Dems to Raise Cash on Bush Firings

Charlotte, NC (TLS). Democrats see a cash cow in manufacturing a scandal over the Bush firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. DNC Chair Howard Dean smells blood and is using the faux scandal to raise cash among the Party faithful, who see nothing better than a massive scandal as a means to raise mega-bucks for the Party.

Remember that The Liberty Sphere warned readers last October and November of how a Democrat-controlled Congress would attempt to manipulate the news media and public opinion by bombarding the citizens with the continuous message that 'Bush' is be thought of only with the term 'scandal.'

We also predicted that if there were no real scandal, the Democrats would manufacture one and keep it at the center of focus until the 2008 election cycle.

Dean wasted no time in getting the ball rolling, claiming that this is Bush's 'Watergate.'

Bull.

What Dean and the Democrats are deathly afraid of is what the replacements of those eight prosecutors will do with the scandals involving top-name Democrats in Congress.

John Conyers broke federal campaign laws. Yet he was made Chair of the House Judiciary Committee by Nancy Pelosi. Harry Reid's hand was caught in the cookie jar accepting illegal contributions. He gave the money back after he was caught.

What if the average thief were treated the same way? I mean, what a way to go. Steal money, get caught, give the money back, and not only will you not face jail time, you will probably be elected Mayor of your town.

Barack Hussein Obama has also been caught in shady dealings involving land.

And these are merely the tips of the icebergs.

If Bill Clinton can fire all 93 U.S. Prosecutors for political purposes, then surely Bush can fire eight. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that it is not the firings themselves that have these ethically-challenged Demos in a dither. If such firings were the real issue, then they would have all had strokes over Clinton's canning of all 93.

The real issue is that the new U.S. Attorneys will more than likely be much more aggressive in investigating the massive corruption of Democrats in the U.S. Congress.

Here's more on the Dems' cash raising efforts:
http://washtimes.com/national/20070316-123422-2755r.htm

Katie Couric-CBS News' Spin of Attorney Firings

Charlotte, NC (TLS). As much as one would like to say that the slanted and downright dishonest journalism at CBS News is an isolated phenomenon, unfortunately the practices one observes being utilized by Katie Couric and CBS News is but one small example of a widespread problem in television news on the three major networks.

Couric and the brass at CBS News have pulled another fast one on the public by claiming that the actions of the Bush Administration in firing eight U.S. Prosecutors is 'unprecedented.'

Not only did Couric use the term 'unprecedented' to describe the dismissals, but she turned to a CBS News' legal advisor/reporter, who again stated that the firings were 'unprecedented.'

All of this was done, of course, to support the charges of ethically-challenged Democrats and Little Chucky Schumer that the firings were politically motivated.

The problem is that Couric's description of the actions of Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez in dismissing the attorneys is simply not true. CBS News lied. Katie Couric lied. The firings are anything BUT 'unprecedented.'

Let me refresh the memories of the CBS producers and their anchor for just a moment. In 1993, President Bill Clinton summarily fired every single one of the U.S. Prosecutors in the Justice Department--all 93 of them.

In addition, the one and only reason that Clinton, via Attorney-General Janet Reno, fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys was purely a political one. Clinton wanted his own people in those positions, period. One of the fired prosecutors in particular was investigating the shady dealings of the Clintons in Arkansas and replaced by a Clinton crony.

Thus, the charge that Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys 'for political purposes' seems rather disingenuous, hollow, and hypocritical coming from Democrats and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. When are these dismissals ever NOT 'political?'

The 93 attorneys that Clinton and Reno dismissed had done no wrong. There was no stain on their performance. None had been accused of failing to accomplish the task to which they were assigned. Yet Clinton fired every last one of them.

So, the question becomes, why did Katie Couric and CBS News conveniently fail to report the 1993 Clinton Administration massacre of U.S. Attorneys while describing the dismissal of only 8 attorneys by the Bush Administration as 'unprecedented?'

If Couric and CBS News defend their actions by claiming that 1993 was different because a new President is expected to make changes in political appointments, then they will have done nothing but prove that the recent firing of eight is nothing unusual at all. They are POLITICAL APPOINTEES that serve at the discretion of the President.

Thus, if Clinton could dismiss all 93 attorneys in 1993 for political reasons which we grant to all Presidents, then what is the problem with Bush's firing 8 of these attorneys for political reasons?

Despite the cries of the dismissed attorneys and their defenders in claiming that prosecutors for the U.S. government should be 'free from the politics of Washington,' the fact of the matter is that without the political appointments they received, they would never have gotten those jobs at all. The very positions they hold are 'political' appointments and always have been.

In addition, invariably, story after story is beginning to slowly emerge as we find out more about the eight who were fired--stories that indicate these particular attorneys failed to perform a few crucial aspects of their jobs. In Washington State, for example, the U.S. Attorney failed to file a request for a recount of a very close and hotly contested race in that state. Others failed to expedite the investigations of widespread corruption and illegal activity on the part of some high-profile Democrats who so far have not only gotten away with their crimes but sit in powerful offices within the new Congress.

It is clear, therefore, that the eight prosecutors in question were negligent in performing their duty and needed to go.

In fact, there are more who need to go for different reasons, such as Johnny Sutton, who so far has succeeded in making a name for himself as perhaps the most corrupt attorney in the federal government.

However, CBS News and Katie Couric have been negligent in their duties to fully inform the public of all the pertinent facts in a story. Their statement that the firing of eight attorneys is 'unprecedented' is not only a lie, but it hides a basic truth that Clinton and company did far worse in firing all 93. And once again, CBS News has shown itself to be nothing more than a 30-minute advertisement for the Democrat Party.

Bring on the fairness doctrine!