Posted on 03/14/2007 9:50:24 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle
Brit Hume led his Tuesday night Grapevine segment by scolding his media colleagues for how “news stories reporting that the Bush administration had considered firing all 93 U.S. attorneys across the country failed to mention that that is exactly what Bill Clinton did soon after taking office back in 1993.” Hume explained how that was not noted, “even in passing, in front-page stories today in the New York Times and the Washington Post, or in the AP's story on the subject.”
Earlier in the FNC newscast, reporter Steve Centanni pointed out how “the White House acknowledged there were talks in 2005, just after the President won his second term, about terminating all 93 U.S. attorneys just as President Clinton unceremoniously did 1993 after he won the White House.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
You don't give them a quote you don't want them to use. Bush has not been in politics long enough to know that? You don't admit "mistakes" over something you had an absolute right to do. You say "I had the authority, we did it, I support it" - AND you criticize those who are criticizing you. We have to post these things in exasperation because the POTUS can't figure it out?
Your tagline is crude (just like politics, huh?) but correct. Let's face it : Clinton understood this and played that hand well....
No argument from me.
He's not explaining himself worth a crap again. The "mistakes" were that Gonzalez staff didn't explain the firings well. Now, there are already hundreds of headlines, once again, saying "Bush Admits Mistakes."
I throw up my hands.
I pray every day for republican with Clinton's ability.
Bill is good. Eddy Rendel is good.
We on the other hand are blessed with well mannered, high minded, very polite..... LOSERS!
Brit Hume was either being disingenuous, or he's misinformed. Bush did replace all the attorneys within six months of taking office, just as all presidents do. Political appointees, such as the federal attorneys, are replaced with each new administration. There is nothing wrong or unusual with that.
The issue here is that the attorneys who've been fired have charged that they were intimidated or threatened, the AGs chief of staff lied to Congress about it, e-mails are coming out that show the process was not handled appropriately, and Gonzales tried to replace them with interim appointments that would not be subject to Senate approval.
"The issue here is that the attorneys who've been fired have charged that they were intimidated or threatened, the AGs chief of staff lied to Congress about it, e-mails are coming out that show the process was not handled appropriately, and Gonzales tried to replace them with interim appointments that would not be subject to Senate approval."
So what?
This is nothing but more fart gas from the demoKaRatz as they try baffle the country with BS.
The guys who got fired are Ratz and like all Ratz they squeal and whine when they get hit with their own club.
Prez can fire them. He doesn't need a reason. Maybe he didn't like their hair. Too bad.
Fred Dalton Thompson
You can say THAT again! ;-P
Ditto.
Why? They have no interest in facts taht contradict "the story."
Journalism is about "advancing the story line" not " reporting the facts." Where have you been?
Did anyone see on CNN yesterday when they called the firings "unprecedented?" It was at about 7 PM EDT.
Uh, the guys who were fired are all Republicans who were appointed by the Bush administration. And I haven't seen it disputed that the president can fire appointees whenever he wants without a reason. Are you sure you're on the right thread?
Didn't Clinton fire all of them in order to provide cover for the firings of the ones investigating him and his wife (whats her name - she was JFK this week).
Always wondered how things would be if Republicans actually grew some BALLS - I mean big, brass, stone-cold balls - and FIRE BACK at these girly-men, feminists, and enablers in the Democratic party.
Disingenuous or misinformed, you say? Brit Hume has been a Washington fixture for over 30 years. 1993 was unprecedented and controversial, in that incoming administrations replaced US Attorneys over a period of time...they didn't fire them wholesale, as the Clintons did.
Are you being "disingenuous, or...misinformed?"
"I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience." (To Mondale hinting Reagan was too old to serve)At that point Mondale lost the debate with no hope of recovery. His cheap jab was turned back on him, mortally wounding him. Bush, read your history!
These Republcans need to spend some time on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.