Ace:
That's a valid point, and I think you've made it with an effective example. However, it is only superficially comparable to the current situation. A more accurate parallel would be if the DoJ had been ordered to prosecute instances of racism and discrimination perpetrated by the opposition party. And then if someone who had successfully prosecuted members of the President's party for that thing was fired. THEN this would be a parallel example.
__________________________________________________________
EDIT: merged double post
I want to post this excerpt from
today's NY Times editorial. This pretty much captures my feelings. I'm not calling for anyone's head, though I do think Gonzales will find himself in an untenable situation quickly. I just think a real inquiry with sworn testimony and transcripts is appropriate. I suppose this whole thing could be the implausible coincidence that Gonzales, Sampson, et al would have us believe, but I'm having trouble getting on board with that given the evasiveness the Bush admin folks are displaying. Does this really seem like a good place for Bush to stage a showdown with the Congress?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NY Times
The senators questioning Mr. Sampson pointed to a troubling pattern: many of the fired prosecutors were investigating high-ranking Republicans. He was asked if he was aware that the fired United States attorney in Nevada was investigating a Republican governor, that the fired prosecutor in Arkansas was investigating the Republican governor of Missouri, or that the prosecutor in Arizona was investigating two Republican members of Congress.
Mr. Sampson’s claim that he had only casual knowledge of these highly sensitive investigations was implausible, unless we are to believe that Mr. Gonzales runs a department in which the chief of staff is merely a political hack who has no hand in its substantive work. He added to the suspicions that partisan politics were involved when he made the alarming admission that in the middle of the Scooter Libby investigation, he suggested firing Patrick Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago who was the special prosecutor in the case.
The administration insists that purge was not about partisan politics. But Mr. Sampson’s alternative explanation was not very credible — that the decision about which of these distinguished prosecutors should be fired was left in the hands of someone as young and inept as Mr. Sampson. If this were an aboveboard, professional process, it strains credulity that virtually no documents were produced when decisions were made, and that none of his recommendations to Mr. Gonzales were in writing.
It is no wonder that the White House is trying to stop Congress from questioning Mr. Rove, Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and other top officials in public, under oath and with a transcript. The more the administration tries to spin the prosecutor purge, the worse it looks.
|