Washington Post Ed Board on President Bush
IT DOESN'T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft's hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department's legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush's response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.
"I'm not going to talk about it," Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "It's a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it's still necessary because there's still an enemy that wants to do us harm."
No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president's willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.
ThinkProgress has a clip of Bush's dismissal and his attempt to shield himself with the threat of future terrorist attacks. One diarist from DailyKos suggests that Bush's statements can be used to remove him.
For me, this represents the Catch-22 of dealing with the corruptness of this Administration: do you investigate "All Things Iraq," which President Bush claims we need to be more patient on, or do you go after other things (wiretapping, fired US Attorneys, etc.) which always seems to be defended with the phrase "national security?"
Comments