Does anyone else see a contradiction in terms of corruption here?
2007-08-27 08:19:17 · 9 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's "par for the course" in the criminal Bush Administration, I wouldn't expect any more from such a corrupt and incredibly stupid man. The answer clearly is "NO".
2007-08-27 08:36:44 · answer #1 · answered by Resurrected 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe that we should eliminate someone from being considered for the position of Attorney General simply because they served the President, or a president, in another capacity. The problem with Gonzales was that he never seemed to make the jump from being a member of Bush's staff to being an independent attorney general and Bush used that to further his personal political agenda to the detriment of the Country.
I've worked around attorneys for about three decades and I have only known two or three attorneys who were unethical.
I think what happened says more about the lack of moral character of George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales than it does about anything else.
2007-08-27 15:47:01 · answer #2 · answered by Nancy G 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
At least before this past congress the AG's have been confirmed by the Senate, and I don't think Gonzales would have been if the Republican Senate had not given up their power to Bush!
It is obvious that president's will know their candidates generally. It is not a good idea to put an AG into office to carry out presidential policies, especially illegal ones, and doesn't even think Americans have habeas! He would have been laughed out of the Senate!
2007-08-27 17:18:29 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Didn't Bush's first Attorney General lose a Senate race to a dead guy in Missouri?
Cronyism trumps aptitude in the current lineup of the executive branch.
2007-08-27 15:34:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hell No, and he no longer is. Gonzales finally resigned. But I have not heard when the resignation is final. It should have been two after he started the Job. Because the only thing Gonzales is good at is kissing Bush's toes.
2007-08-27 15:26:47 · answer #5 · answered by zclifton2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No he shouldn't. It's a conflict of interest. If the President does something illegal, the AG should be leading or overseeing the investigation.
2007-08-27 15:27:14 · answer #6 · answered by El Duderino 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The AG should not be an executive pointed position. Too easily abused as we have seen
2007-08-27 15:34:05 · answer #7 · answered by Cadillac1234 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL... I suppose it would make it sticky if attorney-client privilege overlaps with Executive Privilege. No wait, it's all Executive Privilege, no problem!
2007-08-27 17:34:52 · answer #8 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he wasn't bush's personal attorney...jeez libs please have a little knowledge when you open your mouths...lol
2007-08-27 15:38:05 · answer #9 · answered by Steelhead 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋