Hillary Clinton makes up excuses

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton dismissed any comparison between the firing last fall of eight U.S. attorneys with the replacement of 93 U.S. attorneys when her husband became president in 1993.

Her response: "That's a traditional prerogative of an incoming president."

But she said: "They should be given broad latitude to enforce the law as they see fit."

She also said: "I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law."

So then we should expect all the Supreme Court justices to step down when a new President is sworn in. Or how about dismissing all 180+ ambassadors? Certainly, the President-elect wants to appoint his/her own people to those positions to maintain stability and loyalty.

Of course, she did concede the fact that she may likely dismiss all U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush if she is elected to the presidency in 2008. Her excuse for that? She falls upon the usual reason that it is a traditional step in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party. She goes on to argue that Bush's dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys was an attempt to shift the balance of power towards the executive branch.

Any attempt to appoint political loyalists to federal positions of prosecutoral power is not promoting the enforcement of just law and due process. Such an attempt should be considered a step to enforcing the law based on the political party's interpretation.

I cannot deny the fact the president can dismiss an appointee at will, but when Mrs. Clinton talks about tradition, it should be known that Attorney General Janet Reno under former President Bill Clinton moved away from that tradition to dismiss all 93 attorney generals when they took office. Before this, Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, and Jimmy Carter, for example, never took such an action.

By dismissing all attorney generals, it causes a shakeup in the current federal investigations, and causes unnecessary suspicion when such investigations are covering politicians or influential people.

How can we resolve this? Such a position should be similar to the Comptroller General. Such a person is appointed to a 15-year term which guaranteees the person's protection against a change in administration and/or political party. The current appointee, David M. Walker, was selected by Bill Clinton, and he has continued to serve in that position under President Bush. His term ends in 2013.

I could wonder if Hillary wins the presidency, would she fire Walker?

In any case, her reasons are purely political, and I think making up excuses for her husband's actions does not cut it.