How Do Most Americans Feel About Bush Firing 8 Attorneys As Opposed To Clinton Firing 93?

Question

.......or do most Americans have no idea what this question is all about ?

Answer 1

I would suspect most Americans who have heard about it only know what the Big Media soundbites told them. Congress is investigating the "controversial" firings of these US Attys, there seems to be some evidence "suggesting" input from the White House, etc.

But most will not hear that these are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, who can be fired or asked to resign for any reason, and that these posts are part of the political spoils system.

They will also not be told that the Congressional investigation is also controversial, as is the request for administration staffers to testify under oath, as there are serious questions here about the seperation of powers and whether this oversight is legitimate or overreaching.

But we all know that it has been spun to sound like it is an unprecedented thing, that the Bush administration is lying to Congress, that the White House was intimately involved, and there are nefarious political reasons for it, etc. The typical leftist big media-style lie.

Answer 2

The same old liberal double standard again. It's okay for Clinton to do without a peep from the press, but we just can't let a day go by without jumping on bush for something. After all, the next election is only a year and a half away, so there's no time to lose to make sure that everything republican is thoroughly percieved as corrupt, evil, underhanded, etc. etc.
just more of the same bull.

Answer 3

Looks like pretty simple arithmetic, although each President has the unequivocal right to do this. Clinton also took advantage of his presidential right to pardon some convicted felons during his final days in office, which happened to be friends and political allies. Haven't seen Bush do that yet.

Overall, it is clear that President Bush is a whole lot cleaner that Clinton ever was. Doesn't cheat on his wife, either.

Answer 4

Actually, Clinton fired over a hundred attorneys - with little or no fan fare. And during times of some pretty messy investigations involving both he and his wife as well as a host of acquaintances.

You must now consider the fact that we are dealing with Bush now.

Tell me again why the liberal media isn't biased?

Answer 5

Americans want to fire half of congress! We arnt stupid we can see this is the Dems trying to get at Bush and Rove. We have a war to win. Nothing was illegal about firing 8 attorneys.

Answer 6

I should think, citizen, that you would be embarrassed to be spreading propaganda for a crew that is firing prosecutors who investigated corruption.

Did you support Duke Cunningham having a price list that informed contractors of how much they should bribe him to obtain contracts? Did you support stopping the investigation in Abramoff and the sweat shops he and DeLay helped set up off Guam? Do you support firing attorneys who won't go after democrats for no reason?

Do you even know why these attorneys were fired? Do you even know why people are disturbed? Or do you just take your blast fax from limbaugh each day and start spouting off? Are you aware that republicans are now calling for gonzales' head over this?

Anyway, this corruption pales, to me, in the face of Gonzales saying that we Americans don't have the protection of habeus corpus. I watched the fascist testify in the sentate that 'just because the constitution says the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended doesn't mean each and every american has the right to that protection."

How anyone could support the man after he uttered those words, defended the right to disappear any of us, is mind-boggling. It's like you truly have no sense of what your country stands for and you think you are just supposed to support your kind, whatever he does.

Comrade, you've failed us all. When your grandchildren ask what you did to help save American democracy, all you'll be able to say is "Achtung!"

Answer 7

Mr. Clinton fired those appointees made by Reagan during his term. Reagan stuffed the benches with like-minded neo-conservatives like himself. Many of those attorneys were guilty of "dirty tricks" in Reagans name. It is interesting that although Clinton got rid of the foxes in the hen house, he still made sure they had jobs.

Read the following, which is a report from McClatchy newspapers:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and its defenders like to point out that President Bush isn’t the first president to fire U.S. attorneys and replace them with loyalists.

While that’s true, the current case is different. Mass firings of U.S. attorneys are fairly common when a new president takes office, but not in a second-term administration. Prosecutors are usually appointed for four-year terms, but they are usually allowed to stay on the job if the president who appointed them is re-elected.

Even as they planned mass firings by the Bush White House, Justice Department officials acknowledged it would be unusual for the president to oust his own appointees. Although Bill Clinton ordered the wholesale removal of U.S. attorneys when he took office to remove Republican holdovers, his replacement appointees stayed for his second term.

Ronald Reagan also kept his appointees for his second term.

So the situations, while appearing similar, are not. And yet…


…Bush aide Dan Bartlett noted Clinton’s first term firings in defending Bush’s second term dismissals.

“Those discretionary decisions made by a president, by an administration, are often done,” he told reporters Tuesday.

It always goes back to Clinton.

Answer 8

i think there is a little difference.
Clinton fired all of the attorneys when he took office for the first time, i wonder if he rehired any of them?
President Bush fired the 8 after he started his second term. did he fire all of them when he started? the attourneys serve at the pleasure of the President, he can fire them if he wants to.
but
he really should have a reason to fire them and if it is because they did not chase democratic voter fraud hard enough is questionalble.

this really is not about the firing of 8 lawyers, it is about who has the power in Washington and what they can do with it.
the President lied about the weapons in Iraq.
the administration misled the congress about the reasons to go to war. mistakes and lies are what this administration is all aboout.

1 year 10 months and it will not matter anymore

Answer 9

this could be a query that has been addressed to Congress, because of the fact entirely based upon the Patriotic Act; it helps the President to fire any Federal Prosecutor at his discretion. even in spite of the shown fact that; what's fishy with regard to the full ordeal; is the lies and canopy-united statesillustrated by his group individuals. to boot; the reason for firing the 8 Federal Prosecutors, is obviously Political Retaliation. each and every person of the 8; replaced into terminated because of the fact of they upheld the regulation; and went after corrupted officers. the sunshine got here on, in basic terms on the the perfect option time for Mid-term Elections. The White domicile wasn't pleased with the outcomes; for this reason the payback.

Answer 10

As usual the cons don't get it just like iraq and global warming.

Clinton fired the 93 because they were republican appointies. Its common pratice for preople to do that. But as usual bush is above the law and repugs like the ones posting here think they are above the law. The firings were politically motivated because they investigated repugs.

Of course the slopheaded morons on here whine about a "Liberal" bias which only exists in the mind of the minions of the repug party.