My LTE on Abu G

I was a bit surprised when I received word from the Chicago Tribune that my letter would be included in Sunday's paper.  This wasn't the first time I had called out one of their columnists for gross distortions or outright lies presented as fact.  But this is the first time one of my responses actually made the cut.

My letter dealt with the recent contortions* of Charles Krauthammer, wherein he calls for Alberto Gonzales to resign:
^{*registration required}

It's not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

Here* is what I had to say about Charles' argument:
^{*registration required}

I was surprised to see Charles Krauthammer calling for Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales' resignation in the wake of the U.S. attorney scandal ("Gonzales must pack his bags," Commentary, March 26).

Of course, his reasoning is that since the firings were perfectly reasonable, the fact that Gonzales allowed it to become such a major issue is the reason he should resign. That's well and good, if you buy into his (and the administration's) argument that these firings were somehow routine.

He points to Janet Reno's firing of all 93 U.S. attorneys in March 1993 and tries to portray the December firings as more or less the same thing.

There's a major difference, though, that Krauthammer fails to recognize—the U.S. attorneys appointed by the first President Bush knew there was very little chance the Clinton administration would keep them. Political appointees are routinely replaced by incoming presidents.

On the other hand, the firing of a U.S. attorney in the middle of a president's term is quite rare, and when they have occurred they have been for very specific violations of the public trust. Nobody is saying that these fired attorneys were guilty of any such gross violation. In fact the reason being given—that they were dismissed for bad performance—flies in the face of the positive job reviews they had received. Add to that the suggestion that the firings were somehow tied to investigations of Democrats that didn't move fast enough, or those of Republicans that weren't buried, and it's easy to see why Gonzales' critics are crying foul.

At the end of his column Krauthammer wrote, "Until the Democrats come up with any real evidence of [obstruction of justice]—and they have not—this affair remains a pseudo-scandal." Of course he doesn't mention how the Democrats are supposed to obtain such evidence, if it exists.

The most obvious way is what the Democrats have been calling for, and what the White House and Bush apologists like Krauthammer have so far rejected—open and sworn testimony by those involved.

•  Tip jar

  by John H on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:28:32 AM PDT

•  Well done

  Why do they keep trotting out this bogus 'Clinton did it too' canard? Especially lame in this case.

  And:

  Of course he doesn't mention how the Democrats are supposed to obtain such evidence, if it exists.

  Their circular logic and flimsy talking points routinely put their tiny little heads directly into their anuses. At least you're consistent, Charles.

  

  by bumblebums on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:52:31 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    One point I wish I had made in my letter was the fact that nobody complained when Dumbya fired all 93 attorney in 2001.  They make it sound like 'Clinton fired 93 and nobody said a word, but when Bush fires 8 he gets hammered'.

    by John H on Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 08:59:52 AM PDT