What happens when the Congress outright attempts to dictate to the President his power and job duties? You have no reason to have a President. This is exactly what several US Senators, most notably Democrat Chuck Schumer from New York and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, are trying to pull as they attempt to define controversy for the big media machine and the American public.
Several months ago President Bush suggested action should be taken against nine US Attorneys who fall under the governance of the Department of Justice. For those who are still serving lattes at Starbucks and subscribe to moveon.org, the Department falls under the command of the Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
Reader we must understand that the US Attorneys are appointed by the President. They may not be the most qualified. However if they are known to or have the President on their side the job is theirs. It is an important position that relies exclusively on the idea of political appointment, which doesn’t mean that competency will be the order of the day.
Recently Attorney General Gonzalez then set about canning them one by one or accepting their resignations. The big media machine and their complementary left leaning subscribers have called this action rooted in political persuasion. Your reader first must question this claim. This means that quite possibly President Bush would have appointed a left leaning flaming liberal to a post? This is the logic they are using. As if Presidential Administrations are that diverse in their thought and wish to embrace differences. This argument falls on lunacy and hopefully will be dismissed.
No President Bush could have cared less about diversity or political persuasion as the Wall Street Journal pointed out recently in a March 14 edition. Quoting from the Journal-
....The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.
Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do....
Readers this is the reason why they were canned and not some far flung conspiracies, which is being suggested by the liberal media types. As this piece points out voter fraud allegations are serious and should have been dealt with years ago. Voter fraud allegations and threats of lawsuits against voter machine company Diebold have been commonly used when a Democrat loses an election or the vote is a close count. This shows your author that those who suggest voter fraud aren’t genuinely concerned about these allegations but rather to create what is genuine controversy. Additionally there are current cases involving charges of corruptions against several Democrat Congressmen that appear to have slowed down in the past twelve months. What Bush and Gonzalez have attempted to do is uphold and respect our Democracy and within the letter of the law.
Rewind to 1993 when incoming President Bill Clinton was taking Office. His first order of business was to can not 9 but 93 US Attorneys. This met little in the way of criticism by the big media machine and not a single Democrat voiced the word ‘unprecedented’, which is quickly becoming the description for President Bush’s action. In fact if anyone questioned this action they were reminded that the US Attorneys served at the behest of the President and were appointed by him as such, which your author has pointed out.
However in the case of Clinton there may have been political if not legal maneuverings behind his decision. Although never proven, hey that has never stopped the Left in their constant barrage of criticism of President Bush the issue of Whitewater was looming in the Clintons’ background. President Clinton had then US Attorney General Janet Reno sack 93 US Attorneys. Two US Attorneys who were sacked that brought some attention were from Arkansas and Illinois. An investigation was looking into the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loans as it related to President Clinton and his friends, the crux of the Whitewater investigation. Additionally close Clinton pal and then Congressman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois was also being investigated for his role in House Postal Scandal, which brought allegations of check kiting and washing questionable monies. Rostenkowski and Democrat Congressman Joseph Kolter of Pennsylvania were eventually sentenced to prison after pleading to mail fraud charges. As far as Whitewater, Clinton appointed political hack and pal Paula Casey, who tried in vain to impede the investigation.
Compare the cases of Bush and Clinton, the readers can decide for themselves what is controversial and what is not, then they can intelligently gauge the big media machine and Democrats’ spin on President Bush and US Attorney General Gonzalez.
