What Next?
So this U.S. Attorney scandal is growing at an unbelievable pace. It actually looks like the President, the White House counsel, the Attorney General, and at least one U.S. senator were involved in an effort to put political pressure on U.S. Attorneys in general and to remove "less cooperative" U.S. Attorneys from office. And the "lack of cooperation" was in . . . bogus voting fraud cases, not to mention prosecutions of Republican corruption.
Just a few days ago, I didn't think that Gonzalez would resign--he's too close to Bush. Today I'm not so sure. The question is whether members of Congress push back. At this point, between the abuse of national security letters and the U.S. Attorneys scandal, there's really no plausible argument that the A-G hasn't lied to congressional committees. Under divided government, this seems like something the A-G, the DAG, etc. can't get away with. (If the GOP was still in charge, I think Gonzalez would get away with this, btw.) Staffers are starting to fall on their swords. Can the principals be far behind?
But that's not what I wanted to post on. My question is, literally, What Next?
We now know that this Administration electronically spied on U.S. "persons," and lied about it. They abused at least one section of the USA PATRIOT Act, and lied about it. They have OK'ed torture and "extraordinary rendition." They have turned a blind-eye to the actual conditions and treatment of returning wounded vets, while pounding the drum on "Support the Troops." They crossed the line is politicizing law enforcement, especially in trumped-up voting fraud cases against the opposition.
The GOP has seen it's number two in the House indicted and the VP's chief of staff convicted of four felony counts. At least two other powerful members of the GOP congressional power structure were forced to resign and are now in federal prison.
This is not politics as usual, folks. There is always corruption, but this much, at this high a level (did I mention the number three at the CIA?) . . . even a jaded cynic like me has trouble with this.
But what don't we know? I'm always of a mind that we, the General Public, don't know the worst of it. If we know all of this, what is it we don't know?
posted by Number Three @ 6:47 AM
6 Comments:
I think one of the more interesting things about this particular story was how long Josh Marshall at TPM was on it before it hit the MSM this past week, especially Krugman's piece over at NYT. If you happened to read Krugman (whom I like) and knew about TPM it was a bit laughable -- for the most part Krugman just ate the left over crumbs at Marshall's banquet table. Were it not for some real, old-fashioned, reporting -- you know the kind that newspapers used to do before they made it their policy to cozy up to the government -- I think this thing would have never made it to the NYT> or WaPo.
For me newspapers and TV are quickly becoming more irrelevant every day. In fact, it's quite clear that because of owner/editorial/advertiser pressure they are more concerned about sales than real reporting. Once in a while a Dana Priest will blow the top off something like Walter Reed, but not often enough. And then a Dana Priest will write the obvious that Plame must have been covert for the investigation of her outing to have ever gone forward, yet elsewhere in WaPo we get relentless lies about how she wasn't (in direct contradicition to Fitzgerald's post-conviction comments). It seems a fairly obvious editorial decision – do you let your paper look schizophrenic by reporting party-line lies under the guise of balance or do you actually double check the content?
Check out this primary document, now up at TPM. I can hardly wait to see how the Republican media-in-pocket noise machine spins this piece of damning evidence for WH manipulation of US Attorneys.
Also check out a well-deserved hat tip to TPM by Time's Jay Carney.
Here's my question: what happens to all those cases of state and local Dem politicians prosecuted by Bush USAs? Do we start hearing about those now as a whole series of bogus prosecutions start coming to the surface? And what happens in places like CA and KY where you have serious cases of GOP corruption that have been stalled by the higher-ups?
Paul, I disagree a bit on Krugman. Rather than just recycling TPM, my understanding is that PK added something new: the issue of bogus charges leveled in NJ against Menendez. That may just be the tip of iceberg.
TcMcD,
That's why I said "for the most part." That was Krugman's one important addition, but I still don't think it was as important as Marshall's relentless pursuit of the issue, which undoubtedly got Krugman and others to start asking some other questions Marshall didn't think to ask.
Another hat tip to Josh Marshall by Dan Froomkin over at WaPo. Just as I like Krugman, I like Froomkin, but Josh Marshall's name should be listed at the top of Froomkin's list, above the WaPo, the NYT and LAT. I suppose it's progress that he gets mentioned at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home