The Iglesias Episode (Hit Piece on Domenici,Wilson,Rove)

The Washington Post ^ | April 9, 2007 | Editorial

[greyfoxx39]

THE DISPUTE between Democratic lawmakers and the Bush administration over access to documents and interviews with officials about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys seems to be escalating, not resolving. That's unfortunate, because it's become clear that the administration must make more information available than has been forthcoming. Perhaps the clearest case for that -- and the most troubling evidence of improper political motivations -- involves New Mexico prosecutor David C. Iglesias. -SNIP-

Was voter fraud the real reason for his dismissal, or his alleged absenteeism because of military service? Or was it because he failed to produce in time an indictment that could have been helpful to Ms. Wilson's endangered reelection bid?

[greyfoxx39]

Wapo, sure doesn't want to let the AG firings fall off the radar, does it?

[greyfoxx39]

Ping to Iglesias article....I missed it yesterday.

[woofie]

I think Iglesias was fired because of his funny sounding name

[Williams]

Iglesias is a head case, which is more than obvious from his press conferences with pie charts and graphs. He stated that he was a political PLUS for the GOP, then said he can't find any reason for his firing, so it must be politics.

No doubt in my mind this guy was the employee from hell.

[Pistolshot]

WaPo doesn't want this to fall off the radar for a couple of reasons, race, party, percieved performance.

My biggest question, since the indictments of Aragon et al, is the reason he says he was fired....When did Inglesias have the indictments and how long did he hold them?

If they were ready in October last year, and he didn't follow through, he should be fired. If he was asked to hold off by some of the same people he was after or other parties from the state, he should be prosecuted.

[sgtbono2002]

Lets go back to Clinton and see why he fired the whole damned bunch.