Comments on: Slow Drip Massacre: Why? http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/ Like Kryptonite To Stupid Sat, 11 Feb 2012 06:30:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Jay http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82943 Jay Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:16:03 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82943 <i>Removing US Attorneys when the presidency changes hands is standard operating procedure.</i> Firing all 93 US attorneys is not standard operating procedure. Clinton's move was unprecedented. <i>There is a difference, Bush & Co. can avoid the confirmation process to appoint cronies.</i> So he's firing attorney's he appointed and possibly reappointed simply so he could install 'cronies' to serve for 2 years? One would assume that if a Democrat is elected they'll have all these US attorney's replaced anyway. Removing US Attorneys when the presidency changes hands is standard operating procedure.

Firing all 93 US attorneys is not standard operating procedure. Clinton’s move was unprecedented.

There is a difference, Bush & Co. can avoid the confirmation process to appoint cronies.

So he’s firing attorney’s he appointed and possibly reappointed simply so he could install ‘cronies’ to serve for 2 years? One would assume that if a Democrat is elected they’ll have all these US attorney’s replaced anyway.

]]> By: midderpidge http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82942 midderpidge Sun, 04 Mar 2007 00:28:01 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82942 There is a difference, Bush & Co. can avoid the confirmation process to appoint cronies. There is a difference, Bush & Co. can avoid the confirmation process to appoint cronies.

]]> By: James E. Powell http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82941 James E. Powell Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:08:40 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82941 In the above post, the word "Removing" should be "Replacing." Sorry for the error. In the above post, the word “Removing” should be “Replacing.” Sorry for the error.

]]> By: James E. Powell http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82940 James E. Powell Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:07:33 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82940 Removing US Attorneys when the presidency changes hands is standard operating procedure. My guess is that the White House thought no one would care. Or, more accurately, that no one but a load of people who are utterly unable to affect the president's political standing would care. The Bush/Cheney Junta was born of the notion that one can take and exercise power without concern for "the public," who are largely apathetic, or "the media," who are employed by the same corporate ruling class which employs Bush/Cheney. Removing US Attorneys when the presidency changes hands is standard operating procedure.

My guess is that the White House thought no one would care. Or, more accurately, that no one but a load of people who are utterly unable to affect the president’s political standing would care.

The Bush/Cheney Junta was born of the notion that one can take and exercise power without concern for “the public,” who are largely apathetic, or “the media,” who are employed by the same corporate ruling class which employs Bush/Cheney.

]]> By: Duros62 http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82939 Duros62 Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:20:48 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82939 <i>Did they really think nobody would notice? That nobody would care? Does some incredibly cunning long-term objective justify the short-term fallout? Or was this simply a case of bumbling incompetence?</i> I'm gonna have to go with the last one, there. Historical precedent and all that. <i>...its a whole other to disappear them 6 years into your presidency.</i> That was my point a couple of days ago. Did they really think nobody would notice? That nobody would care? Does some incredibly cunning long-term objective justify the short-term fallout? Or was this simply a case of bumbling incompetence?

I’m gonna have to go with the last one, there. Historical precedent and all that.

…its a whole other to disappear them 6 years into your presidency.

That was my point a couple of days ago.

]]> By: Oliver Willis http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82938 Oliver Willis Sat, 03 Mar 2007 19:00:37 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82938 It's one thing to remove them right after you're elected to office, its a whole other to disappear them 6 years into your presidency. It’s one thing to remove them right after you’re elected to office, its a whole other to disappear them 6 years into your presidency.

]]> By: Jay http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/03/03/slow-drip-massacre-why/#comment-82937 Jay Sat, 03 Mar 2007 18:40:53 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=6808#comment-82937 So now somebody is 'impugned' simply because it has been said that they were dismissed for job performance reasons? And apparently, there's no precedent for taking office, and shit-canning every US attorney in the country as was the case in 1993. But firing 6-7 US attorneys? Scandalous!! What a joke. So now somebody is ‘impugned’ simply because it has been said that they were dismissed for job performance reasons?

And apparently, there’s no precedent for taking office, and shit-canning every US attorney in the country as was the case in 1993. But firing 6-7 US attorneys? Scandalous!!

What a joke.

]]>