at what point are we as Americans beholden to our responsibility to forceably remove these anti-American usurpers from office?
seems that if it were any country other than America, that these actions were taking place, we would have demanded NATO step in with peacekeeping forces, or we would have sent a covert CIA squad in to take out the kakistocracy with a few well placed rounds...
but when it's our own - we are mired in fear of our own government and seem to concede that they're immune to laws - just because they say so
2007-06-28 05:18:20 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Those comparing Bush's DA firings to Clinton's obviously don't have a grasp of the true issue -
Every President fires nearly all of the existing staff affiliated with a previous administration.
The difference between what Clinton did (fire them all immediately upon entering office - as Bush 41, Reagan, Carter... as all Presidents do, by and large) and what Bush did (fire most of them, then retain several - until they were doing their jobs and discovering improprieties of the Bush administration - and THEN were immediately fired) is extensive
The fact that the Cons fail to see the difference is just a small window into their perversion of reality!
2007-06-28 13:35:01 · update #1
It's amazing isn't it? Americans can't even see that our country has been ran more like a dictatorship than a democracy ever since Bush stepped in. Even if you're the president who the people chose (well, actually, there's another problem right there with Gore having the popular vote) you cannot be above the law. What kind of precedent is this setting for future presidents? I would imagine that Republicans would be as vocal and outraged if a Democratic president was doing exactly the same thing as Bush. The attitude of "It's okay, he's president" should not belong in a government where the power is supposed to lie with the people.
2007-06-29 06:43:40 · answer #1 · answered by arbitrarily_pushing_buttoneer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please be advised that being a President you have certain privileges and liberties. Privacy, Parden's and such are to name just 2 to make my point. "X" President Clinton did the same "Firings" of these Judges on a much Grand scale something like 93+ and hardly a word was said. He also Pardened many criminals many such were very questionable.
A president Could if he wished fire every judge in those courts on just a wim. However Today it seems nothing President Bush does right or wrong would ever please the Highly Vocal Democrats. Yet it seems many have forgotten a rule or was never taught a rule "be a good and gracious Looser" Al Gore Inventor of the internet, John Kerry War Hero and the lot can not ever get over being beat fair and square by a very honarable man.
2007-06-28 06:27:36 · answer #2 · answered by Scott 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you talking about?
Why should the president be obligated to explain the reason for firing 8 DAs if the law says it is in his power to do so?
Did Clinton have to explain the reason for firing >90 DAs?
This is pure politics.
However, if this keeps the Senate busy from growing the government further, let them play.
2007-06-28 05:34:29 · answer #3 · answered by nosf37 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We should always insist on holding elected officials accountable.
2007-06-28 05:24:38 · answer #4 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
all 50 states should simultaneously initiate impeachment procedings against bush and cheney.
states can do this.
2007-06-28 05:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So much for checks and balances.
2007-06-28 05:26:03 · answer #6 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋