I'm Back! And the Latest In The Greatest Nonstory of The Bush Administration

Bane of Libtards everywhere.

Sorry for the lack of posts over the last 72 hours, I've been all over the beautiful state of Californistan, just over 650 miles in 24 hours. Anyhow, I'm back home now and jonesin for a bloggy fix! Let's dive right in, shall we?

The Washington Post recently had an article covering the new testimony from Karl Rove in closed door hearings over the 9 fired US Attorneys. Being questioned is what, if any, role did White House staffers have in the firings of the 9 US Attorneys back in 2006-2007.

The reason that the firings of the US Attorney's is because no President had ever fired a sitting US Attorney, since the founding. None except Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton, who axed all 93 soon after taking the White House. The difference, libtards claim, is that W Bush did it for political reasons and he did it in the middle of his 2nd term.

First, let's back up here and cover the appointments of US Attorneys and under what circumstances they serve. From teh Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. Attorney shall continue in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified. By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President. The Attorney General has had the authority since 1986 to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys to fill a vacancy."

US Attorney's serve at the pleasure of the President, and 'By law, each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President.'

Another claim is that W fired the attorney's for political reasons...gasp! Once again quoting from teh Wikipedia:

"By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation. When a new President is from a different political party, almost all of the resignations will be eventually accepted. The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party."

Let's see, after accepting the resignations from or firing an attorney, the President selects a new POLITICAL appointee? Huh, so then that whole 'political reasons' thing doesn't hold any water...

Okay, so we've established that W's three predecessors had removed US Attorney's from office, and that each had the constitutional authority to do so. So... that leaves Bush fired them in 'an unprecedented' middle of the [second] term. I'm sorry, but 'who cares?' Oh, that's right, the law enforcement hating left...sigh.

The reality is that Federal Prosecutors (aka US Attorneys) are in what is considered a political position and are subject to Presidential dismissal at any time, regardless of reason. This story is nothing more than the continuation of the liberal attack machine attempting to bring the Bush Administration down for: stealing the election in 2000, starting the war in Iraq, lying about WMD, stealing the election in 2004, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, causing global warming, creating the AIDS virus to keep the black man down, lying about man landing on the moon, Haliburton, Blackwater, Enron, ad nauseam, etc., so on and so forth, insert crackpot conspiracy theory here. Getting anyone in the executive branch, but especially in someone within the President's circle was the libtard's wet dream with Bush being at the top of the list, and Karl Rove being number two.

The facts are: The Federal Prosecutors are POLITICAL appointees. The Federal Prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President, and can be terminated at his discretion. End of story, get over it and move on with your lives you bitter, defeated bastards.