Why is it alright for clinton to fire 93 attorneys, but when bush fires some, its WRONG?

Question

Montana Guy,I don't give a damn when they were fired.

Answer 1

It's quite a joke isn't it? Bush fires 9 , there's an outrage, Clinton fires 93, that's all good!

Answer 2

The timing is everything.
This firing is an abuse of power .
Who would of thought we need to spell out every single detail in the constitution .
What happened to reasonable people doing whats right . No one said a thing about Clinton replacing the 93 as it was the custom to do so .
Bush had no clue how to run the nation .
As he figures it out he acts and now is the wrong time to replace these guys . You do it at the same time you do the other 3000 appointments . Not just because you are not happy with how they operate .

Answer 3

Keep in mind that Bush cleaned house in 2001 and replaced the attorneys in the same way that Clinton did when he came into office. This is pretty much standard practice and we can expect that the next president will do the same in 2008-09.

What has people irked about the 9 AG's recently let go, is that they were already Bush appointees, but apparently didn't pursue politically motivated cases with enough vigor to satisfy the administration.

Ultimatley, there is nothing wrong with firing AG's as it is the president's prerogative to do so. But once again, we are reminded that Bush is president of only one party and its supporters in this country. He continues to wage a divisive war on those of us who do not support his policies or his tragic vision for our country.

I hope one day that we will have a president who wants to represent all Americans and not just his own political party.

Answer 4

This has been answered on several occasions.

First, Clinton DID NOT FIRE 93 AGs. He simply did as others have done before him and will continue to do as long as they are allowed to do under the law: he simply did NOT re-appoint them but appointed others to those posts.

In 2001 and in 2004, NOT ONE Democrat objected to the appointment of the AGs by Dubya.

The difference in Dubya's case NOW is that his henchmen FIRED them mid-term (these are the same ones that were appointed by Dubya at the onset of his term, and they were Republicans). Now, the question is WHY did he fire them when records indicate that (a) they were doing an excellent job; (b) they were either investigating or prosecuting corrupt Republican criminals and criminal activities... did some cronies whisper something into Dubya's ears...?

Do you see and understand the difference now?

In the case of one particular AG, he was not even interviewed by anyone or even asked a single question but just FIRED, and this is one of the mistakes that Gonzalez alluded to; and there was no record or accusation of impropriety on the part of any of the FIRED AGs.

Can it be that those fired WERE doing their jobs and NOT showing any favoritsm to the party lines, as their post-duties require AND the law requires?

Can it be that those fired chose to ignore that those criminals being investigated or prosecuted were Republicans or some that might've contributed heavily to the GOP?

I think you would want to know the answer to those questions in order to maintain a certain level of ethics, morals, fairness and legality... don't you think?

There are several Senators AND Representatives that would also like to know why they were fired. Oh, yes, those fired were ALL Republicans...! Please don't compare or confuse bananas with banana PEELS; one ain't the same as the other!

Answer 5

Bush has every right to hire or fire U.S. attorneys as he sees fit. Even if the attorneys were fired solely because they were too liberal to suit him, so what?
The only abuse of power I see in the deal is that of the members of congress who tried to pressure one of those attorneys into bringing legal action against an opposing member of congress. That is much the same as Nixon did with the IRS.
It's those people who should have charges brought against them. I am not a fan of Bush, but I think he's getting a raw deal in this situation.

Answer 6

Presidents traditionally fire the US attorneys at the start of a new term. Study up on the facts.

And it is unusual but legal for Bush to fire them partway through his term, not an issue. The circumstances are sleazy though, and if it affected a federal investigation it becomes a legal question.

I think it is amusing that the administration can't even handle the press releases about this without screwing it up, if Gonzales hadn't said these folks were fired for poor performance, they would not have spoken up and this would not be an issue.

Answer 7

You should really be asking the liberals how they figure the mainstream media isn't biased. The fact that Clinton fired all of the attorneys wasn't even a widely known detail until the media blew Bush's firings into front page news.

Answer 8

this could be a question that has been addressed to Congress, because of the fact completely based upon the Patriotic Act; it helps the President to hearth any Federal Prosecutor at his discretion. inspite of the undeniable fact that; what's fishy concerning the completed ordeal; is the lies and cover-united statesillustrated by way of his team individuals. besides; the reason for firing the 8 Federal Prosecutors, is obviously Political Retaliation. anybody of the 8; replaced into terminated because of the fact of they upheld the regulation; and went after corrupted officers. the sunshine got here on, in basic terms on the spectacular time for Mid-term Elections. The White domicile wasn't happy with the outcomes; for that reason the payback.

Answer 9

It was correct for Clinton to fire all of the attorneys because it was ALL of them. So, he started a new slate. Bush fired 8 who were not voting to his way of thinking and were Democrats. Since there were some cases against the Republicans Bush most likely thought they would find the people guilty.
So it was partisan politics.

Answer 10

Every new administration fires and replaces all US Attorneys. The problem with Bush's firings was many of these US Attorneys (all Republicans) were investigating corruption cases against Republican elected officials. Now imagine if prosecutors were told by politicians who they were allowed to prosecute and who they could not prosecute. They would lose their independence. If you don't believe me, do some research!