Buck Laser
03-24-2007, 07:03 PM
The March 22 issue of the New York Times carries a very interesting column by David Brooks regarding the US Attorney firings and the role of various players in the scandal. Unfortunately, I can't post a link to it, because neither the {b]Austin American-Statesman,[/b] where I read the column today, nor[ b]The New York Times[/b] makes the column available for reproduction.
Brooks is a very conservative writer with whom I rarely agree, and I certainly don't agree with all he says about this scandal. But he sure as hell makes some interesting points. If someone can find a way to post a link, I'd appreciate it: until then, here's my summary.
Because the constitution places the Department of Justice under the aegis of the executive branch, US attorneys are inescapably political. But generally in presidential administrations, US Attorneys are expected to pursue political corruption wherever it leads. Presidents have interfered from time to time. He cites an instance where Truman tried to interfere, then refers to the Bush administration.
Brooks says the current situation is greatly exacerbated by the fact that "senior people in the Justice Department seem never to have thought about the proper role of politics in their decision-making...Alberto Gonzales apparently never communicated a code of conduct to guide them as they wrestled with various political pressures."
He also blames the democratic congress, which he says is "out of ideas after only 11 weeks in power."
But the president's office also chose to take a stand on an utterly inconsequential point by denying congress the right to make a transcript of Rove and Miers' testimony.
Further, he writes, "when you have a government unencumbered by adult supervision, this affair is now spiraling down to the partisan depths."
Personally, I love this situation. As Brooks says, the confrontation could have been avoided. I'll even agree that the congress might have acted more wisely. But Bush's stupid swaggering has now created an impending constitutional crisis that looks likely to be as bad or worse than Watergate. All of us who are of a progressive turn of mind knew from the beginning that Bush was going to screw up irretrievably: but who knew it would be over something so silly as this?
Brooks is a very conservative writer with whom I rarely agree, and I certainly don't agree with all he says about this scandal. But he sure as hell makes some interesting points. If someone can find a way to post a link, I'd appreciate it: until then, here's my summary.
Because the constitution places the Department of Justice under the aegis of the executive branch, US attorneys are inescapably political. But generally in presidential administrations, US Attorneys are expected to pursue political corruption wherever it leads. Presidents have interfered from time to time. He cites an instance where Truman tried to interfere, then refers to the Bush administration.
Brooks says the current situation is greatly exacerbated by the fact that "senior people in the Justice Department seem never to have thought about the proper role of politics in their decision-making...Alberto Gonzales apparently never communicated a code of conduct to guide them as they wrestled with various political pressures."
He also blames the democratic congress, which he says is "out of ideas after only 11 weeks in power."
But the president's office also chose to take a stand on an utterly inconsequential point by denying congress the right to make a transcript of Rove and Miers' testimony.
Further, he writes, "when you have a government unencumbered by adult supervision, this affair is now spiraling down to the partisan depths."
Personally, I love this situation. As Brooks says, the confrontation could have been avoided. I'll even agree that the congress might have acted more wisely. But Bush's stupid swaggering has now created an impending constitutional crisis that looks likely to be as bad or worse than Watergate. All of us who are of a progressive turn of mind knew from the beginning that Bush was going to screw up irretrievably: but who knew it would be over something so silly as this?