Bush's Firearms policies, what might they be?

A

alan

New member
Related to a page A-5 article, 3 March Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the following headline appeared. The article was by-lined Washington Post. “White House OK’s 7 attorney firings”, the attorneys fired were U.S. Attorneys in various parts of the country.

The article went on to note that unnamed Senior Justice Department officials had identified the prosecutors as “not doing enough to carry out President Bush’s policies on immigration, firearms and other issues”

Re failure to carry out the president’s policies regarding firearms, one wonders, given the failure of either The Congress or the Bush Administration to check the egregious antics of the BATFE (ATF) as to exactly or approximately what Bush’s policies related to firearms might actually be.

Readers are welcomed to provide any answers they think might be appropriate.
 
It sounds like a couple of attorneys were not performing to the standard of their employer. Stuff happens.

Reading anything else into it from that article would amount to speculation.
 
It sounds like a couple of attorneys were not performing to the standard of their employer. Stuff happens.

Reading anything else into it from that article would amount to speculation.
Click to expand...
I disagree that there isn't more to the story:

From Salon.com: But at least three of the eight fired attorneys were told by a superior they were being forced to resign to make jobs available for other Bush appointees, according to a former senior Justice Department official knowledgeable about their cases. That stands in contradiction to administration claims that the firings were related either to job performance or policy differences. A fourth U.S. attorney was told by a top Justice Department official that the dismissal in that attorney's case was not necessarily related to job performance.

I find it concerning. Look at the number of US attorneys fired over the last 25 years versus the last 7 months. Either there are a lot of bad attorneys being fired for cause, or there is political motivation. Either situation is interesting to pay attention to.
 
If the Washington Post got the story correct, that might well be a large IF,the question of exactly what are Bush's "firearms policies" remains unanswered.

I could be entirely wrong re the following, but I would think that people at web sites such as this would be particularly interested in that question, and the answers thereto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top