As a PS to my post on the FBI overzealousness on wiretapping, I should add something on the other problem facing the Bush Justice Department: the blooming, ugly story about the dismissals of eight US Attorneys after the 2006 elections. One reason I ignored it is that I don't actually think it's a scandal, but more on that in a bit. Whatever I think, it's become yet another example of the atrocious way that the Bush folks manage to step on themselves and make news when they're really, really trying not to.
I mean, what's the big deal here? US Attorneys get fired. They serve at the pleasure of the President and the Attorney General. As has been noted in recent days, Janet Reno actually had all the US Attorneys submit resignations when she took office during the Clinton Administration. But two things made this into a scandal: a ham-handed attempt by the Bush Administration to call the firings "performance related" and revelations that in several cases, the fired attorneys had investigated, or were investigating, significant abuses and corruption by Republicans.
That charge, of course, is serious, and may involve members of Congress pressuring an attorney on a pending case. That deserves further investigation certainly, though it's not, necessarily, proof that the Bush folks had no right to make the dismissals. But the way to avoid appearance of pressure would be to operate an above board, open process that didn't concoct an unholy secretive mix of political operations and legal process.
Of course, you can't expect that from these people.
Nor can you expect the reasonably simple ability to be up front about explaining why things happen. Claiming "performance issues" when a simple check would prove that there weren't any - and, after all, who wants to read that they were fired for "performance issues" in the newspaper? In all of this, the Bush folks managed, as always, to turn a story that would not have been a big deal into an event by being half-assed. And why? Because they can't simply respect the press to honestly provide information and answers when asked simple questions. "Performance issues" is a bullshit answer that says "we think you're idiots and will buy any old excuse that sounds official."
And so the body count grows: Alberto Gonzales may be out, his deputy has resigned. Pete Domenici may retire or at least have his Senate seat in play in 2008, Heather Wilson is probably finished, and Harriet Miers... oh, never mind. Why beat a dead horse? Horrible... how many ways can you say it? And how many times before it's just so gobsmackingly obvious?
I was hoping you'd cover this.
Posted by: Leigh | March 14, 2007 at 09:21 AM