As most of you know I love George W. Bush. Yet, one of the things that frustrates me is his lack of backbone and how he is TOO NICE!! He came into the presidency with the "new tone". The problem is the Democrats had absolutely NO PLANS to reciprocate that. So what has the "new tone" gotten Bush? Nothing but headaches!!
If you want to know what one of the biggest reasons for the Scooter Libby fiasco is because there are still a bunch of people in Government positions loyal to the Democrats. Bush didn't clean house when he took office and as a result many actively sought to work against him from day one.
This latest non-controversy over the firing of the U.S. attorneys is a perfect example. If Bush had done what Clinton had and cleaned house from the beginning of his presidency we wouldn't be talking about the absurdity of receiving flack about getting rid of 8 U.S. Attorneys. Clinton gets rid of all 93 his first year in office but Bush decides to get rid of 8 in his 7th yr. and its a national tragedy. The hypocrisy is astounding and yet Bush doesn't even really call the Dems and the Drive By Media on it. Instead he's upset about how it was handled. Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!
I also have to point out that the audacity of Hillary constantly shocks me. She is calling for Gonzales's head when her husband did the same exact thing except fired them all. After her atrocious actions in travelgate she has unbelievable nerve. My jaw is on the floor. She constantly does this. She or her husband commit a much more offensive act and then she turns around and points a finger at someone and accuses them of the same act that they aren't even really guilty of but she is. What do you call that? Audacious doesn't seem to be a strong enough word.
The bottom line is whichever Republican wins the nomination and goes on to be President in 2008 better have a backbone. That person needs to come in and not be afraid to clean house so there are no back stabbers undermining him during his entire administration. I would have to say that this is another reason I'm favoring Rudy. Do you see him hesitating to clean house? I don't!!
I found an awesome WSJ editorial over at Mike's entitled, The Hubbell Standard. Here are some excerpts:
"Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.
Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.
And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.
The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York."