Why else would they have endorsed and encouraged the firings of the prosecutors who were investigating corruption by Republican politicians?
2007-03-19 12:23:47 · 12 answers · asked by puter_patty 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Clinton did not fire 90+ attorneys who were actively investigating corruption. Nor did he fire them because they were not "going after" people in the Republican party strongly enough. There is a huge difference motivation.
2007-03-19 12:37:52 · update #1
I agree with the first answer. Everyone in DC seems surprised that the FBI abused the warrantless wiretap law that Bush shoved down our throats.
Isn't it obvious? That kind of power destroys the very ideals that our constitution was built upon?
2007-03-19 12:28:54 · answer #1 · answered by powhound 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
They are doing away with the people and the evidence that incriminates them.
Regarding the sham 911 commssion:
38. Senator Bob Graham also said: "High officials in [the Saudi Arabian] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and wellbeing of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practise and then execute the tragedy of September 11." These investigations remain blocked, classified, covered-up and unresolved to this day by the Bush administration's clear Obstruction of Justice.
39. Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, saying: "This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."
http://kucinich.us/node/2896
2007-03-19 19:29:32 · answer #2 · answered by andy r 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you feel that Clinton firing 90+ judges when he was in office was an attempt at doing away with checks and balances?
--""Clinton did not fire 90+ attorneys who were actively investigating corruption.""
No but maybe he fired ones who were making judicial decisions that decided law in a manner in which he didnt agree with. which does away with checks and balances.
2007-03-19 19:32:58 · answer #3 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Trying? They succeeded for 6 years til the people got wise and voted for Democrats to clean up the mess.
2007-03-19 19:28:08 · answer #4 · answered by EAT! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In the *guise* of the Patriot Act, they already have done away with many of our established checks and balances.
Too many Americans want to give the pres. cart blanche to keep running our military down.
2007-03-19 19:27:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Not just this administration, it is the entire conservative republican population in our country.
They always force their values over others (abortion, gay, creationism). You thought this is a FREE country? not if you have neighbors who are republicans. You can not even wear your skin black.
2007-03-19 19:32:38 · answer #6 · answered by Bill H 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
He favors the feudal system, we all just work for him, lord of the manor
2007-03-19 19:37:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It began long ago. I bet we haven't seen but the tip of the iceberg.
2007-03-19 19:28:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush wants a republic where everyone is created equal - but some are more equal than others...............
2007-03-19 19:29:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
trying???? its a done deal its called the patriot act
2007-03-19 19:27:17 · answer #10 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋