Why has the Bush Administration fired so many U.S. Attorneys?

Question

Read the following editorial and tell me what you think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/opinion/26mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Answer 1

Four months ago, President Bush signed a huge military spending bill. But hidden in the bill was also a provision to abolish the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. This is the agency which exposed that $8.8 billion dollars in Iraqi money which was supposedly used for reconstruction costs had not been properly accounted for or tracked. It exposed briberies and conspiracies to steal Iraqi reconstruction money that sent U.S. occupation officials to prison. It has brought to light the poor construction work done by politically-connected companies such as Halliburton Co. and Parson Corp. The Special Inspector General recently revealed that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.” To put it mildly it has exposed the waste and corruption of the Bush regime as it relates to Iraqi reconstruction on many occasions.

Waste, corruption, inefficiency? Of course the Bush regime would step in and eliminate the problems, right? No way! “Kill the messenger” is a much better solution. And that is exactly what the regime has done by inserting this provision in the much larger military spending bill. Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee inserted the provision to abolish the office during a closed-door conference on the bill.

This is standard operating procedure for the Bush regime. In the best example, when the New York Times exposed its NSC wiretapping, the regime’s Department of Justice started an investigation of the leak and the Attorney General announced on TV that reporters could be charged. To the Bush regime, the crime does not matter, but the exposure of the crime is a capital offense. Had the Office of Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction kept its collective mouth shut, it would not be shut down. But now it is to be closed. Just another day in the operation of the Bush regime.

Answer 2

Simple. When you are attempting to consolidate your power base, you're gonna want to make sure that you take away the people who'd disagree with you, right? Except, that in reality, it's better to have divergent opinions; otherwise, you can't tell what others are thinking about your opinions and all.

Therefore, although it might seem to the Bush Administration that by removing those who might poke their fingers in too deep, as it were, they're helping themselves out, they're actually just increasing government buruecracy, what with the time to find new attorneys, evaluations, severance pay... All of that. The editorial was very interesting though, hope my two cents was.

Answer 3

Bush, seeing how he is now out numbered with the growing demand in democrats is firing the attorneys he feels will hinder his ablilities to making this country religously run.

F the republicans

Answer 4

If an attorney, reporter, or anyone, won't twist the facts to fit Bush's blood-for-oil-misadventure, they're gone.

Answer 5

Adam Cohen's editorial is nothing more than his opinion, speculative at best. He isolates certain facts, ignores others and comes to the conclusion he wants. And, for this he is paid?? I should be so lucky to have such a cushy job.

Answer 6

For the same reason Clinton fired all US atty's when he was sworn into the presidency. Because they serve at his pleasure, based on the recommendations of his Atty Gen'l.

Answer 7

I don't have to read it. They've fired so many because the attorneys keep pointing out that they're on shaky legal ground.

Answer 8

It's difficult to find people who agree with Bush.

Answer 9

To appoint cronies sympathetic to this administration.

Answer 10

probably because he's looking for ones who can make legal arguments to stretch the truth and get his actions ligitimized.