What's up with this?

Question

If Bill Clinton can fire 93 people from the White House, or whatever it was, why can't George W. Bush do the same with like 10 guys?

Is it because Alberto Gonzalez wasn't fired?

Olberf..k has been over this, but O Reilly hasn't mentioned a word about it, So I'm assuming it's another liberal witch-hunt!

Nice answers by everybody, but here's the point that I'm trying to get at: what Bush did by firing these guys is NOT an impeachable offense! That's what I meant by "liberal witch-hunt." Do these firings spell "cronnyism"? Absolutly! I'm just saying that to call them "impeachable" is rediculous!

Answer 1

Because it's okay for Democrats to do things but not okay for Republicans.
Haven't you noticed that since the Dems took the majority in the house and senate, it has been investigation after investigation after investigation. It is a witch hunt. It proves that the Democrats should never be in charge of anything. They are trying to criminalize politics.
Remember people, if the Dems can do it to Republicans, they can do it to you!.
You libs out there, do you realize that when you support the Dems, you are slowely giving away your freedoms and rights?

Answer 2

Clinton fired the attorneys at the start of his administration as most Presidents do. Bush fired these 7 years into his administration. That smacks of partisanism on the Prsident's part. Typical sneaky action of this Administration. Also the Clinton Administration notified the Senate of the firings before the firing. The Bush Administration just did it and had no intention of notifying anyone. Part of the sneakyness showing again.

I have to laugh at people calling this a liberal witch hunt but those same people don't mention the witch hunt of the Clintons on Whitewater and the bimbos. Which, by the way, it was.

Clinton's firings were done by tradition Bush's were political because those judges all were investigating Bush Administration and/or Republican wrong doing. (I smell something rotten in Denmark)

Answer 3

These were U.S. prosecuting attorneys. They are normally replaced when a president of another party takes office. They don't usually replace them all at the same time but that is what Clinton decided to do. It was his right to do so.

To ask them to resign at this point is very unusual and it is suspected that it was done because they weren't going after enough democrats. It was proven that it wasn't because they were not doing their jobs well as Gonzalez said at first. He then said he just wanted to give some other people some experience at the position.

This is a justice position and the decision to investigate someone should not be influenced by that subject's political leanings. It was not illegal to replace them but takes away from Gonzalez's credibility especially since there were so many at one time. He admitted that it was a mistake and took full responsibility although he blamed his aid who has resigned.

Answer 4

The difference is that typical "house cleaning" occurs at the beginning of each administration. It is not uncommon at all to see dozens and dozens of names and faces replaced when a new president comes into the Whitehouse. The reason that it is a big deal now is because it is mid-term. The timing is what has made the difference.

And, I'm not a Democrat, so I'm not defending anyone. Just stating the facts.

Answer 5

I think it's because it gives the impression that they were fired because they didn't follow the party line in their prosecution... they didn't prosecute the people the White House wanted them to prosecute... so even though they were political appointees as part of the Judiciary they are supposed to be unbiased... so by firing them it gives the impression that because they were doing their jobs unbiasedly the Republicans didn't like it...... I don't know the whole story but this is the impression it sends and why they are down on Bush because of it...

Answer 6

It's common policy for when a man takes office as Clinton did to clean out what is classified as dead wood or people from the previous presidency.. This is what Clinton did.. The difference is Bush is doing it at the tail end of his term and this suggests his own people are turning against him.. There is a HUGE difference!..

Answer 7

No it's not a witch-hunt. It's another example of the kind of politics the White House plays. If they want to get rid of their own appointees and cause ill will in their own party, who am I to say they can't?

Answer 8

The liberals are at it again. One day it's going to backfire cause they are going to 'discover' another indiscretion and move in on it only to have that person bring up some key Democrats at fault and regret it. President Bush has never been allowed anything that Clinton was.

Answer 9

Yes, it's a witch hunt. US Attornies, like cabinet members & ambasadors, serve at the pleasure of the president. Fireing a few US Attorneys is neither unusual nor wrong.

Answer 10

Do some independent research on this issue. I could explain it too you, but your fellow Cons will just call me nasty names. The truth is there for those willing to seek it!