Yes, and let me answer RedSta's rant. I'll tell you the difference. Presidents often fire all U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of their terms. It wasn't a "Clinton Special." The difference here is that it is not accepted common practice for cherry picked U.S. Attorneys to be fired mid-term unless they have committed serious grievances. The attorneys who were fired were instructed to investigate Democratic activities for possible corruption and indictment. Instead, these six attorneys found more problems with Republican corruption and were working hard on that. The excuse given that complaints about them rose here and there is b.s. Upon examination it was found they had all received excellent performance reviews and were completely above board - having committed no grievous errors. That is, besides having the stones to go after real corruption instead of inventing Democratic slander to please the powers that be. Karl Rove is up to his fat neck in this and he should be run out of town on a rail - the old fashioned way. Good God - what new Republican scandal will come to light this next week? It's become a regular thing. It's like an out of control snowball rolling down the hill and becoming the size of an avalanche.
2007-03-15 20:36:43
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Christin.....your assertion that "i do no longer remember Al Gore or president Clinton putting their 2 cents in after Bush became surpassed the presidency." is absurd. the two you have a selective memory or did no longer truthfully pay interest to the information. Al Gore became a vocal opponent of a lot of Bush's regulations. in case you will word, President Bush himself has the grace to no longer voice complaint of Obama's regulations - in case you sense that Rove is so inconsequential it is going to no longer count to you besides. there became no longer something yet complaint from the left in the process the Bush administration, yet now that the tables have grew to become those on the left think of that the complaint is arbitrary. this is the way this u . s . a . works - unfastened speech is all human beings's splendid no count in case you compromise with what they are asserting or no longer.
2016-12-14 20:35:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why is it OK for Clinton to fire 93 Attorney Generals, but Bush is wrong for firing 8.
Let's be careful of what we are demanding here or the next Democratic President will not be able to replace Republican Attorney Generals.
Attorney Generals serve at the discretion of the President.
Remember, George Bush appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to handle the Scooter Libby trial. Fitzgerald is a Republican, but got a conviction.
Let's think long an hard about what we are outraged about what was really wrong here. Because the next Democratic President will have to be bound by this.
2007-03-15 19:36:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
While I am most certainly not a fan of Rove, he is a political genius. Only he could put Bush into the white house. Hes a slime ball yes, but he sure as hell knows what he doing. Rather than ***** slap him, id rather pick his mind, and understand how he has been able to do what he has done.
2007-03-15 19:37:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
You are also a prime candidate for getting b*tch-slapped just for saying things like this.
2007-03-15 19:43:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
No. I would like to buy the man a beer and thank him for his service to the nation.
2007-03-15 19:43:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Frank 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nah... -But I have the FEELING he's going to be getting his "rump-roasted" -right soon... -If these emails keep leaking out of the White House. :)
2007-03-15 19:59:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What's wrong with you?
2007-03-15 19:32:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋