When I say something was amiss - you divert by saying the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president (as if to suggest that even if something were amiss, it would be irrelevant since the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president).

When I say that even while serving at the pleasure of the president - there is at least the possibility that obstruction of justice could accrue as a result of the relationship between the president and these attorneys - you divert by saying that nothing was amiss (as if to suggest that even if obstruction of justice were theoretically possible, it doesn’t apply in this case because nothing was amiss).

This of course forces me to restate what was amiss (if you look back through the blog you will see that I have listed a number of anomalies about the current dismissal that you haven’t even addressed – chief among them being how rare it is for U.S. Attorneys not to serve out the appointing president’s term), only to have you remind me that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president (admit it – in response to my above parenthetical – you once again responded in this same way in your head).

Could you at least try to address one issue at a time — and quit conflating the two. I may be a brick wall, but it is you who keeps pushing the discussion in a never ending circle.

And now - to play the hurt princess part just for a moment - while I at least try to give and take and bend with the discussion (I admitted that something was a bit fishy with Clinton, and (partly) agreed with you that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president) you haven’t budged a bit. Well - I guess that could just be because I am wrong on every issue, and you are ever so smart that you don’t have to bend. But. . . I am pretty sure that I showed how you misrepresented me as a moral relativist, but instead of any type of concession on your part, I get the following diversion:

“Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources.”

Agreed. And when the prosecutors don’t take cases their superiors in the Executive branch think they should, they “pursue other career opportunities”.

No mention here that you might have mislabeled me a moral relativist - and no consequent return to the point you were able to ignore by labeling me a moral relativist. Instead, you spin my statement to a different purpose. So - I ask again. Who is the brick wall? Of course it’s your webpage. You can be a brick wall if you want to.

Forever Your Princess.

When you continue to beat this non-scandal dead horse. They’re political appointees that can be removed at any time, for any reason.

You keep referring to smoke, but you’ve got nothing. But for the sake of argument, let’s just assume you’re correct and this was all a big politically-driven project. SO WHAT? They’re political appointees who can be (and are often) replaced by other political appointees when an adminstration thinks it’s the right time.

“And the fact that the Patiot Act changes things so that Bush can appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys - makes it even more worthy of specualation.”

You mean the Patriot Act that was voted for by 48 Democrat Senators and 145 Democrats in the House. Yeah, it presents a lot of “smoke” that the Bush administration might’ve taken action under a bipartisan law approved by an overwhelming majority of the opposition party…

“Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources.”

Agreed. And when the prosecutors don’t take cases their superiors in the Executive branch think they should, they “pursue other career opportunities”.

Ok. Yes. US attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president (but when did I deny this exsactly?. But as has been noted many times in the last weeks by commentators on both sides of the political divide - this doesn’t mean that the president’s interactions with U.S. Attorneys cannot ammount to obstruction of justice.

Moreover - I never talked about “level of improrpiety” Your right - at least legally, an action is either legal or illegal. However, determining whether or not to pursue a particular case or not does require making a judgmeent call based on the facts available. The police don’t pursue every claim that a law has been broken - but only those where the evidence at hand points to something amiss. Prosecutors are even pickier - pursuing those they think they can win. This is just good use of resources. The more smoke - the more likley that there is a fire. I take this as a fact. And in this case - there is a lot of smoke. I also take this as a fact. But I certainly don’t mean to suggest that the fact that there is a lot of smoke makes Bush more guilty then Clinton - but, rather, that he is more deserving of investigation. Tell me that DA’s around the country don’t make this type of judgement call all the time. When they do - are they moral relativists? Whose the brick wall now??

My problem is the fact that the Democrats who are trying to manufacture yet another fake scandal are some of the same people who did not have a problem when a President of their own party took the same or similar actions.

Trying to parse this out a level of degree of impropriety doesn’t suit your argument well, either. That’s typical moral relativism we’ve come to expect from the Left, but it doesn’t help. Either you think Presidents have the right to replace U.S. attorneys as they see fit or you don’t. What Jonathan (crushliberalism) is suggesting is that you’re trying to argue alternative positions based solely on the actor’s party affiliation.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President?

*I* don’t have a defense. This isn’t something *I’ve* been accused of. I have a position, which is shared by folks on both sides of the political aisle… that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. They are political positions of law enforcement. Thus, if a President wants to remove a U.S. attorney and replace him with a political ally, he’s well within the proper bounds to do so… even if the move is politically motivated (like Clinton’s was). I’m saying there is no scandal here for that very reason.

“I will respond to the two. McKay and Bogdon are defended agains your slander here”

When it’s in written form, it’s libel. It would help your arguments have some credibility if you showed basic knowledge in common terms… (besides, my comments do not rise to the standard of defamation, anyway)

“You say nothing of the fact that most of these attorneys were performing swimmingly”

Here’s a quote from the article you cited:

“Performance-related can mean many things … Policy is set at a national level. Individual U.S. attorneys around the country can’t just make up their policy agenda.”

Even if they’re good at prosecuting the cases they’re taking, if they’re not taking the cases that advance the national policy, they may have performance-related issues and the administration may decide to replace them with prosecutors who will prosecute the cases the administration thinks should have priority.

Finally - I really don’t mean to bait and switch here. But I think the fact that Gonzalez so clearly lied about what took place makes the whole situation even more worthy of speculation. And the fact that the Patiot Act changes things so that Bush can appoint temporary U.S. Attorneys - makes it even more worthy of specualation. Add all this together - and speculation about why these attorneys - why now — begins to seem a pretty reasonable question. I haven’t moved on to speculation. I leave this to Congress. My real motivation here is to respond to the right wing spin machine’s position that congressional inquiry is somehow inconsistent because there wasn’t such inquiry when Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys. My answer - there is much more smoke in this case - which provides for a greater liklihood that there is indeed a fire.

And oh - I’m sorry - I almost forgot - but “I wasn’t aware that consistency was required for Congress to hold an inquiry.”

BUT - since you think that finding cause for 2 of 8 somehow supports your position - I will respond to the two. McKay and Bogdon are defended agains your slander here: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16683949.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

And here - http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070321/NEWS18/70321008 — where Ensign (R) of Nevada defends Bogdon.

So - to repeat - “which is your defense Tex? That there is nothing out of the ordinary in what Bush has done? Or that even if something looks a bit amiss, it’s really just that these 8 attorneys deserved to be fired. I must say, both smell a bit fishy to me.”

Put that in your pipe and smoke it hippie.