A tale of 2 prosecutors: let's compare

[CatWoman]

So whatever damage Fitzgerald may ultimately do, he is not an independent counsel unleashed by opposition forces to bring down the Bush administration. The president has endorsed his integrity and competence, and no one has uncovered a hint of a political motive or any conflict of interest.

The comparisons between Fitzgerald and Starr sound especially bizarre coming from pundits who failed to criticize the Whitewater prosecution back when their dissent might have mattered.

Starr was appointed by Republican judges, under the dubious influence of Republican Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth. He had no prosecutorial experience and proved to be an inept partisan. His investigation meandered repeatedly into new areas far afield from his original brief, took nearly five years to complete, required many grand jury extensions, and cost approximately $70 million. Starr and his prosecutors leaked promiscuously to favored reporters throughout the probe, thereby ensuring favorable press coverage and inflicting political damage on their White House targets.

Fitzgerald was appointed by the Bush administration's own deputy attorney general, as noted above, at the request of the CIA director. He boasts extensive experience and success as a federal prosecutor. He is not only skilled but absolutely free of any partisan taint, having prosecuted both Republicans and Democrats in Illinois. His investigation of the CIA leak will be wrapped up after less than two years, without any grand jury extensions. His office has been remarkably free of leaks, which may help explain why he gets none of the fawning publicity that was once lavished on Starr.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/10/21/miller_times/

[CatWoman]

1. kick

:kick:

[charlie]

2. Starr was also a "do-over"

Fiske wasn't getting the dirt that made the wingnuts happy, so he was replaced by the Paula-Jones-supporting, Big-Tobacco-representing ideological mamma's boy.