sources would be appreciated
2007-05-03 17:51:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That depends on who's side you're on. According to Bushco he is satisfactory.
Theoretically, he would not confess he is responsible for the firing of upright Atty. Generals. To get fired to prevent their investigations of Rep officials and in the case of Ms Lam on the case of one of the biggest drug cartels in the world, should be an obstruction of justice.
How some of these characters in high positions can have such dull memories makes one wonder how they qualified to be in said positions.
2007-05-03 18:10:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He came up short with his ORIGINAL answers. It's a Bush Administration weakness. They never hit oncoming problems forcefully early on, they let them simmer, and grow.
I'm a die-hard Bush fan, BTW. But I acknowledge his weaknesses. Pro-active damage control is NOT a strength. To the contrary, it's been a devastating problem within his Cabinet.
2007-05-04 00:54:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He is simply guilty of being stupid, no more. He has the authority to fire them if he chooses. If you look back, you will find that Bill Clinton/Janet Reno fired every single one in the country, and not a peep. Wonder why? Because Democrats will do anything to criticize George Bush.
2007-05-04 01:08:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He brought politics into the Justice System. Big no no
Sorry I lost my sources
2007-05-04 01:02:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
By all accounts, he has been cleared of wrongdoing. Yet if one nose hair of one republican is out of alignment, democrats instantly call for investigations and resignations.
(I wonder if these same dems had the same standards for Clinton? Should he not have resigned if he knowingly and verifiably lied to the American public?)
2007-05-04 01:33:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He let Bush take advantage of him. aside from that personal item, he fired federal attorneys for political reasons only...
2007-05-04 01:00:10 · answer #6 · answered by ToYou,Too! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
watch cspan and you'll see and hear it straight from the horses mouth!!!!!!!
first he said that he had no direct role in the firing of U.S. attorneys..... than when evidence proved to contradict his statement.... he said that didn't remember his role in any of the firings....
basically he said +50 times that he didn't remember what he did.... but he did remember that he didn't do anything wrong.
it's so absurd it's comical!!!!!
2007-05-04 01:01:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely nothing. The only thing wrong is the partisan witch hunt.
2007-05-04 01:13:56 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He lied about his involvement in the firings of eight federal attorneys.
2007-05-04 00:53:33 · answer #9 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
He cheated, he lied, he mistreated, he abused. Criminal? Probably not (also, hopefully not). Inept? Certainly. But isn't that par for our current course?
2007-05-04 01:04:04 · answer #10 · answered by Mac 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋