-
Removing the cover
As you may know, I’ve been surfing the “blogosphere” for different takes on the US Attorney scandal, trying to find liberal and conservative viewpoints. Yes, there are a few conservatives out there defending the AG.
It’s too bad Kyle Sampson just blew up Gonzales’ remaining credibility today.
-
Lost
From the Washington Post:
“… the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly “constitutional” — meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.”
The Republican response to Democratic maneuvering in the House and Senate has been, “don’t just tell us the President’s wrong, give us an alternate strategy.” Increasingly, the response (if not from elected Democrats themselves, then from some in the media) has been, “pull out.” Over the last few years I’ve resisted such talk. It’s not like I have any say, but I can have an opinion (can’t I?). No matter what reason we went, or what mistakes were made in the past, we made this mess and we’ve got a unique responsibility to clean it up. That’s what I thought anyway.
Now I’m not sure the responsibility question is the right question. The question I ask myself these days is, “can we clean it up?” Does the existing evidence suggest the answer to this question is ‘no?’ What if our presence in Iraq only serves to make matters worse? If that is the case, perhaps we have a unique responsibility to pull out.
-
Why this is a big deal
My last post not withstanding, the U.S. Attorney scandal is not about broken laws. It’s not about the executive branch of government exercising power it does not have. For me, it’s about abuse of power. This is the reason this scandal has an air of Watergate about it.
Conservative bloggers are mostly correct on at least one point: there are no smoking guns. There are no emails, no sworn testimony, no documents… nothing that draws a straight and invulnerable line between the President, the Attorney General, and questionable deeds. However, the saying “where there’s smoke there’s fire” is pertinent.
A group of prosecutors were involved in investigations with political implications – investigations which could have swayed elections (in what was perhaps the most bitterly fought mid-term election in the last thirty years) – were fired (or asked to resign) after the election was lost (depending on your perspective), and after they did not pick the most politically advantageous avenue for their investigations (for the folks that lost).
Seen in a vacuum, without reference to political party affiliation or subsequent explanation – you’ve just got to admit there’s a little smoke in this picture. There may be perfectly reasonable explanations for the firings (once you get below the surface)… but the suggestion that Democrats are on a baseless fishing expedition is crazy – or at least spectacularly disingenuous. Had the tables been turned, Republicans would be all over this like spittle on a pulpit after a sermon on Revelations.