PDA

View Full Version : I am sick of the "conspiracy" coverage



Ehron
03-23-2007, 08:45 AM
Seriously, enough with the coverage of the federal prosecutor firings.

Being the astute political observer I am I initially withheld judgement while I awaited evidence of either wrong doing, or exoneration for the Whitehouse. However, after weeks of sensational coverage referring to the firings as a conspiracy, a scandal. and a plethora of other damning terms I am disgusted. Provide some shred of evidence that the firings were in some way nefarious, and I will stop complaining. I don't normally decry media bias, but the current coverage is so amazingly over the top I can't sit idly by without mentioning it. Sure their is suspicion, sure their is the appearance of possibly questionable decisions made, but as of yet their has been no document produced that proves "scandalous" behavior.

This just appears to be another Democratic witch hunt further perpetrated by the brazenly obvious intentions of the media to nail the Whitehouse. This is just like coverage of the documents about Bush's military service that were later found to be forgeries. The media salivates at any attempt to cast aspersions on the administration, and that is not even close to responsible journalism.

I would like to reiterate that I am not saying that nothing wrong has happened. Maybe the prosecutors were let go because they were about to unearth something that the Pub's felt was damaging. That is completely possible. However, at this stage we don't have any evidence that this is the case. The prosecutors serve at the whim of the president, and he can dismiss them at any time for whatever reason he likes. Maybe he didn't approve of their stance on an issue he felt was important (like stem cell research, or federal funding of religious groups), and decided to let them go. The fact is we don't know what happened, and it is absolutely despicable that the media would use such language in their coverage.

fire7882
03-23-2007, 08:58 AM
+1

Didn't Clinton fire a bunch of federal prosecutors as well?

chrisdavis
03-23-2007, 10:48 AM
+1

Didn't Clinton fire a bunch of federal prosecutors as well?



Yes he did. No one gave it a second thought either.

Ehron
03-23-2007, 12:04 PM
Yes, he fired every single one (93 to be exact). Back then it was accepted that it was the president's prerogative.

Though honestly, when that happened I cared a lot more about what was going on with the TMNT than politics so I probably wasn't paying attention to the coverage of that event...

bigpimpatl
03-27-2007, 10:04 PM
uhh yes, a few of the lawyers were investigating republican scandals. One of the scandals had to do with the senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl I believe, that involved a land swap and a few of his buddies making a quick buck. It is a big deal, if you haven't followed, because the firing of a US attorney for no reason and no indication of poor performance just reeks of foul play. Why do you think a few of the staff have resigned over this issue? they don't want to get involved in this matter, because they know what's up. Heck, Congress is trying to subpoena the DOJ staff and get them under oath, but they won't even do that! If there is no foul play, why refuse a subpoena? Did you hear what one of the DOJ staff lady said today (forgot her name)? She said that she pleads the 5th for not going before Congress! She doesn't want to incriminate herself? why? is it because that she possibly did something she shouldn't have? and that she doesn't want to get in trouble?

Firing ALL federal prosecutors (like clinton did) is one thing; firing only a select few is another. This is a big deal because the president is overtly abusing his executive powers; he is destroying a system of checks and balances that has been in place for centuries. He is undermining his own government by not putting the DOJ staff under oath. If there is no foul play, why not go under oath? Go under oath, stop the bleeding, and case closed.