But Alberto Gonzales is getting hammered by the Dems for firing attorneys at the Presidents request. Isn't this a bit hypocritical? Why don't the Dems actually get something done instead of going on witch hunts? Is that all they know how to do?
2007-06-13 04:52:49 · 6 answers · asked by bhopefull 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
http://newsbusters.org/node/11418
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070314.asp
2007-06-13 04:55:09 · update #1
Cuz she's a democrat.
C'mon - it's all about politics and appearances, not about facts.
Look at the other posts - who's doing the name-calling, the Republicans or Democrats ? Who's doing the screaming and screeching - R's or Ds?
Yes - it's all about witch hunts - because they don't have any original ideas of their own. They try to inflame the public, then get in front of the opinion polls so they can say they're leading the way.
2007-06-13 05:26:29 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
OMG - I should've just written this down somewhere so I could copy and paste it.
You need to understand the difference. The Clinton admin. (as well as the Reagan admin - look it up!) fired attorney's when they came into office - which is perfectly normal when a new admin of a different party takes over. These positions are appointed by the Pres., so when a new Pres. comes in, he wants to appoint his own people. It's totally standard that people in Pres. appointed positions either resign or get fired when a new admin takes over.
The difference here is that Bush fired his own people (which has never happened). When looking into why they were fired, they found that these people had good reviews, then all of a sudden got fired. Weird, right? So, when the issue was dug into a little deeper it looks like these people just fired for not investigating (harassing) Dems. There's a ton more info - but I suggest you do some reading.
That is exactly why Reps/Dems repeat this crap - so you'll just believe it without looking it up. The media sucks.
And your links are like Fox News on steroids.
2007-06-13 05:00:41 · answer #2 · answered by shelly 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because it was done at the START of an Administration. They cleaned house. But the eight fired attorneys were people the Bush Administration had hired, and now they were being fired for illegitimate POLITICAL reasons. To make it worse, they slandered them by saying it was for performance reasons when their performance reviews were excellent. To make it even worse, Gonzalez lied repeatedly in Senate hearings (which is why they don't want to work with him anymore.)
Why don't you care about this? Why do you just want to beat up on Democrats as usual?
2007-06-13 04:58:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Interesting question.
Were you aware that one of them had an active investigation of bill and hill going on when he was fired?
So which one of the fired ones now had an active investigation of George and Laura? come on you little socialists, which one?
NONE
clinton is and was a dirt bag. President Bush is an honest man.
2007-06-13 13:12:20 · answer #4 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Listen, it is common practice at the beginning of each term or at the beginning of each new president to get rid of all 93 US attorneys and replace them with their own. It happens all the time throughout history, go read about it. I can't believe that this was even asked to be honest.
2007-06-13 05:05:20 · answer #5 · answered by bs b 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Gee, for some reason I missed the "US attorneys serve at the president's pleasure.......or for life if he doesn't fire them within the first week of his administration" clause. I always assumed AT WILL meant............well, AT WILL.
2007-06-13 05:22:33 · answer #6 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋