Considering that the President can fire U.S. Attorneys at his whim why would Congress put such a priority on this case letting other cases more important to the citizens see the light of day? I would say probably because of partizan bickering and squabbling over power rather than doing their jobs. But if you know what would be accomplished for this nation by Congress gaining leverage over the President besides short term power to the Democrats and long term damage to the executive branch of the government please enlighten me.
2007-03-23 15:40:59 · 22 answers · asked by tiggervandamme3000 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Apparently not. The president can fire an attorney for picking his nose, or not liking the color of the man's tie. There's nothing to see here folks. Move on. Clinton fired all 93 when he took office. Just 30 day's before one of his buddy's was about to be convicted. If congress wants to go fishing, get some poles and bait.
2007-03-23 15:58:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because the President is the biggest problem with our government. He has veto power has not been willing to compromise on any issues. When he wanted more funding and more troops for Iraq, the Democrats said "OK, but how about a time table." The President said, " I will veto any time table." When the President elected Robert Gates as his new Secretary of Defense, the Democrats said, "As long as this Administration is turning a corner and we will start to see a change in strategy in Iraq, fine we will do it." The President said, "I want him to tell you we are sending more troops and staying the course." When the President suggested balancing the budget, the Democrats said, "Great, we would love a balanced budget that appropriated for Medicare, education, and other programs, along with responsible defense spending." The President said, "Well I want the biggest defense budget in history so the war in Iraq can be financed and we will cut Medicare benefits, education, and border security."
The Democrats have already tried to compromise with Bush, but his stubbornness knows no bounds. I am afraid the only thing the Congress can do is ride out the next 2 years and start over with someone new.
2007-03-23 16:02:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Personally I don't know who's more ignorant, the Democratic controlled congress or the 'sheeple' out here believing that this all really means something. The man will be out of office in less than two years. He can't run again. The 'horse' is dead, you can stop beating it. But then lets face it, as long as congress is publicly beating up Bush, the 'sheeple' are not noticing the royal screwing their getting behind closed doors. And the Republicans are just as bad. They've had how long to do something about our borders? How many millions did they waste on things like bridges to no where? And while they are certainly better at defending this country than the Democrat's you sure as hell can't be giving them medals for the way they've been running this war up until this last troop surge. But even then they went at it half ***. Its all smoke and mirrors, keep that right hand out there in their faces so they don't see what the left is doing. I say vote them all out of office, lets see what the other parties can do. Can they be any worse for this country/
2007-03-23 15:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by Koolaid Kid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I feel its Nixon era mentality. Use a scandal and drag it out as long as possible and time the presecution to maximize the chance of a party gaining seats in congress and gaining the Presidency. I do believe Nixon and CLinton deserve what they got. Even though its politically motivated, its still a crime. I do not like the fact that both parties time prosecution to gain votes.I believe this Judge thing is the worse offense, since its not a crime at all. I 'm upset that the Democrats, who claim to protect civil liberties, took the attitude, why not interogate people if they have nothing to hide. I heard Democratic Congress people indirectly admit its just a fishing expedition. TO see what crime might have occured. I think they should stick to the Valery Plame scandal and the Torture and Abramoff and the Domestic Spying. There are actual crimes being accused there. If the Democrats want to stop the abuse of firing the Judges, they should make a law about it, not prosecute for something thats not illegal.
2007-03-23 15:53:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This bickering congress does is also called checks and balances of the Federal Government. To say they must be the Presidents lap dogs is to say that the president should have absolute power with no review from any one.
2007-03-23 15:56:33 · answer #5 · answered by eric l 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is why Democrats were given control in the last election - to block every move Bush tries to make.
Your assessment of the outcome is partially correct, but it will not do long-term damage to the presidency; it will just restore the balance of power. The Bush administration spent six years robbing the legislative branch of its (legitimate) power, and now they want it back.
2007-03-23 16:25:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're kidding, right? Do you not realize that our country is founded on the rule of law and that if it is damaged, our entire country is damaged? Do you not realize that our system of justice is supposed to be free from political interference? Do you not realize that this is an UNPRECEDENTED move and that these attorneys' reputations are being damaged because the administration lied and said they were fired for not doing their job well? Do you not realize that this is all about Republicans wanting prosecutors to go after Democrats for political reasons, whether there is a case there or not, and ignore Republican corruption?
This is not "bickering"; this is very serious. Apparently you don't get it.
2007-03-23 15:46:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why does the President have to bicker with the Congress? He is not God and needs to follow the rules just like every one else. This President has stripped away so many rights that we use to have as citizens to the point that BIG BROTHER is always watching us.
Some times I wonder why my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary war just to have us end up with a new King George.
2007-03-23 15:51:05 · answer #8 · answered by Aliz 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it's time to pull his plug and take away his blank check and 4 years of daily body bags!
Geese, why didn't you say all this when the Republicans were in power!
They were elected to change things, and Bush lies so much, and misuses his authority so much he needs to learn there are 2 other Branches of government! No one made him King!
What about the election didn't you get? We threw out 2 INCUMBENT Republicans in a conservative state and elected Democrats, one who was barely known! Unheard of! Don't you get the message yet, or do we have to throw all of you out!
We can't win a military war in Iraq! What is it that you don't get? How many deaths do we have to inflict or have inflicted that is going to make you happy before you see the light?
2007-03-23 15:50:22 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
My Senators and Representative represent me and my state. Yours do the same for you. Amazingly they do not have the same attitudes or points ov view.
I remember the Republicans refusing to let government function by not passing a budget.
This president led us into an unnecessary war costing huge amounts. His aides muddied scientific reports of global warming. The list can go on and on.
He dropped the ball on National Security before 9/11
2007-03-23 15:48:32 · answer #10 · answered by jude2918 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋