I thought you guys didn't believe in jumping to conclusions until an investigation had taken place. Last I heard, Bush was digging his heels in about that. So without any testimony or evidence, how can you possibly say that Bush did nothing wrong?
And don't give me that "they serve at the pleasure of the President" rhetoric that you stole from White House spokespeople. If it was that simple, he'd let his aides testify about it under oath.
2007-03-27 02:46:39 · 18 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am a conservative. I believe if they had no good reason to fire them, it was wrong.
2007-03-27 02:50:45 · answer #1 · answered by Reported for insulting my belief 5 · 5⤊ 6⤋
I love some of the responses you've gotten from your question. What some of these people fail to realize is that the attorney's Gonzales fired were republicans and not democrats. Don't you people find that just a little bit odd? Listen, if Gonzo want's to fire people, that's fine, but why has be been caught lying about his reasons for doing so? And why is the Justice department empoyee taking the fifth? Come on people, lay off the fox news and open your eyes. And for the record, Clinton never fired anyone at the end of his term.
2007-03-27 10:03:41 · answer #2 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To those who think that every president does this:
In the past 25 years, of the 480 US Attorneys who have been hired, only 2 (0.4%) have been fired for performance reasons (other than malfeasance). And now suddenly 8 out of 93 (9%) Bush appointees are fired for performance despite having some of the highest conviction rates of the whole group.
This was clearly anger from the White House over having lost congress in November and they went after folks for convicting people of the wrong political party.
2007-03-27 09:55:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you will not take the reasoning of the White House "they serve at the pleasure of the President" than there is nothing that will convince you of the facts in this instance. The President has the power to do what he did, all Presidents have done this. The fact that congressional Democrates are seeking to criminalize politics is why the Bushie's have dug in. You can also see this as a turf battle between the executive and legislative branches of government, which it is. Not a single Democrat has called Bush's actions criminal, so why the show trial?
2007-03-27 09:55:33 · answer #4 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Conservatives are saying no wrong was done because the lawyers are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president. They can be fired at any time (as can any political appointee) with out any explanation.
This scandal exists because the surge is working in Iraq, therefore the Dems can no longer use that as an excuse to attack Bush. If you do not have a scandal to capitalize on, you then must create one.
2007-03-27 09:52:30 · answer #5 · answered by permh20 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Your title should be "top conspirator." You know the facts and choose to ignore them. There is no point in trying to answer your questions.
Liberals say there was nothing wrong in firing the attorneys. They are on a six-year witch hunt against the Bush Administration. This is just another episode of Bush bashing by the extreme left wing loonies.
2007-03-27 09:52:43 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why do you hate the truth...tell you what ...we let the Committee be made up of equal GOP and DEMs.with a Independant chair...and investigate Bill and Hillery's firings of the 93 and the travel staff at the same time..fair is fair....93+ vs 8
2007-03-27 10:10:33 · answer #7 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
#1 they are lawyers, so who cares
#2 They do serve as political appointees and are subject to firing at any time
#3 Clinton fired 93 no one cared
#4 The investigation is a waste of taxpayer money
2007-03-27 09:54:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
no, he would not let them testify ubder oath because of the precedent that it would set. the exectuive cannot operate with constant intrusion by another branch of government.
I am a big seperation of power fan. Tyranny can come from judges, executives, or congress. Our history is rife with such examples of tyranny in every branch. Only the seperation of powers limits the tyranny to hiccups in history.
The seperation of powers must be presereved.
2007-03-27 09:52:13 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because the President hires and fires U.S. attorneys. Not congress--not the senate -- not anyone else. The first thing Clinton did in 1992 was to have Reno fire all 93 U.S. attorneys. Where was the media outrage in 1992?
2007-03-27 09:56:05 · answer #10 · answered by aiminhigh24u2 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Cons will never admitt politics played a part. They don't even listen to ALL the facts.
2007-03-27 10:10:24 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋