Limbaugh falsely claimed Bush waited until his second term to replace "some" of Clinton's U.S. attorneys
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that in his first term, President George W. Bush "left a lot of Clinton U.S. attorneys in office, did not sweep them. Only in his second term did he start replacing some." In fact, Bush reportedly replaced 88 of the 93 U.S. attorneys with his own appointees during the first two years of his presidency.
On the December 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that in his first term, President George W. Bush "left a lot of [former President Bill] Clinton U.S. attorneys in office, did not sweep them. Only in his second term did he start replacing some." In fact, Bush moved to replace almost all of Clinton's U.S. attorneys within the first six months of his term, as noted in a March 14, 2001, press release from the Justice Department. Bush reportedly replaced 88 of the 93 U.S. attorneys with his own appointees during the first two years of his presidency, compared with the 89 that Clinton reportedly replaced in his first two years.
The release stated, "Continuing the practice of new administrations, President Bush and the Department of Justice have begun the transition process for most of the 93 United States Attorneys." The release also noted, "Prior to the beginning of this transition process, nearly one-third of the United States Attorneys had already submitted their resignations. The White House and the Department of Justice have begun to schedule transition dates for most of the remaining United States Attorneys to occur prior to June of this year."
Limbaugh falsely asserted that Bush had not removed his predecessor's U.S. attorneys, which Limbaugh acknowledged was "standard operating procedure": "[O]ne of the things that new, incoming presidents do is fire all of the sitting United States attorneys. I think there are 93 of them, something like that. Bill Clinton did this. It was one of the first things he did. I mean, it was the first week in office -- canned them and put his own guys in there, standard operating procedure." Limbaugh continued, "Bush did not do this, by the way."
A March 23, 2007, Los Angeles Times article by David G. Savage reported that members of Bush's Justice Department confirmed that Clinton's U.S. attorneys were, in fact, removed early in the Bush administration and noted that it was consistent with previous presidents' actions on taking office:
Both [then-Deputy Attorney General Paul J.] McNulty and [Kyle] Sampson [then-chief of staff to then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales] acknowledged that the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration, brought in a new slate of U.S. attorneys within a few months of taking office.
Reagan replaced 89 of the 93 U.S. attorneys in his first two years in office. President Clinton had 89 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years, and President Bush had 88 new U.S. attorneys in his first two years.
In a similar vein, the Justice Department recently supplied Congress with a district-by-district listing of U.S. attorneys who served prior to the Bush administration.
The list shows that in 1981, Reagan's first year in office, 71 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys. In 1993, Clinton's first year, 80 of 93 districts had new U.S. attorneys.
In addition, Limbaugh falsely claimed that "the name of the leaker" of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee "was Richard Armitage. Armitage is who leaked it to [columnist] Bob Novak." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, Armitage was not the only person who leaked Plame's identity to reporters. Then-White House senior adviser Karl Rove was a source of the information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two journalists -- Novak and then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper -- and then-vice presidential chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby was a source of the information for both Cooper and Judith Miller, then of The New York Times.
From the December 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: Again, ladies and gentlemen, another question here about Fitzgerald. Now, Fitzgerald, because people are trying to understand -- why stop this? We're in the middle of a crime spree. We are in the middle of a crime spree, and the crime spree involves the selling of what? The Senate seat currently belongs to Barack Obama. We know that Obama had somebody in mind for the seat. That person pulled themselves out of the running at a propitious time.
We also know that Pat Fitzgerald, who was the special prosecutor in the leak of the name Valerie Plame as some sort of a CIA James Bond, which was -- I think it was always a fraud. He did a two-and-a-half year investigation even after he had his answer. The name of the leaker was Richard Armitage. Armitage is who leaked it to Bob Novak. And yet, Fitzgerald convened a two-and-a-half year investigation and then got himself a process crime: Scooter Libby, perjury. And a jury convicted. And that investigation went on and on and on, and this one gets shut down in the middle of a corruption crime spree. That's what Patrick Fitzgerald called it.
[...]
LIMBAUGH: Now, another thing to keep in mind, ladies and gentlemen, as we wade through this primordial muck that is Chicago politics, one of the things that new, incoming presidents do is fire all of the sitting United States attorneys. I think there are 93 of them, something like that. Bill Clinton did this. It was one of the first things he did. I mean, it was the first week in office -- canned them and put his own guys in there, standard operating procedure.
Although, when Bush replaced eight -- Bush did not do this, by the way. Bush, with a new tone, left a lot of Clinton U.S. attorneys in office, did not sweep them. Only in his second term did he start replacing some, and the Democrats tried to impeach the attorney general at the time, Gonzales, for supposedly playing politics with the Justice Department. And of course the White House did not fire back, did not defend itself. No reason to go over already trod ground.
However, what are the odds that the U.S. attorney in Chicago will be replaced by Barack Obama when he is inaugurated? Can you just see the headline now?















Informal survey-- Does anybody know anybody who listens to Rush anymore? I mean listens as a fan, not for laughs. 10 or 15 years ago, I used to meet seemingly normal humans who admitted to being dittoheads, but now it seems that even conservatives consider him a clown.
I was at a street fair a while back, on Labor Day, and ran into a very conservative old friend. He was boozing enough that I got a little straight talk from him. It was shortly after the selection of caribou Barbie, and he said "I've been drinking the Kool Aid for 25 years, but this is too embarrassing to put up with".He then admitted to noticing that a lot of Rush's arguments had seemed to make less sense than they used to.
I quit listening to him last week. But there are certain people who still have him blaring on their radios, so...
I think the audience that he talks to (the 100% die-hard Republicans-can't-do-wrong crowd [definition of dittohead?]) is getting smaller and smaller. I don't know about the audience that still tunes in (as obviously, not everyone that listens is a dittohead).
I have to credit Media Matters. Even though I'm trying to save money, I might have to make a small donation...
Typical limbaugh. Fact free statements.
Hey, folks, THIS IS HUGE!!! Limbaugh just stepped in it a big way. The big story just beneath the surface these days is whether or not Karl Rove will be indicted. Limbaugh managed to remind us indirectly of the Siegelman case, in addition to the attorney generals firing scandal. Wonder why this was on his mind? Could be because news has been made on this case in recent days. (Bet you have not seen any TV coverage of this, though. No time, what with the need to devote every second to the IL governor's scandal. Yeah, right.) Use Google News to find out more about the outrageous Siegelman case; Harper's in particular is good because even when the MSM (TIME, CBS News) has touched this subject, they have not really done it justice.
Why do I think Rove is guilty? Apart from the circumstantial evidence and whistleblower testimony, simply because he has pushed himself prominently into the limelight since leaving the White House, exhibiting the same modus operandi he had there: the best defense is a good offense. Especially when you have very good reason to be concerned, act like you don't have a care in the world. Limbaugh has probably been marveling at Rove's great good fortune with the timing of the breaking news of the IL governor's scandal.
I listen to him, and I am an admitted dittohead. He does have some funny bits...."Justice Brothers" and "I hate the USA". He is entertaining. I don't use him for a news source or for golf or cigar tips. but listening to him make fun of Liberals makes me laugh. The clips are funny.
but some of the things he says are clearly lies, and a lot of other people do not get any other view. no paper, no other radio shows. i know people who do believe the things he says. it's like that dittohead buddy al franken had on his show and al would show where rush would outright lie, and the dittohead would go, that may be true, but rush's point was.... there is no "point" when you're making up facts.
My husband's parents are diehard listeners. They're mid-50s, good MidWestern stock, and seemingly intelligent until you get them talking about poltics. My husband asked his mom how she felt about Obama so far and this was her exact response:
"He wants socialism and all that it represents. That scares me!"
You'd think post-election bruhaha this sort of non-reality position would have been seen as the nonsense it is and dropped, but apparently not.
By the way, I guess I'm new here, though I've been ghosting the site for months. And Col., I must say, your delightful comments are one of the main reasons I decided it was high time I joined in the fun!
Thanks, Mrs. T. I'd have to say, if there's one word I hear used to describe me most often, it's "delightful". My best to Mr. T.
Informal survey-- Does anybody know anybody who listens to Rush anymore?
Asking that question here on this site is hardly meaningful. But YES the answer is YES. My wife is forced to listen to himt almost everyday at her job. If she wasn't going to retire in a year anyway, she might quit. In an office environment with open cubicles her boss and another superviser always have Rush on their personel desk radio. If it's not one, it's the other. She has complained but doesn't want to cause trouble. She says she can ignore the actual words but the tone of his voice day after day is irritating because he is always angry about something. It's anger radio, and she is a wonderful loving person.
"tone of his voice day after day is irritating because he is always angry about something"
Your wife must not really listen since Rush is NOT 'always angry about something.'
That's a myth about as large as the 'conservative media bias' peddled by the detestable Media Matters.
Anger is owned by the left
"Anger is owned by the left"
Then you owe us for a ****load of overdue rent payments.
"Anger is owned by the left"
Apparently you do not watch Fox News or right wing radio; you don't read any newspapers, you don't listen to Republican politicians, and you don't understand what you hear from those of us on the left.
Given the ludicrous nature of your posts over time, I don't find that surprising.
NOLEFTTURNS, Have you ever listened to LEVIN ,O'RIELLY, LIMBAUGH, OR SAVAGE?All they do is spew hatred and lothing of anyone to the LEFT of their far RIGHT WING views. In reality, anger is owned by the FAR RIGHT.
Anger is a gift.
Anger is owned by the left...
If that helps you get through the day, go for it. Because racism, ignorance and hatred are definitely owned by the right.
"Anger is owned by the left"
Bullsh*t.
Colonel: Listnership still approaches 20 million. Don't let the facts get in the way of your pathetic left-wing views.
I think the Kool-Aid your friend referred to was that handed out by the left and the media.
Care to defend Rush's lies here, NLT? Anger is owned by the left? I guess you haven't ever listened to Rush or AC, Malkin, Hannity, BillO, etc.
So the rest of us 280 million have pathetic left-wing views ?
20 million is what percent of Americans?
And remember, this is 20 million per WEEK (and I am not sure it is really that high). Regardless, divide by 5 days in the week and you get 4 million. 4 million out of 300 million can still buy a lot of sponsor's products, but it is less than 1 1/2 % of the population. Not exactly a majority opinion.
I understand that there are people who listen. That 20 million figure, I believe, counts repeat listeners, not the actual number of individuals, which would be, what, 5% of Americans?
My point in asking, which I'm sure most understood, was about people's ability to continue getting advice from a source that's been so consistently proven unreliable.
As for your last comment, if a long-time Republican admitting to drinking the Kool Aid as a cause of his Republicanism translates, to you, as a reference to left wing Kool Aid, then you may be demonstrating the faulty brain wiring that explains Rush's audience. Thank you, your input was helpful, if not in the way you intended.
Even my most die-hard Republican relatives and friends do not admit to listening to Rush now. They seem embarassed by him. I think you are right - his unreliability has affected his following. As my nephew said about Hannity - when you listen to a source of so-called information and believe that you're being given facts, then you go to work or school and repeat what you've heard and everybody points out in elaborate detail how many ways you are obviously wrong, you stop trusting that source of information. A good way of learning to think for yourself, I suppose.
Pyrr, that's the impression I'm getting. I listen to his show when I have the chance, but just for the unintentional comedy. The deliberate attempts at comedy are just sad.
I'd imagine there is a fraction of a percentage of Americans who listen to and agree with Rush, and they're probably similar to the group of people who read Marmaduke every Sunday and are surprised by the punch line.
Any intelligent person would consider Rut Limberger merely a raving screwball, but when he out-and-out LIES, it's a different story. To repeat my often warning about such individuals, we dismiss him at our peril. He is the voice of an awful (and I do mean awful) lot of citizens who consider themselves conservatives. Don't forget how many votes McCain got in the last election, ESPECIALLY after he gave us Sister Sarah, who brought out the worst of that demographic.
When I hear Rush, I have to take a shower, he makes me feel dirty.
I like how he contradicts himself in the space of a few sentences. I've always wondered if dittoheads really listened and comprehend what he says. if you listen for more than a few minutes, he'll contradict himself. Its hilarious.
Inever listen beyond the few seconds it takes to realize that he is on and then change the station. I used to see how long it took him to say "Clinton" or "Hillary". There were times when he was uttering the words as the radio came on.
I keep up with his latest nonsense by reading this site and others.
It is the best way, avoid the drug addict at all costs.
I wish you'd stop referring to Rush as 'the drug addict', it makes it seem that all drug addicts are pompous, loud-mouthed morons, when many of them are decent people who just happen to have a substance abuse problem.
Kyle, you are correct. I should know better. I have to find a better way to express my dislike for Rush. Thank you for pointing that out , I agree most recovering addicts are wonderful people.
The basic difference between recovering drug addicts and Limbaugh is that addicts are conscious of and trying to rid themselves of an addiction. Rush is not even aware that he has an addiction to the worst drug of all: self-satisfaction. Being a "pompous, loud-mouthed moron" is the result of that addiction. Alas, there is no rehab for that.
Does Rush just make up his facts like this all the time or is he getting these claims (Bush did nor fire U.S. attorneys in his first term) from right wing think tanks and newsletters?
I think he's just making things up, and thinking that people will just believe whatever it is he spews forth, which for his dittoheads, is true. They will believe anything that he says for some reason.
Thing is, Rush is wrong about a lot of things in there. First, you can't "impeach" a sitting attorney general of the United States. The AG serves at the pleasure of the President, who, once confirmed, is the only person that can get rid of said AG, unless of course, the AG resigns. Nobody tried to impeach Gonzales, because that's not something that is procedurally possible. Only elected officials can get impeached, and maybe some judicial appointments. Not the AG.
The other thing, is that I'm willing to bet that if Obama does keep some US Attorneys, Pat Fitzgerald will be one of them. Why? Because he's done a great job, and shown himself to be in favor of the law, regardless of who is doing the law breaking. I don't view Fitzgerald as a partisan hack, like say, for instance, Ken Starr was, and is. During the entire Plame case (which apparently Rush still thinks it's OK to out a covert agent in the clandestine services of the CIA), there were no leaks from his office. There were no press conferences really. He conducted the investigation like the Starr investigation SHOULD have been conducted. Quietly. Discretely. And most of all, EFFECTIVELY. I would wager that Fitzgerald will be keeping his job for awhile when Obama takes office.
Mag,It's sort of an exception to the rule, but I think the AG can be impeached.
I stand corrected. Doh, I am dumb, you are smart. You are handsome, I am not good looking...
But I am a selfish Luv-vah! and you are a hale fellow well met!
Your (former) credibility is now in question. You expect us to believe that the Col. is handsome and that you are not good looking? Where is the proof? Remember, this is Media Matters, a site that abhors misinformation.
I also remember how el rushbo hated Fitzgerald during the scooter libby affair. Couldn't stand him.Now he loves him because (in his mind) he can try to tie this to Obama.
MIDDLELEFT, Yes RUSH does make up his facts as he goes. His DITTOHEAD listeners are just foolish enough to believe in him.
There's a simple explanation: Limbaugh is a pthological liar.
I tend to agree, but I've often wondered if Pigboy really believes the crap he's dishing out, or did he just stumble upon a very lucrative scam years ago?
Nerzog, no, he doesn't really believe the crap he's dishing out, and YES, he DID just stumble upon a very lucrative scam. Just like the rest of his ilk. I refuse to believe anyone could be that stupid or immoral. If you check the educational and professional backgrounds of Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, et al, you would be amazed at the "variety" of their credentials (if any). If Dale Carnegie were alive he would punch them in the mouth.
I get so sick of this sycophant......Barack has bigger fish to fry but...I long for the "Fairness Doctrine"!
It's hard for a conservative to get angry. When the "wrong" people are elected, the country gets much better.
For a liberal, the country suffers terribly when the wrong people are elected.
where'd ya get that idea from, marvel? 8 years of conservative rule and we're in a bad recession, unemployment is skyrocketing, and jobs are moving overseas faster than you can say "wonder twin powers, activate! Form of, Recession! Shape of, Unemployment!" Does that make conservatives happy? If so, that's just really f'd up...
When the democrats clean up the mess, conservatives will be happy. When we elect more republicans to create a new mess, conservatives will be happy some more.
It's like betting against your favorite football team. Either your team wins or you get some money. Good times all around.
Snoop. I think we got ourselves a live one, here.
But as for Rush's feverish brushes with an alternate reality in which Bush is a saint...the man needs help. Facts like how many USA were replaced are readily available. But of course his intended audience won't check the facts. They think Rush has done the heavy lifting for them. Just like Moses and Mother Goose.
Randy
Other then a lot of Hot Air and a giant inflow at the Maimi Dade WWTP, can anyone tell
me something of value Rush has produced, besides the hundreds of millions in added costs he has added to the products advertised on his show?
MHD, RUSHE'S hot air can be put to better use keeping GOODYEAR'S fleet of blimps airborne.
Rush Windbag is a political propagandist, who has never let the truth get in his way.
Why does his little twisting of the truth matter? It matters, because he has a large audience, who believe this cant. Left unchallenged, it becomes part of the body of lies and misinformation that Rushie spews on the radio daily...Fight each and every little lie, every inch of the way.