One attorney general was investigating White Water and another was about to indite Rostinkowski!
2007-03-15 02:16:23 · 22 answers · asked by Frank 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As a result,white water was dropped by Clintons new appointee, a friend. And Rostinkowski was not indicted.
2007-03-15 02:32:58 · update #1
Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. have kept the majority of Attorney Generals that were in office when they became President.
2007-03-15 02:35:17 · update #2
Bush did it twice that's why, and Clinton isn't the current President America is focused on. Clinton did do that right at the first of his Inauguration, but Bush is doing it to cover his tracks over corruption with Gonzales and Scooter Libby.
2007-03-15 02:22:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
To some of the other posters...Scooter Libby was involved in 'corruption'?
Gonzalez too?
Corruption is a mighty powerful accusation.
As I understand it, Libby was accused of letting people know that Joe Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife...not ,as Mr Wilson alleged, Dick Cheney.
He was found guilty - does this really rise to the level of 'corruption'?
I think not.
Note: The New York Times, NBC,ABC, and CBS barely mentioned the mass firings of the 93 state attoneys AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED - barely a mention.
The overwhelming stench of media bias is - as it always is - excused, justified or ignored by rabid Bush-bashers.
As an Independent, I have no problem with Gonzalez or any one else being held responsible if they do something wrong.
But to pretend this is handled fairly in the mainstream media is laughable.
For the record; EVERY single one of the attorneys Mr Clinton fired were fired FOR POLITICAL REASONS.All were Republican appointees, all were replaced by Democrats, many of whom had direct ties to the Clintons themselves...why was that not cronyism?
It wasn't a big deal to the press because it was Clinton...it is a big deal to them now because it is Bush.
Only an idiot could try to spin it any other way.
2007-03-15 02:40:54 · answer #2 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They’re not focusing on it because it’s not relevant to the current controversy! It is extremely rare to fire a US attorney during the course of a president’s tenure. It is unheard of in American history to engage in this kind of multiple firing during a president’s term. Only the Republican propagandists would mention Clinton in order to try to fool the ignorant. Bush also fired US prosecutors when he first took office but that is not the current issue.
The Bush administration took advantage of a recent amendment to the Patriot Act to replace US attorneys for political (and other questionable) reasons and then lied to Congress about it. That’s what the fuss is about.
2007-03-15 02:34:55 · answer #3 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have mentioned that. Why don't right-wing pundits on the radio and tv mention that Reagan and Bush Jr did the same when they first stepped into office?
The reason this is different is because these attorneys were fired because of political reasons, not at the beginning of Bush's Jr term, but much later into their terms. It is different because there is a paper trail showing Republican congressmen interfering in federal prosecutor's investigations. That in of itself is cause for alarm. They were fired because these congressmen complained that these attorneys were prosecuting Republicans or not prosecuting Democrats fast enough.
2007-03-15 02:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by trovalta_stinks_2 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They wouldn't want to add any detractions from the message of their supported liberal democrat policy.
The liberal media (NY TIMES, LA TIMES, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc) wants to impeach this President at any cost. They are almost 'giddy' whenever even a 'potential scandal' is discovered. This one takes the cake.
Even the democrats are saying there is nothing illegal involved. The exceptions are Harry Ried (who is under investigation for a questionable land deal), Hillary (who is running for Prez and needs to discredit republicans), Chuck Schumer (who wants to become Sec of State or VP), and Joe Biden ( a known criminal). It begs the question, why is the media scrambling to keep these four on camera? The answer is obvious. It is the same agenda the media has been chasing since the 2000 election. Their latest target on the 'stairwell to the President' is Carl Rove, who is probably their 2nd most hated man (all the media think Bush is the most hated man).
Finally, while I vent, we have Sunnunu. A so called republican, who wants Gonzolez to resign. They out to take his party credentials away! Its about time some of these damn members of my own party, get off their dead asses and start fighting these libs! If they don't, the result will be a landslide election in 2008.... for the libs.
2007-03-15 02:32:22 · answer #5 · answered by merlins_new_apprentice 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Former President Clinton is the antithesis of President Bush, and, with the exception of the radio, the media, by and large, does not like our current president. They still hold President Clinton on a pedestal, in hoped that his wife may one day hold the high office. He never did anything wrong and was the most perfect president in the history of America. It was all just a Republican scheme to may him look bad. He was honorable and decent, and that's why every time I watched one of his speeches I felt like I needed to take a shower to remove the filth off of me.
2007-03-15 03:41:49 · answer #6 · answered by seattlefan74 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because Clinton was the Liberal savior, nothing he did was ever wrong like chopping up the military to prop up the economy long enough for him to look like it was a success, but resulting in armor less Humvee and no body armor for the troops.
Clinton apparently did everything right, from not taking out Saddam, or bin laden. or not actively pursuing the barracks, USS Cole or the first world trade center bombers. Or his use of the oval office for bagging interns.
The Media elite can never say Clinton was wrong!
How dare anyone question the mighty Clinton... he saved America...
apparently...
2007-03-15 02:39:58 · answer #7 · answered by Stone K 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Simply because they were not fired for "performance issues" it is true that US Attorneys serve at the presidents PLEASURE, and can be fired at the whim of the president. It is perfectly acceptable for the Prez to just say, I wanna put someone else in there. ONCE AGAIN BUSH DIDN'T HAVE THE GUTS to do it that way, the man would rather climb a tree to tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.
2007-03-15 02:21:43 · answer #8 · answered by Bobbie E 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The media is not ignoring this event that happened 14 years ago. The media is talking about the circumstances surrounding Bush's firing of the US attorneys.
Besides, the same stuff went through the media in '93. That's how you know about it, sweetheart.
2007-03-15 02:35:48 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I absolutely understand where you're coming from when you bring this up, but I'm sure it was covered throughly, back in 1993.
This event is similar, but not directly related. It's been mentioned, but it's not immediately relevant to the situation.
2007-03-15 02:27:15 · answer #10 · answered by amg503 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋