What are you talking about? Many of them have testified before congress about the firings. Six of them testified in one day back in March.

WWW Link

OK they did testify but they also stated that they were being warn off of investigations against the democrats. which is why bush fired them because they wouldn't back off that investigation. the only reason bush can't fire them is if they are investigating the administration. ie bush and staff.

Where are you getting this information from? Who said they were fired for investigating democrats?

from your link


Iglesias's allegations of congressional interference have prompted a Senate ethics committee inquiry. Yesterday he offered new details about telephone calls he received in October from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), saying he felt "leaned on" and "sickened" by the contacts seeking information about an investigation of a local Democrat


The six U.S. attorneys who appeared yesterday had declined to testify voluntarily. They were subpoenaed by a House Judiciary subcommittee and threatened with subpoenas in the Senate. Their testimony marked the latest twist in the U.S. attorneys saga, which began quietly on Dec. 7 with a spate of firings, but has prompted concern among current and former federal prosecutors that the firings -- and the Justice Department's evasive and shifting explanations -- threaten to permanently damage the credibility of U.S. attorney's offices nationwide.


again if the president firing of the ag's was wrong why are they not saying anything.

Iglesias was not fired FOR investigating democrats. He was being pressured by republicans to finish his investigation and prosecute the democrat in question, even though the evidence didn't support prosecution.

Why do you keep saying that they are not saying anything? Iglesias and others have been talking a lot.

He even wrote an editorial in the LA Times.

WWW Link

sorry i am not going to spend money i don't have or use anymore of my email space for spam to read a story from a liberal leaning paper that is clearly anti bush.

Why would you have to spend money or get spam in your email? I gave you a link to the editorial he wrote.

He wrote the editorial in the LA Times. What does the fact that you consider them liberal leaning have to do with it?

Why don't you just admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and that the entire premise of your post has been proven to be wrong?

in order to read it i have to register. i do not feel like registering.

I didn't have to register.

Irregardless of that, I have proved you wrong. They have testified before congress and have done many interviews and op-eds about the issue. All you have to do is do a search and you will find where several of the US Attorneys have been talking about the firings.

Sure is quiet around here.   

ok what ever i haven't heard that any of them had denounced the president in firing them because they were investigating him or the white house.

The Globe quotes Kennedy as saying “at least two” of Bush’s AGs were fired because they “refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans”.

The piece also quotes Senator Patrick Leahy (D, Vt) to the effect that they will continue this witch hunt even if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigns and Senator Chuck Schumer (D,NY) who is looking for a “smoking gun”.

The story also reports that a former chief of staff to AG Gonzales will be “grilled” about this faux scandal.

WWW Link


it looks like these two were fired for not doing their job. if your boss orders you to do something it is probable a good idea to do it.

and as i have been saying this is a witch hunt.

Considering the number of half-truth and/or fallacious statement you bring on this forum as "arguments", in order to prove your points in inconsistent and unilateral view, I won't consider anything you bring here as "proof". Nor will I take seriously any of your standing.

whatever

i copied it from the link