Wednesday, March 14, 2007

About those U.S. attorneys

I can't believe this story has lasted longer than 24 hours and now all the partisans who finally digested Donald Rumsfeld's bones have moved on to call for the ouster of the attorney general. What does the blogosphere's top legal blog have to say?

On a more serious note, I haven't written about the U.S. Attorney's story because I'm having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. More broadly, I have longrunning objections to the extent to which DOJ is under White House control, objections that this story helps bring to the fore (although my objections are based on my views of sound policy, not on law).

At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting. Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they're getting a bad rap.
Now far be it for me to suggest that the press would overlook the law in favor of partisan criticism of the Bush administration. Heavens, no! And certainly when Janet Reno dismissed 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993, CNN didn't nod approvingly at the "clean sweep" in the Justice Department. That would suggest a double standard, one that superhuman journalists would never allow.

Extra - Much much more on this from Patterico. (HT: RCP)

More - MacRanger and David Frum suggest ulterior motives in the push to oust Gonzales.

4 comments:

Steven Taylor said...

It is isn't just a bunch of anti-BUsh partisans who find this situation problematic--Ed Morrissey (Captain's Quarters) has had some pretty critical posts.

I find the situation disturbing as well.

I would note the following posts of mine on the subject:

This one, which details one of Ed's key posts on the subject.

This one, which looks at some of the e-mails about the firings.

This one, which asks some questions about the NM voter fraud situation.

And, this one, which raises (as do some of the others) the Patriot Act Issue.

Anonymous said...

Among other problems, the case shows that Bush has learned nothing from previous criticism of his cronyism. The learned Supreme Court Justice Harriet E. Miers is even in the middle of it all.

Heavens, no! And certainly when Janet Reno dismissed 93 U.S. attorneys in 1993, CNN didn't nod approvingly at the "clean sweep" in the Justice Department. That would suggest a double standard, one that superhuman journalists would never allow.

Other than on rightwing blogs, the "but Clinton, but Clinton, but Clinton" defense doesn't absolve Bush. Second, check out the year again on the "clean sweep": 1993. It was done shortly after taking office. If Bill Clinton had selectively canned a dozen attorneys in 1999, all of whom were investigating Democrats, you would've heard about it. Ronald Reagan did the same "sweep" as Clinton in 1981. (However, the "but Reagan, but Reagan" defense isn't as emotionally satisfying to the Dubya cheerleading squad.) It's fascinating that the "Clinton massacre" has never been part of the right's litany of complaints against him until 48 hours ago.

As for the weak meme that "U.S. attorneys are appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President," the answer would be, "uh, no sh-t, Sherlock." And guess what? There are political realities which follow the exercise of that displeasure. GWB is experiencing some of them now. You'd think that conservatives... so grown-up, so clear-eyed, so realistic... would grasp that.

Nobody went to jail for firing Archibald Cox; Richard Nixon was entirely within his Presidential rights to do so. Clinton could have dismissed Kenneth Starr the moment he felt "displeased" by his presence. It was the inability to distinguish "can" from "should" that doomed Nixon. The same inability will take a center position in all future considerations of "the Bush legacy."

JorgXMcKie said...

So, firing people for incompetence is just right out?

Anonymous said...

It is with this administration. Sometimes they give the incompetent Medals of Freedom.