U.S. attorney firings dog Gonzales, Bush
Commentary
Issue date: 6/13/07 Section: Opinions
"This process has been dragged out a long time, which says to me it's political," President Bush said on Monday. "There's no wrongdoing. … And therefore, I ascribe this lengthy series of news stories and hearings as political."
Bush's disappointing remarks came in the context of the Senate's no-confidence vote Monday on his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Not surprisingly, the measure failed to get the necessary 60 votes. There was, certainly, more than an element of political grandstanding in the no-confidence tactic. But that should not obscure two fundamental points: First, the president's apparently unshakable confidence in his attorney general is sadly misplaced. Second, the disturbing behavior uncovered in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics, as much as the president would like to do so. Partisan politics was at work, yes, but in Bush's Justice Department - in the hiring of career lawyers and the selection of immigration judges - and, with the involvement of the White House in the ouster of at least some of the prosecutors.
Gonzales was the wrong choice to become the nation's chief law-enforcement officer, and his conduct on the job has only served to underscore his unfitness. He has been unwilling or unable to describe how almost one-tenth of the U.S. attorneys under his purview were chosen for firing. Circumstantial evidence in several cases points to their refusal to bring voter-fraud or corruption prosecutions being pushed by GOP partisans. Last week, Bradley Schlozman, who temporarily replaced a fired U.S. attorney in Kansas City, testified that he brought a voter-fraud case against a Democratic-leaning group five days before the 2006 election despite a Justice Department guideline cautioning against doing so in the midst of a campaign. Monday's account by the Post's Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen about the hiring of immigration judges offered another troubling example of the department's politicization; the judges are civil-service employees, but at least one-third of those appointed since 2004 have GOP ties and half lacked immigration-law experience.
As to the matter of whether, as Bush says, "this process has been dragged out," we'd suggest that Bush's White House bears a significant share of the blame. White House officials appear to have been involved in instigating and implementing the firings. But White House counsel Fred Fielding has offered to make officials available for congressional interviews only behind closed doors, not under oath, and without a transcript being made. If Bush is tired of "this lengthy series of news stories and hearings," he could help lawmakers get to the bottom of what happened.
This commentary appeared in Tuesday's Washington Post.
Bush's disappointing remarks came in the context of the Senate's no-confidence vote Monday on his attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Not surprisingly, the measure failed to get the necessary 60 votes. There was, certainly, more than an element of political grandstanding in the no-confidence tactic. But that should not obscure two fundamental points: First, the president's apparently unshakable confidence in his attorney general is sadly misplaced. Second, the disturbing behavior uncovered in the investigation of the firing of U.S. attorneys cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics, as much as the president would like to do so. Partisan politics was at work, yes, but in Bush's Justice Department - in the hiring of career lawyers and the selection of immigration judges - and, with the involvement of the White House in the ouster of at least some of the prosecutors.
Gonzales was the wrong choice to become the nation's chief law-enforcement officer, and his conduct on the job has only served to underscore his unfitness. He has been unwilling or unable to describe how almost one-tenth of the U.S. attorneys under his purview were chosen for firing. Circumstantial evidence in several cases points to their refusal to bring voter-fraud or corruption prosecutions being pushed by GOP partisans. Last week, Bradley Schlozman, who temporarily replaced a fired U.S. attorney in Kansas City, testified that he brought a voter-fraud case against a Democratic-leaning group five days before the 2006 election despite a Justice Department guideline cautioning against doing so in the midst of a campaign. Monday's account by the Post's Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen about the hiring of immigration judges offered another troubling example of the department's politicization; the judges are civil-service employees, but at least one-third of those appointed since 2004 have GOP ties and half lacked immigration-law experience.
As to the matter of whether, as Bush says, "this process has been dragged out," we'd suggest that Bush's White House bears a significant share of the blame. White House officials appear to have been involved in instigating and implementing the firings. But White House counsel Fred Fielding has offered to make officials available for congressional interviews only behind closed doors, not under oath, and without a transcript being made. If Bush is tired of "this lengthy series of news stories and hearings," he could help lawmakers get to the bottom of what happened.
This commentary appeared in Tuesday's Washington Post.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
E.C. Danuel D. Quaintance
posted 6/13/07 @ 10:57 PM EST
This is more connected to protecting pharmaceutical company profits than political office. Who is the head of Homeland Security? Wasn't he CEO of Elli Lilly before this last appointment? Anyone heard of the Medical Marijuana movement going on around the country? Could that compete with pharmaceutical Marinol and Sativex? Why are those two substances in schedule 3 of the Controlled Substance Act while MJ remains in schedule 1? Gonzales controls the controlled substance act. (Continued…)
Post a Comment