Why is the media making a big deal out of 8 firings? Didn't Clinton fire 93?

Question

Is this more conservative media bias(snicker)?

Answer 1

Would have been 94 but Clinton was talked out of firing Chertoff who also was on the line.
Have a great day !

Answer 2

Much like the Walter Reed scandal, this is the biased media trying to undermine the Bush Administration again. I served in the military under Clinton. We weren’t at war, although Al Qaeda was attacking us left and right, but the military’s medical system was horrible. If it was horrible then, what makes you think it will get better when there is a war going on?

As for the prosecutor’s firings, I’m sure there was good reason for their dismissal, like lack of prosecutions, failure to secure convictions, or just plain mismanagement. I have no problem with Clinton firing 93 U.S. attorneys. They are to serve at the “pleasure of the president.” It’s the president’s choice.

I thought the liberals and the media are pro-choice. I guess that’s only when you are killing a baby. Not when you join the military (no other choice), send your kids to private school (abandoning the public school system), or cut taxes (choose how to spend your hard earned money). The longer the general public is uneducated about the issues, the more the liberals will win elections. Inform the public and they are in trouble. Help others help themselves and they are in trouble. Keep people from prospering and exploit the victimization angle of the issues, that’s when they are at their best and prosper.

As for "Thequeenreigns" sources list. The washingtonpost, the writer from the LA Times are not exactly unbiased sources. I could site the Drudgereport or RNC press releases and that wouldn't prove anything either.

Bottom line is people believe what they want to believe. If you watch CNN, you can see why conservatives call it the "Clinton News Network (CNN). If you watch Fox News, you can see why liberals don't like it and call it the mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. All I ask is that you listen to both sides and make an educated decision.

Answer 3

It smells of political payback. These attorneys were the ones appointed by Bush when he took office. The ones Clinton had appointed were either demoted or fired. This is par for the course with every new administration.
The thing is that they actually DID their jobs. They pursued both Democrats and Republicans. However, Pubs filed more complaints with regards to Democrats in the hope that they would just be indicted on whatever they thought would stick.
Unlike a political crony, the attorneys sought justice not persecution. If following the evidence led to an indictment then so be it. if no evidence existed except in the minds of the complainer then too bad.
This was the case for one of the highlighted U.S. attorneys, David Iglesias.
As David Iglesias, one of the 9 pointed out, he was called by the republican senator numerous times to indict but he did not because the evidence was not there. Now surprisingly, he had "poor" job performance which led to his firing. This was a crock and Mr. Iglesias was able to prove he had favorable ratings up until this dust up with the Republican Senator, Sen. Pete V. Domenici . He had wanted him to indict a Democrat under investigation prior to the Nov 2006 election and Iglesias was not able to do so. In fact the case has been dropped due to lack of evidence.
Mr. Iglesias was able to cite positive job reviews and data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions. He also noted that he is required to serve 40 days a year in the Navy Reserve.
One U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins, was removed for no other reason that to be replaced by a Karl Rove protege.
Now if you notice I said 9, not 8. This is because in the mix there is a long forgotten demotion that took place in the U.S. territory of Guam.
The U.S. attorney there had opened an investigation into Jack Abramoff 2 years ago. He was just getting evidence together to possibly indict him then he was demoted and the investigation went away.
This is the pattern with the White House, protect the friends at all costs, to hell with justice

Answer 4

the distinction is that once Clinton fired those criminal professionals he did no longer do it to fulfill a political schedule. Bush fired criminal professionals by way of fact they might not indict harmless Democrats in the previous an election to smear them. Or, to place an unqualified chum of Rove interior the situation. Bush has a very good to hire and hearth criminal professionals yet this replaced into blatantly political and, even worse, they lied correct to the reason at the back of firing them and blemished those criminal professionals reputations.

Answer 5

Yup...Clinton fired 93. You didn't hear much about it though, but howdy-do, Bush fires 8 and he is the evil President.

Bias Media strikes again...

Answer 6

This is Little Chuckie Schumer with his panties in a wad, doing what he normally does. The loony left believes that, if they throw enough mud, sooner or later some will stick.

Answer 7

Bingo!

Answer 8

Damn READ This http://www.judicialwatch.org/durbkencomplaint.shtml

Wouldn`t VOTE for a person because of his race/color of his skin