"93 Karl Roves"
Now this is an interesting editorial. From the Boston Globe:
Let's skip the "disclosure" revelations for right now (I'm sure there are people who could argue it better than me anyway) even though they have a slight connection to the following. Instead, let's delve into the (probable) political motivations involved.
It's interesting how the Globe phrased the situation: "93 Karl Roves." As the editorial suggests, the issue here isn't that President Bush/Alberto Gonzales put in people they liked; it's that they put in people who could use their ability as US attorneys to advance particular political agendas. One theory floating around ( both the Internet and the airwaves) is that Bush simply wanted "93 Karl Roves" to help influence and control voting in local districts. More to the point: use the system to insure that Republicans (or at the very least, "loyal Bushies") seize power and keep it.
It's an outrageous claim, but a probable one considering that the Bush Administration has been so adamant in withholding aides and staff members from talking to Congress (whether under oath with transcripts or not). If this was nothing more than innocent re-arranging, than the Democratic Congress will lose a lot of face (especially with those who doubt that they are not doing enough to address the Iraq War). It's not like Bush or his people to pass up a good opportunity to make the Democratic Party look bad; and since the name-calling doesn't seem to be sticking, what would be a better setup then this? Obviously, someone is hiding something.
So the question that now has to be posed is: Does "serving at the will of the President" mean bending the law to his preferred political philosophy? The answer people give will speak as to how long this scandal lasts.
THE SUSPICION that partisan politics motivated at least some of the Bush administration's firings of eight US attorneys sharpened this week. Former Justice Department aide Kyle Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday that "the distinction between political and performance-related reasons for removing a US attorney is, in my view, largely artificial." If senators accept this state of affairs, they should close down their inquiry into the purge and accept a new reality: that US attorneys are not objective enforcers of the laws but part of a president's political machine -- 93 Karl Roves with prosecutorial powers.
But if the committee rejects that, it should explore further two major disclosures by Sampson. One was that, contrary to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's past denial of involvement in the sackings, Gonzales conferred with Sampson several times about them. Confirmation of his falsehood strengthens the case for Gonzales's resignation.
The other revelation by Sampson was that Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, approached Gonzales about three of the US attorneys who were canned. One of them was ultimately replaced by an aide to Rove. The Senate should move quickly to get Rove to testify before it -- under oath, with a transcript -- even if this requires a subpoena.
Let's skip the "disclosure" revelations for right now (I'm sure there are people who could argue it better than me anyway) even though they have a slight connection to the following. Instead, let's delve into the (probable) political motivations involved.
It's interesting how the Globe phrased the situation: "93 Karl Roves." As the editorial suggests, the issue here isn't that President Bush/Alberto Gonzales put in people they liked; it's that they put in people who could use their ability as US attorneys to advance particular political agendas. One theory floating around ( both the Internet and the airwaves) is that Bush simply wanted "93 Karl Roves" to help influence and control voting in local districts. More to the point: use the system to insure that Republicans (or at the very least, "loyal Bushies") seize power and keep it.
It's an outrageous claim, but a probable one considering that the Bush Administration has been so adamant in withholding aides and staff members from talking to Congress (whether under oath with transcripts or not). If this was nothing more than innocent re-arranging, than the Democratic Congress will lose a lot of face (especially with those who doubt that they are not doing enough to address the Iraq War). It's not like Bush or his people to pass up a good opportunity to make the Democratic Party look bad; and since the name-calling doesn't seem to be sticking, what would be a better setup then this? Obviously, someone is hiding something.
So the question that now has to be posed is: Does "serving at the will of the President" mean bending the law to his preferred political philosophy? The answer people give will speak as to how long this scandal lasts.
Comments