> > ...why didn't you mention that President Clinton > > fired all U.S. Attroneys? > > jstein wrote: > Because an incoming president *always* does that, > as you know. > Bush didn't, so it's not a case *always*, is it? > > Another question: Where's the scandal from firing > > only eight by Bush? > > > They weren't fired for cause, they were fired because > what they were doing didn't meet the White House's > political needs. > Says who? You seem to have an inside track here - what were the exact reasons that the fired 8 were not meeting the political needs of the White House?
MDixon wrote: > > Another question is, if Hillary gets elected and fires > > a whole bunch of them, will the media make a big deal > > out that? > > > Most likely not unless she fires them in the middle of > their terms because they resisted White House political > interference (see responses to 1 and 2 above). > Question: How many of the 93 Clinton appointees in 1993 were replaced by Bush in 2001? Bush could have fired all 93, so are these 8 the only changes he made out of 186 opportunities? Where's the scandal?
