rights and privileges…

Posted on Tuesday 17 April 2007

QUESTION: Dana, a lot of the stories about the Gonzales appearance tomorrow framed it as "his job is on the line." Is it?
MS. PERINO: Look, I think there’s a lot of hype about the hearing. This issue has been ongoing for I think over a couple of months now. The Justice Department has been fully responsive to the committee, and that’s going to culminate tomorrow in a hearing. But I think that one day’s hearing does not necessarily mean — I’ve heard it described as "make or break," and I would submit to you that the Attorney General, as you’ve reported, has been as forthcoming as he possibly can be, has laid it all out on the table for them and tomorrow he looks forward to answering their questions.
QUESTION: Is this a job security issue?
MS. PERINO: No, I don’t think so. The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and the President wanted the Justice Department to be fully responsive and they have been. The President also said he needed to go to Capitol Hill and continue to talk to those members. He’s had many conversations with members of Congress by phone, while they were on their two-week recess, and tomorrow he’ll have a chance to talk to them in person.
QUESTION: Well, does he, and he alone, have to dig himself out of this controversy?
MS. PERINO: Look, the Attorney General has taken full responsibility for it, and I think that the Attorney General looks forward to answering those questions tomorrow.
Neither President Bush nor Attorney General Gonzales quite understand the point of the Justice Department Scandal following their firing of eight [or more] U.S, Attorneys. They both are fond of pointing out that the U.S. Attorneys serve at the "pleasure of the President," and they are correct that the President does have the right and the power to replace them. While they hemmed and hawed their way through the reasons for the firings, they make it clear that the reason for the firings, at least the reason they will acknowledge, is that they were fired because their case numbers were low in the areas that the Administration wanted to see some action – Immigration, and Voter Fraud. They deny that the prosecution of Republicans or the lack of prosecution of Democrats was a factor, though a superficial scanning of the cases in question brings that denial into question. They deny that they were trying to push voter fraud litigation in States where the Republican/Democrat balance was up for grabs, though a simple review of Karl Rove’s Speech to the National Republican Lawyer’s Association and the list of fired Attorneys bring that denial into question also.

I believe that the central issue in this and all of the other scandals that swirl around the trinity of Karl Rove, George Bush, and Richard Cheney come down to one shared trait – contempt. With President Bush, it’s most apparent is his famous sneer. With Cheney, it’s often called a sneer, but it’s more of a snarl. With Rove, it’s in the sarcastic wording of his speeches to rally supporters. Independent of its mode of expression, all three men have elevated contempt from a feeling or emotion to the level of a noun. They embody contempt. That contempt is global. The came into office with contempt for the other people of the world, particularly Arabs. They have contempt for their political oppenents – Democrats and "Liberals." They have contempt for the restraints of our system of checks and balances, for the Congress, for the Judiciary, for the Central Intelligence Agency, for the U.N., for the Geneva Conventions, for the Constitution, and even for Democracy itself – or at least Democracy unimpeded. And they immediately interpret any criticism as an enemy attack – retaliating with contempt, manipulation, and dirty tricks.

They came into office driven by years of contempt for our foreign policy and jumped at the chance to "brandish some steel" [Karl Rove] by trumping up a disasterous war in the Middle East. When confronted for lying by Joseph Wilson, they responded by destroying his wife’s career. They have misused every possible Presidential power – commander in chief, secrecy, signing statements, executive privledge, recess appointments – the list is endless. They sneer and snarl with actions as well as with their facial expressions and their words.

I think they really don’t even understand the Justice Department scandal. Since the President has the power to hire and fire the U.S. Attorneys at will, they can’t understand why their actions are being questioned. They don’t see that the President’s and the Attorney General’s denials of any direct involvement don’t exactly fit with their claims of having the power to do what they want to do. Both men deny knowing what was going on, yet they both use the word confidence in characterizing what happened. They don’t seem to even get that their arbitrary firing of U.S. Attorneys whose numbers are low in voter fraud cases and immigration cases without even knowing who they are or what they’ve done is being seen as an arbitrary and capricious misuse of their power. It’s just like their not seeing that their arbitrary and capricious distortions of prewar intelligence has produced a crisis in the meaning of America in the world, and in our own country.

It’s as if they see our Constitution as a Bill of Rights for the Presidential Triumverate – a set of powers for them to do use as they see fit. They don’t see it as a Bill of rights for the American people. It is a privilege to serve as President of the United States, a privilege to defend our rights, not their own. It is not their right to play out their own contemptuousness on the grand scheme of American policy. Government by contempt, by sneer, by snarl, by retaliation has no place here. Never has…

  1.  
    joyhollywood
    April 17, 2007 | 8:09 AM
     

    Yesterday, a young reporter from the Boston Globe won a Pulizer Prize for reporting on President Bush’s signing statements scandal. He is 31 years old and his education includes a degree from Harvard College and a Masters from Yale. He infrequently appears on TV but I have seen him on Countdown on MSNBC. I only hope there will be some reporters who will take note of the reasons for his Prize. We definitely need reporters to do their job and report the news. If more reporters had done some investigating reporting on the rush to war, we might not be in this terrible place in history. People like Judith Miller and others should be ashamed of themselves.

  2.  
    joyhollywood
    April 17, 2007 | 8:12 AM
     

    Sorry to have to come back on but you can see that my emotions get the best of me sometimes. The name of the Boston Globe author is Charlie Savage.

  3.  
    April 17, 2007 | 7:30 PM
     

    Savage has done a wonderful job. I wish people would listen to him!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.