The U.S. Attorney scandal

Maybe this weekend I will get around to writing more about this, but until then, I strongly suggest that everyone go to Talking Points Memo for all the details. Be sure to check the recent archives as well as the main page. Josh Marshall and the rest of his staff have been all over this matter. Indeed, Josh has been covering the roots of the whole scandal for a long time.

Here are some quick thoughts:

• There is no freaking way that Gonzales did not know everything that was going on. More on that in a moment.
• This whole scheme was designed to turn DoJ into Bush's political hit squad. In other words, the U.S. Attorney (USA) offices across the nation would be occupied by Bush political operatives, working almost solely to achieve political ends. This would be a way to consolidate power in the White House while reducing the power and oversight of the Congress so that the Bush administration could achieve through alternative means what could not be done directly through Congress. Let me tell ya, folks, this is what happened in Texas via the judicial system. That's a long story, but I can tell you that a good bit of it happened when ol' George was governor and Gonzales was in one of his several appointed positions.
• Given that this was a scheme devised in the White House, Gonzales was given the assignment of carrying it out. No one else in the Bush administration was in a position to do so. The point man had to be Gonzales. That's why there is no freaking way that Gonzales did not know everything that was going on.
• One of the ways the wingers and members of the Bush administration are trying to justify all of this is by claiming that Clinton did the same thing. They have spent years and untold millions of dollars claiming that Clinton was an evil, amoral SOB that almost single-handedly destroyed all that was good and right in America, and NOW they're saying that Bush administration's conduct is O.K. because Clinton did the same thing. WTF????
  

And one more thing...I have been saying for a long time and repeatedly that the Bush administration is more concerned about power than policy, more interested in appearances than substance, more interested in keeping power and control than actually doing something constructive. In short, I have claimed (and I am far, far, far from being alone) that the Bush administration does not give a damn about what is good for the country, but instead only cares about playing politics. And there is something in this scandal to support my view.

On September 17, 2006, the current fall guy, Gonzales's former chief of staff Kyle Sampson, sent an email to then White House counsel Harriet Miers which said among other things the following:

I am only in favor of executing on a plan to push some USAs out if we really are ready and willing to put in the time necessary to select candidates and get them appointed -- It will be counterproductive to DOJ operations if we push USAs out and then don't have replacements ready to roll immediately. In addition, I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA 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.

(emphasis added). The italicized portion highlights the political aspects of this scheme--and supports what I said above about reducing the power and oversight of Congress.

However, it is the bold faced portion that just knocked me over when I first read it. When it comes to pushing U.S. Attorneys out of power to achieve purely political objectives, the Bush administration was aware of the need to have a plan in place for the aftermath. And yet, when it came to pushing a dictator out of power through military invasion, the Bush administration saw no need to have--and indeed did not have--a plan in place for the aftermath.

Having a plan to achieve political gains was seen as crucial, while having a post-war plan was not. Can anyone explain why a comparatively petty political matter was considered more important that doing something that could have saved the lives of Americans in Iraq and innocent Iraqis?