Was that good, Dems?
2007-03-23 03:57:41 · 7 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Rick, thanks for pointing out that Clinton was very unethical. But, Dems support him anyway.
2007-03-23 04:03:29 · update #1
The entire so called 'scandal' of the fired attourneys is absolute nonsense.
It is a shameful display of gamesmanship by Sen Leahy (is there a more detestable human being on the planet?) and his democrat co-horts to try to embarrass and demean this president.
Each of these AGs has a staff of at least 100 lawyers under them...it is not as if these cases go away after they do.
These firings were because these people did not execute their duties as the president saw fit.
He has every right to do that.
End of story.
2007-03-23 04:03:26 · answer #1 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it's very typical to replace them all, anyway, when a new administration comes in, especially one of a different party. These are political patronage jobs with a term of 4 years, after which they can be retained or dismissed for any or no reason at all.
Yes, Clinton was a crook, but regardless of an ongoing investigation or not, he was going to replace them all, anyway. The Clintons were very big on rewarding their friends with patronage and privileges (can you say "White House Trave Office"?), so I, who really, really dislike the Clintons, cannot say they did anything wrong.
Just like Bush did not do anything wrong in dismissing 8 US Attys after one 1 4 year term. It wasn't for any nefarious reasons - it was because the AG did not want them around. Their offices and investigations continue regardless.
2007-03-23 11:14:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it wasn't right when he did it why is right or OK if Bush does it? Is that the republican motto for everything, Clinton did it so why can't we. I thought you were supposed to show the country your morally superior ways. Instead its the same second grade BS, 2 wrongs somehow make a right.
2007-03-23 11:20:21 · answer #3 · answered by quetzalcoatl 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
A president has the constitutional right to fire a US Attorney for wearing the wrong color socks.
2007-03-23 11:07:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily. It should have been looked into. Unfortunately, Republicans (the "accountability party") were controlling Congress then, so it wasn't.
Edit: Heh heh... thumbs down. That's cute. Listen, that sound isn't a gunshot, it's your question backfiring.
2007-03-23 11:00:49 · answer #5 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Maybe ,he was getting too close to the truth.
2007-03-23 11:01:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Does that change the fact that Bush was playing politics with the judiciary?
I hate when these neocons have nothing to defend Bush with they always fall back to Clinton.
2007-03-23 11:02:22 · answer #7 · answered by Rick 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋