Z I must not be reading correctly. Could you quote the passage in your link where Dean discusses Nixon's crimes?
We're not talking about the law here. We're talking about political and ethical standards. Firing people without cause in the middle of a term, especially when the firing is done by political appointees, is viewed with strong suspicion for very good reasons. Society places a high barrier to such behaviors to prevent politicians from playing politics with important positions that should be insulated from politics. The WH knew this. That's why their initial claim was that the prosecutors were fired due to poor performance. The fact that Gonzales was lying about it further strengthens the suspicion. We have a political system that more or less functioned fine for over 200 years. In large part it's because people usually abide by these unwritten rules. If we take the attitude that whatever is not illegal is allowed, then we'll decay to Latin American or African standard very quickly.
Dean has repeatedly said that the growth of the power of the presidency and use of executive privilege to shield possible criminal behavior is a crime (perhaps not a crime in the purely legal sense, but in the spirit of a crime to ignore the real intent of the Framers in their construction of the constitutional balance of power and oversight power over each branch of government.) Stating that something is a crime, does not mean it is illegal. Right wingers all the time say "abortion is a crime" yet it is not illegal. Both Nixon and Bush abuse of power and executive privilege are a crime...perhaps legal, we would have to have a court decide, but non the less a crime to abuse power the way both have done...
You're forgetting that those fired are political appointees. If you don't think that a litmus test of Federal prosecutors is their willingness to indict political opponents or to ignore the sins of supporters then you're naive. An inordinate number of Nixon and Clinton critics suddenly were "randomly" selected for IRS audits. Or ask Roy Cohn about those who ran afoul of the Kennedy's. Reno went after the Dave Koresh's and Randy Weaver's of the world not the corrupt Democrat's who litter Chicago's City Council. That's life. For all the hoopla over Bush's alleged anti-liberty stance this has been one of the few administrations that hasn't used both the IRS and DOJ as it's personal hit team.
One thousand plus fbi files on political opponents in the basement of the clinton white house, having the IRS do a hit job on billy dale to get him fired from the clinton white house travel office so they could put in their friends, IRS audits out the ying-yang of conservative groups critical of the clinton admin, it just went on and on and on now the liberals want to make sure everything is on the up and up and we don't turn into a third world type gov't. I guess these critics feel that the clinton operations weren't the type of transgressions that really matter. What really matters is whether you fire your political appointees at the beginning of the term or during the middle. That's crucial to the survival of the republic.
Not true. The travelgate was reported widely and caused enough outrage for Clintons to back off. It's not the Democrats' fault the the Republican congress chose to focus on the Lewinsky affair instead of the political corruptions. In any case, just because it happened in a previous administration doesn't make it right. The wingnuts' defense of the indefensible is pathetic. In their mind, there is no constitution and all they care is that they're in power.
The clinton white house did not back off. Billy Dale and his staff remained fired, as I recall. Mr Dale was simply aquitted as to any IRS violations. I am continually amazed at the logic you libs use. If someone you refer to as a wingnut does the exact same thing that liberals have done, you think they are pathetic. It's the old pot calling the kettle black type of logic.
As a Democrat I am appalled that my party continues to think like losers. Far fetched as it is, a Democrat might actually occupy the WH at some point in the future. Whatever restrictions we put on the current president, all future presidents will have to live with. Firing political appointees requires no reason, ever. Put restrictions on that for Bush, and the next Dem president will be unable to clean house when he comes into office. How's that sound to ya'? Radical lefties just can't think past the moment.
The problem Bush and Gonzales have is that this administration has a habit of cutting off their defenders at the knees. You think anyone is going to stick their neck out for the AG after he denies being involved, then has to backtrack? Let's not forget this is the same AG who allowed the Border Patrol guys and a deputy sheriff to go to jail for dustups with illegals. Plus, anyone remember Scooter Libby? I understand he supposedly lied to the FBI and a grand jury instead of to the American public, but in the pantheon of excuses, saying you only lied to the people doesn't strike me as very compelling. Bush and co have had the luxury of a republican-controlled congress for six years. They are obviously far from ready to deal with the Democrat partisans on the Hill. The first lesson would be, never explain anything. Instead, attack immediately, Clinton-style. For all his stubbornness, Bush has a tendency to try to stave off the wolves by throwing bodies off the back of the wagon. That has never been a winning strategy. Eventually, you run out of dupes and fall guys.