If Clitoon can fire ALL US Attorneys what is wrong with Bush firing only 8?

Political one-up-man-ship has ALWAYS been more impotant to Democrats than actual governance.

Three months after getting in they have done...well, what have they done?

Countless 'non-binding resolutions' that are totally meaningless other than to win immediate brownie points with George Sorros - the de facto head of the Democrat Party.

Ridiculous investigations into 'scandals' that we already know do not even rise to the level of a punishable offence.

I don't want corruption in my government, but this is just insane.

I watched Waxman chair a committee on CSPAN yesterday about the 'censoring of global warming science' - it was clear after 10 minutes that there is no legal or ethical basis for this 'investigation' but they will drone on and on for weeks on this foolishness!

Democrats WAKE UP!

Is this what you voted these do-nothing slackers into power for?

If it is, God help us all!

With the understanding that this is coming out in dribs and drabs, lets say from the start, that every president has the right to fire the attorneys, and they do at the start of the administration, which is what Clinton did. The previous administration was Rep, and a Dem replaced him and that's why the change came.

Its the level of interference in the judicial system that's under question here. If Rove didn't want you to go after Republicans and recommended you to be fired, that's blatant.

If a state senator was under investigation and you fired the DA, that's bad. Bad for justice, bad for the country as a whole if investigations are predicated on party and influence and not blind justice.

The DAs here weren't fired because they were Democrats they were fired for not being "loyal Bushies". That's a major interference in a separate branch of government.

I don't think we have the whole truth on either side yet, is this another ham handed goof by an administration who can't handle even a press release? Or is it criminal obstruction of justice and influence peddling at the highest levels?

The one thing a court officer is supposed to have is respect for the law above all personal prejudices, if this has been suborned we have the duty to know.

maximum presidents hearth the attorneys on the commencing up of their term. Clinton did that yet Bush waited until eventually 0.5 way by his 2d term. maximum presidents tell the Senate of what's happening with the attorneys. Clinton did that. Bush tried to sneak around hoping no one might word. apparently in basic terms attorneys who have been on situations investigating incorrect doing by ability of this administration or no longer pursuing trumped up rates or loss of information situations against administration enemies have been singled out for dismissal. That smacks of partisanship. Why is it each and each time Bush does some thing unlawful the youngsters come out of the woodwork saying "nicely Clinton did it too and he did no longer get caught"? If Clinton did do it and wasn't caught it became because of the fact Congress led by ability of neocons weren't doing their interest. many times Clinton did no longer do it the two yet infantile as they're the Bushbots look to purpose and deflect criticism whining like little toddlers. If Bobby breaks a rule does that mean it incredibly is okay for all people else to break the guideline too only because of the fact Bobby did no longer get caught? while you're using alongside and you get to a end sign you roll by and sooner or later you get a value ticket for no longer combating should you get a value ticket because of the fact the cop wasn't there to end you the different circumstances? If Bob kills Jon and Ned kills Sam does it make it ok for Ned to kill Sam only because of the fact Bob killed Jon? I certainly have a feeling if the firings of the attorneys became an remoted incident the place somebody possibly made a mistake the Congress does no longer be investigating. however the administration of George W. Bush is infamous for corruption and lies so it incredibly is not any ask your self that Congress feels they'd desire to look at. it incredibly is, by ability of ways Repbulicans to boot as Democrats who prefer solutions.

Because one of the fired attorneys was investigating corruption within the Republican party in California.

From the LA Times:

"The day news broke that a federal corruption probe in Southern California was spreading to Republican Rep. Jerry Lewis, the chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales fired off an e-mail to the White House about the federal prosecutor who had begun the investigation.

"The real problem we have right now is Carol Lam," D. Kyle Sampson told White House Deputy Counsel William Kelley on May 11. "That leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.""

Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton all fired them when THEY ENTERED office. Not halfway through the second term because they weren't following the Whitehouse agenda. And not because they were investigating the administration. What part of those 3 points is hard to understand.

It's okay to put your buddies and your partisan supporters in the jobs as Reagan, Bush and Clinton did.

Once they're appointed, however, the US Attorneys are to be independent of such "political" influence, and they're to go after criminals where there's sufficient evidence, and drop cases where there is not. Therefore, it was not okay for members of the Bush administration and members of Congress to tell the US attorneys to prosecute certain people and drop the cases on other people, and to fire the ones who did not comply.

I think Bush should be fired. See how much sence that makes? It's the reasons given for the firings that make all the difference...and yes I can give you a laundry list of why Bush should be fired...but I won't bother cause I'm not going to convince you.

I would like to point out that 3 of the attorneys Clinton fired were investigating HIM. If that's not politically motivated, then what is?

The thing is that Presidents usually fire all US attorneys when they enter their first term. Whats suspicious of Bush firing these particular 8 is that he has done it in his second term. Especially their is suspicion of these US attorneys being pressured on cases that are helpful or hurtful to the GOP. Thats the motivitation behind the questioning of these firings.

All incoming presidents have the right to fire US Attorneys. The question here is why was it done mid term? Could it be that they were not doing as told? This admin. does not like that. "You're either with us or against us" If not, C-Ya.