Bill Fired 90 in weeks, GW Canned them After 6 years. How is the Next Pres going to deal with this in 08?

Question

Bill got rid of the Hold over Judges withing weeks of taking the Helm, GW waited 6 years and is paying the Price in the Media. How will the 08 President handle it? Fire them all right away or Hold them all forever?

DID you actually READ this?

Answer 1

If the next president is republican he will be crucified by the media and the democratic congress.

If the next president is democrat you will never hear about it from the media or the democrats in congress.

Liberal media? Nah......

Answer 2

You fail to realize that Mr. Bush ALSO replaced all 93 sitting US atttorneys shortly after taking office. Every current US attorney is a Bush appointee. By September of 2001, the process of full replacement had been completed. FYI, this is standard practice when a new president takes office, since the position of US Attorney is basically a political appointment.

However, Bush is the ONLY president who has replaced attorneys during the second term in such a fashion. Until now, only FOUR US Attorneys have been removed from office during presidential terms, and those for serious malfeasance.

Answer 3

The fact that you don't understand the difference between what every other President has done and what Bush did speaks volumes. Bush fired a bunch of attorneys YEARS into his administration, as opposed to standard practice, which is to fire the attorneys one doesn't want right away.

Apart from that, we've got the AG lying about conversations he had with regard to the firings - everyone but him remembering him taking active part in a meeting on the subject, his approach of a co-worker prior to her testimony to try to synch their stories... if nothing illegal was done, it sure smells like fish. Any rational person would be suspicious based on the behavior of the administration surrounding this issue. If there was nothing to hide, why all the secrecy?

Answer 4

I have said it a thousand times and I will say it again right now, Dismalcrats should only be allowed to be mayors and school principals and perhaps governor sometimes, but never let them suckle from the source of true power, they can't handle it,,
If Rosey is a poster child for liberals, then look at what she did to the view as a precursor to what will happen to our nation if pelosi and Hilarious CLlNTON are the leaders, Rosey came on the View and did what she intended to do, the view was made up of WOMEN, decent WOMEN with diffrent view points, now after Rosey passes through it is now scorched earth and wallah, instead of WALTERS having a hit show on her hand, she has poop in both her hands, compliments of a confused screwed up liberal with a misguided sense of right and wrong.
The dismalcrats are in washington destroying the very ideal of fairness and the rule of law, they are saying things that not even the most saint like person can tolerate, the are knit picking on everything, they have no cogent plan of leadership so they hang their hats on obvious tripe like these lawyers, in hopes of wearing down the resolve of the political process, so that in the end we look like taiwan, everyone hitting each other in the house of congress, in that , they liberals win, for they would have switched the twins, Freedom and Chaos are twins , dismalcrats want the usher in Chaos to ensure their lust for power...
I must refrain from answering this kind of question, they make my blood pressure go up,,,, but I hope my answer helped, young goddess of thunder..

Answer 5

First it was not judges it was federal prosecuters

Thru history it has been common practice for all federal prosecutors to tender their resignation when a new president is elected. Historically the president accepts the resignations and appoints new ones. Pres Bush was first in history to fire them , note the word fire, not accept a resignation

Answer 6

Maybe you should study the issue so you can ask a meaningful question.

They weren't judges, they were US attorneys - like DA for the federal government.

And Bush did both. He fired all 93 when he took office - a normal event after a change of party in the white house. THEN he fired a bunch of his own folks 6 years into his presidency because they weren't loyal to his political goals of keeping control of the Senate and House.

Answer 7

Bush didn't personally fire them. He gave consent for the AG to terminated them for "preformance" issues... whatever that means. Gonzales is in trouble becuase he apparently gave misleading or wrong information to Congress when they were investigating the terminations (for political reasons). Just another Democrat made-up scandal for the sake of scandal. . .

Where were the calls from teddy wheresmypants kennedy when clinton comitted perjury and obstruction of justice? There's so much hypocracy in Washington, it's truly disgusting...

Answer 8

There is no crime or impropriety. The best they could come up with against Gonzalez is he mishandled the firings. Otherwise he did it within the law and ethics. So it is "much ado about nothing." But its politics! My assumption is the next President will clean house again.

Answer 9

At the beginning of their terms, it is not unusual for presidents to replace the US Attorneys with their own appointees. It is unprecedented to fire a group of US attorneys mid-term.

The suspicion in the present case is that these attorneys were fired for illegal reasons, i.e., because they were not prosecuting enough Democrats and/or were prosecuting Republicans. It is illegal to interfere with ongoing federal investigations and prosecutions.

Gonzales has handled the investigation into these highly unusual firings very badly. He seems to be either totally incompetent or just outright lying.

Answer 10

You forget one important fact. The Patriot Act. Understand the situation before you post baseless comments.