Hmmm... political appointees are fired for political and/or other reasons. Gee, how "shocking".
As for the Congressional hearings about it, I wish Bush would get up on his bully pulpit and say that these people served at the pleasure of his adminstration, and that the Executive branch is not Constitutionally answerable to Congress for its reasons for their dismissal. In addition, they will not honor subpoenas from Congress for this witch hunt, nor will they allow any administration officials to testify under oath.
I am always disappointed when Bush fails to use the power of his position to stand firmly against the power abuses of Congress.
2007-03-16 03:13:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is not for this reason
The U.S attorneys were doing their jobs as is in their job description.
Their reputations have been maligned by the usual Bush character assassination squads about how they were poor performers (insinuating they were lazy and not doing their job and in one case that he was absent alot)
They were fired because they did not pursue Democrats enough for Republican liking even though investigations into Democrats vs Republicans were at 7:1.
What chapped their as* was the fact that the Republicans had more evidence against them.
In addition, they were opening investigation into Bush cronies such as Jack Abramoff prior to the cases that got his as* sentenced to 5 years in prison.
A U.S. attorneys job is to seek justice not persecution.
The poor performance and absenteeism crap was thrown at one U.S. attorney who testified in front of Congress.
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 a Republican senator, Sen. Pete V. Domenici, 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 cite positive job reviews until this dust up with the Republican Senator, including the last one that was 3 months before his firing, as well as data showing increasing numbers of prosecutions. 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 also noted that he is required to serve 40 days a year in the Navy Reserve.
There is also a long forgotten demotion that took place in the U.S. territory of Guam.
The U.S. attorney there, Frederick A. Black, 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.
Then Alberto Gonzales in an article published last week Friday indicated he knew what was going on and it was a non issue, yet in his televised press conference on Tuesday, claimed he knew nothing about the problems. Talk about giving someone whiplash.
Then you had the White House spokesliar, Tony McSnowjob, stating at what juncture Karl Rove became involved on the fringes, yet here we go again, e-mails have come out saying that was a lie and Karl was involved earlier than was admitted by the White House.
If they would just tell the truth, the story would go away but then they have a problem with the truth
2007-03-16 03:45:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by thequeenreigns 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
When an Attorney General fires other Attorney's because they refuse to do the presidents dirty work
then guess what
its a story
When W came in he had the option (just like Clinton did) to fire all or as many as he wanted,
BUT when the firing is done because of reasons having to do with pending litigation, it is WRONG
W admitted MISTAKES WERE MADE
Gonzoles admitted MISTAKES WERE MADE
neo-cons admitt nothing The GOP is always right
most likely because they are against abortion
so the resst of the issues don't matter
2007-03-16 03:11:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes, biased, biased, the gop should come down hard on liberals
2007-03-16 03:09:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by martha r 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
They have the E-mails! It doesn't matter what Party affiliation they are; this is a big story.
2007-03-16 02:58:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
From Hitler's perspective, killing Jews was a non-story.
2007-03-16 03:14:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by lunatic 7
·
0⤊
1⤋