Who runs the country? President Bush or Nancy Pelosi?

Question

Nancy Pelosi and her team are crying foul over the firings of eight U.S. federal attorneys.

But the hard truth is this: federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States. It is perfectly legal for him to fire any - or all - of the U.S. attorneys for any reason at all.

In March of 1993, the Clinton administration fired all 93 federal prosecutors with absolutely no fanfare. No controversy. No congressional subpoenas or public hearings.

But the House of Representatives - and now a Senate panel as well - have issued the ''OK'' for subpoenas of key aides to the President.

Answer 1

Could not have said it better myself. Ms. Speaker needs to do more book work and less running her mouth.

Answer 2

No-one has the courage to impeach Bush for war-crimes. That's a very different matter than impeaching Gonzales for lying to Congress or obstructing justice.

It doesn't matter whether there are currently votes in the Senate to convict. We're only at the tip of the iceberg. There's a LOT more to be revealed.

This is the perfect fight for Democrats who are too cowardly to vote to cut off funding for Bush's war or even to stop him from attacking Iraq. That's foreign policy, an area where Congress has given up it's Constitutional powers to such a hideous extent that any attempt to assert them leads to a Constitutional crisis.

But, with Bush stonewalling and refusing to let his aides testify it's quite clear cut. Start hearings, and ammassing evidence to see if impeachment is justified.

Such evidence will not be long in forthcoming. It will soon be obvious that the administration is lying about a lot more than just the circumstances of the firings.

I don't know on what grounds Bush can refuse to allow Congress to subpoena executive officers to testify under oath. Perhaps they have packed the federal courts with so many worthless lackeys that they have a chance of winning that legal argument, I don't know.

But, I would think that's an absurd argument. Congress has the subpoena power and can use it to compel testimony. That doesn't unconstitutionally interfere with the perogatives of the executive. Bush is operating as if he's some sort of King, immune from question by Congress. That style of government went out with Charles II back in the 17th century or with the execution of Louis XVII during the French revolution.

Once Gonzalez testifies, he's done. Either he'll lie, in which case he can be impeached. Or he'll tell the truth, in which case the scandal will explode to such dimensions that he'll be forced to resign. Either way, he's done.

Nor can Bush just keep giving the finger to everyone on this issue. It makes him look bad.

Only guilty people object to testifying under oath. That's what the American people think. No matter what Bush says, refusing to let his aides testify makes it look like he's hiding something. And the slow bleeding will continue, day after day.

Gonzales should go. He's become Brownie; he's become Dubai ports; he's become Harriet Miers. He's become an enemy fire magnet and the president doesn't need any more enemy fire. He needs quiet and calm.

For all you people who say fight back you must realize one huge problem: Gonzales did, in fact, make a big mistake. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee — when it was controlled by Republicans — that he would bring any U.S. attorney nominee before them for confirmation. Then he got caught with a bunch of e-mails talking about how to avoid that. Mistake. Not huge, but big enough to give the Dems and the far lefties a hammer to pound on him and his boss.

His boss doesn't need any more pounding. It's time for Gonzales to realize he's become Brownie, and like Brownie, time's up.

Sorry. He really didn't do anything seriously wrong, but the political winds have shifted and people close to Bush have to make sure they don't open up the boss and the party to more abuse.

Answer 3

Adultery isn't a crime either, but the issue is the same as it was for the Clinton Administration- perjury. Gonzales has already stated under oath that he didn't know about the firings, and now materials are surfacing that contradict that statement.

As for who runs the country, I wasn't happy with the Bush agenda, and that's precisely why I voted for a Democratic Congress to slow down his profiteering. At least if nothing is getting done, then no further harm is getting done either.

To answer your question, WE run the government. Not Bush, not Pelosi, us. It's in our hands, no matter what those in power might tell us. We should use that power more responsibly than we have.

Answer 4

i'm getting your element. Obama is not any different than Pelosi, who's technically 0.33 in line no count who wins in November.. If Obama wins, he's a heavy smoker and might desire to die in some years. Then Biden may well be next and together with his well being he'd drop off precise after. Then Pelosi's next. human beings ***** approximately Bush having a 40 4% approval score, yet Pelosi's score is under 9%. the only people who like her stay in San Francisco. She's a certifiable nutcase with the IQ of a walnut.

Answer 5

The people who were fired, were selected for not being favorable to "Bushies"......this is a political basis and not a performance criteria. The custom is to replace at the
beginning of a term and not mid point. Best wishes
So far as who is running the country, suggest you checkup on the big bucks contractors who got the 'no bid' contracts in Iraq and with the military, for items that didn't always make the proper deliveries.

Answer 6

To address the first part of your questions-- Both do in their own way given the constitution.

The second part-- yes, they serve at the pleasure of the president. But if the administration fired them for political reasons (read potentially illegal), that's a different story. If they fired them becuase they were prosecuting criminal politicians, that's an issue. This applies in either case -- R or D.

Answer 7

Neither. The Federal Reserve does:
http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1489/default.aspx

Clinton fired the attorneys when it was customary, at the begining of a presidential term. Bush fired them (without fanfare) then & again at mid-term because they opposed him. Big difference.

Answer 8

Individual freedom is the dream of our age. It's what our leaders promise to give us, it defines how we think of ourselves and, repeatedly, we have gone to war to impose freedom around the world. But if you step back and look at what freedom actually means for us today, it's a strange and limited kind of freedom.



Politicians promised to liberate us from the old dead hand of bureaucracy, but they have created an evermore controlling system of social management, driven by targets and numbers. Governments committed to freedom of choice have presided over a rise in inequality and a dramatic collapse in social mobility. And abroad, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attempt to enforce freedom has led to bloody mayhem and the rise of an authoritarian anti-democratic Islamism. This, in turn, has helped inspire terrorist attacks in Britain. In response, the Government has dismantled long-standing laws designed to protect our freedom.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap

Answer 9

Unfortunately, nobody is running the country. We are kind of in a circling pattern with everyone trying to position themselves for the next election.

Answer 10

Pelosi is a good Democrat. That's the way they operate.
-

Answer 11

the truth is that republicans and democrats have joined up and together they are screwing up the country. They are forcing socialism on us and they are taking our freedoms away by running false flag attacks on its own citizens. it is totally despicable.