When the Democrats were campaigning last fall, they promised that if they took over the Congress that there would be numerous changes in the way that things got done in the nation’s capitol.
Judging by what’s been happening these first months of Democratic rule, I think congratulations are in order. We have left the incompetent and corrupt Republican leadership behind and placed in their stead the cowardly, the manipulative, the sneaky, and the screeching hysterics of the netroots and their allies on the far left who are whipping the cowed Democratic leadership toward the edge of the cliff.
On Iraq, the confusion and indecision of the leadership has led them to offer up a plan that few completely understand and that no one can coherently explain. And to make matters worse, the situation on the ground in that bloody country is slowly but noticeably changing for the better. At this point, the Democrats are in a race not with the Republicans or the White House but with al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq. Can the Democrats surrender the US armed forces on the field of battle before al-Qaeda and the insurgents are beaten down in Baghdad and defeated in Anbar?
Inquiring minds want to know. And for the sporting public, there’s some serious side action on exactly when the Democrats will declare that it was actually their policy recommendations that contributed to what ever nominal turnaround in Iraq can be “benchmarked.” Right now, the odds are 4-1 that by the 4th of July, the Democrats will simultaneously be crowing about an improvement in the fortunes of war as a result of their brilliant strategy while pandering to the netroots by calling for a timetable for withdrawal.
But Iraq has now been gratefully taken off the front burner because the Democrats have been handed a gift by the Justice Department and the White House that will temporarily make people forget their nauseating grovelling before the Mighty Kos and the loons at Moveon.Org and transfer their attention to the Democratic Party’s new industrial strategy for our country.
It doesn’t involve making cars or fashioning steel or even reviving the horse and buggy industry that many of the left’s more radical Luddites would prefer given their belief that automobiles are the spawn of Satan and are the major cause of global warming . . . or is it global cooling? So hard to keep track of the concerns of weeping celebrities and hysterical greenies these days.
Instead, this new industrial policy will concentrate on the manufacture of scandals. The benefits of this policy are immediately apparent; workers’ wages and benefits aren’t important nor does the federal government have to give tax breaks or tax incentives in order for the policy to be successful. All that’s necessary is to strike the right tone of outrage – the more over the top the better – so that a the scandal mongering press will pick up on the drama and add their own outrage quotient to the mess. (A convenient loss of memory is also a requirement but since we’ve forgotten what the Clinton Administration did when they fired every single US attorney in order to get just one of them off the back of a powerful Congressman, we can’t make it part of the overall policy, can we?)
Add an incoherent Attorney General and a clueless assistant, throw in Harriet Meyers and Karl Rove and what you have is a perfect storm that combines political interference in the offices of US attorneys (a time honored custom that for anyone to express outrage at finding can rightly be accused of indulging in the height of political hypocrisy) with the incompetence of Alberto Gonzalez, Harriet Meyers and a White House that can’t seem to stop shooting itself in the foot – or other, more vital areas of the body.
The more I read about this “scandal” the more I’m amazed at two things; 1) a White House in denial that they can continue to carry on business as usual, acting as if no one is going to question everything they do and portray it in the worst possible light; and 2) a Democratic party whose fall campaign was bereft of ideas and whose stewardship of Congress so far has been defined by a comedy of starts and stops on Iraq policy now ginning up fake outrage over the non issue of firing people who serve at the pleasure of the President.
It might feel good to wail and weep over interference by politicians in the offices of US attorneys but I challenge anyone to say that this is not a custom practiced by Republicans and Democrats – Congress and White House – from the beginning.
Bobby Kennedy routinely intervened in the cases of federal prosecutors – calling them, cajoling them to prosecute voting rights violations among others. Was it “interference” in a good cause that made Kennedy’s actions legitimate?
And, of course, even though we are supposed to have forgotten the matter, Bill Clinton fired every single US Attorney in March of 1993. As the New York Times explained at the time, it was done largely to get rid of a particularly troublesome prosecutor who was going after Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski:
Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.(HT and Kudos to Macranger)Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a “critical decision†in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.
While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno’s order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.
But this case is different. And the reason is simple; George W. Bush is President. Once that reason is invoked, history can be ignored, precedent disregarded, custom overlooked, and the truth slighted.
Was it wrong for Senator Domenici to try and interfere in the duties of the US Attorney? Of course. But the dripping hypocrisy of the Democrats in making it appear that what Domenici did or the purge itself planned by Harriet Meyers at the White House and Kyle Sampson at Justice was some kind of heinous crime, unprecedented in the annals of American jurisprudence is plain poppycock.
Expect more “revelations” as this scandal unfolds. I notice we are already “Fitzgeralding” the scandal by moving on to secondary issues not related to the original “crime.” Already, Gonzalez is being taken to task for having some of his statements contradicted by a slew of emails released that purport to show his Chief of Staff Sampson heavily engaged in the purge from the beginning despite Gonzalez incoherent denials. And no doubt other discrepancies will show up – or will be manufactured. All the better to drag out the shelf life of the scandal and give it as much play as possible.
Well, at least you can say it’s making us forget that the Democrats can’t get their act together when it comes to what they want to do about Iraq. Thank God for small favors…
UPDATE
Definition of “Perspective” by Orrin Kerr:
I haven’t written about the U.S. Attorney’s story because I’m having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. More broadly, I have longrunning objections to the extent to which DOJ is under White House control, objections that this story helps bring to the fore (although my objections are based on my views of sound policy, not on law).
At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting. Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they’re getting a bad rap. So in the end I don’t quite know where I come out based on what we know. Without knowing where I come out, I don’t feel I have much helpful to add. I realize that this may mean I am missing a big story. Perhaps this will prove to be a simply huge scandal, and in time it will seem odd that we weren’t all blogging about it. But I don’t know what I’m supposed to do when I read a story and I’m not sure what to make of it.Thank you and (to coin a phrase) “Good night and good luck.”
UPDATE II
Patterico, a prosecutor himself, takes apart the case fairly rationally.
And I should add that you will forgive me if I find it laughable that the newest talking point coming from the left is that Bush fired political appointees midway through his term rather than in the immediate aftermath of his innauguration. “Bush fired more prosecutors in one day than had been fired in the last 25 years midterm,” is the refrain coming from many sources today.
The reason this is a no-no is because it relates to the appearance of impropriety. Clinton firing 70 prosecutors in order to purge one or two troublesome appointees who were going after Democrats is perfectly acceptable because the veneer of legitimacy was maintained! The fiction that there was no politics involved could be advanced with a straight face. Since Clinton took that action at the start of his term, he was only doing what other Presidents had done previously and not trying to squash the investigation of a powerful Democrat vital to the Administration’s legislative agenda.
Enter George Bush and suddenly, the veneer is gone, the appearance of impropriety is resurrected and voila! Instant scandal and more evidence that Bush threatens the foundation of the American Republic.
This really is getting sickening. It’s not even a question of double standards any longer. It is simply “The Bush Standard.” George Bush wakes up in the morning and his very existence is a threat to women, children and dogs not to mention the American Constitution and the rule of law. Ghengis Khan didn’t even get this kind of press. It is silly and destructive. And to my mind, allows legitimate and measured critiques of the Bush Administration to get lumped in with these hysterically ginned up controversies so that some Republicans can simply dismiss any criticism of Bush as deranged mouthings of the insanely partisan.
As for specific issues like the firing of Carol Lam supposedly because her investigation was getting to close to Republican Jerry Lewis, I would simply point out that Clinton’s firing of the prosecutor investigating Rostenkowski did not prevent that crooked Congressman from getting convicted and sentenced to jail by the fired prosecutor’s successor.
So get off your fake moral high horses and stop pretending that you are shocked, simply shocked that politics is played with US Attorneys’ offices. If we had heard similar outrage about political interference in federal cases in the decade preceding Bush, you would be on much firmer ground to criticize what is happening now. As it is, all I see are a bunch of hypocrites taking political advantage of the stupidity and incompetence of the White House and Gonzalez.
9:43 am
From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258425,00.html
Money quote:
When the party in power changes hands in the White House, it is expected that the new president will fire all the sitting U.S. attorneys, as was the case for both Ronald Reagan in 1981 and Bill Clinton in 1993. President Bush, unlike Clinton and Reagan, did not fire all the attorneys en masse when he took office in 2001, and allowed a few to continue in their positions for several months. All were replaced with his own selections early in his administration, however.
It is very unusual for a president to fire U.S. attorneys who were his choices for the job.
10:03 am
Oh, and as for manufacturing scandal, haircutgate? Travelgate? Whitewatergate?
10:46 am
“And, of course, even though we are supposed to have forgotten the matter, Bill Clinton fired every single US Attorney in March of 1993. As the New York Times explained at the time, it was done largely to get rid of a particularly troublesome prosecutor who was going after Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski”
Of course, Bill Clinton replaced that USA with another USA more than willing to send Rostenkowski to prison. This would indicate that the removal was made for the same reason as the other 92 Bush-appointed USAs.
“It might feel good to wail and weep over interference by politicians in the offices of US attorneys but I challenge anyone to say that this is not a custom practiced by Republicans and Democrats – Congress and White House – from the beginning.”
Shouldn’t the burden be on Bush defenders to find examples of other USAs being fired for failing to support partisan investigations of the opposing party or for prosecuting political allies? Do Bush critics really have to track down the departures of the 500 or so USAs in the last half Century before they can say that Bush should not be using USAs to win elections? And even if it was a common practice (and it wasn’t) is that any reason to defend it now? Will you and all the other right-wing bloggers keep your flippant attitude when a future-president Obama or Edwards starts launching partisan investigations of GOP congressmen immediately prior to the 2010 midterm elections?
11:05 am
“So get off your fake moral high horses and stop pretending that you are shocked, simply shocked that politics is played with US Attorneys’ offices. If we had heard similar outrage about political interference in federal cases in the decade preceding Bush, you would be on much firmer ground to criticize what is happening now. As it is, all I see are a bunch of hypocrites taking political advantage of the stupidity and incompetence of the White House and Gonzalez.”
I was 10 years old in 1993. So because I wasn’t complaining about the supposed failures of the Clinton administration on the then-non-existant blogosphere, I can’t point out that the USA system is currently being used for unethical purposes?
“As for specific issues like the firing of Carol Lam supposedly because her investigation was getting to close to Republican Jerry Lewis, I would simply point out that Clinton’s firing of the prosecutor investigating Rostenkowski did not prevent that crooked Congressman from getting convicted and sentenced to jail by the fired prosecutor’s successor.”
The reason the Clinton USA who convicted Rostenkowski felt safe doing so was because he knew his predecessor was removed as a routine matter and not because of his interest in the case. Carol Lam’s successor will know that USA Lam was probably removed for her investigations of Republican Congressmen and will have a strong motivation to lay off. This is exactly what happened to the USA of Guam in 2002 when he began investigating Jack Abramoff’s interactions with the Superior Court there. He was removed, his predecessor got the message, and the case was dropped.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/13/abramoff-purge-attorney/
11:11 am
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:27 PM
To: ‘Oprison, Christopher G.’
Subject: RE: Another Griffin article
My thoughts:
...
.4. The only thing really at risk here is a repeal of the AG’s appointment authority. We intend to have DOJ leg affairs people on notice to work hard to preserve this (House ‘members won’t care about this; all we really need, is for one Senator to object to language being added to legislative vehicles that are moving through). There is some risk that we’ll lose the authority, but if we don’t ever exercise it then what’s the point of having it? (I’m not 100 percent sure that Tim was the guy on which to test drive this authority but know that getting him appointed . . was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.)
11:16 am
Was the Patriot Act intended for such purposes? Lordy, if the firings are no big deal, why use a Patriot Act provision to replace them and why work so hard to smear the USAs when the admin. has full right to fire for political reasons or incompetence or whatever?
It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.
11:39 am
“...hypocrites taking political advantage of the stupidity and incompetence of the White House and Gonzalez…”
if pointing out their incompetence, and their corruption, providing oversight, and participating in the checks and balances provided by the constitution can be called taking political advantage…then yeah.
11:56 am
Web Reconnaissance for 03/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
12:24 pm
You’ve actually misunderstood two very salient points:
First, No one has to manufacture a Bush scandal – all they have to do is take off te blinkers and look around. There’s so much scandal and cossuption in this administration that you really can’t miss seeing it, unless you’re blinded by your faith in GWB as your personal messiah.
Second, the vast left-wing conspiracy is very different from your vast right-wing conspiracy – so different in fact that you simply cannot understand us; but we don;t engage in the same kind of psychologically pathological projection you folks do. Your irrational fear is based on your assumption that we want to do to you what you want to do to us, but we’re better patriots than you are, and we’re better Christians. Where you see only political opportunities to do whatever you want, we see humanitarian opportunities to do the right thing.
12:45 pm
“As it is, all I see are a bunch of hypocrites taking political advantage of the stupidity and incompetence of the White House and Gonzalez.”
So, the Wingnuts have been reduced to this…calling their opponents hypocrites. That point can easily be refuted, as several previous posts illustrate. What’s hidden in plain sight is the fact that even right-wingers now feel free to mention the stupidity of their own leadership!
Maybe wingnuts are most angry at themselves for not recognizing the authoritarian, incompetent, constitution-shredding, corrupt nature of the politicians they support. They’ve tied themselves to that mast, and now they’re going down with the ship, wailing about the unfairness of it all.
BooHoo. You don’t have to be Hindu to see the laws of Karma in effect here. Perhaps our friends on the right will try to put ethics and policy on a higher plain next time they have power. But after the Bush administration, they could be in for a long wait.
12:56 pm
it is truly sad that after 6 years, and all that has occured, you still, STILL cannot face the facts of Bush’s lawlessness and incompetence. These are NOT manufactured scandals- they would be manufactured scandals if they were made up, but this is not made up! Bush et al have done these things!!
Furthermore, the fact that this was done for polticial gain under a provision of the Patriot Act is exactly why people objected to the Patriot Act- because it would obviously be, and now has obviously been, abused by the Bush Administration! THIS is the point. Bush et al say “trust us,” about everything, yet they have done nothing, NOTHING to earn the the trust of the people who they supposedly represent. in fact, the fact that this was done under the Patriot Act, and not at the beginning of a Pres term, and to people appoinrted by Bush, means that it is, in fact, NOT like when other presidents have done this, democrat or Republican. THESE things are the facts! When, when, when will you learn not to lie, not to obscure, not to distort, and simply face THE TRUTH???
you, the remaining Bush supporters, you disgust me. you are honestly and clearly the worst of what this nation has to offer. you are the ones who are traitors to this nation. you are the ones who would support tyranny for the sake of “your team,” that would stab ytou in the back the second the time came. you have no honor, no courage and no bravery. you are not true americans. you are traitors who have betrayed the very ideals of this country. i hope that you burn in hell.
1:27 pm
I’m frankly shocked (not) at Schumer’s continuing efforts to run the FBI and DoJ along with his other duties..Oh, wait, a look at the fine print shows Cheesey Chuck just wants the power, not the responsibilit.
3:00 pm
There’s a direct and important difference between firing every single attorney, and then hiring new attorneys which have to be approved by Congress (Clinton) – and a) selectively firing attorneys who all have good employee reviews, for no other reason than that they are being too good at investigating crime committed by members of your political party, and appointing new members without Congressional approval. (Bush)
Can you understand this important difference between these 2 administrations?
Can you see how the Bush administration’s actions can and does lead to worse problems for our democracy, as it combines both encouraging of corruption AND an imbalance of power that favors the leading political party AND favors the power of the executive?
If you cannot see this, please show how the Clinton’s administration’s actions were also this imbalanced and therefore destructive.
3:03 pm
And really, to accuse the Democrats of manufacturing this scandal, is blaming the mess on the messenger.
These are all GOP members involved in all of these actions, from the beginning; these actions are out of scope with all previous administrations, including Republican ones; and these actions show undue influence on the execution of justice, in a way not shown by any previous administrations.
This is no more a manufactured scandal than Mark Foley’s actions.
3:11 pm
You guys manufactured scandal after scandal during the 90s; are you now telling me that you don’t have the spine to get as good as you give?
Sorry, but to quote The Carpenters: We’ve only just beguuuuunnnnnnnnnnn…....
3:21 pm
So get off your fake moral high horses and stop pretending that you are shocked, simply shocked that politics is played with US Attorneys’ offices. If we had heard similar outrage about political interference in federal cases in the decade preceding Bush, you would be on much firmer ground to criticize what is happening now.
The assertions are that this is about a reluctance to engage in politically-motivated less-than-substantial investigations of the members of the opposition party. So – refresh my memory; what were the politically motivated investigations of members of the Republican party in 1993-2000?
3:31 pm
Would someone mind telling Senator Upchuck that he was elected to represent the people of the state of New York, not to serve as the numero uno attack dog for the Democratic party?
5:41 pm
“a Democratic party whose fall campaign was bereft of ideas.”
Nope, nope. Sorry. The single unifying campaign promise of the Democrats was to clean up the rancid cesspool of corruption and incompetence that is the Republican Party, and to restore accountability to a White House run by an imbecile and a delusional, paranoid psychotic. And how have they done? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. That is, of course, unless you actually approve of returning veterans being warehouse in urine-soaked, rat-infested shitholes upon their return from combat. Most Americans don’t; nor do they like evidence of turning the U.S. Attorney’s Office into a political hatchet squad for the White House.
“the far left who are whipping the cowed Democratic leadership toward the edge of the cliff.”
Oh, but of course. The Republicans are DELIGHTED by the current investigations. Because the Democrats are heading for a political disaster of historic proportions, perhaps even bigger than the last one we were so warned about: the 2006 midterms. Thanks so much for the concern; we progressives are really grateful!!
5:54 pm
you, the remaining Bush supporters, you disgust me. you are honestly and clearly the worst of what this nation has to offer. you are the ones who are traitors to this nation. you are the ones who would support tyranny for the sake of “your team,†that would stab ytou in the back the second the time came. you have no honor, no courage and no bravery. you are not true americans
Folks, these are true words. Not withstanding the grammar issues, it is a perfectly stated ‘snapshot’ of those who support this criminal enterprise living in our WH. It seems like the ‘team’ must win at all (or any) cost. Your obligation as an American far outweighs your reverence for the imbecile called Mr. President. History will not look kindly on your passion for this pathetic little man.
6:24 pm
The irony is that all the fired attorneys were Republican bush appointies who had previously recieved glowing evaluations.
They claim that they were asked to do something that they believed was unethical,refused and destoyed their government careers.
I guess a few honest Republicans slipped by the vetting process. How many capitulated to pressure?
6:40 pm
“I’m frankly shocked (not)...”
Clarice: I’m captivated by your amazing re-enaction of humor circa 1989. Please mention someone you find sexy and exclaim “Schwing!” Or signify that you’ve come up with a clever idea by saying “Oh Reeealy” in a nasaly voice while stretching out your suspenders. Or tell us about things that “Homie don’t play”. It’ll be the 90s never even began!
6:42 pm
test
6:45 pm
Talk about manufacturing scandals! That’s so rich. Remember Travelgate? Wooo Travelgate, what a huge scandal. Clinton fired some…. partisan travel agents.
There’s an old Chinese proverb. “The fish rots from the head.” That’s the state of the current Republican party. The Bush/Rove/Cheney/Gonzalez gang are stinking up the place and their loyal band of supporters are going down with them. You brought it all on yourselves.
10:11 pm
Um. The AG admits mistakes. His Chief of Staff QUITS, for crying out loud. Sununu says the AG should quit. Everybody but maybe you guys and a handful of others think this is a real scandal. What was it? Two weeks ago we had the Walter Reed Hospital scandal. Was that a manufactured scandal? Don’t you guys even get slightly tired of the relentlessness of this incompetent Administration’s ability to fall over its own feet? Aren’t you DONE yet?
Because the rest of the country is. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and keep saying “I can’t hear you, you’re lying”.
We’ll finish booting out the rest of you in two year’s time. Absolutely disgusting. Personal accountability my rear end.
Oh. I forgot. Clinton did it.
Pah – the – tic.
10:27 pm
As is so often the case, it is not the action, but the coverup that is the real scandal. The attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, who can replace them whenever he chooses. It is certainly unusual to do so midterm, rather than after inauguration, but well within the rights of the President.
The scandal is that rather than honestly acknowledging that this was a political patronage move, the Bush administration tried to cover it up and pretend that the attorneys were being fired for cause. In other words, rather than taking responsibility for their decisions, they chose to damage the careers of US attorneys (Republican appointees, no less) who were doing their jobs and doing them well.
10:36 pm
Well, Clinton had the newly-appointed Reno fire all the U.S. attorneys right in the middle of the ATF standoff with the Branch Davidins, which was to say the least, a bit of a distraction (you’d at least think they would have kept the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas—which includes Waco—on the job for prosecutorial continuity, considering the high-profile of the compound standoff at the time).
9:21 am
I’m still waiting for Sandy Friggin Burglar to get his lie detector test. When that happens I may be willing to give Gonzolez some slack. Until then, he deserves everything that leftist loons can collect from their brain pans in the morning to give him for breakfast.
10:30 am
trrll:
“As is so often the case, it is not the action, but the coverup that is the real scandal. ”
Really? The fact that our taxpayer-supported USAs are now being used as political hitmen against the President’s political enemies isn’t a “real” scandal? The fact that USAs who investigate the President’s political allies were punished with dismissal isn’t a “real” scandal? The fact that the Justice Department plotted to use provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act to appoint politically-controversial hacks to important public office isn’t a “real” scandal?
The cover-up may be the only thing that’s illegal (assuming that a case for obstruction of justice won’t stick) but it’s not the only scandal.
7:00 pm
You’ve all got it wrong! Gonzales has problems not because Democrats are scandalized but because lawyers are. They’re much, much more powerful than Democrats. And the lawyers that are the most upset are of federal-prosecutor calibre.
12:20 am
I see someone isn’t thankful for the judgment of the American people in Nov 2006. Perhaps those who do not like the results of our free and fair elections should move, or be forced to move, to North Korea.
11:04 am
Bibbleman:
Your comment was deleted because:
1. Your use of obscenity.
2. You’re a goddman SOCK PUPPET!
No guts to use your real name or leave a real email address? How pathetic. But I guess this allows you to use my name as well as Bibbleman and god knows how many others to hide your shame and control your fear that you know deep down, you’re just not as smart as most people.
I pity you. All of those comments knowing full well that I would never publish them. If you take a step back and examine that behavior, don’t you find it just a bit pathetic? If you were really honest with yourself, you would see that and simply go away.