Since during the Clinton Administration fired all 92 attorneys
2007-03-20 16:54:57 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Woodrow Wilson said that, "Let him [the President] once win the admiration and confidence of the country, and no other single force can withstand him, no combination of forces will easily overpower him.... If he rightly interpret the national thought and boldly insist upon it, he is irresistible; and the country never feels the zest of action so much as when the President is of such insight and caliber." In my Opinion once president Bush failed to this he basically condemned any future action of his administration. as the past election demonstrated Bush impotency to hear and understand the majority thought and feelings toward the Iraq war. Unlike Former President Clinton who managed to capture and use the general though in his favor. which prevented him much more criticism that that could have happened. I truly hope Sen. Clinton manages to administrate in the same way as her husband.
2007-03-20 17:05:44 · answer #1 · answered by The unknown 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
All Hillary is qualify'd to do is be an average American. If it wasn't for her husband and his job, most Americans would of thought of her as some dumb blonde that had too low a self-esteem so she stayed with a cheating lieing husband. With her husbands help, she did make it to US Senator. And a few months ago, she was suppose to be the dem's nominee for the presidency......then she opened her mouth, showing her lack of intelligence, and now you have more dem's nominations creeping up on her and her nomination for the presidency. SHE doesn't even know what she stands for, and just makes speaches for her names ot be in the paper, and her hoodlems to try and make what she say's sound right. For example, she has stated she is against the war, and want the troops out of Iraq, and when questioned what she would do if she was president "keep the essential soldiers there for support to Iraq's sercurity, to train the Iraqi police and military forces, to gather intelegence, to build hospitals and care for the sick, and to provide security to the people of that nation." Lets see, isn't that what the American Soldiers are doing NOW without her being president??? Theo only idea she has came up with her own mind was her public health program which both party's laughed at and didn't give her the time of day on.
Her qualified to critize Gonzales is just her way to get her name in the paper. If she was asked to defend her husbands firings, which happened in the beginning 12 months of the first term, 14 firings in the 3rd year of his first term, and 6 firings in the last year of his first term she wouldn't have an answear.
It was just her way of political grandstanding, just wait ti'll she actually has to defend her statements and watch her fall apart like always.
2007-03-21 00:38:27 · answer #2 · answered by lorencehill 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You serve at the pleasure of your employer, but if he fires you for refusing to steal for him or give him blow jobs you have grounds for complaint.
Yes Clinton cleared out the attorneys, as did Bush Sr and Reagan before him. Its not the firings that are being criticized, but the apparent reasons behind the firings. Gonzales, apparently conspiring with the president and his advisors, tried to replace attorneys, for partisan reasons, without senate approval, under cover of the so called 'Patriot Act.'
Public testimony under oath by all involved is the very least that ought to happen.
2007-03-21 00:34:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Qualified or not the issue here is not the firing of the AG's but the reasons behind it, politicizing the issue, an AG shouldn't have to worry about the political ramifications of their decisions. That is what has Congress in an uproar, that and how the information was presented to them.
2007-03-21 00:00:29 · answer #4 · answered by onlinedreamer 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's all over Y!A, not to mention the press, that Bush fired HIS OWN appointees IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS OWN term. Clinton - nor Reagan before him - never did that. Further, Clinton - like Reagan before him - fired the field AT THE START of his term, IN THE CONTEXT OF A CHANGE OF PARTY.
Quit parsing words, counting angels on a pinhead and being too cute by half. Try getting a clue for just once in your pathetic life.
2007-03-21 00:01:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Do you believe that you are qualified to criticize Clinton? Everyone is qualified to criticize anyone. You are free to agree or disagree with their opinion.
2007-03-21 03:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by Fred 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know if the war in Iraq had gone well with a lot of home support, the biatch would have made it known, "That she had voted FOR the US to go to war." She jumps on any bandwagon that is leading at the moment. The war in Iraq sucks now, so she says I made a mistake.
In a way, it is politics. Clinton did house cleaning, revamping the system to HIS cronies. Then when Bush fires a couple, regardless, they jump on him. They should put more effort on the Iraq war, instead of worrying about making points for the presidental elections and runoffs. That is what it is all about.
2007-03-21 00:03:49 · answer #7 · answered by Big C 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
She did not fire even one of them. Every administration has the option to fire the attorneys, but not just the ones prosceuting republicans. The White House should stay out of all pending trials. Gonzales should have stayed as White House counsil because thats what he is still doing.
He is as sleezy as it gets.
2007-03-21 00:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by Nort 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I believe Gonzales needs to be fired. Clinton is about to get into some pretty hot water herself.
2007-03-20 23:59:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I dont know if he is qualified or not. The one thing I do know is he has the right to. Thats a good thing right or wrong. In some countries he would be shot...
2007-03-21 00:03:35 · answer #10 · answered by Jerry G 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋