She had the right to fire him at will. She dismissed him and offered another position. She did nothing wrong, investigation or not.
Questionable to whom? A scandal isn't a scandal because it surprised someone, or because someone disagrees with the choice. It's only a scandal if something illegal has been done.
I'm sure it would raise questions, but that would still be Bush's option to replace Rice for any reason he chooses.
That doesn't surprise me. The right has high standards for their officials. The left has no standards. You can commit felonies, and be supported for 8 years. Another reason I could never ever be a democrat.
Right, and neither she, nor they, made any real effort to have him removed. They didn't file anything. They didn't request action be taken. The only thing that has even come out has been Frank Bailey, who asked how could this man still be a state trooper, in the same rhetorical manor some dems say "how could Bush be elected twice?". There was no suggestion to do something, and the person he was talking to had no authority to do anything even if there would have been a suggestion.
And back to the point, if that was the purpose, when didn't the new commish do something? Answer, because that wasn't the purpose.
