Hillary Calls for Gonzales' Head

Shock. Again.

In an exclusive interview to air Wednesday morning, March 14, on "Good Morning America," Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the first time called for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

"The buck should stop somewhere," Clinton told ABC News senior political correspondent Jake Tapper, "and the attorney general — who still seems to confuse his prior role as the president's personal attorney with his duty to the system of justice and to the entire country — should resign.

Hmm. Funny that she calls for Gonzales to go away. Wonder why this is any different than when Saint Bill fired 93 US Attorneys when he started his presidency? Well, other than the Democrats are screeching loudly about it.

It was very interesting watching the news coverage of this. I watched Hardball's amazingly unbalanced coverage, and CNN's coverage was a bit better, but was still lead by someone decrying that politics may have been involved. FoxNews was on par with CNN, but less whiny and leaning right.

I've only caught one instance where claims of impropriety could be an issue. Though as only pointed out from FoxNews, that was only a part of the complaints against that US Attorney.

"I'm deeply disturbed by what we have learned thus far," Clinton said, "and I join those who are calling for a full and thorough investigation to try to get to the bottom of these very political decisions that interfere with prosecutorial responsibility by U.S. attorneys, and I think that the attorney general should resign."

Clinton said the evidence so far pointed to "direct interference with the way U.S. attorneys are supposed to operate — to be impartial. There's evidence of political interference and political pressure being put on them to engage in partisan political activities." Clinton added there were "so many examples of an abuse of power, of going in and removing people not on the basis of performance but, in fact, because they were performing well, they were fulfilling their responsibilities as a U.S. attorney, and that wasn't within the political agenda of the administration."

I'd love to know what evidence she has that isn't in the news.

In fact, I'd say the Bush administrations handling of these attorneys was quite light handed and careful not to be disruptive. They've only remove eight, while Clinton removed 93. I'd say they carried continuity in the justice department to a level that indicates a responsible nature not seen by Saint Bill.

When Clinton's husband took office in 1993, one of the first actions his attorney general took was to remove every U.S. attorney. Clinton was asked how this was different from the termination of eight U.S. attorneys last December.

"There is a great difference," Clinton said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It's not done on a case-by-case basis where you didn't do what some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigations into your opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh' and every president has done that."

A fresh start I'm sure couldn't have disrupted any cases or the continuity of the justice department. Nope, no politics were involved either. You can be sure that none of the attorneys that took those jobs were given the positions for political reasons.

If the system is to allow political appointees, the allowance has to be the same irrespective of who has the Oval Office. If the President wants all the attorneys gone for no reason but politics, then that is allowed. If he wants them gone for political reasons including political complaints, and those complaints aren't done to specifically block investigations or prosecutions, then it should be allowed as well.

Frankly, the Dems are showing their systemic hypocrisy on this issue.