someone hit the brakes we're gaining too much speed
Howard Dean just emailed me to say:
This could be George Bush's Watergate.Now, look. I disapprove of George W. Bush as much as the next guy, but if the Democrats want to beat some drums, and of course they do, can't they find something real?
Eight U.S. Attorneys, fired because they wouldn't follow orders by the Bush Administration.
Or am I missing something? Seems to me that U.S. Attorneys, being part of the Justice Department, and the Justice Department being part of the Executive Branch, have as their boss the White House. Right? And aren't bosses allowed to fire people they don't want working for them? Sure, U.S. Attorneys have to be confirmed by Congress, but they are not elected and they don't have terms. The are appointed by the President at the President's discretion. So in this case, doesn't the President, monkey-brained as he may be, get to be the Decider?
The whole thing just smells of witch-hunt to me, and that's disappointing to say the least.
posted by Hans at 15:53
2 Comments:
I dunno...seems a little fishy to me. The logic is pretty sound: boss gets to fire employees, but is the President the one who hires them and can simply fire them just because they're not in lock-step with him? And even if he can, should he? Point is: I don't really know enough about these things to be offering up an opinion.
But I will say that both parties do the same thing no matter who's president. They'll both take whatever chances they have, no matter how small those chances may (emphasis: MAY) be.
15 March 2007 at 16:29:00 GMT-4
But I will say that both parties do the same thing no matter who's president.
But they don't. The President claimed this week that the shuffling and replacement of U.S. Attorneys is something that every President does. But Clinton didn't. Neither did Bush, Sr. For the most part, Presidents tend to honor the attorney placements of their predecessors.
Does the Bush Admin have the right to hire and fire these attorneys? He does. Sure.
But when he does so, the reasons why should be made readilly available. If the attorney was incompetent, then we welcome the replacement. However, if the attorney was eliminated because his decisions did not fall in line with executive policy ... or because they'd raised uncomfortable questions ... or because they were in a position to reveal inconvenient truths, then the "Decider" needs to recognize the political consequences of using his office not for the public good, but for personal political gain. An act needn't be illegal for its execution to have career-damaging repercussions.
In Gonzales' case, the trouble for him will stem from statements he made before Congress that are turning out to be perjurous. He was asked if he would use (or had used) his position to further a political agenda, specifically where the firing of U.S. Attorneys were concerned. He said, "I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney position for political reasons."
And that, it looks like, was an outright lie.
(NPR has a timeline: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8939254)
To sum up ... the issue is not the illegality of the firings. They were legal, just maybe not ethical. And the political damage will come from the realization that while 8 attorneys were fired for a lack of White House loyalty, the whole list of potential targets had 93 names. Again, not against the law, but it certainly has that familiar scent of Nixon's infamous Enemies List.
But the Watergate factor lies with Gonzales and his perjury, because that was just flat out illegal. And because it was, Senator Leahy can start pulling in the heavies for questioning (Rove, especially).
16 March 2007 at 10:57:00 GMT-4
Post a Comment
<< Home