Gebus, I hope so.... Anything to get him out of peoples' bedrooms....

"Because if you don't have sex like mah wife and I, yer doin it wrong!"

No one answered my question on your previous post about this, so lets try it again...

1st of all the lawyers can be fired by the president for any reason.

second of all, it is very common for presidents to let a few attorney's go and replace them with ones they hire.

Third of all, who knows the real reason for firing them, but even if it was because they wern't supportive of the president, so what? Again, previous administrations have fired their attorneys for the same reason. This is true of the country and any businees. When someone takes over company 'x' as president or heck if some new guy is hired to manage a store, it is likely that there will be firing and rehiring going on.

Most importantly, the only reaspn people are up in arms is it just another excuse to basb Bush. People don't care if there is a valid reason or not (yes there are indeed many reasons to bash him, this isn't one of them).

Never before have people got upset about the firing of attorneys (and when new presidents take office it isn't just attorneys that get fired and replaced).

Clinton fired 93 attorneys, an unprecedented number. He even fired the attorney that was investigating him for the Whitewater scam and replaced him with a former law student of Clintons. That is something people should be outraged about. What accused criminal wouldn't like to be able to fire the person who is trying to put them in jail and replace them with someone who owes everything to you?

Busg fired 7 or 8 attorneys (I can't remember which) Clinton fired 93, 13 times the number that Bush fired. None of the attorneys that Bush fired was investigating him for any crimes.

So why is it a travesty that Bush did what most presidents have done and will do, while Clinton is given a free pass?

Hey 2Many:

The real issues are two things:

- Gonzales lied under oath
- Bush and Myers (WH Counsel) tried to cover it up
- Bush is dancing around the controversy and not taking accountability (he should he's a lame duck anyways)
- Those targeted for firing were being selected for their political views, not necessarily job performance

Did you even read my comment?

Bush shouldn't be dancing around the controversy because there shouldn't be one. If it was any other president, there wouldn't be. He should say he fired them as is his right and he will not answer nor allow Gonzales to testify to anyone regarding this.

These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the sitting president.

As I said on both of the posts about this, the vast majority of presidents have made similar firings. The majority of any change in leadership in any company will result in firings and hirings. Some for no reason other than they are the boss's people.

Most importantly, where was the outrage when Clinton fired 13x the number of lawyers including the lawyer investigating him for crimes???