The belligerent blowhard handed me the latest installment in my 'Why I Hate Sean Hannity' series last night on a silver platter. After openin
The belligerent blowhard handed me the latest installment in my 'Why I Hate Sean Hannity' series last night on a silver platter. After opening the show by blaming the "liberal paper of record, the NY Times" and Katie Couric for the burgeoning purge scandal, the serial misinformer said Democrats should accept Bush's offer to allow Rove and Miers testify under oath, even though that's the exact opposite of what he offered.
I'm sick and tired of this "the President can fire USAs for any and every reason" crap. Yes, they serve at the pleasure of the President, but he can't (as is becoming clearer and clearer) single out and fire attorneys who are prosecuting cases he doesn't want them to be prosecuting or because the perception is that they are not loyal enough to the President, rather than the Rule of Law. That's why the administration is lying about the true motivations behind the purge and that's why they didn't just come out at the very beginning and say they wanted to give other people the opportunity to serve.
It's not a question of whether the President has the authority to fire USAs (he clearly does); it's about why he fired them and what reason he gave for doing so. Are the wingnuts really that dense? Or do their jobs just depend on carrying water for these people regardless of the facts?