Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other Republicans have stated that they plan to wait until the end of August 2007 to make a decision regarding their support of Bush's new "surge" strategy in Iraq. General Petraeus met with the Republican Caucus (and maybe the Democrats too) earlier this year and, according to NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, told them that the "surge" should be successful by August. She reported that the moderate members at the meeting told Petraeus that if there wasn't significant progress by then they would advocate troop withdrawal.
On March 29, 2007, Collins released a statement that included her view: "If this new strategy does not demonstrate significant results by the fall, then Congress should consider all options including a redefinition of our mission and a gradual but significant withdrawal of our troops next year."
Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Oregon) like Collins has spoken out publicly against the Iraq war. The Congressional Quarterly reported that he and other Republican senators that he had spoken to but refused "to out" have indicated that they might be reevaluating their current support in August 2007.
The President himself said in Grand Rapids last week (4/20/07):
"General Petraeus has been carrying out this new strategy for just over two months. He reports that it will be later this year before we can judge the potential of success. … Since the security operation began, we have seen some of the highest casualty levels of the war. And as the number of troops in Baghdad grows and operations move into even more dangerous neighborhoods, we can expect the pattern to continue. We must also expect the terrorists and insurgents to continue mounting terrible attacks."
And today (4/23/07) in regards in the timeline issue :
"It makes no sense to tell the enemy when you start to plan withdrawing. If we were to do so, the enemy would simply mark their calendars and begin plotting how to take over a country when we leave."
However, isn't publicly discussing when Republicans plan to reevaluate the "surge" telling the "enemy" that they only have to put the pressure on our troops until August and if they are successful enough to make the "surge" look like a failure then we will leave?
Hasn't the President effectively endorsed an informal timeline? Isn't it essentially the same thing as signing a bill that contains a timeline?
Maybe he doesn't understand that the leaders of the forces that our troops are fighting in Iraq have access to the same internet that we have. They don't need signed legislation to determine their strategy for getting us out of Iraq.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Bush at Correspondents Dinner 2007
I'm certainly not the first person and probably not the last to wonder how Bush could make fun of WMD at the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner (remember the video of him running around looking for WMD? ) without apparent thought to the American troops who were at that moment fighting and dying in Iraq. And why were they in Iraq? Because he and his pals had essentially faked evidence that Saddam was hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction and was involved with Osama bin Laden.
Maybe he learned something from that experience and all the criticism he received because at this year's dinner on Friday instead of joking around making fun of himself he said: "...in light of this tragedy at Virginia Tech I decided not to be funny".
But why not suspend the humor for the troops who have died? Maybe he thinks that it's different with soldiers who should know that dying is always a possible result of doing their jobs. However many of the soldiers were under the impression they were going to war because the U.S. was in eminent danger from Saddam's WMD. And thousands of National Guard troups that are going back to Iraq beginning in December for their second tour of duty only signed up for the one tour that was part of their original contract. Some regular military have been to Iraq three and four times, and now there is talk of extending the tours of five brigades by up to four months. So clearly our troops are experiencing a very different enlistment that what they thought they were signing up for.
At the 2003 Dinner he was also serious but primarily in remembrance of two journalists who died during the invasion of Iraq. I guess my problem is that if Bush is going get solemn for journalists, college students and college professors, I really think that he should do so also for the soldiers in Iraq who are in harms way primarily because he insists that they be there. He is the single person publicly most responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians. Yet despite his often mentioning the troops in his speeches I don't really think he understands the huge sacrifice they and their families are making for him.
Other Links:
History of Bush at Corresondents Dinners
http://www.centredaily.com/128/story/75315.html
2007 Dinner
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574772
Sheryl Crow confronts Karl Rove at 2007 Dinner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/karl-rove-gets-thrown-und_b_46501.html
Maybe he learned something from that experience and all the criticism he received because at this year's dinner on Friday instead of joking around making fun of himself he said: "...in light of this tragedy at Virginia Tech I decided not to be funny".
But why not suspend the humor for the troops who have died? Maybe he thinks that it's different with soldiers who should know that dying is always a possible result of doing their jobs. However many of the soldiers were under the impression they were going to war because the U.S. was in eminent danger from Saddam's WMD. And thousands of National Guard troups that are going back to Iraq beginning in December for their second tour of duty only signed up for the one tour that was part of their original contract. Some regular military have been to Iraq three and four times, and now there is talk of extending the tours of five brigades by up to four months. So clearly our troops are experiencing a very different enlistment that what they thought they were signing up for.
At the 2003 Dinner he was also serious but primarily in remembrance of two journalists who died during the invasion of Iraq. I guess my problem is that if Bush is going get solemn for journalists, college students and college professors, I really think that he should do so also for the soldiers in Iraq who are in harms way primarily because he insists that they be there. He is the single person publicly most responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians. Yet despite his often mentioning the troops in his speeches I don't really think he understands the huge sacrifice they and their families are making for him.
Other Links:
History of Bush at Corresondents Dinners
http://www.centredaily.com/128/story/75315.html
2007 Dinner
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003574772
Sheryl Crow confronts Karl Rove at 2007 Dinner
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david-and-sheryl-crow/karl-rove-gets-thrown-und_b_46501.html
Friday, April 20, 2007
Gonzales: Baffled and Bewildered
Gonzales seemed a little bewildered yesterday, I think he is still truly baffled why everyone is making such a big deal about the fired U.S. Attorneys. In his 03/07/2007 editorial that appeared in USA Today he wrote that he hoped the "episode ultimately will be recognized for what it is: an overblown personnel matter." He doesn't seem to get that the Democrats are grasping at this wispy straw of an offense and using it as an excuse to get him before the Senate and do their best to get him fired.
Gonzales has done a number of ethically questionable things in his service to the Bush Administration but I believe what is really behind Attorneygate is Gonzales role in condoning torture and mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Amy Goodman has similar opinion ).
While I really don't think Gonzales is stupid or incompetent, I can't fathom how anyone cannot understand the repercussions of condoning torture at any time but especially while we are involved in a war. Gonzales, when he was White House counsel, went along with the legal opinion written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in the "War on Terror". This opinion opened the door for the use of torture and other inhumane treatment to prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And while I suppose someone (not me) could make the argument that these people are terrorists and they don't deserve humane treatment, etc., the problem is that the U.S. military has tended to cast a very wide net when rounding up suspected terrorists and as a result many, many people who are not terrorists and have broken no laws were put into prison. Since the U.S. took it over, Abu Ghraib in particular has held hundreds and probably thousands of prisoners who had done nothing wrong except be Iraqi. While I do not think that every prisoner at Abu Ghraib was badly mistreated (or at least I hope not) I'm sure that many innocent people were. And I'm sure that everyone in Baghdad now probably knows someone or knows someone who had a family member, friend or acquaintance who was in Abu Ghraib and has heard stories of how bad it was. Not a great way to win the hearts and minds of the people whose country you are occupying.
Though, I believe that it is important that the judiciary be relatively nonpartisan, let's get real. It has become customary for incoming presidents to replace all or the vast majority of the U.S. Attorneys left over from the previous administration with their own appointees (LA Times, 03/23/07). And while the President does take recommendations from Senators and others, it is ultimately his decision who he decides to appoint. While firing U.S. Attorneys when they are in the process of investigating someone in your party seems a bit ethically questionable there isn't any law against it. And though more or less secretly changing the statute that covers how attorneys are appointed (as Gonzales admitted to doing in his Senate testimony) seems ethically questionable there isn't a law against it. And saying that the firings were in no way politically motivated but were for "performance-related" reasons despite emails which indicate otherwise isn't necessarily a lie but it makes the Justice Department seem at best disorganized and at worst... well, what's one more lie? And again, there is no law against it unless you count perjury, but they managed to throw Libby under the bus without involving Bush or Cheney and there does seem to be a limitless supply of loyal underling "Bushies" willing to take a fall for their guy or his cronies.
Personally I believe Gonzales when he says he delegated to others the duty of compiling a list of which U.S. Attorneys were going to be fired: 1) because it was ultimately up to the President who was fired and who wasn't; 2) he does have a lot to do as head of the Justice Department and could have been as he claimed in his Senate testimony too busy to get involved (DOJ organizational chart); and 3) if he was lying I think he would have done a better job of coming up with more believable story about his involvement.
And why should he have have a hand in it? As he has said over and over again the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling at the Justice Department were communicating with Harriet Miers and others at the White House to compile a list of which U.S. Attorneys were to be fired. Gonzales really didn't need to be involved if the White House was ultimately making the decision. For some reason I don't think Gonzales ever said this very clearly or maybe it was an answer he didn't want to give. He is in sort of Catch-22 position: if he admits that the decision was made in the White House then the firings are going to be criticized for being political in nature, but when he claims, as he did in his USA Today editorial, the firings were done for "personnel" reasons, it indicates that the decision was not so much political but relied heavily on input from the Dept. of Justice and he runs the risk of being held solely responsible for mishandling the situation. Gonzales looks especially incompetent because he admitted yesterday that he OK'd the firing of the U.S. Attorneys without even reviewing their personnel records, which indicates that either the White House made the decision so it didn't matter what he did or didn't know about it; or that he was very negligent: he may have been busy but he could have spent an hour looking over the reasons why he was about to fire eight high-profile employees.
Maybe at this point he thinks that if he just pretends he didn't know anything about any of it, it will all go away like a bad dream.
More links:
Attorneygate Timeline
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
The Roots of Torture
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
Article regarding White House Torture Memo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
Editorial on Gonzales' history regarding human rights
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/14035/
Gonzales has done a number of ethically questionable things in his service to the Bush Administration but I believe what is really behind Attorneygate is Gonzales role in condoning torture and mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (Amy Goodman has similar opinion ).
While I really don't think Gonzales is stupid or incompetent, I can't fathom how anyone cannot understand the repercussions of condoning torture at any time but especially while we are involved in a war. Gonzales, when he was White House counsel, went along with the legal opinion written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that the Geneva Conventions did not apply in the "War on Terror". This opinion opened the door for the use of torture and other inhumane treatment to prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And while I suppose someone (not me) could make the argument that these people are terrorists and they don't deserve humane treatment, etc., the problem is that the U.S. military has tended to cast a very wide net when rounding up suspected terrorists and as a result many, many people who are not terrorists and have broken no laws were put into prison. Since the U.S. took it over, Abu Ghraib in particular has held hundreds and probably thousands of prisoners who had done nothing wrong except be Iraqi. While I do not think that every prisoner at Abu Ghraib was badly mistreated (or at least I hope not) I'm sure that many innocent people were. And I'm sure that everyone in Baghdad now probably knows someone or knows someone who had a family member, friend or acquaintance who was in Abu Ghraib and has heard stories of how bad it was. Not a great way to win the hearts and minds of the people whose country you are occupying.
Though, I believe that it is important that the judiciary be relatively nonpartisan, let's get real. It has become customary for incoming presidents to replace all or the vast majority of the U.S. Attorneys left over from the previous administration with their own appointees (LA Times, 03/23/07). And while the President does take recommendations from Senators and others, it is ultimately his decision who he decides to appoint. While firing U.S. Attorneys when they are in the process of investigating someone in your party seems a bit ethically questionable there isn't any law against it. And though more or less secretly changing the statute that covers how attorneys are appointed (as Gonzales admitted to doing in his Senate testimony) seems ethically questionable there isn't a law against it. And saying that the firings were in no way politically motivated but were for "performance-related" reasons despite emails which indicate otherwise isn't necessarily a lie but it makes the Justice Department seem at best disorganized and at worst... well, what's one more lie? And again, there is no law against it unless you count perjury, but they managed to throw Libby under the bus without involving Bush or Cheney and there does seem to be a limitless supply of loyal underling "Bushies" willing to take a fall for their guy or his cronies.
Personally I believe Gonzales when he says he delegated to others the duty of compiling a list of which U.S. Attorneys were going to be fired: 1) because it was ultimately up to the President who was fired and who wasn't; 2) he does have a lot to do as head of the Justice Department and could have been as he claimed in his Senate testimony too busy to get involved (DOJ organizational chart); and 3) if he was lying I think he would have done a better job of coming up with more believable story about his involvement.
And why should he have have a hand in it? As he has said over and over again the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling at the Justice Department were communicating with Harriet Miers and others at the White House to compile a list of which U.S. Attorneys were to be fired. Gonzales really didn't need to be involved if the White House was ultimately making the decision. For some reason I don't think Gonzales ever said this very clearly or maybe it was an answer he didn't want to give. He is in sort of Catch-22 position: if he admits that the decision was made in the White House then the firings are going to be criticized for being political in nature, but when he claims, as he did in his USA Today editorial, the firings were done for "personnel" reasons, it indicates that the decision was not so much political but relied heavily on input from the Dept. of Justice and he runs the risk of being held solely responsible for mishandling the situation. Gonzales looks especially incompetent because he admitted yesterday that he OK'd the firing of the U.S. Attorneys without even reviewing their personnel records, which indicates that either the White House made the decision so it didn't matter what he did or didn't know about it; or that he was very negligent: he may have been busy but he could have spent an hour looking over the reasons why he was about to fire eight high-profile employees.
Maybe at this point he thinks that if he just pretends he didn't know anything about any of it, it will all go away like a bad dream.
More links:
Attorneygate Timeline
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
The Roots of Torture
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4989481/
Article regarding White House Torture Memo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26401-2004Jun8.html
Editorial on Gonzales' history regarding human rights
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/14035/
Friday, April 6, 2007
U.S. Attorney Controversy Demystified -- Maybe
After so much media coverage of Alberto Gonzales and the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys, I realized I was a little hazy on what exactly a U.S. Attorney does. I had a vague idea that they were the local equivalent of the U.S Attorney General. In fact, I was wrong.
U.S. Attorneys act as prosecutors of criminal offenses against the U.S. Government in U.S. Court Districts -- there are 93 U.S. Attorneys and 94 U.S. Court Districts with one U.S. Attorney overseeing the districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. In their respective districts, they also "prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000547----000-.html
Similarly, the U.S. Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, represents or supervises "the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest". http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm#ag
However, unlike U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorney General also has a role in the appointment of federal judges including those who officiate in the 94 U.S. Districts as well as the U.S. Attorney themselves. The official Department of Justice website states one duty of the Attorney General is to "make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals". The keyword here is "recommendation", the Attorney General has what is intended to be almost exclusively, an advisory role.
The U.S. Attorney office in Washington and the U.S. Attorneys on the local district level come under the jurisdiction of the DoJ.
As for the current controversy, a pivotal date was March 9, 2006, when President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Patriot Act. Up until then the Attorney General was able appoint U.S. Attorneys for a temporary term of 120 days. A U.S. Attorney could only be appointed to the usual 4 year term by the President and could only officially take office after confirmation by the Senate. A provision included in the Patriot Act revised the statute, removing the 120 day limit and allowing the term of a U.S. Attorney appointed by the Attorney General to continue until the President appointed, subject to Senate approved, another candidate. This created a loophole effectively giving the Attorney General the ability to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval: if the President failed to appoint another candidate the Attorney General's appointee could remain in office until the President chose to remove them. While there are potentially legitimate reasons for the change in this statute, circumventing Senate confirmation is not one of them. Senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and other federal officials, in theory if not in always in practice, helps to prevent the President from appointing unqualified or overly partisan officials.
On December 7, 2006, it has been well publicized elsewhere that seven U.S. Attorneys were asked by the DoJ to resign. They were reportedly given no reason for their termination. (Something I haven't figured out yet is why the DoJ is requesting these resignations and not the White House since the U.S. Attorneys serve at pleasure of the President not at the pleasure of the Attorney General.)
As for the firing of the eighth U.S. Attorney, Bud Cummins: on December 15, 2006, J. Timothy Griffin, a Bush insider, was named as the U.S. Attorney of the Arkansas District. Cummins was on vacation and resigned his post a few days later on December 20, 2006. He had reportedly been planning to leave for several months yet he was told he was being asked to resign so that Griffin could be given the post. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290010
D. Kyle Sampson was Alberto Gonzales' Chief of Staff when he resigned on March 12, 2007 -- a day before the DoJ released emails that revealed Sampson's role in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. On September 13, 2006, he had sent an email to Harriet Miers (who had been White House Counsel until her resignation in January 2007), in which he urged, "that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG [Attorney General] to make USA [U.S. Attorney] appointments.... we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House". According to other emails the appointment of Griffin was to be a sort of test case to see if this plan would work. Griffin had very little experience as a prosecutor and his appointment was being questioned by both Senators (Democrats) from the state of Arkansas. Senators are traditionally asked for input regarding who is to be appointed as U.S. Attorneys in their state. http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/print.aspx?ArticleID=828918ba-6945-4db7-937c-7aaa4efa6a3a
On January 11, 2007, Democratic Senators introduced legislation to close the loophole that allowed the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorneys without seeking confirmation by the Senate.
On February 6, 2007, Paul J. McNulty, Deputy Attorney General, in a written statement told the Judiciary Committee : "At no time, however, has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim U.S. Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination, confirmation and appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. The appointment of U.S. Attorneys by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is unquestionably the appointment method preferred by both the Senate and the Administration." He also stated that the the seven U.S. Attorneys fired on December were let go because of "performance-related" issues. Unfortunately this was the first that most of the attorneys had heard that the DoJ had any problem with their performance. This assertion on the part of McNulty was another discrepancy between what had actually occurred and what the DoJ was now telling the Senate had occurred.
On February 16, J. Timothy Griffin, realizing that one way or another he'd now have to undergo the confirmation process, resigned as U.S Attorney, giving the reason that because of the controversy surrounding his appointment he would have difficulty being confirmed by the Senate.
Some pundits have said that if the President had not given any explanation beyond that it is his right to fire and replace any U.S. Attorney, who serve "at the pleasure of the President", that that would have been the end of the controversy. I really doubt that. If the Republicans were still in power in the Congress it might have ended there but if they had been in power they wouldn't have had to come up with an ill-advised plan to dodge Senate confirmation in order to get their people appointed. And because of at least one obvious politically motivating factor: Carol Lam the U.S. Attorney being fired from the Southern California District was in the middle of the Duke Cunningham prosecution, the Democrats would have been irresponsible not to look into the firings more closely no matter what reason the President gave.
At this point in the Senate's investigation into the firings the big issue is did Gonzales lie when he claimed to be out of the loop regarding the details of the plan to fire the attorneys. He is now preparing for his April 17 hearing before the Senate when I'm sure he will be questioned about D. Kyle Sampson's testimony in which he claimed that Gonzales was kept informed about the plan and it's details.
Breaking News: Monica Goodling, a Gonzales aide and DoJ liaison to the White House resigned today. She figures prominently in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17986525/
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/03/14/WashingtonDCBureau/341041.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290010
U.S. Attorneys act as prosecutors of criminal offenses against the U.S. Government in U.S. Court Districts -- there are 93 U.S. Attorneys and 94 U.S. Court Districts with one U.S. Attorney overseeing the districts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. In their respective districts, they also "prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000547----000-.html
Similarly, the U.S. Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, represents or supervises "the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest". http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm#ag
However, unlike U.S. Attorneys, the U.S. Attorney General also has a role in the appointment of federal judges including those who officiate in the 94 U.S. Districts as well as the U.S. Attorney themselves. The official Department of Justice website states one duty of the Attorney General is to "make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals". The keyword here is "recommendation", the Attorney General has what is intended to be almost exclusively, an advisory role.
The U.S. Attorney office in Washington and the U.S. Attorneys on the local district level come under the jurisdiction of the DoJ.
As for the current controversy, a pivotal date was March 9, 2006, when President George W. Bush signed into law the U.S. Patriot Act. Up until then the Attorney General was able appoint U.S. Attorneys for a temporary term of 120 days. A U.S. Attorney could only be appointed to the usual 4 year term by the President and could only officially take office after confirmation by the Senate. A provision included in the Patriot Act revised the statute, removing the 120 day limit and allowing the term of a U.S. Attorney appointed by the Attorney General to continue until the President appointed, subject to Senate approved, another candidate. This created a loophole effectively giving the Attorney General the ability to appoint U.S. Attorneys without Senate approval: if the President failed to appoint another candidate the Attorney General's appointee could remain in office until the President chose to remove them. While there are potentially legitimate reasons for the change in this statute, circumventing Senate confirmation is not one of them. Senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and other federal officials, in theory if not in always in practice, helps to prevent the President from appointing unqualified or overly partisan officials.
On December 7, 2006, it has been well publicized elsewhere that seven U.S. Attorneys were asked by the DoJ to resign. They were reportedly given no reason for their termination. (Something I haven't figured out yet is why the DoJ is requesting these resignations and not the White House since the U.S. Attorneys serve at pleasure of the President not at the pleasure of the Attorney General.)
As for the firing of the eighth U.S. Attorney, Bud Cummins: on December 15, 2006, J. Timothy Griffin, a Bush insider, was named as the U.S. Attorney of the Arkansas District. Cummins was on vacation and resigned his post a few days later on December 20, 2006. He had reportedly been planning to leave for several months yet he was told he was being asked to resign so that Griffin could be given the post. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290010
D. Kyle Sampson was Alberto Gonzales' Chief of Staff when he resigned on March 12, 2007 -- a day before the DoJ released emails that revealed Sampson's role in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys. On September 13, 2006, he had sent an email to Harriet Miers (who had been White House Counsel until her resignation in January 2007), in which he urged, "that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG [Attorney General] to make USA [U.S. Attorney] appointments.... we can give far less deference to home state senators and thereby get 1.) our preferred person appointed and 2.) do it far faster and more efficiently at less political costs to the White House". According to other emails the appointment of Griffin was to be a sort of test case to see if this plan would work. Griffin had very little experience as a prosecutor and his appointment was being questioned by both Senators (Democrats) from the state of Arkansas. Senators are traditionally asked for input regarding who is to be appointed as U.S. Attorneys in their state. http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/print.aspx?ArticleID=828918ba-6945-4db7-937c-7aaa4efa6a3a
On January 11, 2007, Democratic Senators introduced legislation to close the loophole that allowed the Attorney General to appoint U.S. Attorneys without seeking confirmation by the Senate.
On February 6, 2007, Paul J. McNulty, Deputy Attorney General, in a written statement told the Judiciary Committee : "At no time, however, has the Administration sought to avoid the Senate confirmation process by appointing an interim U.S. Attorney and then refusing to move forward, in consultation with home-State Senators, on the selection, nomination, confirmation and appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. The appointment of U.S. Attorneys by and with the advice and consent of the Senate is unquestionably the appointment method preferred by both the Senate and the Administration." He also stated that the the seven U.S. Attorneys fired on December were let go because of "performance-related" issues. Unfortunately this was the first that most of the attorneys had heard that the DoJ had any problem with their performance. This assertion on the part of McNulty was another discrepancy between what had actually occurred and what the DoJ was now telling the Senate had occurred.
On February 16, J. Timothy Griffin, realizing that one way or another he'd now have to undergo the confirmation process, resigned as U.S Attorney, giving the reason that because of the controversy surrounding his appointment he would have difficulty being confirmed by the Senate.
Some pundits have said that if the President had not given any explanation beyond that it is his right to fire and replace any U.S. Attorney, who serve "at the pleasure of the President", that that would have been the end of the controversy. I really doubt that. If the Republicans were still in power in the Congress it might have ended there but if they had been in power they wouldn't have had to come up with an ill-advised plan to dodge Senate confirmation in order to get their people appointed. And because of at least one obvious politically motivating factor: Carol Lam the U.S. Attorney being fired from the Southern California District was in the middle of the Duke Cunningham prosecution, the Democrats would have been irresponsible not to look into the firings more closely no matter what reason the President gave.
At this point in the Senate's investigation into the firings the big issue is did Gonzales lie when he claimed to be out of the loop regarding the details of the plan to fire the attorneys. He is now preparing for his April 17 hearing before the Senate when I'm sure he will be questioned about D. Kyle Sampson's testimony in which he claimed that Gonzales was kept informed about the plan and it's details.
Breaking News: Monica Goodling, a Gonzales aide and DoJ liaison to the White House resigned today. She figures prominently in the firing of the U.S. Attorneys -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17986525/
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/03/14/WashingtonDCBureau/341041.html
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/usa-timeline.php
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703290010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)