Do you really personally agree with Mr.Bushes dismissal of?

Question

his firings in regards of the top attorney officials? Maybe we will never really know the truth although, I am sure there is a good reason for this .Maybe there was money laundering involved. Who knows ? If this was the case ?then this needed to be done in regards of our countries futuristic presidents etc. to prevent wrong doings in this countries top government official employees etc.

Answer 1

I wonder if you know that during the first week of President Clinton's first term, Attorney General Janet Reno fired ALL but one of America's U.S. Attorneys. Only one was not fired. Very little media attention was given to the event. It was assumed that the administration had the right to hire and fire as it saw fit.

From what I understand, Attorney General Gonzales made some mistakes in the firing process recently. He should have been more careful. But to call for his resignation is, in my view, absurd.

Answer 2

Incoming Presidents normally fire all US Attorneys. Clinton and Reagan both did it.

The Bush administration slipped a provision into the USA Patriot Act that Congress renewed last year allowing the attorney general to appoint interim U.S. attorneys for indefinite periods without congressional approval. Previously, such appointments could last for only 120 days. Lawmakers may have figured that the extra leeway might help in rare emergencies.

The nation's 93 U.S. attorneys are selected by the president to prosecute federal crimes and uphold the government's interests. Senate confirmation enhances the likelihood that appointees will be lawyers with impressive credentials and experience.

That's vital, in part because federal prosecutors are the public's watchdogs against malfeasance by politicians and officeholders

These firings are highly unusual, particularly because they involve no allegations of misconduct. A Feb. 22 Congressional Research Service report, "U.S. Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006," showed only five cases in 25 years in which U.S. attorneys were forced to resign.

This is different because these were all GW Bush appointees! (Not Clinton)

Answer 3

The Bush administration fired whoever opposed or questioned them. They had the power to fire university professors that questioned 9/11, civil experts and engineers that publicly said that the twin towers did not collapse because of the fire and neither building 7. And remember, these are experts, they calculate and design these buildings, they weren't some guys from mcdonalds making accusations. So, if they have the power to do this, do you think 7 or 8 attorney officials would matter to them ?
It's easy - eliminate all opposition to have all power granted them.
Result - do what they want - attack afganistan, iraq, spend 78 million only on "peanut storage". Who do you think profits ? Haliburton does and its major shareholders: Cheney and Rumsfeld. Surprised ? And guess what, they form the "bush administration". They decide where the war money go.
Don't beleive me? Look this information up, its publicly available and non classified.
The 90 billion they want now, where do they go ? Not hard is it...

So you see, theres an old saying: "Que Bono ?" :

Who profits ?

Answer 4

Yes. The Bush Administration cleaned house at after the 2000 Election, which is fairly normal for each incoming Administration. The 9 AG's recently let go were already selected by the Aministration. They were Bush's boys. Unfortunately, they were slow or ineffectual or unwilling to engage in the necessary partisan attacks on Bush Administration opponents.

We have all heard a gazillion times that these AG's serve at the pleasure of the President. Apparently, his lordship is displeased at their failures related to the 2006 election.

The crime here (which is not the criminalization of politics as Fox continues to report) is that public officials carrying out the jobs with competence were dismissed for not playing party politics.

This is the central problem of the Bush Administration from start to finish. This Administration has from day one represented only the Republican Party and its conservative allies. The rest of the nation has been cast aside and basically told "their way or the highway".

Bush has never fully realized that he is President of the United States and not the Republican Party.

Answer 5

It's common practice for a newly elected president to ask for the resignations of all the federal prosecutors so he can appoint people who he wants. It's also common practice to get a new slate of prosecutors when a president's first term is up.

While Clinton did put a new set of people in place when he was first elected, he did not change prosecutors after his first term.

Seven or eight of the prosecutors testified before Congress last week that they were pressured to go after Democrats and not prosecute Republicans. This is illegal and improper and politicizes positions that are in many ways intended to be politically neutral.

Then the administration lied and said they were let go for reasons of merit. When caught lying, they changed the story more than once. That is the crux of the problem--that they improperly pressured the prosecutors, fired them to install friends of Karl Rove and other more malleable people, and then lied about the entire process.

Answer 6

Why is it that when Republicans are called out on something wrong they immeditly point a finger at the Clinton Admin to draw fire away from themselves. The Clinton firings were at the BEGINING of his first term. Rarely has there ever been a mass firing mid term let along in the middle of a second term. That's what the story was about..not to mention the fact that emails sufaced that stated those to be let go were for poor mangment of cases as well as not going along with the administation's policies/views. Also not to mention that first Justice Dept let these guys go,,,then it was Harriet Myers..now it may Rove...

Answer 7

Friedrich Nietzsche spelling cops here. Responce? If your going to bag on the poor girl at least get yours right.

Anyway I think you are trying to find fault when there is none. Even as a Conservative I bet the administration didn't like the positions these attorneys held and canned them for it.

Answer 8

I don't care what the reasons were. These people serve at the pleasure of the president. It is extremely common for presidents to replace US Attorneys. Clinton did, Bush did & I'm sure whoever wins in 08 will as well.

Answer 9

The attorneys that were released were all republicans and were left go because they wouldn't put the fire to some democrats butts prior to the last election. This came from Rove and you can bet on it!!!

Answer 10

He is authorized to fire them at will with no reason. They know it, he knows it, Gozales knows it and the Democrats know it. But the public does not know it cause the schools refuse to teach about our government, and the press only shows one side.