Wash Post: Bush Abolishes One of 3 Branches of Goverment — Page 2

I'm staying out of this one because I can't match wits with PJ and SG, but I do wish the disagreement about this was more civil.

---

can't do it then, huh?

The man has used signing statements more than any other president COMBINED. he does everything in his power to avoid following the law and will of the people he is supposed to serve. You don't see ANYTHING wrong with that?

Spork--the crime that is being investigated is the Hatch Act. Come back when you know what that is.

---

Educate yourself.

---

Spork, if you don't know the Hatch Act, how can you say it isn't in question.

The firings were politically motived and were executed because the attorneys, who should not serve for polical purpose, would not pursue his political agenda. Bush tried to compromise our court system and did it.. several times over. THAT IS ILLEGAL, NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. It is a democracy governed by law and no one is above it. Not even GWB

Check your incorrect timing!

---

Whether or not you think the firings were politically motivated, it has to do with the president--the chief executive--firing US Attorneys who would not prosecute cases (or, in other words, enforce the law) the way the chief executive wanted the law enforced. It has to do with a prioritization of cases. In this case, Bush wanted terrorism-related cases dealt with at a higher priority, and for years these US Attorneys were dragging their feet. So, finally, Bush fired them.

How did Clinton not violate the Hatch Act when he fired nearly every US Attorney, but Bush violated it when he fired a handful of them?

---

The motivation was not related to following the political agenda of the president. It had to do with the cases (not) being prosecuted. Basically, the boss did not like how the workers were doing their jobs, and has the right to fire those workers, particularly when they are at-will employees.

I'm seeing a double standard here, though. Clinton fired every single one of the 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his first term. I can't imagine that he'd fire every attorney unless it was politically motivated. The only difference is that there was no investigation by Congress, which was a Democrat majority at the time.

---

Not really, because it wasn't investigated in the first place. Why is it that Clinton can fire every US Attorney and not be questioned, but Bush can fire 8 of them and face a firestorm?

---

You've already heard the answer to that question. If not, go Google it, because it's not a real question--it's just a deflection.

---

It is customary for a new president to replace the former administration's U.S. Attorneys with his own appointments. It's very much a red herring to try and compare that situation with Bush's politically motivated firings.

Anyone remember the very first Clinton scandal? The people in the White House travel office (A non-politcal position who are basically the travel agents for the President's staff) were overheard saying some hateful things about the first lady. The President decided that he really didn't want people who were openly demonstrating contempt for him & his wife working in his home so he fired them and hired a new staff.

Try to guess how many MONTHS this was investigated. How many HEARINGS were held. How many documents were examed? How many ANGRY Editorials ran in the right wing press? How many weeks Rush Limbaugh and his ilk harped on it.

And in this case, Bush's politcal guru fired 6 US attorneys because THEY REFUSED TO POLITICIZE their prosecutions and you think we shouldn't talk about, shouldn't investigate it and shouldn't be allowed to look at the pertinent evidence?

IMPEACHMENT? As John Adams famously said "GOOD GOD WHAT IN HELL ARE THEY WAITING FOR????????"

I've been burnt out on politics lately, anyway.

Maybe you're burned out on politics because you're exhausted from getting intelligent people to believe your stupid lies.

I hope you wake up someday soon.

---