Let me try this again?

Question

Why did Bush only fire a couple of attorneys, who happened to be democrats who happened to be investigating unethical republicans? Why did he do this mid term? Why didn't he fire ALL of them at the BEIGINNING of his term, like CLinton did? I would ask Bush, but he won't promise to tell the truth

Clinton got rid of ALL of them!

lol, I don't need a lesson, I have a question. These aren't even good attempts to skirt the issue here

Answer 1

I LOVE YOU! Seriously though, you are a true patriot. Keep up the good work.

We deserve to trust our government. Hiding information, or even leaving room for interpretation about whether you are forthright with said information, is not the way to win the trust of the people you represent.

Sometimes, especially times like these, I don't think Bush actually wants to represent all of us, just those of us that agree with him and roll over.

Answer 2

CB: If there's a separation of powers due to the President suddenly firing several attourneys for supposedly completely ethical reasons, then why were so many Republicans up in arms when all Bill did was have an affair, an decision that affected the white house and his job as president 0%? It didn't affect congress any. Hell it really only affected himself, his family and his mistress.

Yes, the President has the authority and the capability but that doesn't mean that choosing to exercise them for any reason is right. If any other employer gets rid of an employee who just happened to be investigating internal money discrepancies, for example, and says that it's performance based, when you see that the performance was always rated "outstanding" would you take a second look?

All of the Attourneys had outstanding job ratings, and all of you mean to tell me it's just a massive coincidence that these attourneys who were fired just happened to be prosecuting cases that might have been detrimental to the administration?

You all are seriously telling me that there's nothing wrong here, nothing smells fishy and everything is hunky dory?

Don't insult my intelligence.

Answer 3

Political interference with the Justice Dept. is unethical and a breach of the separation of powers. Those like your answerer "Screamin" seem to have a problem understanding the meaning of ethical government behavior. They just keep repeating "at the pleasure of the President" as though it's some sort of talisman that can supercede unethical behavior and practices. Perhaps they believe that Bush and his Administration are above having to govern ethically. If so, it's a good indication that they not only accept corruption within their party, but encourage it as long as it adds to the perceived power of that political party. Why do they oppose Rove being questioned under oath? Do they think he is above that as well? The truth about this mess is something all Americans should want to know, not just Democrats. This Administration has been the most secretive spinweavers in office since Nixon and his crew. This is where the toleration of spin ends for them as far as Congress and the American people are concerned. Enough already. If they are so above board, let them testify to that under oath, or they go on their way in ignominy and disgrace and lose all further credibility. It's that simple. Bush will fight this like Nixon did and like Clinton did, it's self-preservation. But just like in both of those cases, we will have the truth - whether they like it or not. This is NOT going away.

Answer 4

I don't know about all the attorneys but I know one for sure is a Republican. That Republican was trying to investigate accusations of wrong doing by Democrats in New Mexico. There was not enough evidence to bring formal charges against them. But the Administration and other Republicans wanted them tried anyway and so that attorney lost his job.

Bush fired 10 attorneys which is a fraction of the total US attorneys.

It does look suspicious when it was not done like other Presidents and when the Senate is not informed. If they have nothing to hide, why is the Administration sneaky about the firings and then refuse to let people testify under oath?

Answer 5

Guess what each president has fired US Attorneys during their term. Why did the one investigating Dan Rostenkowski get fired right before his findings were to come up and Rosty was pushing Hillary's health care bill through the House when Clinton was in office. A political appointee can be fired anytime the first day or the last day of any political officials term. It happens from local govt to the fed, so don't believe your beloved Dems are clean as the driven snow on this if this is now meant to be wrong. The president has a right to do it and I could care less why, its his appointee he has the right based on his office.

Answer 6

Your data on their political affiliation is inaccurate. The president can fire them whenever he wants. It can be on his first day in office, his last day in office or any of the days in between.

He should not have to justify his actions during a congressional witch hunt. It is called separation of powers.

The fact still remains that if Bush's aids lie to congress in the interviews he has offered they can still be charged with perjury. Lying during a congressional investigation under any circumstances is perjury.

Democrats only remember what they learned in civics classes when it is convenient to them.

Why do the Democrats want to make a special of this entire thing? Could they have political objectives of their own? After all one of the main leaders of this crusade is tasked with getting more Democrats elected.

Answer 7

Because he gave them a chance unlike Clinton, Clinton fired them all without giving them the benefit of doubt.

The president can hire and fire at will, whenever, so what is the big deal? No more Democratic leaks.....

Answer 8

turn off cnn and actually think about it . Clinton fired all of them for the same reason bush fired a couple , yet bush is getting the shaft for giving some people a chance

Answer 9

Lets get one thing straight: out of the eight prosecutors, one is independent and the rest are republicans. Where are you getting your information anyway? I was just on the Washington Post website http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/03/06/GR2007030600062.html
that gives entirely different information. The whole point is this: he can. Nothing is wrong with what he did. So, there you go. Have a nice day.

Answer 10

Please see the link below:

The President does have the right to fire them whether we like it or not. And this process is not apolitical.

I live in a "Right to Work" state which means, even if I can do the job and my employer just wakes up one day and decides (s)he doesn't like me ... I can be fired without notice. Does it seem more shocking at the Federal level?