When Bill Clinton fired all 93 US Attornies, was it political?

[Nickky]

Of course you don't remember! It wasn't a big deal... so why is it that the dems are going after Bush for replacing 2 of them?It was POLITICAL! Just like when the president selects his cabinet members... (Secretary of State, etc)... Those US attorneys are appointees... The PRESIDENT appoints them! That makes it political by nature...The question is... Why could Clinton change ALL of them, but Bush couldn't change 2?

[nickjonaswife789]

dems looked the other wayThey only have a problem with these types of events if a republican is behind them

[nickk.jonas]

yeah and the democrat party wasn't upset.

[NickJsGirl<3]

of course.

[NickJsGirl<3]

In 1993, Clinton replaced H.W. Bush’s prosecutors. In 2001, Bush replaced Clinton’s prosecutors. None of this is remotely unusual. Indeed, it’s how the process is designed.

[nickjonaswife789]

Yea, but that's the way the game is played.

[NickJonasWifey♥]

Need a link buckaroo. I don't remember that one.

[nickk.jonas]

No, it happens almost everytime there is a change of administrations. This is common practice.Edit: The difference was the timing. The ones Bush wanted to change were mid-term, not at the beginning, as is custom.

[NickJonasWifey♥]

Of course. Everything Bill did was political. Well, maybe not everything...

[NickJ_is off_the chain<3]

I don't know. Why not do some research to figure out what the circumstances were? Bush's aides have admitted to political bias. That's illegal. If they were fired simply because they weren't doing their jobs, or even because Bush didn't like them personally... no illegal activity there. But you cannot legally be fired from your job because of your political leanings, and one of the decision-makers in Bush's cabinet with regard to this issue has already admitted that political leanings were a huge factor in this decision.