Fred and Len Get Nervous
Oh Boy! Today’s unsigned editorial drivel at the Post is something else. Let’s see what’s going in Fred Hiatt’s bloodlust-addled brain today.
“THE WHITE HOUSE and congressional Democrats have drawn deep lines in the sand over who will testify, and how, as Congress investigates the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. The stubbornness and overheated rhetoric on both sides threaten an unnecessary constitutional crisis that would only bog down the inquiry in a distracting fight over process.”
Well gee, Mr. Hiatt, maybe it wouldn’t come down to this if the AG and the Administration hadn’t repeatedly misled Congress with “confusing” and “incomplete” statements about the matter, making it clear that the only way to extract the truth would be putting people under oath, where there are penalties for lying and a public record.
It’s worth stepping back and putting the supposed scandal in perspective. President Bush is entitled to replace his U.S. attorneys; he’d be entitled to do so if he thought they weren’t pursuing his prosecutorial priorities with sufficient vigor, or even if he just wanted to give other lawyers a shot at the jobs. The many e-mails that the administration has released for the most part suggest nothing nefarious in the dismissal process.
Ummm, yeah Fred, whatever you say buddy. Except there’s plenty of evidence of nefariousness. 3000 pages worth as a matter of fact.
It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there’s no evidence that he did
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Apparently you didn’t see David Iglesias’s editorial in the NY Times yesterday Freddy my friend: you must have been too busy dining on one the 3,500 soldiers you helped to send to die in Iraq. How’s the blood taste?
Or perhaps you don’t see the term “Lyal Bushie” as problematic, considering your editorial regarding the war in Iraq? No Mr. Hiatt, as usual you are wrong: this is a direct attack on the rule of law
Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here — is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters? — and to remember that the tables could easily be turned, as they were not so many years ago, with a Republican Congress eager to rifle through the files of a Democratic administration.
Ahhh! Now we see. It’s one of those “It’s OK If You’re A Republican” moments again. I’ll remind you, Mr. Hiatt, that Mr. Clinton’s claims of executive privilege were smacked down by the Supreme Court, using the precedent of US v. Nixon: “Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.” Perhaps you’d like to explain how plans to purge the USA’s in what is beginning to look like a deliberate attempt to game the electoral system represents “military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets”?
You, Mr. Hiatt, are nothing but a fraud, a liar, and a shill of the oiliest kind.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
