Why is this not different from the firing that Clinton did, with the exception of timing?

Question

This seems like a Bush Bash, we have other things out there that need to be taken care of and this is not one of the top priorities, boo hoo 8 attorneys. Clinton fired all 93, the only difference was timing. If my boss fired me would it matter if it was after he was there awhile...No. We have issues like health care, Iraq, and the bugdet to name a few...and we are making this the top headline!!! Bush has a year and a half and he probably isn't going anywhere, cut the BS and start working on the problems you were elected to take care of...not to mentioned promised to fix. The last time I looked this issue wasn't on the campaign trail.

Answer 1

The difference is that the recent firings were not performance-related, even though the current administration says they were.

In contrast to what you say, this is a very important issue. The judicial branch of the government is the one that is supposed to be free of political pressure, so that they may uphold the law without worrying about their popularity.

People close to the administration have already been convicted of lying and attempting to impede justice. ( Does Scooter Libby ring a bell?)

And Libby is probably only the tip of the iceberg. The Bush administration has flaunted the law and the Constitution for over six years now. This is their attempt to eliminate those who want to hold them responsible for their actions.

Answer 2

It was more than timing. For one thing the attorney general said, under oath, that the firings were not politically motivated. Then they tried to say that the firings were performance related but the documentation doesn't back that up. There is also the fact that the law had been changed, allowing Bush to appoint anyone he wishes without Senate confirmation. That wasn't the case under Clinton. What Clinton did was normal at the beginning of any administration. It's expected by all involved. What the Bush justice dept did undermines the federal justice system because if forces US attorneys to pursue cases based on political considerations instead of the law. That's what Gonzales said he would never let happen.
BTW, congress is capable of addressing more than one issue at a time.

Answer 3

Well Felix, This is and should be a major issue. It affects our whole system of justice within the US. If the administration can fire an attorney who is investigating a person who may be breaking a law that favors them it is called impeding justice.
I understand that they all serve at the pleasure of the President and all can be fired, but when that happens it's a general changeover, not a witch hunt for just the ones who are after a criminal who the administration favors.

Answer 4

I agree. What I'm hearing though is that these prosecutors was investigating Republican criminals. I think this is ridiculous. There are far worse actions by Bush to investigate and this is still not a crime. If the Democrats don'tlike it, the most appropriate thing to do is change the law. That is what they are there for. If the liberals want to prove that all their complaints against Bush is not Political, they should drop this case and concentrate on Valery Plame and the other accusations.

Answer 5

bush ove all record, failures, etc,, that make it look so bad now. Trying to get the blame off himself for his failures by blaming others.

Answer 6

Let's see...

The War in Iraq is actually going better because of the surge, so they can't complain about that.

We are doing well in Afghanistan with international troops and cooperation so they can't complain about that.

The economy is still doing well considering the world situation so they can't complain about that.

Tax cuts are working so they can't complain about that.

I guess they have to have something to create and complain about....

Answer 7

It is no different. The media has just used this opportunity to trash Republicans. It's all political.