"Jack Hollis" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 06:41:21 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:

More evidence (as if we needed it) that Bush doesn't regognize a role
for other branches of government.

However, he does recognize the role of the US Constitution. See:
Article II, Section 2.

In any case, Clinton did it so why can't Bush? Payback's a bitch.
Kerry takes it on the chin again.

Clinton fired 92 Federal prosecutors including 2 or 3 of them who were
investigating corruption in the Arkansas governors office during Clinton's
administration. Not one word was said by any Liberals. Now we're seeing this
silly screaming about firing some prosecutors who were in fact ignoring
direct orders to prosecute illegal aliens and it is being made out to be
something else altogether.

I do find it interesting that Clinton installed some highly dubious
ambassadors, that he side-stepped Whitehouse security precautions and
actually brought in Chinese secret agents who THEN handed over large sums of
cash money to him and again - forgive me but did any Liberal complain about
that?

In fact, after Al Gore was caught carrying in paper shopping bags full of
cash, not a single charge was brought and Liberals admired his hutzpah so
much they ran him for President.

So let's not cry that Bush appointed an Ambassador to Belgium who is better
qualified than most Democrats.