"Right knows no boundaries and justice no frontiers."-Atty Paul Charlton
Today I was sent the above quote in an email from an aquaintance. I'm not sure why he sent it. He has no idea I started this blog, or what I've been reading and researching in my free time. So I thought I would do some research of my own. Off I went to the ever faithful google, and here are some web pages I read starting of course with Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K._Charlton_(attorney)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/gonzales_7_backgrounds_paul_charlton.html
Something to think about:
Mr Charlton was among the many US Attorneys the Bush Administration fired. Read this Timeline at US News for an idea of what happened there. US News quoted Sampson on why this would be done, and it was one of the most honest quotes I've seen from a Bush staffer, ""...we would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys–the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80–85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."
Atty Paul Charlton's office received various awards for doing a great job. Senator Kyl said,"My understanding is that Paul Charlton's departure resulted from disagreements with the Department of Justice about some office policies," A spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he also believes Charlton "was an exemplary U.S. attorney." So why would Bush fire him if he wasn't slacking off? I'm just your average everyday American, but it seems pretty clear to me that this was one of those instances of getting rid of those who were not "loyal Bushies."
You have to ask yourself whether you buy into the party line that Bush and his staffers used saying that it was just good management, or if this goes somewhere deeper. Somewhere more insidious. It's odd, Bush initially put him in his the office in 2001, but a lot has happened since then.
I have no answers on this one. I'm just trying to educate myself on what is happening in the current administration and why. While I'm at it, I decided to share with you what I'd been reading today and let you come to your own conclusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_K._Charlton_(attorney)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070321/21attorneys-timeline.htm
http://www.epluribusmedia.org/features/2007/gonzales_7_backgrounds_paul_charlton.html
Something to think about:
Mr Charlton was among the many US Attorneys the Bush Administration fired. Read this Timeline at US News for an idea of what happened there. US News quoted Sampson on why this would be done, and it was one of the most honest quotes I've seen from a Bush staffer, ""...we would like to replace 15–20 percent of the current U.S. Attorneys–the underperforming ones. (This is a rough guess; we might want to consider doing performance evaluations after Judge comes on board.) The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80–85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc."
Atty Paul Charlton's office received various awards for doing a great job. Senator Kyl said,"My understanding is that Paul Charlton's departure resulted from disagreements with the Department of Justice about some office policies," A spokeswoman for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he also believes Charlton "was an exemplary U.S. attorney." So why would Bush fire him if he wasn't slacking off? I'm just your average everyday American, but it seems pretty clear to me that this was one of those instances of getting rid of those who were not "loyal Bushies."
You have to ask yourself whether you buy into the party line that Bush and his staffers used saying that it was just good management, or if this goes somewhere deeper. Somewhere more insidious. It's odd, Bush initially put him in his the office in 2001, but a lot has happened since then.
I have no answers on this one. I'm just trying to educate myself on what is happening in the current administration and why. While I'm at it, I decided to share with you what I'd been reading today and let you come to your own conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment