Ok, i have nothing against Gonzales nor Bush for this matter.
But why the heck doesn't he testify under oath and on record to get rid of this problem ?
If he really doesn't have anything to hide, why doesn't he testify and that's it.
It would be a great example of responsibility and accountability and i would appreciate him for that.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2610429457811819310&q=bbc+bush+election
?!
2007-03-20 20:09:45 · 11 answers · asked by gabriell_021 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Watch the Video and express your opinions. I would like to know them.
Pls be polite :)
.
2007-03-20 20:17:08 · update #1
Bush didn't fire those attorneys,
Gonzales did through the Patriot act.
2007-03-20 20:19:13 · update #2
Clinton didn't fire them!
He did not renominate them as holdover appointments. This is a normal political purging...they were "not renominated", they were not fired. Big difference.
And as an FYI, Bush Jr released all of Clinton's attorneys in 2001. Enough of the Clinton fired them all routine when Bush Jr did it as well. Lose the hypocrisy.
This whole issue revolves around letting attorneys work w/o political interference. After confirmation, it is customary to be hands off and let them work w/o political interference. It is also customary to hold them over (holdovers) during the second term. Again, for the same reasons, let them work w/o interference. The issue appears to be that loyalty to Bush seems to be the cause for termination and thusly political interference.
Please remember, Bush wanted to fire all 93 in the middle of his 2nd term which is highly, highly unusual. These AGs were his nominees. Its very odd.
Firing 8 isn't a problem if it weren't for the interference and pressure GOP senators laid on them. Not too mention the Sampson emails...it looks fishy.
And you have an excellent question...why not testify openly in public and under oath. If there is nothing to hide then there is no reason to hide....
2007-03-20 20:33:18 · answer #1 · answered by jw 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Gonzales will testify under oath to Congress it is Karl Rove, presidential advisor, that will not. Bush does not want to set a precedent giving congress subpoena power over white house aides because of executive privilege (conversations with the president are confidential)
PS: Gonzales did not fire the 8 through the Patriot Act. He has that right since they are political appointees and serve at the pleasure of the President. He does not need a reason to fire them just like Clinton did not when he canned all 93 of them.
2007-03-20 22:08:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the umpteenth time, it's common practice to fire political appointees upon a new president taking office, especially where the other party has been in power for a dozen years.
As far as Gonzales firing the US Attys, yes, he had the legal right to do so. But the action might still have been unethical or improper, in violation of his professional ethics as an attorney, and/or his oath of office as AG. So, even if not illegal, those are grounds for his removal from office.
That's the point of the hearings. To find out WHY they were fired.
2007-03-20 20:13:45 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Clinton's 93 were at the beginning of his term. I don't blame him as they were Republicans!
You know something is fishy when Bush sinks his heels in and wants to take congress to court! They do have subpoena powers which they are going to use!
What we do know is that they all were investigating crimes largely by Republicans, in which they had a visit to Bush about!
We do know from the 3,000 e-mails, over a 1 year period, (which the white house lied about) that not one person had anything negative said about their work!
Bush wants them to appear privately, more like hiding, with no oaths given, records kept of anything they say! Isn't that the way Bush came up with his oil policy!
Let them testify in public like everybody else!
This isn't Richard Daley's Chicago!
2007-03-20 20:24:01 · answer #4 · answered by cantcu 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Federal Attornies work at the pleasure of the President, and are politiccal appointees no contract, just big bucks, who cares if a lwayer is out of work for real, as you stated bill fired 93
2007-03-20 21:03:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's almost funny... Repubs like to say, "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." but now that the President and his crooked cronies are under fire, they DON'T say, "Well, if you have nothing to hide..." WHY won't the President and his cronies testify UNDER OATH... "IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE"???
During those illegal searches, Repukes LOVE to say, "...if you have nothing to hide..." and during interrogations when the accused or the suspect is questioned and he wants a witness or legal counsel, they love to say, "Why won't you answer... have something to hide?" Well, how about NOW that the shoe is on the other proverbial foot, huh?
Maybe those who were fired (who ARE Repubs, too) chose to think independently and not go along with the rest of the sheep? Maybe they chose not to favor certain cronies in certain trials?
Why won't the White House personnel, including da Bushit himself, testify UNDER OATH... "IF THEY HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE?"
Who's afraid of the truth finally coming out...?
Bushit didn't want to testify UNDER OATH regarding 9/11, either... I wonder why? Maybe because he feared being asked why he and his administration ignored the efforts of the previous administration to warn them about the existence of foreign terrorists as records and paper trail shows? Well, let's see... he can't be accused of perjury if he doesn't testify under oath...is that it?
Those that were fired, by the way, were Republicans... WHAT is the Bushit administration afraid of now? The truth finally coming out? Wow... there sure are a lot of "skeletons" in that administration...whewwww!
EDITED: Hey, cantcu, thanks for reminding me that this ain't Dailey's Chicago... sometimes I wonder! That was a good one! I'll have to remember that one!
2007-03-20 20:32:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I would love to see him testify under oath. When you see who is on the senate judicial committe, you know it would be like the Simpsons on C Span.
2007-03-20 21:05:18 · answer #7 · answered by TedEx 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
honestly i find it sad that bush has this much power to not testify under oath , remember the 911 commission he wouldn't testify then , the question is why ? what is he hiding and why is no one forcing him to testify ? can you imagine this happening when Nixon was in office , o wait - Nixon was impeached .
2007-03-20 20:22:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It sets a terrible president to allow congress to go on a witchhunt like this.
2007-03-20 20:12:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Bush needs 85 more to catch up with "The Slickster"
2007-03-20 20:15:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋