The situation involving the firing of 8 federal prosecutors by the Bush Administration has gotten ridiculous. Not only are Democrats and Republicans calling for Alberto Gonzales to step down or be fired, but Arianna Huffington suggested that Gonzales should be impeached if President Bush tries to "run out the clock on this scandal."
That is, unless the Democrats cause the public to run out of patience.
The problem with the federal prosecutor firings controversy...is that there really is no controversy. The handling of the firings was politically clumsy, but when you dig past the political side of the situation, you're left with one central question: Does President Bush have the power to fire the attorneys in question. For this, we need to take a trip back to Civics 101.
The job of the Executive Branch (of which the President is a member) is to enforce the law and Constitution. To that end, the President can hire federal prosecutors to assist him. He also has the power to fire said prosecutors. Usually, this is done at the beginning of a term, but the Constitution and the law as written right now does not limit the timeframe under which a federal prosecutor can be fired. This is what people like Sean Hannity means when he says the federal prosecutors "serve at the behest of the President."
So, what's driving the move for investigations? Democrats have the power to investigate, so they're going to exercise it in an attempt to embarass the Bush Administration. Personally, I think their energies would be better served by reading the Constitution about the powers of the President. It would save them a lot of embarassment, and us a lot of money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
So exactly why did D. Kyle Sampson resign? Or is asking just too darn mean for you?
Anonymous said...
So exactly why did D. Kyle Sampson resign? Or is asking just too darn mean for you?
March 26, 2007 5:31:00 PM CST
Awwwww...One's trying to create a strawman argument. That's so CUTE! I know you do that all the time on your own blog...oh, wait. You don't HAVE a blog or anywhere else where you're published, do you? :-)
Let me know when you're ready to actually discuss the topic of the entry, okay One? Or is that too mean for you? LOL
LMAO!! Do you even know what a straw man argument is? What logical fallacy based on a misrepresentation of your position did I put forward? You claimed the attorney general scandal was building mountains out of molehills and I simply asked why it was that the attorney general's chief of staff was forced to resign over this "molehill."
Well since you're obviously too big of a pussy to say, I'll just quote his former boss "Obviously, I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information — was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress."
Maybe once you get through your civics 201 class you'll figure out that lying to Congress is a bad thing.
Anonymous said...
LMAO!! Do you even know what a straw man argument is? What logical fallacy based on a misrepresentation of your position did I put forward? You claimed the attorney general scandal was building mountains out of molehills and I simply asked why it was that the attorney general's chief of staff was forced to resign over this "molehill."
Yes I do. A strawman argument is when you create an argument that really has nothing to do with the subject at hand with the express purpose of being able to defeat it easily. Since the subject matter was about the President's Constitutional power to hire and fire federal prosecutors, your introduction of Sampson into the conversation is a straw man argument. It is a logical falacy that introducing Sampson's legal problems negates Bush's power to hire and fire federal prosecutors.
Therefore, welcome to the world of logical falacies known as strawman arguments, One. :-)
Well since you're obviously too big of a pussy to say, I'll just quote his former boss "Obviously, I am concerned about the fact that information — incomplete information — was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress."
Another straw man, One? And all because you can't admit I'm right? Then again, you never can, like when I bust you for posting to my blog and then openly wondering where yours is when you say my writing is bad. LOL
So, when are you going to address what I actually wrote instead of throwing up straw men, One? :-)
Maybe once you get through your civics 201 class you'll figure out that lying to Congress is a bad thing.
Only after you pass Civics 101 and learn about the separation of powers, One. :-)
Well it's official--you're more stupid than you are obese. One man has already lost his job over what you insist is no scandal at all. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said of the Attorney General, "Well, he has said some things that just don't add up." Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said of Gonzales, "He's got a problem, you cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud over his credibility."
And now Gonzales' counsel (forced to take a leave of absence over your "molehill") is invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to testify before the Judiciary Committee that has oversight of the Justice Department.
And by the way, thanks for documenting that really do NOT know what a strawman argument is. It's surprising what an idiot you really are.
Anonymous said...
Well it's official--you're more stupid than you are obese. One man has already lost his job over what you insist is no scandal at all. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said of the Attorney General, "Well, he has said some things that just don't add up." Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said of Gonzales, "He's got a problem, you cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud over his credibility."
And now Gonzales' counsel (forced to take a leave of absence over your "molehill") is invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to testify before the Judiciary Committee that has oversight of the Justice Department.
And by the way, thanks for documenting that really do NOT know what a strawman argument is. It's surprising what an idiot you really are.
March 27, 2007 5:48:00 AM CST
Merriam Webster has a different viewpoint...
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
Just like when you mentioned people other than the President as "proof" that Bush doesn't have the power to fire federal prosecutors at his discretion.
Wikipedia? Same story, different site...
A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
And considering my main point was that the President has the power to fire federal prosecutors...and that point remains untouched by you...
The Nikzor Project? Oops.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
And since you haven't touched my main point and have distorted the argument with two people who aren't the President...
Maybe http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lilyth/strawman.html would be able to help you. Not so much.
Steps used in creating and using a straw man argument:
Step 1: Build the Straw Man: "Evolution is false! How could a mouse evolve into an elephant!?"
Step 2: Knock down the Straw Man by any means necessary: "How could a mouse evolve into an elephant? There would have to be billions of changes for that to occur, and nobody has ever seen speciation anyway!"
Step 3: Connect the original position to the Straw Man:"So it's silly...who has ever seen a mouse evolve into an elephant? Nobody!!"
Step 4: Claim to negate the opposing position by the connection in 3. "Therefore, evolution must be false!"
Gee, One. Looks like you're doing exactly what I claimed you did. Now, run along and come up with some lame retort based on my weight.
Oh, by the way, One, I noticed how you steered clear of me in From the Right this morning after I busted you. And it was pathetically easy to do, too. So much for you being smarter than me, One. :-)
Gee, if only you were as good at exercising as you are at making Internet searches maybe you wouldn’t be such a fat cow. For you to continue to insist that this scandal is nothing more than adventurous investigations by Democrats is ridiculous. Even Gonzales started back-tracking on Monday when he said, “If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.” Oh, but wait, quoting the Attorney General to refute your silly claim about the Attorney General’s scandal must be a straw-man argument.
By the way, as usual you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are. At first I figured “Onenueron” was a reference to some Lord of the Rings or Dungeon and Dragons character favored by losers like you. I soon figured out you were talking about a specific person you interact with in AOL chatrooms. As much as I enjoyed seeing you crow about something I knew to be wrong (much like the majority of your blog) I think it’s time to inform you you’re making false claims against an unrelated party.
Anonymous said...
Gee, if only you were as good at exercising as you are at making Internet searches maybe you wouldn’t be such a fat cow.
Strawman argument #1
For you to continue to insist that this scandal is nothing more than adventurous investigations by Democrats is ridiculous. Even Gonzales started back-tracking on Monday when he said, “If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.” Oh, but wait, quoting the Attorney General to refute your silly claim about the Attorney General’s scandal must be a straw-man argument.
It is because my post was about the Presidential power to fire federal attorneys, One. That's strawman argument #2 for you.
By the way, as usual you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are. At first I figured “Onenueron” was a reference to some Lord of the Rings or Dungeon and Dragons character favored by losers like you. I soon figured out you were talking about a specific person you interact with in AOL chatrooms. As much as I enjoyed seeing you crow about something I knew to be wrong (much like the majority of your blog) I think it’s time to inform you you’re making false claims against an unrelated party.
March 27, 2007 8:27:00 PM CST
Methinks One doth protesteth too much. :-)
And you've already made multiple false statements, but here's my fawvorite from this post:
"I think"
ROFLMAO--even after copying and pasting three definitions you still don't understand. Fat and stupid--you're so American.
Anonymous said...
ROFLMAO--even after copying and pasting three definitions you still don't understand. Fat and stupid--you're so American.
March 27, 2007 8:46:00 PM CST
Apparently, you missed the parts where those definitions underscored exactly what you were doing, One.
I accept your surrender. Thank you for proving me right, One. Now, care to actually address what I said, or are you going to go back to the lame "you're fat and stupid" lines like you always do when I whup you soundly?
I start and finish with what a fat slob you are because it’s who you are. You are a greasy and grotesque pathetic excuse for a man. There’s no excuse for a young man to be as fat as you are. If you have no more regard for yourself and the body God gave you than that, then don’t be surprised when others don’t either.
Anonymous said...
I start and finish with what a fat slob you are because it’s who you are. You are a greasy and grotesque pathetic excuse for a man. There’s no excuse for a young man to be as fat as you are. If you have no more regard for yourself and the body God gave you than that, then don’t be surprised when others don’t either.
March 27, 2007 9:16:00 PM CST
Another strawman argument, One? Why are you afraid to address what I actually wrote? Oh, wait, that's right.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT! LOL
Post a Comment