A Rational Aversion

In a front page story by Dan Eggen and John Solomon, two writers for the Washington Post, Eggen & Solomon (sounds like a Wall Street bagel joint) wrote:

The White House suggested two years ago that the Justice Department fire all 93 U.S. attorneys, a proposal that eventually resulted in the dismissals of eight prosecutors last year, according to e-mails and internal documents that the administration will provide to Congress today.

The dismissals took place after President Bush told Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales in October that he had received complaints that some prosecutors had not energetically pursued voter-fraud investigations, according to a White House spokeswoman.

Sounds pretty sinister. Who in his right mind should bother investigating voter fraud?

But try this bit of actual history, seared—seared!—into my memory and commented on here by Drudge:

… February 1993…Clinton FIRED all 93 U.S. Attorneys who had been appointed by George [H.W.] Bush. One of them was [Jay] Stephens, who was then U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and developing a case against House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dan Rostenkowski — a pivotal Clinton ally in the battle for health-care reform — for diverting [over $650,000 in] taxpayers’ money to personal and campaign funds.

Stephens charged that the mass firing was a way of derailing the Rostenkowski investigation. The RTC, however, chose Stephens precisely because he could be trusted to carry out an investigation that would not back away from information potentially embarrassing to Clinton.

“Comments” in Drudge relating to the above go on to cite a telling truth about Presidents and their predilections for housecleaning:

GW Bush also “fired” all Clinton appointed attorneys and appointed his own upon being inaugurated as President. It’s a common practice. Bush is firing his own appointments.

So, let’s see: Bush fires 8 of his own appointees due to their ineffective and unenergetic pursuit of voter fraud. Clinton, on the other hand, fires all 93 of the US Attorneys apparently, in part, to cover an equally crooked (Chicago Democrat) Dan Rostenkowski. ["Rosty," as he was affectionately known by Chicago finger sniffers, spent several years in minimum security after a later trial.] OK, so who are the government school educated Worker’s Party members going to side with?

Will it be Dubya and voter fraud? Or will it be Willie, graft, and corruption?

*drumroll*

BAM!

Right out of the gate, it’s WWWillieeee! To heck with career gangster crooks! If we don’t support graft and corruption how will we ever maintain our credibility when we support voter fraud??

ara