Why is it when The Clinton administration fired all the atty's during his admin . and installed his political comrads...noone batted an eye...Bush admin fires 8 and it's conspiracy time.
Meanwhile Ms Clinton has stated she would fire all of them if she were elected....and no one says a thing.
This only proves this is nothing more than another get Bush and the republicans game.
What's next...he forgot to put the toilet seat down and this proves he is against women?
How low can they go?
2007-03-27 18:05:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I should have asked also...should they be taken out of the hands of the politicians and put in the hands of voters?
2007-03-27 18:19:28 · update #1
I should have asked also...should they be taken out of the hands of the politicians and put in the hands of voters?
2007-03-27 18:19:54 · update #2
To be honest, i don't even think the democrats know why they are upset with the firings. They are just desperate and trying to grab at anything nowadays.
2007-03-27 18:40:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well I do agree with you about the grandstanding but their point is that there might be issues of ethics here. Just because Clinton did something unethical and got away with it (being specific about ALL the things would take too much space) doesn't mean that other presidents can do the same. I don't think there was anything unethical about what Bush did but that is the liberal argument and it is legitimate until we find evidence that will allow us to take out back and shoot it dead.
Btw, I read the post below and I totally agree that the attorney investigating Clinton was corrupt and that the attorneys who did not even LOOK AT let alone prosecute DEMOCRAT VOTER FRAUD were not loyal to Bush
Answer: Bush can't go as low as you can ; )
2007-03-28 01:13:00 · answer #2 · answered by Hobo Bob 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is standard operating procedure for all the prosecutors to resign with a new administration. Yes, Clinton did replace all his, but so did Bush, already, previously. Now Bush is replacing loyal Republican appointees. Why?
It is not normal to remove them in mid-stream, it's only been done a couple of times over the past few decades... before Bush did. Prosecutors are supposed to be impartial and serve the rule of law, not political ends.
If you pretend that this is anything resembling normal, or want to pretend that Clinton did anything like this, then go back to burying your head in the sand.
2007-03-28 01:14:17 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Again, when bush is caught doing something WRONG, you try to put something on a prior President who will not go down as the worst President in history.
Now, when Clinton fired the attorneys, he did it because the ATTORNEYS were corrupt. Even if he places his friends in there, they are BOUND to be non-partisan. When Gonzales (bush) fired the 8 attorneys, he fired them because he felt they were not "loyal bushies". He does not want them to look into any wrongdoings by the Administration, which is illegal and immoral.
The question is how LOW can bush go?
2007-03-28 01:16:44 · answer #4 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Timing!!!
Clinton did it immediately upon taking office. Bush waited until his term was almost over!! Three weeks of missing emails etc. There is a huge difference.
Actually it was no big deal when Bush replaced them when he first took office.
Now had Clinton fired them when he term was almost over then people would have question it too.
2007-03-28 06:09:12 · answer #5 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you really trying to make this argument? When a new president comes in, they put in their people. A no brainer, right? Who fires a handful of their own people at this time in their second term. Pay attention to what is going to come to light. Even you may be surprised at "your guy". This is going to be great.
2007-03-28 01:11:33 · answer #6 · answered by Speedracer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Blind eye leads to bruised head.
It is obvious that some love Bush sooo much, that if he levitated at the STU and burst into flames, you guys would find a way to compare that to Clinton.
2007-03-28 01:12:20 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
So true! And Clinton fires 93 while they are investigating him- the entire bunch and no one saw anything wrong with it? It scares me to ever find out how long or how far they will go with anything!!
2007-03-28 01:10:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
People believe it was done out of revenge. Context counts for a lot.
2007-03-28 01:09:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is Dem dirty tricks as they prepare for an election.
It will get worse as the elections draw nearer.
2007-03-28 01:11:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋