I just love the use of the passive voice when a government scandal is being “explained.” Probably the quintessential form of this is the phrase, “mistakes were made.” So, I was tickled to read that President Bush used that phrase when commenting on the Justice Department dismissing eight U.S. attorneys for political reasons having to do with their personal loyalty to President Bush as opposed to professional reasons having to do with their ability to do their jobs.
“Mistakes were made, and I’m frankly not happy about it,” Bush said during a joint news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico.
. . .
[Attorney General] Gonzales acknowledged that mistakes were made in the dismissal of the federal prosecutors, but he rejected calls for his resignation from Democrats incensed by fresh evidence that the Bush administration testified inaccurately about its role in the controversy.
Gonzales went on to “accept responsibility,” but placed the blame on his chief of staff. The Bush administration has correctly noted that the U.S. Attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the President,” but went on to falsely assert that these sorts of dismissals are customary.
In the past, incoming administrations have replaced United States attorneys with their own presidential appointees after taking over from the other political party, as President Bill Clinton did when he won the White House after 12 years of Republican control. But neither the Clinton nor the Reagan administrations sought the removal of United States attorneys in their second terms.
Mark Silva, writing for the Chicago Tribune has a good recap on the story to date:
The saga started after Bush’s re-election in 2004 with a recommendation to the Justice Department by Harriet Miers, then-counsel to the president, that all 93 of the nation’s federal prosecutors be replaced. The White House explained that Miers, whom Bush later offered and withdrew as a Supreme Court nominee, was looking for “fresh blood” in the prosecutors’ offices.
. . .
Kyle Sampson, who was chief of staff to Gonzales and rejected Miers’ recommendation to replace all the prosecutors, resigned Monday after Gonzales blamed him for the withholding of information about the firings from Congress.
. . .
Democrats say the firings were politically motivated. The White House says that the firings mostly were based on poor job performance.
. . .
Q–Was partisan politics involved in any of these cases?
A–The administration insists it was not, but critics think otherwise. One of those fired, David Iglesias of New Mexico, said two New Mexico Republicans, Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, called him to ask whether a political corruption investigation involving a prominent Democrat would be finished by Election Day 2006. He told them it would not. The Justice Department confirmed that Domenici called the agency to complain about Iglesias, and Iglesias was later dismissed.
Q–Are there indications that Iglesias had a poor job performance?
A–Iglesias was given a strong job evaluation in 2005. But Dan Bartlett, counselor to the president, said Justice Department officials “felt that he was not managing the office as well as it should be” and “didn’t possess leadership skills.”
Q–Is political influence the only issue here?
A–No. The controversy has heated up considerably since it was learned that Justice Department officials who testified before Congress under oath last week misstated how active the White House had been in the firings.
Q–How active?
A–It was revealed Tuesday that President Bush told Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales that he had received complaints that some prosecutors were not aggressive enough in vote fraud cases. It was also disclosed that White House counsel Harriet Miers had planned a U.S. attorney purge two years earlier. And the emerging role of White House political adviser Karl Rove has attracted particular notice.
Q–Did the Justice officials give intentionally misleading testimony to Congress about the White House role?
A–Gonzales’ chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, resigned Monday after acknowledging he did not tell other officials about the full extent of White House contacts before they testified. Bush said Wednesday that “mistakes were made” in communication, but he insisted the firings were not political.
I’ve never quite understood what “I accept full responsibility” actually means – they are just hollow words to try and get the situation to die down.
At the very least they should be followed by an apology and a statement about what your plan is to avoid such problems in the future.
In many cases they should be followed by a resignation…
In this case, it’s a matter of indifference to me whether Gonzales resigns or not. The Bush administration is, at best, incompetent from top to bottom. Taking out Gonzales is just spitting in the ocean.
He lied to congress. At the time that he lied and said no one was ever fired or ever would be for political reasons, everyone in the room knew he was lying. It took just a couple of days before it was readily provable by email trail. It’s also obvious from the President that he also knew. The guy confesses every time he opens his mouth about it. Also, the “mistake” that was made, according to the president, was that their lack of a good cover story caused scrutiny that has exploded into scandal. That’s what he has identified as “the mistake”. He still thinks firing people because they wouldn’t do his bidding is appropriate, and has repeatedly said so in the last couple of days.
This is the third or fourth impeachable offense for Gonzales. Which shouldn’t be surprising. He’s risen to the top of the justice dept., yet he has never even conducted one prosecution in his life. His qualifications are loyalty to the president, and being in possession of an annotated Federalist Society copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He’s the Michael Brown of Justice, or maybe the Harriet Miers.
Thanks for giving some equalibrium to this mess Doug. One of the great characteristics of a democracy is the opportunity to respectfully disagree. It seems the Republican party has run amuck of their own principles for less government. I am a registered Republican voter here in Kentucky, we have 3 Republicans and 7 Democtrats running for Governor in the May 22 primary. It is almost certain that no candidate will receive the 40% necesarry to preclude a run off primary, to be held June 26. I wish I could vote nonpartisan in the primary.
Accepting responsibility may seem shallow, but it beats a cover-up, which many adminstrations have treated us to, or spinning words. I agree that resignations should follow in many/most cases, but that requires a sense of ethics. That prevents most major party officials from doing the right thing.