After all he is the decider. If he did NOT authorize this, how was this decision reached? Either way our Atty General seems to be in deep trouble.
2007-03-20 00:54:05 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Me: Can you provide a link? Still, hasn't Clinton been gone for a few years? How is he even relevant? - I don't think Janet Reno endangered the presidency the way Gonzales is. After he is gone only Margaret Spellings and Rove will be left of his original Texas mafia that came with him.
What Gonzales did was confuse his loyalty to the president with his duty to the office of the Atty General and the best interests of the nation.
He won't be missed.
2007-03-20 01:22:08 · update #1
I say Karl Rove is behind it.
The issue is not that they were fired, it is why were they fired. By all accounts, the 8 that were fired were doing a good job. They were upholding the law, not marching to political orders. They were fired because they were doing what they were hired to do.
2007-03-20 01:01:10 · answer #1 · answered by Paul K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Who cares. they must have deserved it. Clinton fired about 90 and no one thought anything of it. Why doesn't the Hate Bush crowd get over it. already
2007-03-20 08:03:22 · answer #2 · answered by me 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course he did, the attorneys weren't following his desires. He played the wild card, to get attorneys who would do as he wanted. The puppetmaster.
2007-03-20 08:04:47 · answer #3 · answered by Toph 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure...he should have fired about 20 more
2007-03-20 07:59:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋