Quote:
Originally Posted by Redskins8588
Yeah, you are right to a point. Everyother Presidents did fire US Attorneys, the difference here is that the other Presidents fired the US Attorneys shortly after they took office, not half to 3 quarters way through there administration. These US Attorneys were ok for the first 6 or 7 years but now all of a sudden for the last year or so they are fired? Tell me another President, that wasnt newly elected, that fired as many US Attorneys as Bush did. I have no problem with the firings if the Attorneys deserved to be fired, but the ones that got fired all are singing the same tune. They did not adhear to their politcal parties demands. Basicly they decided to up hold the CONSTIUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, rather than surrender to the demands of the Republican party.
|
This hardly amounts to an eye-popping distinction. It's okay to fire all of them right away but you can't fire a few after 2 or 5 years? This is pure politics. The Democrats think that if they hold enough hearings someone will slip up. I'm amazed that they haven't found a crime to prosecute yet. I'm not sure if the obdurate simpleton, Janet Reno, could have withstood such scrutiny.
The Democrats seem to be operating under the misapprehension that somehow their 2006 election victory nullified the 2004 presidential election. Wishful thinking. The President can do what the hell he wants with hiring and firing.