If it was only a small cover-up, he would let some people testify. It must be quite the scandal to need to deny all of those subpoenas like he is. I guess they really did break the law firing those attorneys.
And before you embarrass yourself, yes we all know that Clinton fired 93 of them. That way he fired all of them, and could not be blamed for firing only the ones that prosecuted corrupt politicians. If you cannot tell the difference, please, just don't embarrass yourself here, ok?
2007-08-01 06:20:45 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes Clinton did fire 93 of them, but he did so at the beginning of his terms, not half way through after they started prosecuting corrupt politicians.
Doing your job is not grounds for dismissal.
This stinks of a cover up.
2007-08-01 06:27:15 · answer #1 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, let's clarify. Bush fired all of them too when he came to office, every president does it. What is different about the 8 is that it was after the patriot act. There is a provision in the patriot act that said that federal attorneys do not need congressional approval as an emergency measure for national security. Bush fired the congressionally approved attorneys and replaced them with hand picked attorneys that did not need congressional approval. By doing so, Bush is the first president in history nominating federal attorneys without congressional approval. Arlen Specter (R) is pissed.
2007-08-01 13:28:02 · answer #2 · answered by beren 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The argument that I hear most in defense of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is that if you have nothing to hide, why should you care if they look....
Seems Bush either doesn't really believe that, or obviously has something to hide.
The simple fact is Bush does not believe that the executive has any obligations to Congress or the Courts, and that despite federal laws to the contrary, he can ignore all the reporting and discovery requirements because the law doesn't apply to him.
It's amazing not only that some people actually agree with his statements, but that they don't see the inherent threat in ANYONE saying that they are above the law.
2007-08-01 13:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Three of the AGs he fired refused to investigate substantiated evidence of election tampering. All nine were fired for playing politics with the office they were entrusted to unhold, not for failing to play politics.
Besides the President has the right to discharge them without reason since they serve at his pleasure.
2007-08-01 13:27:28 · answer #4 · answered by Jester 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am wondering why President Bush hasn't protected Rumsfeld and Gonzo with 'Executive Privilege'?
That's quite the sweeping privilege isn't it?
Covers a multitude of sins!
2007-08-01 13:26:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush is just tired of the attack squad. He's trying to fight a war no time for games.
2007-08-01 13:24:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
always hoping coragryph can get it right,,,but alas...not this time either...
2007-08-01 13:27:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋