Its mighty suspicious to be firing off a lot of good attorneys all of a sudden. Doesn't it at least warrant an oath of truthful explanation? We all know Clinton pulled this crap too. Is American government circling the toilet bowl? Theres never been this must activity since WW2. Feels like the whitehouse is raising its very own "Iron Curtain". What do you think? Do all Republicans feel that the administration should not be sworn to truth?
2007-03-21 12:12:42 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Thanx Republicans, for furthering my point by not answering any of my question.
2007-03-21 12:28:09 · update #1
Beg your pardon, correction: Clinton, like all presidents before him was allowed to clean house upon taking over his shift. He did not fire attorneys mid-term. Only Bush has done that.
2007-03-21 12:19:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think that the very fact that everyone (in both parties) are making such a big deal over a few lawyers getting caned is down right stupid. With all the other more important issues going on in our country. They want to focus on this?. Once again the politicians(and I mean all of them Reps and Dems) have found away to distract our attention from the fact that their not doing their jobs. And like good little subjects we are lining up to choose sides. Over something that is not really an issue. Unless of course you were one of the sharks that lost their jobs. When was the last time any of us got fired, all of a sudden, for no good reason. Don't remember getting a oath of truthful explanation. Do you? By the way, as I heard the broadcast, he said that the Dems that wanted to meet with his staff on the subject could do so privately. He was not going to let anyone turn this in to a media circus or witch hunt. Which it has turned to anyway. More time, resources and our tax dollars spent over bull crap. Do I feel that the administration should not be sworn to the truth? No, I think that every SOB in Government should be sworn to the truth. They all take an oath of office. Most of them (and I don't care which party their in) forget that oath an hour after they recit it. Will it ever happen, not in my life time, yours either. I'm willing to bet.
2007-03-22 01:23:22 · answer #2 · answered by Gunny 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is tradition. All presidents have that authority. If they choose to excercise it they can. There is a BIG difference in how all the others, including Clinton, have handled this.
1 They fired the attorneys at the beginning of their first term.
2 They didn't try and sneak around but informed the Senate.
3 They didn't fire them because they were investigating Administration wrong doing.
Bush waited until the middle of his second term to fire attorneys all of whom, coincidently, were investigating Administration wrong doing or not investing the opponents without evidence or probable cause and they were trying to sneak it around the Senate hoping nobody would notice.
Well, now they got caught. Now they have to pay the price. Congress wants information. It is called oversight and was given to Congress for just that reason. To keep the other two branches from running roughshod over the Constitution.
2007-03-21 19:33:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think all the democrats want is the photo oppurtunities created by white house officials having to raise their right hand and give testimony to Congress in a courtroom like setting. They're just dying for another Watergate. I think it's disgraceful. If the President or Atty General want to fire some Attorneys then let them. Fire them all as far I'm concerned. It's a good thing. They'll all make plenty of money in private practice, Hell with 'em. The people elected Bush, let him do his job.
2007-03-21 19:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by jrod517 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm not a republican but if yo don't show proof of your lame accusations, then you're going to be branded a typical liberal liar.
If you spent as much time learning instead of thinking up BS and lies, you might actually get somewhere but I can see you just want to remain an idiot liberal.
2007-03-21 21:06:04 · answer #5 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
he just don't want to be pulled into being a ringmaster
in the latest politico circus
2007-03-21 19:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
oh for lord sake. Where does it say that he had to fire them all at the beginning of his term? What he is saying is he won't let his staff be led down the garden path by a bunch of frothing democrats who think they have something. This is all for show and its on our dime. This is just another NOTHING that your new congress is giving you instead of anything productive. If this latest pathetic move wasn't my country I would be laughing.
2007-03-21 19:19:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
and where exactly did you get that EXACT QUOTE. i love it..its priceless..the gig is up...and prehaps you might identify where the gig was up in the clinton administration as these events took place.
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
2007-03-21 19:20:36 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋