Where was the outrage when Clinton fired over 90 attorneys in the same positions as the ones Bush fired?

Question

Clinton fired the same people in the same type of political appointments and yet noone cared. Why is it that people are so outraged when Bush does it? It is the exact same situation. Some of the attorneys themselves have gone on interviews saying they had every right to be fired they just didn't like how it was handled by the administration in the media. Don't a lot of people that get fired say they don't like how it was handled? If you didn't get mad or care when Clinton fired attorneys because he didnt like how they were doing their job then how in the world can you get mad when Bush does it? Doesn't this just prove it is nothing more then political posturing?

Answer 1

Dude,

Completely different situation. In fact, Reagan also did the same thing as Clinton. Both cleaned house at the beginning of their terms.

The difference is that each of these attorneys were working on political cases, and they were not being prosecuted in the manner that bush wanted. He actually wanted one attorney to move forward on a anti-democrat case where the attorney in question indicated that there was no evidence. So he fired them so he could put in another croney that would bypass our laws, and the ethics of the BAR, and prosecute anyway. This, my dear sir is not legal.

Answer 2

It is interesting how people twist things around and somehow want to sight what Clinton did as somehow a mirror to what BushCo has done here.
Each time the White house changes hands these jobs are up for reassignment for the four-year term of that President. So Bush fired all when he can into office, as did Clinton prior to him as did just about every administration through out the years.
The problem here resides in the reasons and the lies to cover things up.
I tell my children all the time that once you tell a lie that it starts a chain reaction of lies to cover for lies.
Since BushCo cannot keep their story straight it has brought to light that there is lies on top of lies and thusly inviting Congressional Over-Sight.
If it was not for the lies told to Congress and then the proof that they were lied to coming to light Congress may not have liked what BushCo did but they would not have had a leg to stand on as the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president or in this case the puppet.
They first stated that the White House was not involved and then came the proof that they were very much involved.
If you tell lies and you do not make sure everyone is telling the same lie, there are going to be problems. My children learned this at an early age and BushCo makes a profession out of it.
This has nothing to do with Clinton! Nor will it have anything to do with the next president choosing to replace all of the attorneys and appointing them for a four-year term.

Answer 3

Most presidents fire the attorneys at the beginning of their term. Clinton did that but Bush waited until half way through his second term.

Most presidents inform the Senate of what is happening with the attorneys. Clinton did that. Bush tried to sneak around hoping nobody would notice.

Interestingly only attorneys who were on cases investigating wrong doing by this administration or not pursuing trumped up charges or lack of evidence cases against administration enemies were singled out for dismissal. That smacks of partisanship.

Why is it whenever Bush does something illegal the children come out of the woodwork saying "well Clinton did it too and he didn't get caught"? If Clinton did do it and wasn't caught it was because Congress led by neocons weren't doing their job. Generally Clinton didn't do it either but childish as they are the Bushbots seem to try and deflect criticism whining like little kids. If Bobby breaks a rule does that mean it is okay for everyone else to break the rule too just because Bobby didn't get caught? If you are driving along and you get to a stop sign you roll through and one day you get a ticket for not stopping should you get a ticket because the cop wasn't there to stop you the other times?

If Bob kills Jon and Ned kills Sam does it make it okay for Ned to kill Sam just because Bob killed Jon?

I have a feeling if the firings of the attorneys was an isolated incident where someone maybe made a mistake the Congress would not be investigating. But the Administration of George W. Bush is notorious for corruption and lies so it is no wonder that Congress feels they need to investigate. It is, by the way Repbulicans as well as Democrats who want answers.

Answer 4

Because Clinton didn't do it for political gain like Bush has been doing now for quite some time.

Bill didn't fire those attorneys for politicals reasons like the 8 fired under Bush whom were all REPUBLICANS (including one Bush loyalist)--but didn't do what the administration wanted them to do to inflict injury on the Democrats in 2004 and 2006.

They refused, they got fired for not playing along.

Answer 5

You need to do more research on this. Yes the President can fire prosecutors, but it is very unusual to fire them in the middle of a term. Yes he can fire them, but even Gonzales said that it hasn't been handled well. Gonzales's assistant, that fired these people, has resigned. There are questions about investigations that were underway when these firings took place.
What is the problem with open government? Why does Bush believe that it's ok for his people to go before Congress, as long as the American public isn't in on the little visit? Bush could end this right now. Just let Congress do it's job. End of story. Unless there is something to hide.

The Senate committee was supposed to vote to give their Chairman power to issue subpoenas today. I haven't heard anything about it. I bet deals are being made as I type this. Too bad you don't believe that you and I should be in on the dealings of our secretive government.

Ok I just heard that the Senate Judiciary committee has voted to give the Chairman subpoena power.

Answer 6

The rub is not that the attorneys were fired, but that they were fired for political reasons. Because they had the temerity to investigate and prosecute Republicans for federal offenses. Midterm firings for not marching in locked step with republican ideology is morally wrong. A quick civics lesson: Federal Attorney's resignations are routinely tendered and accepted by incoming presidents so that the new president may appoint attorneys of his choosing. Failure to resign may result in firing and replacement.

Answer 7

Clinton fired 93 Attorney General at the beginning of his term. Bush did the same thing. But the 8 that Bushed fired 2 years into his 2nd term were fired for political reasons. That's unacceptable and that's why the investigations are needed.

Answer 8

It's not unusual , matter of fact very normal, for the President in his first term to fire all of the US Attorneys, it's like hiring a new administration cabinet.
The problem is why the US attornies get fired. They are to serve the people of the US. Apparently (can't be proven yet) but the US attornies were not investigating democrats enough. Another reason this is a controversy- WHO ordered the firings? Rove, Cheney, Bush??????
I can't wait for the emails to come out!!!

Answer 9

I don't know; why didn't the Republicans question it? Obviously, if it's important enough for you to question it now, then the Republicans who were controlling Congress at that time should have said something.

No one is "outraged." They just want questions answered. Under oath. Since Bush is allowing the questions to be answered only if there's no legal compulsion to tell the truth, I consider that a little suspicious. I would NOT have a problem having Clinton's aides testifying under oath about anything like this. It's just that your Congress didn't ask for it. That isn't my problem.

Answer 10

Clinton fired more prosecutors after his initial holocaust. It was the firing of all of them that was unprecedented. That had never happened before I believe. And show me in the record where Bush fired all of them when he entered office. They serve at the presidents pleasure. So just try to deal with it. There is nothing illegal about what he did.