Would somebody please explain why they think there is a difference between Bush's firings and Clinton's?

Question

I'm not trying to be provocative here, it is just that I've read where some people say that there is a difference. I would like to know what that difference is. I personally don't see one. I believe in both cases that it was political, plain and simple. Now, there is nothing wrong with that. These US Attorneys got their jobs because of politics. They aren't there because of anything else. What do you say?

Answer 1

Clinton fired 93.

Bush fired 8.

Typical liberal two facedness.

Answer 2

Clinton, like most other presidents fired the attorneys at the beginning of his first term. That is traditional. Bush waited until half way through his second term.

Clinton's firings were no more politically motivated than the incoming Administration has the right to appoint people of their own party if they choose. Attorneys, once appointed are supposed to be unbiased.

Bush fired only the ones his Administration felt were not doing their bidding. One in New Mexico, for example had started to investigate charges against Democratic party members but not enough evidence could be found to charge them with anything. The Administration demanded that something, anything be found. When none was found that attorney was fired. Others were investigating Adminsitration wrong doing and so were fired.

Clinton, like all the other presidents, informed the senate of who was to be fired and why. Bush tried to sneak around and slip it past the Senate anyway.

You can see why Congress is upset. They like to be informed on this stuff. I don't think it would have been bad if the Administration had informed the Congress but sneaking around does not set well with them. By the way, all the attorneys had very good performance reviews from their superiors.

In summary: Clinton fired the attorneys for tradition Bush fired attorneys for political reasons. Clinton informed Congress Bush sneaked around about it.

Answer 3

Clinton brought in his attorneys at the beginning of his term as president, a practice presidents have used for years. To do this, he fired all US Attorneys nation-wide. If I remember correctly, Bush 43 did the same when he took office.

In the latest firings, Bush fired those he had appointed. They have above average performance appraisals. They also weren't pursuing democrats vehemently enough or were looking into republican supporters activities. Another allegation is that there were some political favors to be paid to campaign contributors. This has only been done to two other people in history, making this a historic event.

But really at the core of it is that the administration told another lie. They did it poorly, and they're being brought up on it. This probably wouldn't be that big of an issue if they had just told the truth.

Answer 4

All incoming Presidents replace the attorneys when they take over the presidency, which is what Clinton did. These attorneys were fired in the middle of Bush's term for job performance, even though in previous evaluations, there was no job performance problems. When the situation was looked into by Congress, there was evidence that the firings were political. In other words, they were replaced to give more power to Bush over the judicial branch. If you have been following the news, the judicial branch oversees the Patriot Act, which was misused to spy on innocent Americans. At another time, this may not have been a big issue, but considering the misuse of the Patriot Act, I think it is worth looking into.

Answer 5

When Clinton took office the Republicans had held office for 12 years. Since each President can and does put in his own nominees for AGs it only makes sense that the AGs would be change with an administration change, since it wasn't necessary to change so many when Bush One took over from Reagan there wasn't much of a problem.
When Clinton took over he put his nominees in because he was within his rights it only looked so bad because there were so many of them, but after 12 years that's not so hard to understand,
Bush has fired seven of his own hand-picked AGs in the middle of his second term, supposedly because of poor performance.
BUT
they all got excellent reviews
they are all Republican
there was, for the first time no Congressional input due to the Patriot Act, this provision was deemed so obnoxious that it was repealed this week.
Now we have to find out why, why the lying, why the firing, why a top aide wishes to protect herself with the use of the fifth amendment, and , if there was no attempt to use influence, why not just get up there, under oath, and tell the American people who you serve, and who pay your wages, just what is going on. We the people want to know.

Once in office they are expected to investigate and prosecute without regard to political affiliation, it is, or should be more important to follow Justice, than a party in the Judicial system we have.

Answer 6

This is the President's right. What's wrong is the lying attached to the issue. Poor performance was cited. Three of the eight were on the top ten performer list for the GOP. Poor performance? Republicans don't seem to grasp the jeopardy they have created in their own party. When party members, even though they were all political appointees, start to question whose head is going to roll next and for what reason, including poor performance blots on their records, it creates a real sense of mistrust in your own party for the higher-ups. The Attorney General WILL take the fall for this blunder he helped create.

Answer 7

The difference is that Bush fired 8 based on poor performance. Clinton fired 93 becuse they had been appointed by a republican.

Answer 8

this question came up because of the Republican administration. if it were liberals doing the exact same thing
no one would even care.....Clinton fired so many during his
term in office and no one heard a peep out of anyone.

Double standards, don't you think?

Answer 9

Cliton did so at the last 2 months of his presidency!Bush did in the last 2 years!BIG Difference!

Answer 10

Whenever Democrats did it, it is OK.