Bush will say that he doesn't listen to "focus groups", the way he did when hundreds of thousands of people protested against the start of the Iraq war 4 long years ago.
Actually, focus groups are small numbers of people not hundreds of thousandswho express their opinions. It seems that the focus groups, small numbers of people, that he does listen to are AIPAC, CPAC, and AEI, 'cause they tell him what he wants to hear.

I thought there were only 93 in all. Where does the number 95 come from? And, any of the Clinton replacements would have had to go through Senate confirmation. That's the step Adolf Bush wanted to avoid, thereby allowing political-hack, douche bags to be appointed like the clown Rove wanted and got to be installed in Arkansas. It's the lack of accountability they want and need. Because, well, most of the people Bush wants are unqualified except for total loyality to the dear leader. Speak truth to power? What the hell is that?

Yes, all 93 were replaced when Bush took office, just as Clinton did at the beginning of his presidency.

What makes Bush unprecedented in firing these 8 is that they are all his appointees to begin with. Never before in history has a President fired 8 of his own appointees during the middle of his term.

So what it was "politically motivated", these folks serve at the "pleasure of the President". H-E-L-L-O!

On March 17, 2007 - 1:08pm az5762 said:

I thought there were only 93 in all. Where does the number 95 come from?

There are only 93 in all. But Clinton was such a bad, mean dog, that he created another 2, just so he could fire them. Ask any r.w. nut

In an ideal world, maybe that would happen. But I can assure you the Republican party, the one's who just lost power, the ones who when they had power,told the Democrats to go fly a kite, because it was going to be their way or the highway.

The Republican party that calculated, and schemed, crying about lies, and how moral they would be, how they would bring accountabilty back to the Whitehouse.

The very day Bill Clinton to office. With how many dollars and time and investigations. White Water, murders in Arkansas, Sex.
No it's like the saying goes "Paybacks are a bit**.

It's like one of our poster on TPM used to say, you better keeep your knee in their throat, and make sure they can't get up.

This next election, is beginning to look like, another dirty tricks, win at all costs.

What do you think the chances are that the Republicans will have their lacky's, who were recently appointed as US attorneys, are going after DEMOCRATS in an attempt to smear them at election time?

The Democrats need to expose the enemies of the Constitution, trumped up wars. katrina, Walter Reed, illegal wiretapping, of God know's who, maybe political opponents?

No you don't make deals with people with hands as dirty as the Republicans, you never know, what the hand behind the back has in it, besides an envelope containing K street money.

I think the crux of the issue, as Josh Marshall and Greg Sargent and other have pointed out, is why the prosecutors were fired.

U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President certainly could replace them for whatever reason they so chose. As the former U.S. Attorney from Arkansas, Bud Cummins (who was replaced by a former aide to Karl Rove), said earlier, being replaced because the administration wants to give a favored attorney more experience is an acceptable reason to him.

As he said, it's a political appointment. A U.S. Attorney could conceivably be fired for not participating in "red tie Tuesdays". It would be seen as unprofessional, but completely within the rules.

Cummins originally tried to avoid the fray, but after receiving a message from the Justice Department he found "threatening" and once his job performance was called into question, he spoke up.

However, there is a growing body of evidence that the firings were driven by the fact that the attorney's were not towing the party line when enacting their legal duties. That, however, is unethical and potentially illegal.

One of the attorneys said the phone calls some of them received after being subpoenaed may verge into the territory of obstruction.

The question has never been can the President hire and fire USAs at will, though many GOP talking heads would like to frame it that way, but why and what were they trying to cover up?

Why did Justice Department officials potentially mislead Congress if the matter was pro-forma?

And how is it that this administration, renowned for its tight ship, has so many deputies that free-lance in setting major policy?

And how is it that this administration, renowned for its tight ship, has so many deputies that free-lance in setting major policy?

They only 'free-lance' after receiving the marching orders. Rove was clear about what to do. So the minions set about doing it. Knowing Rove and no one else would care HOW it was done, and that no one was going to ask questions. It is clear this was SOP for this crew when it came to political gamesmanship, the only question they had was what would Rove like to see happen. And Rove was clear, fire them all. Gonzales bucked that as disruptive. Then they came up with the list, even adding Iglesias to the list after the complaint by Domenici...what the 'free lancers' do is execute the plan, Rove is the architect, as always.

Fire the lot of em....starting with 'conflict of interest' Alberto, and work up/down/sideways from there...