Your argument is with the 9/11 families, friends, first responders, and volunteers who have been advocating a day of service since 2003.
http://www.mygooddeed.org/OurRoots/Leadership/Comment Posted By Zuzu On 25.08.2009 @ 16:14
PS to Michael S:
By the way, Obama did not really "craft" the rules for removing IGs. The Inspector General Act of 1978 specified that IGs may be removed by the President, and that the President must communicate his or her reasons for doing so to Congress.
The Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 (which Obama co-sponsored) simply required that the communication be submitted 30 days before the removal. Nothing about investigations, "process," etc. Only notice.
By the way, giving an IG an opportunity to resign first is typical. For instance, under the GWB administration:
" ...recently two inspectors general were quietly forced out of their jobs, causing a ripple of anxiety within the IG community.
They were both given the bad news on Valentine's Day. According to Luise S. Jordan, the IG at the Corporation for National and Community Service since 1994, she was summoned to a meeting with Ed Moy, an associate director in the presidential personnel office.
'I was told I had done a good job. I was complimented on the achievements of my office, but the second paragraph, after all these compliments and making it clear this was not a dismissal for cause, was that the corporation had decided to get a new IG,' Jordan recalled.
The same day, Roberta L. Gross, the IG at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration since 1995, was given a similar message by NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe.
'He said the White House was in the process of selecting somebody else' for the IG job, Gross said. 'He said it was time to move on.' "
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-350112.htmlComment Posted By Zuzu On 22.06.2009 @ 15:32
I think you misunderstand the selection process for US Attorneys. The fact is that it is typical for a new administration to replace most if not all of the US Attorneys appointed under the previous administration.
"Both McNulty and Sampson acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.
But historical data compiled by the Senate show the pattern going back to President Reagan.
Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.
In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.
The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys."
The controversy over the 2006 firings arose because GWB was firing US Attorneys he had appointed himself, in the middle of their terms.Comment Posted By Zuzu On 22.06.2009 @ 15:21
As an occasional lurker who's enjoyed many of your well-reasoned posts in the past, I have to say I'm more than a little surprised at some of the inaccuracies in this post, and some of the important info it leaves out.
First, it's worth noting that two Bush administration US Attorneys reprimanded Walpin for his behavior during the investigation; Lawrence Brown,m the acting US Attorney who took office under the Bush administration, was so concerned about Walpin's behavior that he submitted an official complaint to the IG oversight committee.
The gist of that complaint was that Walpin impeded the investigation into Johnson's activities by withholding information from the DOJ, providing selective information, and despite repeated instructions not to speak to the media, went right ahead and did so time after time for his own purposes.
Remember also that the original, Bush-appointed US Attorney, McGregor Scott, made the determination not to pursue criminal charges but to enter into negotiations for a civil settlement in November of 2008, long before there was an Obama administration.
By the way, Walpin had no authority to "bar" (actually suspend) Johnson from receiving federal funds, nor to "reinstate" Johnson's "grant privileges." The IG may make recommendations, but it was the corporation that made the decision to suspend Johnson and to lift that suspension. By the way, according to the Sacramento Bee, suspensions are very, very rare (according to the Sacto Bee, five suspensions in 15 years); the usual course in cases like this is repayment of funds and, rarely, a fine.
Walpin did not agree with all the terms of the settlement, including the decision to lift the suspension. He said so in a "special report" written in April 2009, which the corporation forwarded to the appropriate congressional committee. It's hard to see how he was being prevented from expressing his views.
When the corporation board chose (within its authority) to delay comment on the "special report" until the ethics complaint was resolved, Walpin responded by stepping outside his authority and writing to the congressional committee. Not only did he complain about the board's delay on commenting, he actually argued his case regarding the ethics complaint; the fact that the congressional committee had absolutely no jurisdiction over the complaint made that last part especially nutty. Let me emphasize again, Walpin had no authority to contact the committee directly.
And by the way, the description of Walpin as "disoriented" and "confused" came from the bipartisan board of the corporation. For that and several other reasons respecting Walpin's conduct, the board unanimously requested his removal. The Republican vice-chair of the board wholeheartedly endorsed Obama's action. (By the way, I've never seen where the administration called the removal "an emergency" - possibly you can provide a link?)Comment Posted By Zuzu On 22.06.2009 @ 15:00
Was Annâ€™s comment worse than wishing a bomb would have killed Dick Cheney?
She is a published author who makes nationally televised appearances and makes her comments as a paid speaker at public events that are nationally televised. Not an anonymous poster at somebody's blog.
See the difference?
---------------------Comment Posted By Zuzu On 4.03.2007 @ 12:29
As a liberal who cares not a whit for Michael Moore, I am pleased to see conservatives speaking out and saying "enough!" Thank you.
I never imagined this person spoke for all conservatives, but I have to admit to bewilderment that she has spewed her bile with such impunity for so long...even so far as being invited back to CPAC as an honored speaker a year after cracking jokes about "ragheads."
I was afraid the columnists would be sticking with their "ohmygods" over nasty posts put up by anonymous nuts at Huffington.post and would give Coulter a pass. Glad to see the bloggers have forced the issue.
Good for you.
Here's to real discussion of important issues.Comment Posted By Zuzu On 4.03.2007 @ 02:42
Pages (1) :