From Brietbart.com, via the Drudge Report...
Clinton Opens Up About Attorney Firings
"Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993."
Yeah, I'll bet she did.
The major difference is that Alberto Gonzales fired eight U.S. attorneys for failing to do their jobs properly, and Janet Reno, under the incoming Clinton Administration, fired EVERY SINGLE U.S. attorney for working for a Republican Administration.
What seems to you to be more disruptive to the investigation and prosecution of crimes and corruption?... The firing of eight (out of ninety-three) specific U.S. attorneys for various reasons, whatever they may be, or the summary dismissal of EVERY SINGLE U.S. Attorney, all at once, no matter what they were working on at the time?
"That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president," Clinton said in an interview with The Associated Press."
What? To fire everyone who worked for his predecessor? I sure wish President Bush had known that when he took office, or that he had at least taken advantage of that perogative when he took office...
I think that he would have had a whole lot less trouble throughout his Presidency if he had...
"She conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party."
Okay... Then she has absolutely no right to comment on this subject at all. She has said that she would do the same thing. If it is bad, then she would be just as bad. If it isn't bad, then why is this a big deal?
"Clinton argued that the Bush administration's firing of the eight federal prosecutors has caused an uproar because it is seen as a conservative push to shift the balance of power in favor of the executive branch."
Cannot the uproar that is being drummed up by the Democrats and the Media over this issue be interpreted as an attack against the power of the Executive Branch?
Do you think that if Hillary is elected President that she will not try to shift the balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch at every opportunity?
This is Hypocrisy.
"On another topic, Clinton said the Senate is struggling to find a way to deal with an Iraq funding measure. A House-passed measure includes a timetable for pulling troops out of Iraq, but Clinton said there's no consensus in the Senate. "
Timetables in House Bills are a usurpation of Presidential Power. The President is the Commander In Chief, and he alone is to decide how Wars are to be prosecuted.
The House has the Constitutional Power to de-fund Wars, but not to Micro-Manage them. If the House has a problem with the war in Iraq, they need to put up, or shut up.
The Senate has no role in War whatsoever. They just need to shut up.
Hillary included.
After all, she voted to authorize this War, and has never backed down from that position.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton never opens her mouth without giving the American People (the ones who THINK, anyway) another reason why she should NEVER be taken seriously as a Presidential Candidate.
This article is simply another in a long series of examples of her hypocrisy and elitism.
She is absolutely unfit for service in that office, because she seeks to manipulate the (percieved, by her,) stupidity of the American People.
And if We The People screw up and allow her to be elected to that office, then we deserve what we get.
I really hope she gets the Democrat Nomination... She is the most defeatable of the current Democrat field...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It is very weighty to accept for befitting custody of all your ornaments pieces so that they pattern quest of a lifetime. There are divers approaches and ways to decontaminated different types of jewels be it gold, grey, pearls, diamond or nonpareil stones. Outlined under the sun are the individual ways sooner than which you can induce nurse of your accessories and keep them shiny and new always.
To be a noble benign being is to procure a make of openness to the far-out, an skill to guardianship unsure things beyond your own restrain, that can take you to be shattered in unequivocally exceptional circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something exceedingly outstanding thither the condition of the honest life: that it is based on a conviction in the fitful and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a weed than like a sparkler, something kind of dainty, but whose acutely particular attractiveness is inseparable from that fragility.
Post a Comment