Just like the "nuclear option ", as a partisan, would you want that in your opponents' hands? If the firings were not policially motivated, this is a non-story. However, the persons fired and the disclosed memos would seem to indicate otherwise. Hope this stays civil...one of the better discussions of late.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96815Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:55:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96815mikeeg,abdn,waright wing swiftboaters whinning and snivelling about anything and everything to try and change subject from bush incompetence and malfeasance.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96822Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:58:43 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96822Dennis E., Dallas, TXVridar, there is a question as to whether the replacements would have to be submitted for confirmation as the old law (which is still in effect until the house passes the bill and W signs it) would still apply. I believe Gonzoles stated when this mess started that he would in fact submit the replacements for Senate confirmation but nothing has been said that indicates that he is doing that. Any bets that Griffin would be confirmed if in fact he is submitted for confirmation. One issue in this that does not receive a lot of press is when and at whose instigation was that clause inserted in the Patriot Act. I read that the Justice lawyer that did it claimed he did it on his own and without direction from higher ups. If you believe that I am sure you can believe that pigs can fly. More likely it is a part of Rove's plan for Republican domination by putting USA's in states where they can do the maximum damage to Democratic candidates. BTW John Stout, do you ever have anything constructive to say or is it your mission in life to denigrate anybody that does not agree with you?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96835Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:09:21 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96835Eileen, Navarre, FLI was going to add my arguments but realized that Coy Reese, West Virginia, said it all and said it well. Thanks, Coy!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96890Wed, 21 Mar 2007 17:47:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96890Mel, IllinoisRecently, I retired after teaching preschool for many, many years. Frequently I run into former students and they thank me for teaching them that actions have consequences and they have to take responsibility for their decisions. The excuses, "Billy started it" or "Ronnie did it first" never worked in my classroom. If four year old children can grasp those concepts surely grown-up voters and politicians can do the same. And by the way, name calling gets you four minutes on the time out chair.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96911Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:09:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96911John Stout WD, IL.Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia --- "Bush, unelected by the people, was handed the Presidency by a divided USSC. The threatre that is involved in issuing the supoenas, ignoring the supoenas, the legal battles, and ultimately the USSC once again coming down on the side of the Bush Administration, is probably an exercise in futility." LOL... Yes, you have said it all. Jesus! give it up. LOL LOL LOL. The President of The United States was re-elcted to a second term confirming that the votes in the first election were EXACTLY RIGHT! Do you have any other cospiracy? "Stay in school or go back" !http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96920Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:20:04 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96920Mark ThiemeCoy Reese: Best post I have ever read here. Bravo! It should be published more widely in some form or another.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96925Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:21:28 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96925Robert Catalano, Salem, ORVridar, last night Sen. David Pryor from Arkansas stated that Gonzalez lied to him concerning tne fired US Attorney Cummins who was to be replaced by Rove's protege. He was told by Gonzalez that the replacement US Attorney would be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. The e-mails released by the White House and the DOJ said they intended to appoint the replacement under the provision of the Patriot Act which allows the DOJ to appoint US Attorney's without Senate confirmatiion. Yesterday, the Senate repealed that provision of the Patriot Act and soon the House will probably do the same which means all of the replacements for the fired US Attorney's will have to be confirmed by the Senate. The reason Bush does not want Rove under oath is because it appears, even to Bush, that Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this. Bush is trying to save his friend, advisor and hatchet-man from the possibility of criminal charges. Also, Bush said yesterday he was going to allow Gonzalez and other DOJ officials to testify under oath. The truth of the matter is Gonzalez is required to testify before Congress because they confirmed him to his job. However, presidential aides, like Miers and Rove, are not confirmed by the Congress so they are not required to appear unless subpoenas are issued to them.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96931Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:26:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96931Robert Catalano, Salem, ORVridar, last night Sen. David Pryor from Arkansas stated that Gonzalez lied to him concerning tne fired US Attorney Cummins who was to be replaced by Rove's protege. He was told by Gonzalez that the replacement US Attorney would be submitted to the Senate for confirmation. The e-mails released by the White House and the DOJ said they intended to appoint the replacement under the provision of the Patriot Act which allows the DOJ to appoint US Attorney's without Senate confirmatiion. Yesterday, the Senate repealed that provision of the Patriot Act and soon the House will probably do the same which means all of the replacements for the fired US Attorney's will have to be confirmed by the Senate. The reason Bush does not want Rove under oath is because it appears, even to Bush, that Karl Rove's fingerprints are all over this. Bush is trying to save his friend, advisor and hatchet-man from the possibility of criminal charges. Also, Bush said yesterday he was going to allow Gonzalez and other DOJ officials to testify under oath. The truth of the matter is Gonzalez is required to testify before Congress because they confirmed him to his job. However, presidential aides, like Miers and Rove, are not confirmed by the Congress so they are not required to appear unless subpoenas are issued to them.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96943Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:35:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96943Carrie, NW IowaEdge - I hate to admit it, but that gave me a chuckle. I can just picture Rove being treated to a little waterboarding. Like you said...it's not really torture. Ironically enough, if the police did that on domestic crimes, any confession would be tossed out before the ink on it was even dry. Under the Constitution at least, an incriminating statement is not valid if it can be established that it was extorted from a defendant by coercive means. I would think waterboarding would be a little coercive. But what the heck...let's try it anyway!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96945Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:36:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96945Carrie, NW IowaJohn - I'll make a deal with you. We will stop talking about the 2000 election when you stop blaming Bill Clinton for everything that goes wrong. Deal?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96983Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:04:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96983John Stout WD, IL.Mark Thieme -- Don't you two kids have a video game to play or something? You have no point! Your comment is mute!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96989Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:10:49 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96989bobfJohn Stout and Dave are your typical angry right republicans. They have no facts to fall back on, so they make it up as they go along. All the while blindly and fiercly defending their president. They will say and do anything to protect W. Facts are meaningless to them, they would rather use fear and smear than debate with facts. Nice try Dave with the Schumer letter. Distract, attack, and deny facts. This should be the new republican motto. Just read John's response to Coy. He avoids the 2000 election problems and says they do not matter because he got elected in 2004. What the hell does the 2004 election have to do with the 2000 election. Wait the republican motto: DISTRACT, ATTACK, And DENY FACTS. You do all 3 in 1 article. I want to thank you John for proving my point. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96990Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:10:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96990bobfJohn Stout and Dave are your typical angry right republicans. They have no facts to fall back on, so they make it up as they go along. All the while blindly and fiercly defending their president. They will say and do anything to protect W. Facts are meaningless to them, they would rather use fear and smear than debate with facts. Nice try Dave with the Schumer letter. Distract, attack, and deny facts. This should be the new republican motto. Just read John's response to Coy. He avoids the 2000 election problems and says they do not matter because he got elected in 2004. What the hell does the 2004 election have to do with the 2000 election. Wait the republican motto: DISTRACT, ATTACK, And DENY FACTS. You do all 3 in 1 article. I want to thank you John for proving my point. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96994Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:11:48 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96994John Stout WD, IL.Carrie, NW Iowa --- Why not just fund the terrorists. Maybe you could cook them dinner? Hey, don't worry about them cutting off your head...all those things were lies anyhow. They are just simply poor, misunderstood, caring people being put down by "THE MAN". Let all those terrorist go! Stop being neocon nazi's Mr. President.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#96997Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:14:56 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:96997John Stout WD, IL.Carrie, NW Iowa -- OH MY GOD!!! and I could leave it at that but... DO YOU KNOW AT ALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? Who is blaming President Clinton for anything going on right now? TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK?http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97013Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:21:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97013Dave, tnJohn Doe I don't think you are right |(or I could be wrong) about them being threatened. I believe they said in the hearings "they felt pressured" That "I felt pressured" excuse as been used a lot in the last 6 years by political cowards for all sorts of things they voted on. I don't like where we're headed as a country either with all this BS of who did it first, who did it worse. I blame the networks for not doing their jobs and setting the record straight. Turn off the networks & cable, and watch only the News Hour on PBS and we'll all be better off. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97142Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:49:30 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97142John B, Des Moines, IASo John Stout, I guess you're saying the activities of our own government are OK as long as they aren't worse than the worst terrorists known to man? IMO pride alone demands that we expect more from the people who claim to be the leaders of the world's only super power. Certainly we should expect more if we're to deserve any respect from the people of any other nation.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97281Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:33:37 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97281John Doe, The Peanut GalleryDave - Even if "threatened" is a poor choice of words (and I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point), "preasured" is just as bad. The heart of this scandal rests on the possibility that the White House and prominent GOP members of Congress may have attempted to manipulate our justice system for their own partisan gains. This administration's handling of the scandal is increasingly convincing me that that is actually the case. I would suggest the following thought experiment: Imagine that President Clinton and top Democratic members of Congress had been accused of firing US Attorneys because when they asked them to indict Republicans at a state level they refused for valid reasons. In this hypothetical nothing has been concretely proven but the administration is acting incredibly guilty. You would want an investigation into that right? You would want top White House officials testifying before Congress under oath as to what happened. Or at least I would hope so, as the manipulation of our legal sytem for partisan gain is, I think, an incredibly serious charge and one that needs to have action taken on or publicly refuted. We CAN NOT have any doubts that the law is being applied in any manner that is less than fair. Our entire culture is based on the principle that everyone is equal before the law. That is why people like myself are so upset with this. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97291Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:38:38 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97291John Stout WD, IL.John B, Des Moines, IA --- That tired argument again ha? OK, tell us were the terrorist's "army and country" is so we can send our military to meet them? Maybe we should...do what we did in WWII and invade their country...hmmmmmm? No? Are you saying that we can't use regular military tactics to fight these people? What? You are saying the they could careless about rules of engagement and decency? Your not saying we stick our heads in the sand? Are you saying that your sorry and that you did not know what you were talking about? NO problem, it's OK!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97309Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:55:34 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97309Mark Y; Westlake Village, CAJohn Stout WD, Do you even understand why people are upset re: US atty firings? It is the allusion the law is being enforced on a partisan basis. The memos that have been made public indicate these attorneys, despite good performance evaluations, were being let go for what they perceive as political reasons. It has nothing to do with what the Pres is allowed to do; it is the belief that partisan politics is in play in enforcing the law. The question is if/when the Dems gain control, would you want that same lack of oversight and partisan politics coming into play in law enforcement? Your tendencies to label people and name call without any hint of facts for support make you an easy target. However, your ignoring anything that goes against your beliefs make me think you are perfect in supporting this administration. Wish you could cite facts so perhaps more civil discussions would appear in these blogs. P.S.-your partisanship is worse than Darren Pope. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97537Thu, 22 Mar 2007 03:39:54 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97537Jane, Southern MississippiRove: What you do is wait and see what happens. We fire the U.S. attorneys if they aren't going after the Democrats. Myers: You mean we shouldn't just fire all of them at the beginning of the President's new term. That's the way it's done. Rove: Harriet, Harriet, Harriet, you know we added the ability of the President to appoint U.S. attorneys in the middle of a term without Congressional approval. Myers: Is that legal? Is that what the most excellent President Bush wants? Rove: It's what he's got. That's all that matters. Legal Smeagle. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97854Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:17:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97854John B, Des Moines, IAJohn Stout, I have no reason to apologize, but if you have no idea what you're talking about so perhaps you'd like to consider the following. 1. The terrorists have no country or army so fighting them with conventional military forces is futile. 2. Afghanistan was the only place where the terrorists came close to having an army or country. Our esteemed leaders pulled most of the forces out of that country to attack a place that had not attacked us and was effectively weakened and attacked by prior and continuing actions. 3. As a result we are losing ground in Afghanistan. 4. The majority of the violence in Iraq is inter-sect civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. 5. That portion of the violence that is directed at the US is mostly a home-grown guerilla action against an occupying foreign power. 6. Conventional military tactics are largely ineffective against guerilla warfare, especially when the guerillas are masked by an overlying civil war. 7. Normal military convention would have it that a force approximately 4 times what we have on the ground, trained in police and counterinsurgency specialties, would be needed to control the violence. 8. The budget won't stand that. In fact what we're already doing is throwing a massive debt onto our children and grandchildren, all without effective results. 9. By the estimation of many experts within our military and outside the Army is already experiencing severe strain that renders it unlikely to be able to face additional threats should they occur. 10. All of this with a military budget larger than the rest of the top 10 military powers together, most of whom are our allies. 11. Nothing will ultimately keep us safe except old-fashioned police work. The Bush administration proposes combining a variety of anti-crime programs that have been proven effective under a single umbrella which will be funded at 1/3 the level of current funding. Because we can't afford it due to our military commitments. At a time when crime is rising nationally for the first time in over 10 years. I know better than to expect an admission that you were wrong, but if you think you can refute any of the above you're welcome to try.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97894Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:34:23 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97894John Stout WD, IL.Mark Y; Westlake Village, CA --- You say; "Do you even understand why people are upset re: US atty firings? It is the allusion the law is being enforced on a partisan basis. The memos that have been made public indicate these attorneys, despite good performance evaluations, were being let go for what they perceive as political reasons". There is no proof of anything at all, there was no law broken, YOUR PEOPLE ARE FISHING !!! HELLO. Now they are wasting time and money to do it!!! HELLO. Alls you have heard so far is speculation!!!! HELLO. It does not matter how much you HATE, hatred does not make for proof or evidence!!! HELLO. None of us ever thought twice of this or knew of this even, until your "fishermen" brought it up!!! HELLO. Jesus you people lose every point. You know nothing other than what they are telling you to believe. NOTHING WRONG HAS HAPPENED - IT'S ALL ABOUT REVENGE! YOU ARE BEING LED AROUND BY THE NOSE. YOU ONLY BELIEVE THIS BECAUSE YOU HATE THE PRESIDENT!!! HELLO.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97921Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:46:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97921Carrie, NW IowaMark - Clearly John Stout only cares about writing inflammatory responses. And John Stout - If you want to talk about a tired argument, it's that one you gave me about helping the terrorists. If you have some time, you might want to read the Constitution. In it, you will see something called the First Amendment, which gives me the freedom of speech. See, the founding fathers were pretty concerned that U.S. citizens would be able to voice their opinions re: government affairs without fear of retribution. In modern times, under the Bush Administration, that retribution is being labeled as someone who aids terrorists. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#97963Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:06:25 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:97963Jerry corpus christi TexasThis is a non-issue. Presidents have been firing their own for as long as I can remember. Clinton fired all of his people and I didn't see anybody get their panties in a knot over that. You serve at the plasure of the president and if he gets tired of you, then you are gone. It is the same in any business. Let's move on to other issueshttp://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98012Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:34:22 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98012John Stout WD, IL.It's amazing how much hearing the truth hurts some of you! It's the accepting that will hurt even more! Stop smoking doobies and open your eyes. You are being foolishly led astray. You can matter or be irrelevant? That’s up to you!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98020Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:38:55 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98020John Stout WD, IL.Jerry corpus christi Texas --- Hold on one minute Mr. We still have to have an investigation for the firing of Rumsfeld. Why it was done, who was involved, Emails, testimony...the whole lot! This is not over! You hear me!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98127Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:21:01 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98127M.E., Albany, Ga."Jerry"- "You serve at the 'plasur'(sic) of the president and if he gets tired of you, then you are gone.". But John-John, "why" did he all of a sudden "get tired" of them? "Why" were they not "plasur"ing him any more? Read some of the testimony these un"plasur"able attys gave about the intimidation tactics they endured.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98137Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:26:07 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98137John B, Des Moines, IAJerry, it would be a non issue if the evidence didn't point toward firing USAs who refused to discontinue legal action against Republicans or pursue action against Democrats for political gain. John Stout, interesting how you claim nothing has been proven when the investigation hasn't begun. Sorry buddy, following the evidence does not constitute a witch hunt.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98872Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:14:09 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98872John Stout WD, ILM.E., Albany, Ga.--- WOW! Revelation! YOU ARE RIGHT, OH MY GOD! IT'S A CONSPIRACY...THOSE BASTARDS!http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#98886Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:23:11 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:98886John Stout WD, ILJerry corpus christi Texas --- You can not say that here! That is not allowed! Now you must be straightened out. Fall in line or else. We have conspiracies, revenge, bitterness and anger to be passed out. ~ "WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE POEPLE AND BELIEVING ANYTHING LESS THAN CRIMES AND CONSPIRACY WILL NOT AND CAN NOT BE PERMITTED HERE".http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/03/21/96486.aspx#99555Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:46:58 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:99555M.E., Albany,Ga.John/Jerry- "WE HAVE THE POWER OF THE POEPLE(sic)". Now...if you'll look back, I've never said the Pope has blessed me with "the power".