When Bush does it, criminal behavior - when Obama does it, HR

Yet another of those seemingly boring, legalistic White House scandal has resurfaced, the type that has a lot during the Clinton era. This is a consideration because the contrast between the media treatment of the computer and a similar controversy, but benign Bush.

In 2006, George W. Bush has asked eight U.S. attorneys to resign. Bush was free to fire the lawyer, who, as members of the Executive has served in his pleasures. He could have removedfor not wearing flag pins, if it wanted. The media and Congressional Democrats screamed murder blood. Demonstrating that Democrats are more inclined to defend the evil that the Republicans are good at defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned sheepish about his commitment.

Last week, Obama's administration has served two inspectors general: Gerald Walpin, IG for the Corporation for National and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps andJudith Gwynn, MI to the International Trade Commission, and made life difficult for third, Neil Barofksy, IG TARP.

Obama Walpin fired in retaliation for his critical report on Obama supporters and the Mayor of Sacramento Kevin Johnson misused funds with non-profit organization, St. Hope Academy. The agency received $ 850,000 in AmeriCorps teachers students, upgrading buildings, programs and funds for the arts on the contrary, Johnson used the money to pad the salaries, pay for employeespersonal favors, and bribe constituents to intervene in a local election. Johnson was entitled to receive federal funds.

U.S. prosecutor's office has agreed that Johnson could receive federal funds, the St. Hope repaid half of it, it would never happen, because the St. Hope has ceased operations, but Johnson will always be receiving federal funds.

ITC intends Gwynn because of a report issued by an employee of the Agency had the documents to theshe needed to do their work.

Obama, instead of giving Congress 30 days notice if Walpin if any, had an employee contact Walpin night on his cell phone and told me that he had an hour to resign or be fired. Walpin When asked why he was told it was "time to go" and no connection with the case, St. Hope was a coincidence. "

Walpin wrote an e-mail message explaining that he could not make this decision at such short notice and that he believed that his independent assessmentthreatened. He refused to submit to the tactics of Obama's Chicago thug machine.

Walpin contacted Senator Charles Grassley quickly, which wrote a letter to Obama why Walpin had fired, and added: "There were no adverse findings against Mr. Walpin ... [H] Others identified one million worth of assets directly or AmeriCorps frittered out in violation of established policies. "

Barack Obama's response was on board off a note indicating that Congress was Walpinto be fired in 30 days and placed on suspension, with this non-explanation: "It is important that I have the greatest confidence in those appointed as acting inspectors general. It is no longer the case with the Inspector General." Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill insisted that Obama has not provided sufficient grounds for firing, we can say that she had lost "confidence" in him.

The White House later admitted that he had lied about the reason forshooting. In another letter to Congress five days later, this contains the real reason Obama drew Walpin, said honest! "Obama was to Walpin this advice one to one AmeriCorps" confused, uncertain and can not satisfy the questions. "You could quibble that the executive branch, which offers three different stories in the course of a week can not answer the questions yourself.

only recourse Walpin replied that the Board was held on cut before he could answer. Walpin ofwas to tell his inquisitors whose results would probably have said that the Council "hostile, aggressive and can not accept criticism."

Obama's staff called Walpin shooting an act of "political courage" because-get this-some might think that he had been politically motivated, but really, it was not! Obama should get Rod Blagojevich to recite Rudyard Kipling's poem in defense of his courage.

Here are the best: the law was Obama,Inspector General Reform Act, he is with and sponsored last year. The point of law was to strengthen the independence of inspectors general, and policies to protect against fire. The language of the Bill-Obama bill, just a reminder, says: "The requirement to notify Congress in advance of the reasons for withdrawal should be used to ensure that inspectors are generally not removed for political reasons."

Bush fire his lawyers, while political reasons,was right, Obama was illegal shooting (Obama cosponsored by law). So, of course, the newspapers broke the story of the second Bush got the scent of it and do not withdraw their sides until several months later.

Their response to the firing Walpin was much warmer.

Five days after the shooting, the Washington Post published a note on the controversy. The next day, she covered the story in print for the firsttime.

The New York Times ignored the incident, in six days. When he had time to write a story, opened it with the title very balanced "White House defends firing of Inspector General" and a number of AmeriCorps workers diligently assembling barns Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.

The only "risk" of potential U.S. attorneys after President Bush "scandal" is that they could not find a job with an administration that has had a different policyphilosophy.

The potential risk of IGS after Obama's actions is that they will be removed to examine organizations with ties to the White House, and therefore not able to serve as guardian. According Walpin, the impact of this incident "will be immense Cool responsibilities and actions of the inspectors to do their independent investigation."

But mainstream media are not new-it's just your personal opinion.