Does this fact show that Dems are rational and intelligent or hateful?
2007-03-22 16:22:44 · 11 answers · asked by tip zz 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Logic and Truth- is unfair.
2007-03-22 16:27:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
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.
2007-03-22 23:58:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 attorneys is one that has only surfaced in response to the democrats' insistence of initiating as many investigations as possible in hopes of shrouding the executive branch in suspicion - even if no laws have been broken.
The reason Clinton's firings weren't common knowledge is because the media didn't bother to blow it up into front page hysteria.
Democrats, tell me again how the main stream media isn't liberally biased?
2007-03-22 23:32:15 · answer #3 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The big problem with Bush is that he didn't fire all the Clintonistas when he first showed up. He was trying to show a 'new tone' in Washington, too bad the old tone came back and stabbed him in the back. But only an idiot (Bush) would think something else would have happened.
My only hope is the both parties get so boggled down with this crap, that these demogogues in Washington can't get anything done that will erode on our Civil Liberties. I wouldn't mind seeing another govenrment shut down as happened with the Republican congress and Democrat presidency.
2007-03-22 23:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by Milton's Fan 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Do you really not understand that MOTIVE makes a difference in the actions? Or are you just mud-slinging?
Firing all 93 US Attys when a new administration comes into power is different than targeting 8 because they had too much integrity and because they refused to ignore the law. One is standard political practice. The other is abuse of authority and unethical conduct by the AG.
Is that concept of INTENT and MOTIVE really beyond your comprehension?
2007-03-22 23:25:52 · answer #5 · answered by coragryph 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
And it is beyond that.
Clinton invokes Executive Privilege to prevent aides from testifying before Congress under oath.
That was good.
Bush invokes Executive Privilege to prevent aides from testifying before Congress under oath.
That's bad.
Rational and intelligent...hardly.
Hateful...we have a winner.
2007-03-22 23:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neo-logic (Bill Clinton).
If Bush admin intent was to obstruct justice, there is a difference.
2007-03-22 23:27:30 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
How square is your head, almost ALL presidents purge at the beginning of the term, these were removed for sheer partisan reasons. One was investigating 2 republican congressmen involved in the Duke Cunningham scandal, can you say OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
2007-03-22 23:26:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Bush blow up the World Trade Center and lie about WMD. His administration is filthy dirty with lies.
2007-03-22 23:27:26 · answer #9 · answered by Ugly Betty 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
well then have your rove and miers testify under oath and prove it....ahhhhh i did not think so ....
2007-03-22 23:34:31 · answer #10 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋