Krauthammer in WaPo, on Atty Firings (They're so funny when they're desperate!!)

[Sparkly]

There's no scandal; Gonzales just made it LOOK like a scandal... :rofl:

Unnecessary Scandal

(snip)
It's not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none.

(snip)

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

(snip)
For example, both voter intimidation and voter fraud are illegal. The Democrats have a particular interest in the former because they see it diminishing their turnout, while Republicans are particularly interested in the latter because they see it as inflating the Democratic tally. The Bush administration apparently was dismayed that some of these fired attorneys were not vigorous enough in pursuing voter fraud.

(nb: John McKay said he didn't convene a grand jury for "voter fraud" because there was no evidence of voter fraud.)

If the White House decides that a U.S. attorney is showing insufficient zeal in pursuing voter fraud -- or the death penalty or illegal immigration or drug dealing -- it has the perfect right to fire him. There is only one impermissible reason for presidential intervention: to sabotage an active investigation. That is obstruction of justice. Until the Democrats come up with real evidence of that -- and they have not -- this affair remains a pseudo-scandal. Which would never have developed had Gonzales made the easy and obvious case from day one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201804.html

Okay, Chuck -- since there's not really any scandal, no obstruction of justice in cases of Republican wrongdoing, no misuse of the judicial system, how about making a total fool of the Democrats and their "blood lust" (yes, he said that) by having everyone involved testify under oath, to put all the facts out there. Wouldn't that be a grand strategy?? Afterall, there's no "real evidence" of obstruction of justice, right? Gonzales, Rove, et al should be able to clear this whole "pseudo-scandal" up quite quickly!!

:rofl:

[BOSSHOG]

1. He does make one very good point

bush appointees are "unprepared and misinformed." And yes chuck, as the OP says, put everybody under oath and make fools of the Democrats. Please get all the lemmings singing that talking point. Why not, chuckie?

[yellowcanine]

2. I love how they keep saying there is no "real evidence" of obstruction of justice - but at the same

time the Bush apologists keep supporting his right to impede the Congress in finding out whether in fact there was obstruction. Hmm. Old adage about smoke and fires comes to mind. And damn it is smoky in here.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. So he supports suppressing the Democratic vote?

Did I read that right?

"For example, both voter intimidation and voter fraud are illegal. The Democrats have a particular interest in the former because they see it diminishing their turnout, while Republicans are particularly interested in the latter because they see it as inflating the Democratic tally. The Bush administration apparently was dismayed that some of these fired attorneys were not vigorous enough in pursuing voter fraud."

According to him, both actions affect the Democratic votes. (Not the Republicans?) Then he says Bushetals were apparently dismayed because of voter fraud inflating the Democratic vote, but put the seal of approval on voter intimidation? :wtf:

[MrModerate]

6. So, in Krauthammer's world . . .

Because USAs serve at the president's pleasure, it's OK to use the law for purely political purposes -- not just "policy preferences," but naked political assaults on the opposing party.

Sick, and very typical of Krauthammer. Does he really think that 'Licans will be in power forever, and that all the new clubs he tosses to the unitary executive *won't* be used to beat 'Licans in the future?

[Sparkly]

8. Right -- he should tell that to the Nixonians... nt

[yellowcanine]

4. So Krauty is saying this is a "wag the dog" kind of thing? Otherwise why would Gonzo

deliberately create a scandal where there wasn't one? Krauty's reasoning is even more muddled than usual.

[MrModerate]

5. Krauthammer is right on two issues:

1) The big scandal would be obstruction of justice. From what we've heard so far, there's a strong suggestion that obstruction went on. American needs to find out.

2) Gonzalez is incompetent. While he's been an OK manager of the department (no Michael Brown he), he has a bizarre and dysfunctional view of the law, well outside legal standards, and has given woefully deficient advice to Bush (admittedly, exactly what the administration wanted to hear). Advice which has damaged the country and may end up with several administration officials sent to the pokey.

I hear Gate has recommended closing Gitmo. Maybe they should hold it open for a wave of "loyal Bushies" who'll need to be housed in federal facilities soon.

[Sparkly]

7. He finally gets to obstruction at the end, but dismisses it.

And he doesn't mention a word of the investigations that were involved.

On Gonzales, he may be right but for the wrong reasons. His gripe is that Gonzales "allowed" people to talk without "preparing" and "informing" them first.

Because of course, Krauthammer knows what REALLY happened, just as Toensing knew Valerie Plame's REAL work history abroad, just as O'Reilly knows what it's REALLY like to be in combat, etc. etc. etc...

They are a funny bunch sometimes!

[MrModerate]

9. It's both sobering and hysterical to consider . . .

That the show-biz category of "pundit" didn't even exist 10 years ago. While many people fulfilled the functions now exercised by this class of entertainer, they were categorized differently, according to old-media standards: columnist, commentator, editorialist, talk-show host, etc., etc.

Now we have this new animal. Unfortunately its standards are low and its hygiene challenged. Maybe the next breeding lot will be a bit more evolved.

[Sparkly]

10. The worst thing is the fact that the WaPo chooses to publish this nonsense.

It's the antithesis of "news" -- it's MISinformation. The new "fair and balanced" means balancing the truth with misleading half-truths and outright lies. It's shameful.

[Felix Mala]

11. Bosun's Mate Krauthammer is always pointing out how fabulously

the deck chairs have been arranged on the sinking SS Bush.

[onenote]

12. My response to CK

Yes, it is without doubt true that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. But that fact does not necessarily support the argument that the president's decision-making with regard is somehow immune from oversight. From a legal standpoint, the president can replace a US Attorney for a wide range of reasons, for no reason at all. He might decide that someone else could do the job better, or he might simply wake up one morning and decide that he feels like replacing someone. He might make a change because he doesn't like the fact that the incumbent wears brown ties or because he has decided that the incumbent is really an alien from the planet Glimmph. Or, as many presidents have done (not just Clinton, but Bush I, Bush II, Reagan, etc.), he might decide to replace all or virtually all of the US Attorneys appointed by a previous occupant of the White House.

However, when the president decides to make a change, the public has a right to know why. It has a right to know so it can decide whether the president's actions are arbitrary or reasoned, sound or delusional. Again, even a change made for a delusional reason is "legal" -- but in a democracy, the public not be kept in the dark about why a president makes decisions of public consequence.

This, of course, all leaves to one side the issue of whether a president might make a personnel change for a more nefarious, and thus illegal purpose --- namely to obstruct or interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation or case. You believe that there is no evidence of such. Of course, unless the documents and participants in the process testify regarding these matters and make available their email correspondence, there can be no "evidence" of such. However, there is evidence that the original explanation given for the changes --- performance issues --- was not accurate or, at least, that the standard used in finding a "performance" deficiency has not been clearly explained. Under those circumstances, a further inquiry designed to shed light on why the changes were made, whether or not it turns out that there was anything unlawful about the changes, is not only warranted, but demanded in an open democracy.