I agree with those who think Barack Obama ought to keep Patrick Fitzgerald on as US Attorney in Chicago, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he's a fellow Amherst man. I do find cause for amusement, however.
In another example of the, uh, fluidity of political points of view, we hear Republicans demanding that he remain. Fair enough. But can we forget their outrage, and their attempts to discredit him as a political hack, when he was going after Scooter Libby? Just wondering. And smiling.
Personally, I like this idea:
"...Congress should give Patrick Fitzgerald the job of investigating the Bush administration's war crimes. Give him complete freedom from interference, and let the chips fall where they may."
.
This is another manufactured controversy. Obama already committed to retaining Fitz:
ReplyDeletehttp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/12/obama_wants_fitzgerald_to_stay.php
--Sam Spade
whoops
ReplyDeletePlease ignore my last comment.
--Sam
The president can fire prosecutors? What happened when Bush did that? That seemed to be a scandal. If Obama fires Fitz now, while Fitz is investigating all of O's friends, will that be a scandal too? Or just presidential business as usual?
ReplyDeleteanonymous: unsurprisingly, you have it wrong. It's customary for all US Attorneys to submit resignations as a new president comes into office. What's NOT customary is the actual firings thereof, mid-term, as in the scandal under the Bush.
ReplyDeleteSounds like he'll be better for the war crimes tribunal than Clinton - who used to be my candidate for that job.
ReplyDeleteOf course it'll never happen.
How about rehiring all of the US attorneys wrongly fired by Bush's minions and set them to investigating the Bush administration's war crimes?
ReplyDeleteWe need Pat here to clean up the Blagojevich mess.