In the Meantime . . . 4
. . . let us keep our eyes on the bouncing ball. Dan Froomkin (emphasis added):
Gonzales’s inattentive management of the Justice Department and the repeated deception of Congress by senior Justice officials are certainly important issues.
But the central question before us is whether the unprecedented mid-term purge of eight U.S. attorneys was the result of their having failed to use their offices to pillory Democrats as much as the White House wanted them to.
Negligence and deceit are one thing; a policy of requiring law-enforcement officials to abuse the justice system for partisan ends is quite another.
It’s sounding awfully like “high crimes and misdemeanors” to me.
But why should this time be any different from all the other times?
Footnote:
This has nothing to do with “Conservative” or “Liberal.” This has to do with “truth” or “falsehood.”
March 14, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I don’t pay a lot of attention to political scandals anymore, mostly because of the “boy cries wolf” aspect they’ve taken on. I did read an interesting point James Taranto made yesterday, though, about Hillary Clinton dusting off her old “vast right-wing conspiracy” line and trotting it out again: we’ve all forgotten that when she first used it, the accusation she was denying (i.e., that Bill had an affair with Monica Lewinsky,) turned out to be true!
March 15, 2007 at 9:02 pm
A few comments:
Yes, Bill had an affair with Monica. And probably with a few other people.
Yes, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy.
“A” was true.
“B” was true.
“C” (that messing with Monica, or lying about Monica, was an impeachable offense) turned out to be NOT true. Indeed, it seems to have been a reelectable offense.
I would offer that
A + B =/ (did not equal) C
because of the ultimate good sense of the American people and their representatives incongruously assembled, who recognized the difference between public and private reponsibilities. Frankly, they recognized that private sexual misbehavior, however appalling (or amusing) it might be) had nothing to do with the discharge of public responsibility.
Just as in the case of Franklin Roosevelt or Dwight Eisenhower (we’ll leave Harding out of this–he was both a public and private buffoon).
In contrast, the Current Federal Administrator lies about public responsibilities, misrepresents discharge of his public responsibilities, and, generally, betrays his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Supporters of the Current Federal Administration should beware of arousing the American people. The American people put up with a lot before they become roused, because they want to believe that the persons they elected (or, as the case of Bush, were elected for them) are decent folks.
But, when confronted with sufficient hypocrisy and incompetence, they rise up in terrifying fashion.
I will be blunt.
The fact that someone calls himself “conservative” does not make him or her a moral person.
George Bush and his hangers on are not moral persons.
The end.
March 15, 2007 at 10:35 pm
“Frankly, they recognized that private sexual misbehavior, however appalling (or amusing) it might be) had nothing to do with the discharge of public responsibility.”
This was a discovery for some of us, who had been taught that sexual affairs between workers of vastly unequal rank was abusive to the worker of lower rank, as well as unfair to other workers. But a lot of us listened intently, and learned that this is an area of life far more complicated than we can rely on ourselves to understand. I think this is a big reason the impeachment failed.
March 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Yeah, well, stupid is as stupid does.
Had Monica sued under the sexual harassment rules, she might well have won a judgement.
But it wasn’t Monica who sued. It was the Republican Party through its patsy, Ken Starr.