There's no way to deny it. We all know he lied when he said he fired the attorneys for "performance reasons". The records prove that what our Attorney General said is not the case.
He hasn't been able to come up with anymore BS excuses, has he?
Since he is such a lying scumbag who can no longer defend himself, why does Bush continue to support that fool instead of firing him?
(If only our president didn't embrace corruption...)
2007-04-02 11:30:44 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
By not dealing with the Gonzales issue, GWB doesn't have to admit he made a mistake. Liability, or not. It's just one more thing that Clinton would have gotten crucified for that the conservatives are just going to ignore.
2007-04-05 10:01:27 · answer #1 · answered by InDyBuD2002 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your precious Bill Clinton had 38 scandals.....wow and GW embraces corruption.... Clinton wrote the fricken book.....
Political Corruption for Dummies by William Jefferson Clinton
2007-04-06 14:01:35 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny Mek 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not going to bother trying to support Gonzales, but how can he be a liability? Bush isn't up for reelection.
2007-04-04 00:31:04 · answer #3 · answered by jdkilp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋