Fred Barnes on The Beltway Boys, talking about Obama’s commitment to the 16 month Iraq withdrawal timetable (with the proviso that he will listen to the commanders on the ground):
The anti-war left is now morally bankrupt… They don’t care if there is genocide in Iraq. It’s not their problem. Luckily, Obama isn’t on their side anymore.
Right. He once didn’t care about genocide like the morally bankrupt left but now he does. And that makes him a conservative like Fred.
Anyone connected to post-Sept. 11 “enhanced interrogation measures,” no matter at arm’s length, is apparently disqualified to run Barack Obama ’s spy agency.
Hence the immolation of former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan, the president-elect’s closest intelligence adviser, as the lead candidate to run the spy agency.
The left-wing hit job on Brennan showed that liberals may have a taste for covert action after all, the spooks chuckle.
“Almost anyone working at the agency since [Sept. 11] is tainted,” says retired CIA veteran Milt Bearden, a former Pakistan station chief, expressing the facts of life.
[…]
Can anybody who could do the job, get the job?
“Beats me,” said a well-wired former senior intelligence official. “Brennan’s hands were not very dirty at all. He was apparently thrown under the bus because some ill-informed bloggers thought they were [dirty] and the transition folks didn’t have the will to explain that they were wrong.”
A former national security official and friend of Brennan, who asked not to be identified, is disgusted by what happened.
“Ninety-nine percent of” what the CIA has been doing since Sept. 11 “is not related to torture, but now everybody is tarred with this brush,” he said.
“The dirty little secret, “ he added, “is that very little has been going on since [Sept. 11] that hasn’t gone on for the last 30 years.”
By that standard, almost anybody who’s worked in operations — like the much-touted former CIA station chief Jack Devine, or the current heads of the agency’s clandestine services, Stephen Kappes and Michael Sulick — has a skeleton in the closet.
“They are going to have to go outside of that circle,” says a recently retired CIA division chief.
The article goes on to suggest Bill Bradley for the job, about which I have no firm opinion, except it’s good to hear that someone other than a participant in the torture regime (even with only *slightly* grubby hands) might be considered acceptable to some in the intelligence community.
I still have some doubts that it was only the “ill-informed” liberal bloggers who forced Brennan out of the running. Indeed, as hard as it may be to believe, it may even be possible that Obama and his top people agree with the scruffy hippies that members of the intelligence communities who were in the top echelon of the torture regime shouldn’t be running agencies in the new administration. It makes his foreign policy much tougher if he doesn’t clean house on these matters.
We all know that the kinds of things the CIA did during this period were not exactly new. (In fact, kidnapping, torture and indefinite imprisonment go back to the beginning of time.) But in the wake of revelations of similar abuses in the 1970s the country had formed a legal and cultural consensus that the United States could not do these things and live up to our ideals, even if it was in the name of national security. Saying they continued to do these things illegally and in secret is hardly a defense.
But Bush went further than that. The Cheney torture regime was designed to normalize and legalize these behaviors through a fringe theory of presidential infallibility that hadn’t been heard of since Nixon’s ignominious fall. People at high levels, like Brennan, who went along with this nefarious scheme committed a double crime — one against the statutes on the books and one against the constitution itself, by allowing the president to use a crackpot theory to immunize their behaviors through unconstitutional means. None of them should ever be allowed near powerful positions in government again.
I’ve been saying for some time that the pressure coming from the intelligence community to quickly and quietly “dispose” of this torture issue was going to be intense. And while I’m disappointed that the new administration seems to be taking prosecutions off the menu (and I believe it is a mistake) I am very pleased that they seem not to be inclined to appoint people who were directly involved in the torture regime simply to appease those who committed the crimes. That’s a necessary step in the right direction.
There was never a guarantee that any new administration wouldn’t cave completely on this one. Many important members of the political establishment, as well as people in the country at large, think torture is a good idea. They wish it could be used more here in America (except on wealthy elites,of course, who suffer enough punishment just by having their names on the police blotter.) What seems like an obvious and necessary change to most of us isn’t all that easy when you have the whole intelligence and national security apparatus saying that you’ll be responsible for killing Americans in their beds if you don’t do what they want you to do.
According to polling, only around 30% of the public think torture is never justified. It’s not a popular issue.
Update:Greenwald has much more on several aspects of this issue. (Scroll down to the next post as well.)
As he says, it’s our responsibility as engaged citizens to keep our eye on this, regardless of which party is in charge. The intelligence establishment is very powerful.
A record 1.35 million homes were in foreclosure in the third quarter, driving the foreclosure rate up to 2.97%, the Mortgage Bankers Association said Friday.
That’s a 76% increase from a year ago, according to the group’s National Delinquency Survey.
At the same time, the number of homeowners falling behind on their mortgages rose to a record 6.99%, up from 5.59% a year ago, the association said.
This means that one in 10 borrowers in America are either delinquent or in foreclosure.
Many of those troubled borrowers are in California and Florida, which have among the highest delinquency rates in the nation.
The weakened economy and mounting job losses are expected to push these numbers even higher. And that will likely affect homeowners with prime, fixed-rate mortgages, which make up the vast majority of loans and have so far held up fairly well. Until now, much of the housing market’s problems were concentrated in the subprime, adjustable-rate market, where homeowners with weak financial backgrounds got loans they ultimately couldn’t afford.
“We have not gone into past recessions with the housing market as weak as it is now, so it is likely that a much higher percentage of delinquencies caused by job losses will go to foreclosure than we have seen in the past,” said Jay Brinkmann, MBA’s chief economist.
Unemployment soared to 6.7% as payrolls shrunk 533,000 in November, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Friday. It was the largest monthly job loss in 34 years, and brought the year’s total job losses to 1.9 million.
The number of homes going into foreclosure in 2008 is on track to hit 2.2 million, Brinkmann said.
We’ll be here for as long as it takes. We’re not leaving. We’re going to be here as long as it takes,” said Eric Ramos, laid off worker.
And with that passion and determination, about 200 laid off workers of Republic Windows and Doors have decided to take a stand at 1333 N. Hickory in Chicago. They planned to stay inside the company’s building until a settlement is reached between them and the company’s bank.
Local 1110 represents the workers and union representatives say under state and federal laws, Bank of America is responsible for paying vacation pay and perhaps 60 days of pay because the workers were given a last-minute notice for losing their paychecks and their benefits.
“It’s really, really hard for everybody and not just because we’re losing our jobs. It’s because we’re losing our insurance, too. They told us that we’re going to be covered until December 15. And now they come and told us that last night, the insurance were down. So nobody has insurance right now,” said Raul Flores, laid off workers.
And losing their jobs comes just weeks before the holiday.
“I have three kids to support, and I have three kids to give presents. If in this moment I feel like I’m not even going to have money to have for Christmas night,” said Armando Robles, laid off worker.
Representatives for the company as well as Bank of America had yet to comment.
“The problem is Bank of America pulled their financing, so they had to close,” said Mark Meinster, United Electrical Workers spokesman. “So, Bank of America is standing in the way.”
The workers say they understand that companies are closing during these tough economic times. They say laws, especially when losing your job, should be followed.
“We feel mistreated. We don’t make business decisions. We just make windows but because of bad decisions we suffer, our families suffer,” said Melvin Maclin.
On the other hand, there’s always this, to make you feel better:
Can someone explain to me how it is that Peggy Noonan can claim that Bush kept us safe? Didn’t we have the worst terrorist attack in US history while he was president? Didn’t his team brush off warnings ahead of time and didn’t the president himself tell tell the CIA briefer on August 6th, 2001 that he had “covered his ass” by telling him that Bin laden was planning to attack inside the United States? Why should he get credit for “keeping us safe.” (I won’t even go into Katrina or the financial meltdown as measures of how well he did at other measures of security.)
Noonan and her friends are searching madly for some kind of bright spot in Bush’s otherwise epically failed administration. This is the best they can come up with. But while the government certainly did tighten security after 9/11 — as any president would have done, by the way — his foreign policy and military exacerbated the threat many times over.
Last week-end an ex-interrogator wrote about his experience with torture in Iraq. He wasn’t talking about the bad apples, but rather the normal, every day practice of torture under the authority of the top brass, which he claims was not only ineffective but lethally counterproductive. He discusses the ramifications of that policy:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.
Looks like Peggy Noonan and her pals don’t count American soldiers as Americans. How shocking.
I don’t think this is the beginning of a Bush rehabilitation project (although it’s never to early to start.) This seems like the sad, faint grasping at straws of tired supporters who don’t have anything to work with. But you can be sure that if another terrorist attack takes place in the US — as is probable — this will be the first thing dredged up as proof that Democrats can’t be trusted. It’s probably important to constantly push back on these memes, even if they are only weak little attempts at finding a silver lining. Someday they will come back to haunt us.
Apologies to Dennis Hartley if he’s winding up to write something about this, but I attended a screening of “Milk” last night put together by the Courage Campaign, and wanted to give some thoughts on it. (Though it’s a familiar story, there are some spoilers below.)
The film itself is superb. I wasn’t sure if it could reach the heights of the excellent Rob Epstein documentary “The Times of Harvey Milk,” winner of the Best Documentary Oscar in 1984, but it got very close. The use of archival footage and the location shooting entirely in San Francisco (they used the exact same storefront to recreate Milk’s “Castro Camera” shop that became a hangout/political office at the time) gives it a vérité quality, and the performances are so first-rate and natural. Sean Penn’s performance as Milk is ascendant, reflecting all of his persistence and joy as well as his human frailty. Milk was in the closet until he was 40, and that denial of self (“I haven’t done one thing that I’m proud of”) propelled him to live the rest of his life as a perpetual motion machine, constantly engaged in activism. He pushed those in his orbit to come out, to show up, to claim their rights and take back their democracy, saying “They’ll vote for us 2 to 1 if they know one of us.” And yet one of the first political acts he undertakes after setting up shop in San Francisco’s Castro neighborhood is partnering with the Teamsters to boycott Coors beer for refusing to sign a union contract. Eventually, after a successful boycott, the Teamsters began to hire openly gay truck drivers. Milk was an activist and part of a movement for human rights, but also a pretty shrewd political actor.
Obviously, the headlines of California’s passage of Proposition 8 loom heavily on the film. And there are a few things to take away from that. First of all, Milk lost. A lot. He ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1973. He lost. He ran again in 1975. He lost again. He ran for state Assembly against Art Agnos. He lost. Then in 1977, the board of supervisors ran district elections instead of a citywide slate. And then he won. Setbacks just made him more determined to continue the fight, both in the streets and through the political process. He could have given up at any time, for his own sanity and the stability of his love relationship (his partner and erstwhile campaign manager leaves him, not wanting to go through another campaign). And once elected, he immediately sought to pass a gay rights law, trying to bait the religious right to put up a referendum in the city (eventually they offered Prop. 6, the Briggs Amendment, which would have allowed the state to fire teachers for being gay or even TEACHERS WHO SUPPORTED THEIR GAY COLLEAGUES). The point is that you keep showing up and fighting, never settling for the way things are. The setbacks didn’t end the movement, they awakened it.
That’s a pretty good lesson. So is this. During the Prop. 6 campaign, Milk met with the Democratic Speaker of the Assembly to go over campaign literature. They didn’t feature any gay men or women, instead framing the issue as one of human rights. They refused to show the face of the discrimination. Milk raged against the flyers, and was told to keep it down, that the country wasn’t ready to accept an issue about gay rights, that the human rights angle would be more palatable.
Does that sound familiar?
Milk didn’t buy it, instead offering to debate Sen. John Briggs anywhere, anytime, throughout the state, presenting himself as a gay man arguing against the extreme measure, as the face of someone much like those who would be harmed by it. Prop. 6 lost, 65-35. Thirty years later we never learned this lesson, and the next time marriage equality comes up for a vote that simple fact, that you have to tell people who they’d be voting for and who they’d be voting against, not with abstraction, cannot be overlooked.
Finally, what cannot be forgotten is that the 1978 election which defeated the discriminatory Prop. 6 was the same election that passed Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and required a 2/3 vote in the legislature to raise any taxes in the state (and for any special taxes in municipalities). This symbol of the tax revolt on the 1980s has caused 30 years of perpetual budget crisis in California, a virtual destruction of state government. This is undiscussed in Milk, but the idea that all of these assaults on functional government and respect for rights are connected, that what impacts seniors and working people and minorities and the LGBT community are in many ways the same, is a part of the movie and of Milk’s life. Only by working together on all of the relevant issues, across groups, across ethnic and class boundaries, will we ever be able to withstand this assault and create a more decent society. The next few years of crisis offers a moment to harness the creativity and activism that has expanded over the past few years and unite those marginalized or traditionally shut out of the conversations in Washington, to bring grassroots movements forward. I believe the legacy of Harvey Milk, 30 years later, is still being formed.
You’ve probably already read about this, but if not, here’s the new article saying that Obama’s choice for treasury, Tim Geithner, is trying to oust Republican regulator, FDIC chief Sheila Bair. When you see it put like that, it sounds good right? But actually, it’s downright politically bizarre.
First, Geithner is saying she should be ousted because she isn’t a team player. Except that the media (and even unnamed members of the Obama team) have made a fetish out of the idea of having a “team of rivals” who will hash out ideas from all sides. “Team player” has almost become an insult in the last few weeks — after all in politics it’s often it’s another word for …. (gulp) partisan.
Now, Bair is a Republican, which according to the conventional wisdom would make her a most coveted member of the post-partisan Obama administration, but which might explain why she isn’t considered a good team player. Except the complaint isn’t that she’s a loyal Bushie. It’s that she is overly concerned with main street and homeowners and demanding too much accountability from the financial sector. In other words, she’s behaving too much like you might wishfully expect a Democrat to behave.
I don’t know the details of the “problems” obviously and perhaps there’s more to it than meets the eye. But the whole thing doesn’t scan politically any way you look at it. The team of rivals concept is a bit of pop politics, so I don’t really care about it. But the idea that you would not want someone on board who believes in strong regulation of the financial sector and who will keep an eye on the concerns of the rest of the economy seems to me to be wrongheaded, particularly since having a Republican in such a position would be politically invaluable. (In any case it would probably be a good idea to balance out the Republican Iran-Contra, Iraqgate criminals with nearly extinct responsible ones, just for symmetry’s sake if nothing else.)
I don’t have a strong opinion about Geithner, but we have been assured many times that the buck stops with Obama on all decisions. If it’s seriously being considered, let’s hope he overrules it. The politics alone are dissonant and bizarre.
Both Dodd and Frank have reportedly written to Obama requesting that Bair be kept on, so that’s a positive sign.
Update: Also positive is Biden’s announcement of Jared Bernstein as his chief economic advisor. Bernstein is a progressive economist who will bring a much needed point of view to the team.
I recall during all the hoohah over the choice of Clinton for SOS, that everyone was freaking out over what it meant to Biden. I can’t recall who said it, but someone allegedly in the know said that Biden had indicated he was more interested in a domestic portfolio. If that’s true, then perhaps this is even better news than it appears.
Tom Daschle came right out today and said that you can’t fix the economy without fixing the health care crisis. Interestingly, health care is one of the only sectors in today’s washout of a jobs report where hiring went up. The demand is there, and making the system more equitable, accessible and affordable would not only help every American cope with their bills and move from job to job, but would also make American business more competitive. It’s very good that the connection between health care and the broader economy is being made.
“There is no question that the economic health of this country is directly related to our ability to reform our health-care system,” Daschle said.
Daschle cited the fact that high health care costs are preventing U.S. businesses from staying competitive and creating jobs. “That’s what makes this so urgent and so much a part of the economic recovery process,” Daschle said. “I believe that for the first time in American history, health-care reform will be done.”
Former senator Thomas A. Daschle, Obama’s point person on health care, launched an effort to create political momentum yesterday in a conference call with 1,000 invited supporters culled from 10,000 who had expressed interest in health issues, promising it would be the first of many opportunities for Americans to weigh in.
The health-care mobilization taking shape before Obama even takes office will include online videos, blogs and e-mail alerts as well as traditional public forums. Already, several thousand people have posted comments on health on the Obama transition Web site […]
It is the first attempt by the Obama team to harness its vast and sophisticated grass-roots network to shape public policy. Although the president-elect is a long way from crafting actual legislation, he promised during the campaign to make the twin challenge of controlling health-care costs and expanding coverage a top priority in his first term.
This really looks like they’re requesting policy ideas from citizens to work into their overall framework, although you never can tell. But by allowing people to invest in the policy, it certainly gives momentum to any effort to get it through Congress. The transition team is soliciting ideas through online comments and community forums. And health care came up quite a bit in the transition team’s meeting with community organizers and activists yesterday. Plus, they’re providing open access to all meetings, documents, and position papers from various groups, as well as offering the ability to post comments about them.
The most important thing is that the emphasis on building a grassroots movement on health care is unmatched by any other issue. It’s clear they want to make a go at this early in the first term, with the help of their supporters.
And that provides an opportunity. There’s been a lot of hand-wringing in the traditional media over “what is Obama going to do with his email list,” but I think that has it a bit backward. It’s really “what is the list going to do with Obama.” Already in California I’m seeing a lot of ideas exchanged, ad hoc groups formed, meetings set up, and initiatives set, both on national and local issues. In essence, Obama doesn’t have total control over “harnessing” the grassroots network from the campaign; the grassroots will make the determination about what they want to work on and how. Marshall Ganz, who kind of pioneered Obama’s community organizing in the campaign and whose roots in community activism go back to Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, had this to say about it:
“Here we have a guy who won who was really propelled into office–I don’t want to say that–supported through the creation of a movement. And so, now what? Can he lead it from the presidency? Probably not. There are lots of good reasons why that would be problematic. Or why that would quickly turn into emails from Barack saying ‘Please send a letter to X.’ Which is just the old form of what we were talking about before, politics as marketing. It could become a network of some kind, it could become an organization. If it became an organization, something like Campaign for a New America, we have to look at questions of finance and governance, as to how to enable something like that to work. But there’s a foundation out there that didn’t exist before, and it’s not going to go away. My colleague Bob Putnam talks about social capital, there’s a kind of civic capital that’s been created here. It’s not going to disappear.”
I then asked him where all that social knowledge embedded in the network was going to go–the 23,000 Camp Obama organizers, the super-volunteers, the awareness of all the nodes at the local level. What would it be like to govern with this capacity?
Ganz replied, “I agree. That’s what’s being debated right now. There’s a team of organizers in Chicago right now who are working on this question. The field organizers and a lot of the people who built this thing–not all of them want to go off and have jobs in Washington. A lot of them are committed to an organizing vision here and they fought for it throughout the campaign. That’s one reason the campaign adopted much more of an organizing approach than it was inclined to at the beginning….New Hampshire was one of the worst marketing operations that we’ve seen. And so he lost, and we learned something from that. It was as stereotypically a marketing operation as South Carolina was an organizing operation, or Iowa. The caucuses are interesting because even if you don’t believe in organizing, you have to, otherwise you’re screwed. You arrive at a lot of organizing elements tactically, not because you necessarily want to create democratic organization.” […]
“People are all so used to thinking, a lot of groups and organizations are sort of saying, ‘who’s going to get the list? who’s going to get the list? They sort of think of 1.5 million names, who’s going to get it? You can transfer a list, but you can’t transfer people that way. That’s what’s out there, is people. Over the next few weeks, months, there’s going to be some working thru this. It’s very important what Obama decides. Whether to try to support some kind of organized effort, that’s rooted in the campaign, or not.”
I think the way the transition team has approached health care offers an opportunity for grassroots types to “make them do it.” Because coming up with something called “reform” would be a waste. Heck, the insurance industry lobby has a reform proposal (their big idea is for the government to subsidize health care to make it affordable while they get to charge the same price for the same kind of crappy care! Brilliant!). Progressives have an opportunity to be in on the conversation for what shape the actual reform will take, and since the Obama Administration is tipping their hand as to how fundamental to success the grasroots will be, progressives have non-trivial leverage over that form. There is a calculation that something as big as reforming the health care industry cannot get done without individuals all over the country playing a part. That process is something new and I would imagine pretty flexible. It’s not an actual seat at the table, but it’s pretty darn close.
There’s a potential to become an active participant in how these issues play out instead of the passive role of commenting and harrumphing after the fact. And yes, the same tools and techniques can be applied when Obama does something many of us don’t like. This is going to be a powerful force in the years to come, and it will most certainly not be an adjunct of the President. I don’t think it can be fully understood where it will go just yet, but the potential is exciting.
I have only been tangentially aware of this wingnut conspiracy theory that Obama isn’t really a US citizen. It’s the typical kooky stuff you see when Democrats are in charge.
[L]egions of anti-Obama bloggers are so convinced he was born in Kenya that they’ve filed more than a dozen lawsuits nationwide.
They cite the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be “natural born citizens.” They want the election declared void if Obama doesn’t deliver an original birth certificate — subject to an inspection by forensic experts — to be sure.
One litigant’s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.
Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obama’s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.
Like most of the commentators on this issue, I wouldn’t expect them to get involved. But then I insisted they wouldn’t get involved in Bush vs Gore either. You just never know.
But the mere fact that they are considering it gives the whole thing currency it shouldn’t have. Evidently, the court considers hearing a lot of pending stays and rarely grants them, so this isn’t entirely unusual. But this is real crackpot stuff you would think could have been disposed of without the full court having to consider it. The fact that it was Thomas who did it just makes it all the more questionable.
This is just the first of many national underground obsession among the wingnuts. They love this stuff — the kookier the better. The problem is when it goes mainstream — and sometimes it does. It pays to keep an eye on them.
[Barney] Frank predicted that regulatory legislation aimed at preventing abuses related to subprime mortgages and credit cards stood a much better chance next year, when Democrats have greater majorities in the House and Senate.”It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process,” he said. “My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan.”Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression,” Frank said.
He also got off another good one. The article is about how Democrats in the congress (not just Frank) are pressuring Obama to get more involved in the economic crisis:
“At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time,” Frank said. “I’m afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He’s got to remedy that situation.”
I agree. It’s not that we have too many presidents. It’s that, at the moment, we don’t have any.
Back in August of 07, when the Democrats whiffed on the US Attorney scandals, I wrote this:
I assume that the Dems have decided that there’s nothing to be gained politically by pursuing these issues any further so they don’t want to bother. And they are right to the extent that the Republicans will howl like she-wolves if a new Democratic administration tries to fire the GOP whores they’ve installed throughout the department and now that Gonzo is out they’ve lost their villain of the piece.
Mary Beth Buchanan was appointed by President Bush to serve as U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh in Sept. 2001. Buchanan has held several significant posts within the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales Justice Department, most notably serving as director the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Just last month, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that Buchanan’s reign was expected to end. Indeed, when a new president is elected, U.S. attorneys of both parties generally submit their resignations to make way for the new appointees. But Buchanan has other plans:
Despite a new administration coming into power, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said she plans to stick around.“It doesn’t serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time,” she said yesterday. […] More than that, she said she would consider working in the Obama administration. She would not discuss what her future might hold beyond the U.S. attorney’s office. “I am open to considering further service to the United States,” Ms. Buchanan said.
She’s been described by colleagues as the quintessential loyal Bushie. “She is very focused to the department first of all,” said one assistant U.S. attorney, who asked not to be named. “She’s not independent, and I don’t think she wants to be.” During her tenure, Buchanan has been criticized for bringing politically-motivated investigations and charges against politicians in Western Pennsylvania, none more famous than the public corruption case against a local high-profile Democrat Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. Former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh told Congress that the Wecht prosecution is “not the type of case normally constituting a federal ‘corruption’ case brought against a local official.” Buchanan hired Monica Goodling, and she hand-picked a Pittsburgh attorney to serve as the U.S. prosecutor in Alaska, going over the heads of Sens. Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski.
This is a Republican soldier and if Obama attempts to fire her, she will become a martyr to the cause. And she’s not alone. They are all over the Justice Department.
When the US Attorney scandal broke, you’ll recall that there was a lot of wingnut chatter saying that because Bill Clinton had asked for the resignations of all US Attorney’s at the beginning of his term, Bush had a perfect right to fire US Attorneys who refused to do political dirty work. They set the stage for this at the time. It was entirely predictable that the new administration would be held to a completely new standard — he would not be allowed to fire any US Attorney who had been appointed by Bush for any reason at all or risk being accused of using the Justice department for partisan gain. It’s how they roll.
US Attorneys should be apolitical as much as possible. They most certainly should NOT be hyper political actors as this person was, working closely with a disgraced Attorney General and involved in the scandals. It’s outrageous that anyone like her would even still be in the Justice Department today under Mukasey.
If she stays, she will be working against the Obama administration from within. There are probably many others like her at all levels, some burrowed very deeply. After all, the US Attorneys were fired for refusing to go along with political prosecutions or to make way for political friends. You have to wonder about those who weren’t fired.
The Demo0crats did the new president no favors by not adequately pursuing this scandal and leaving it in the hands of Mukasey’s department. There may be some individual repercussions, but without a full public investigation of the rot inside the DOJ during the Bush years, it left many of these people in place and gave the Republicans a weapon with which to threaten the new president. It will be interesting to see how Obama responds to the threat.