Bill Clinton fired all of the federal prosecutors. These rich guys know when they take the job, it is political. we should be using this time to help the veterans.
2007-03-22 05:30:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
OK...haven't you figured it out yet? issues like these are just distractions! Like same sex marriage. You take something that you know will upset the people either conservative or liberal or whatever and you let the media find out. Then the media feels like it discovered something big, starts covering it and people buy it; ratings increase and the media covers it more and more, cos no matter how much they cover it, there are still some people out there who haven't heard it and want to know what the hell everyone else is yapping about. So, it's like a magic circle and the media is the main collaborator...thanks to capitalism and the race for profit. Anyways, there are a lot of issues on which time would be better spent but it either doesn't sell cos not enough people consider it important. Haven't you noticed that people really don't have time to think about politics...that's why you have those guys in the Capitol for! Or the other thing is that there are just too many issues to be considered for people to really organize themselves into groups, on a single issue and design a plan and go into action. Plus different people care about different things. That's why you have lobbyists! Why do you think AARP is the strongest lobby in the country? Cos people just have time to consider what is important to them and have time to really participate etc! (oversimplification, I admit, but why not cut the Gordian knot and get right to the point?)
And as for the White House...isn't it refreshing that they are capable of diverting attention from the disaster in Iraq?
Oh, and BTW...it's an issue that the democrats are focusing on for some reason...like the Colbert Report said last night: if the democrats really had the guts, they would impeach the president (if they really had a problem with things)
Instead they do, what democrats do...beat around the Bush and complain!
2007-03-22 05:46:36 · answer #1 · answered by Kat ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between what Clinton did and bush. Every president fires the previous administration's federal prosecutors at the beginning of their first term(notice when bush did it again).
The problem here is bush threatening the u.s. attorneys to ignore republican illegal activities(such as duke Cunningham and Libby) or else they would be fired. It is making the Justice department an arm of a political party that is the problem. Yes, the president can fire the u.s. attorneys but the provision they put into the patriot act which said that new federal prosecutors didn't not have to be approved by the senate (although the congress should have actually read it) and the way they were threatened that is the issue.
2007-03-22 05:37:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
This replaced into abuse of power, which replaced into not something new to the Bush/Cheney regime. i think of the unlawful conflict in Iraq, the wiretapping of yank telephones without FISA court docket approval, the torture of detainees in violation of the Geneve convention and of the form which the Oath of place of work demands a President and vice chairman to uphold, the tried coup the Bush/Cheney administration tried to deliver forth (the overthrow of our democracy for a fundamentalist theocracy), and the day trip via Cheney/Bush of a CIA operative's identity and cover corporation call IN WARTIME (an act of treason) have been all plenty worse in terms of unlawful acts with damaging long- and short-selection consequences.
2016-10-19 08:30:50 · answer #3 · answered by thedford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan fired all of the them, Clinton fired all of them, Bush fired 8. Do you think the dems are going to keep them if they win the presidency?
2007-03-22 05:35:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every president fired federal prosecutors. Not every president did so for the same reasons.
The issue is WHY they were fired.
And the currnet theory is that they were fired for refusing to abuse their power. Gonzales and maybe the WH ordered them to abuse their power as US Attys, and they had enough integrity to refuse to become political pawns.
That is not a valid reason to fire them, because it violates the ethical requirements and oath of office for the AG.
2007-03-22 05:34:58 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We should worry about them at least as much as we worried about the White House Travel Staff being fired in '92.
2007-03-22 05:35:49 · answer #6 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That depends if you are are a republican or demcorat.
If you are repulican you know this has happen and will cont. to happen.
If you are democrat who is blinded by your hate for Bush you think this is the only time it has ever happen.
2007-03-22 05:39:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd be more worried about keeping them and them not doing their job correctly or not following orders.
2007-03-22 06:00:40 · answer #8 · answered by Kevin A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, its a non-issue that the democraps are using as a witch hunt.
2007-03-22 05:39:05 · answer #9 · answered by Sane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it's done with every administration, but not so much with this one. Spend the time doing something constructive!
2007-03-22 05:34:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋