Posted by
Furious on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:14:11 AM
A reply to the NY Times on the alleged Justice Dept. “scandals” over its hiring practices…
********************************************************************************************************
So according to this latest hit piece aimed at the Bush administration we are to blindly accept about five false premises.
1) For the first time in history a president's justice department appointees were vetted by people within the party itself. Shocking,
2)Never before has a party in power investigated alleged voter fraud that involved the opposition party. This assumes the Democrats are pure as the wind-driven snow and never would dream of fraud. (Did the Times ever send investigators to Illinois in 1960 to re-examine Mr. Daily's voter rolls? No? Wonder why.
3) If the arguement is: Bush only approved appointees who shared his (dubious at best) conservativism,; then why have so many morphed into Judas Iscariots, wrote critical op-eds to the Times, and wrote books- condemning him? I do not recall a single Clinton appointee doing anything similar.(Dick Morris does not count.) Was it really Clinton, not Bush, who demanded a more severe idealogical fealty? Looks like it.
4)The notion that anything that smacks of being political should in any way be grounds for impeachment hearings is ludicrous. Everyone and everything in Washington is political. To demand anything more pure is absurd. No such demands were leveled against Clinton.
His impaechment stemmed from being found to have committed perjury. Imagine that...A Democrat who lies.
Hard to believe.
5) If Presidents can't appoint like minded judges and prosecutors; then how can any justice department ever investigate any kind of political issue. It makes all alleged political manipulation issues virtually immune from prosecution.
That is unacceptable, as is the Times one-sided editorial position on this.
The only thing this congress can do well is accuse and promote their "show trials" that seek to criminalize all opposition. That too, is unacceptable.