Say you were facing an ugly, pointless scandal foisted upon you by low level minions, well intentioned but tone deaf to the politics of things (as a Princess in My Own Mind (TM), I frequently have this problem)... would you:
- Regretfully, and with deep sadness, fire the minions... or
- Go on television and refuse to have any of your people answer questions about what happened?
The reason Bush's statement the other day - a "hell no, they can't make me give up Karl Rove" - was so disastrous was that he basically gave the story a life of its own just as it was starting to wind down. Bush may win the fight over Executive Privilege (he's got friends in high places), but the battle can only make him weaker.
Bush's statement was a virtual invitation to Democrats in Congress to extend this story by issuing the very subpoenas he said he would not negotiate over. As long as the story leading the news is about Bush and the US Attorneys, it's not about anything that's helping the President hold on to any shred of ability to command the issues of the day. Led around by the news of the day, Bush walked into a trap that's practically Politics 101 - refusing to testify only makes it look like there's something to hide.
As for Democrats, I don't think anyone started this investigation thinking that it would be possible to get the scalp of Karl Rove... Alberto Gonzales, sure, but Rove? With nothing to really tie him to the initial inquiry, it looks now like sheer luck that he's actually in the middle of it.
And this story, which was really about nothing to begin with, is now about something. A fairly ordinary inquiry into why some capable prosecutors were let go was really never meant to investigate whether the President can fire US Attorneys. Of course he can. The question was why, and now that the answer is, in many cases, "politics" reasonable questions are being asked about whether this can be addressed.
By the way, two especially hilarious moments: watching conservatives invoke the Clinton/Reno firings - which they think were wrong and beyond the pale - as the defense for Bush/Gonzales. Way to shoot your own credibility down. Some people - me included - actually agreed about the Clinton dismissals. The other: John Yoo, architect of torture policy, offering this howler in his WSJ op-ed supporting (natch) the Bushies -
...watching Karl Rove squirm before a congressional committee and placing bets on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's tenure in office is great political sport. Democrats in Congress look even madder now than when they were complaining about President Bush's "excesses" in the war on terror.
Ah yes, Mr. Yoo... whose "excesses" were those, exactly?
Anyway, at this point, all there is to do is watch them squirm, at least until Gonzales is fired... er, resigns, er, left. Ultimately I'd bet there's some negotiated solution where Dems give up almost nothing (probably televised hearings) and get officials on the record (maybe not "under oath," but that won't help the Bush folks' case either). I just keep saying, I knew they were bad... but jeez, what amateurs.
Comments