Incompetence, Dishonesty, and Contempt for Expertise
Here's Drum on the incompetence question, especially re: the Justice Department. Pointing back to John DiIulio's early criticisms of the administration, Drum notes that " George Bush and his team practically ooze contempt for the naive conceit that policy analysis is a serious business."
Yep.
They seem to view anybody who, ya know, knows anything with abject contempt.
But also note: Gonzalesgate is not about incompetence, no matter how hard some are going to try to spin it that way. It's about dishonesty. This is the same kind of move some have tried to pull when writing of the Bush administration in general...as if these were all good guys who just couldn't handle the complexity of the task.
But it just ain't so. There's incompetence, sure...but that's not the main problem. The administration's main problems are moral, not technical. It's not like the Justice Department got all confused by the complexity of the question "is it o.k. to fire people for political reasons?"
This is all just part of a general strategy that goes something like this:
(1) Deny any error. (2) Attack anyone who questions you (focus especially on their patriotism and sanity). If everyone on the entire planet sees through (1) and (2), then (3) pretend you made an innocent mistake.
Nauseating.
Here's Drum on the incompetence question, especially re: the Justice Department. Pointing back to John DiIulio's early criticisms of the administration, Drum notes that " George Bush and his team practically ooze contempt for the naive conceit that policy analysis is a serious business."
Yep.
They seem to view anybody who, ya know, knows anything with abject contempt.
But also note: Gonzalesgate is not about incompetence, no matter how hard some are going to try to spin it that way. It's about dishonesty. This is the same kind of move some have tried to pull when writing of the Bush administration in general...as if these were all good guys who just couldn't handle the complexity of the task.
But it just ain't so. There's incompetence, sure...but that's not the main problem. The administration's main problems are moral, not technical. It's not like the Justice Department got all confused by the complexity of the question "is it o.k. to fire people for political reasons?"
This is all just part of a general strategy that goes something like this:
(1) Deny any error. (2) Attack anyone who questions you (focus especially on their patriotism and sanity). If everyone on the entire planet sees through (1) and (2), then (3) pretend you made an innocent mistake.
Nauseating.
posted by Winston Smith at
5:19 PM
39 Comments:
Witch hunt.
Care to elaborate?
That about covers it, Joshua, but thanks for asking. I wasted too much time on Joe Wilson, who was more provably a liar and did more damage to the republic than Scooter Libby.
End result: Libby goes to jail, Wilson gets a movie deal. There are some things that are beyond reason in the current environment, and this is just another one of them. Now that the Democratic Party has discovered it's too fractuous to govern, all that's left is to fall back on more anti-Bush nonsense. Go for it, follow your bliss.
But this is a punishment looking for a crime. The stake is ready, the fire lit. Just have to find a guest of honor.
Lessee...the *Democrats* are too partisan and fractious to govern? Um, which party impeached a president over a blowjob, and which one smiled and nodded while a president lied us into a moronic and disastrous war?
Jeez, Tom. C'mon. Try to get some perspective. The Democrats suck...I don't think anybody would really deny that. But consider the alternative.
So is it your contention that the charges are basically illegitimate, Tom?
That is, on the question of "is it okay to fire US Attorneys for investigating/refusing to turn a blind eye to corruption within their own party," is your answer:
1) That's not what happened, but if it had, it would be a serious matter.
2) Whether or not that's what happened, it's not a very serious matter. Attorneys are political entities, not legal ones. Fire away!
3) Something else.
1), but forgive me if I skip the allegations part and wait for it all to play out.
But if you have anything of substance, anything at all, please my buddy Patterico know.
And WS, you beg the question with that "lying" stuff again.
I agree that that GOP, um, blew it in impeaching Clinton. The Democrats can repeat that mistake if they want---no conviction (removal from office) could possibly happen. And withdrawing from the war could easily be as big a mistake as getting into it.
The only comfort is in that the Democrats seem far too incoherent to do much of anything. The first 100 hours was a clown fire drill, and if your trusted news sources ignored this performance, well, it's dumber than anything the GOP's done.
Referring to an already-established conclusion is not begging the question.
Well, it's your duck blind, and I'm just a visiting duck. You sure blew me out of the water.
Hey Winst, this 'Tom Van Dyke' satirical alter ego is hilarious! More, please.
So is it your contention that the charges are basically illegitimate, Tom?
That is, on the question of "is it okay to fire US Attorneys for investigating/refusing to turn a blind eye to corruption within their own party," is your answer:
1) That's not what happened, but if it had, it would be a serious matter.
2) Whether or not that's what happened, it's not a very serious matter. Attorneys are political entities, not legal ones. Fire away!
3) Something else.
# posted by Joshua : 10:39 AM
1), but forgive me if I skip the allegations part and wait for it all to play out.
# posted by Tom Van Dyke : 2:04 PM
wait for what to play out, the self proclaimed "witch hunt". by calling it a witch hunt it is safe to assume that you think none of the allegations happened or that even if they did, they are not serious, so just answer Joshua's question.
Answer Patterico's.
And Mr. Doyle, I'm sure WS appreciates you holding his coat for him.
Answer Patterico's
I assume you are referring to this question?
What ever became of those prosecutions the Bush Administration was allegedly trying to affect with the U.S. Attorney’s firings? Were prosecutions against Democrats suddenly jump-started after the firings? Did prosecutions against Republicans die on the vine?
I’m kind of thinking that the answer is no. ...But the only specific I remember off the top of my head is that Foggo got indicted.
An indictment is not a conviction. And when you remove the prosecuting attorney who was continuing to investigate the connections between Cunningham, Foggo and Cheney, that's obstruction, and the investigation of that obstruction is not a Witch Hunt
Is there a scintilla of evidence to support your allegation of obstruction? If so, let Patterico know. Who knows, you might save the republic. He's a prosecutor himself, and is very down on such things.
About Jimmy holding my coat: funny story there.
But not directly relevant...
I'm just trying to imagine what you, Tom, and our friends on your side of the fence, would have said if Clinton's DoJ had done something exactly like this...
Now I'm trying to imagine you guys arguing passionately that there's nothing suspicious there...
Now I'm trying to imagine your reaction if Clinton said that, ya know, it's not *technically* a crime...
I don't get it.
Anonymous said: "And when you remove the prosecuting attorney who was continuing to investigate the connections between Cunningham, Foggo and Cheney, that's obstruction, and the investigation of that obstruction is not a Witch Hunt"
Tom responded with "Is there a scintilla of evidence to support your allegation of obstruction?"
What lacks evidence? Do you not believe that the attorney was investigating the connections between Cunngingham, Foggo, and Cheney? I'm asking an honest question here, 'cause honestly, I haven't been keeping up enough with this as I probably should be.
If it lacks evidence, why would people think it's true? Is it just a rumor, in your belief? Just some BS the dems started up to try to fry Bush some more?
Need..answers..
Since the Republicans set a precedential low bar for investigations by snooping into a Christmas card list, I don't see they have much to complain about here.
And doesn't the evidence usually came from the investigation rather than the other way around?
No. First you need evidence there was a crime in the first place.
Otherwise, it's a witch hunt.
The fact that Ms.Goodling invoked her 5th Amendment right in declining to testify before Congress suggests that something fishy is going on.
Along with the fact that the documents in the case contradict previous testimony by government officials to Congress, to paraphrase a cliche, means that there is enough smoke to suggest that an arson investigation is the appropriate response.
Gore Vidal remarked during the Nixon years that if Richard was caught on camera choking Pat on the White House lawn, there would be those who would say that he was trying to help her get a bone from her throat.
Just saying..........
Yeah, there's little doubt that, from a layperson's perspective, there's *prima facie* cause for investigation here--anomalous firing of DAs, plus an obvious purely political motive, plus no other obvious hypothesis linking the firees, plus innumerable radically implausible and in some cases outright false explanations of the action.
Anyone who DOESN'T think that's suprising enough to require an explanation...uh...well, I'm not even sure how to finish that sentence...
Legally it may be another matter for all I know.
Legally, does the administration owe congress any explanation? Since it's never been settled by the courts, the administration can say no.
Would there be a fair hearing? Doubtful, considering all the fulminating already by Sen. Shumer and the like with zero evidence of malfeasance in hand.
Missing from many news accounts of Gooding's taking the Fifth was her lawyer's comment that the Libby trial proved that even an innocent misrecollection could result in jail time, so screw this circus.
(Did Libby lie? I'd say probably, but don't see how a juror could say that "beyond a reasonable doubt." I don't blame Gooding a bit.)
As for legitimate reasons why the attorneys were fired, there are plenty of reasons published by the mainstream media itself. However, they end up at the end of the story, on page 19, and few people get that far, having found the gotcha they wanted.
So then any investigation into non-criminal matters, for example money wasted in Iraq or why Walter Reed is such a mess, is automatically a witch hunt. How convenient.
Investigations into matters where there's no evidence of malfeasance and over which congress has no jurisdiction?
Yeah, partisan BS. Witch hunt.
there's no evidence of malfeasance
If there is a non-malfeasance-based explanation of the facts I previously mentioned, I'm all ears. Call me crazy, but people don't take the Fifth because there's a 'witch hunt' going on.
Congress does have oversight authority over the executive branch as well, Tom, so your second point isn't moot, but wrong as well.
Also, remember that Congress can't indict anyone, the most they can do is turn over a referral to the DOJ, just as the CIA did in the Plame matter.
Oh, and to prevent a drive-by, let me state there is no other resemblance between the two cases.
Why am I reminded of this?:
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
Tom Van Dyke, I just want to be clear on this.
Is it your position that if Congress appropriates money for, say, a police station in Iraq and the contractor does such a shoddy job that the building is useless, Congress has no authority to investigate this waste of taxpayer's money unless there is evidence of a crime?
It's easy to avoid the pangs of cognitive dissonance if you just maintain a double standard.
"Crime" is used loosely here, to conform to the metaphor of a witch hunt.
If democrats were unfairly prosecuted, or GOPers were let off the hook, there's malfeasance. But all we've had is innuendo, and the "appearance" of malfeasance.
Me, I want to know if they're so corrupt, why they let Sandy Berger off with a slap on the wrist. He not only provably and admittedly stole documents, but they may have been key to the 9-11 Commission.
Talk about yer cognitive dissonance.
Look, mebbe I'm wrong, but I'll sit this one out. I see sound and fury signifying nothing, the national debate dominated by a manufactured controversy, the important things ignored. I don't think Nancy Pelosi should be in Syria conducting foreign policy. Unfortunately, the oversight door doesn't swing both ways, and there will be no hearings about the propriety of that. (Or questioning by the media, it seems.)
The Plamegate thing, another colossal waste of time that I wish I'd skipped, got its pigeon. But Joe Wilson is still a liar and Scooter Libby going to jail is a pimple of history. The Berger thing was potentially far more significant, but nobody cares because it doesn't fit the agenda.
The passive voice strikes again.
I don't like to write "I" all the time, so I used the passive voice.
I use "crime" use loosely here, to conform to the metaphor of a witch hunt.
There is no crime here. There is not a shred of evidence of malfeasance. But this is just a replay of today's Meet the Press at this point. Like the Joe Wilson case, the slime has been slung---mission accomplished. What happens hereforth is a formality.
As you say, the slime has been slung.
Nancy Pelosi is leading a bi-partisan group in Syria and two Republican representatives are already there.
On Berger and the "documents, but they may have been key to the 9-11 Commission." Wikipedia differs:
After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's public integrity section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.
'There is no evidence that he did destroy originals. We have objectively and affirmatively confirmed that the contents of all the five documents at issue exist today and were made available to the 9/11 Commission.'
If you have better information, I'm sure Wiki would be glad to hear from you.
Loose usage seems to be a pattern. Slime indeed.
But Joe Wilson is still a liar and Scooter Libby going to jail is a pimple of history.
and what did wilson lie about? and the fact that the chief of staff of the vice president of the united states is going to jail for perjury is a pimple of history is an amazing statement even for an authoritarian drone such as yourself. there is way more evidence of malfeasance in bush/gonzales' actions as there was for whitewater. Were you wringing your hands about the ken starr witch hunt tom???
"I don't think Nancy Pelosi should be in Syria conducting foreign policy. Unfortunately, the oversight door doesn't swing both ways, and there will be no hearings about the propriety of that. (Or questioning by the media, it seems.)"
Well perhaps there won't be hearings, or questioning by the media, for reasons other than your unbridled partisan thinking:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704010001
Moreover, SOMEBODY should try to implement the Baker-Hamilton strategies that the idiots in charge refuse to try. After all, it's about time someone tried conducting foreign policy that didn't involve dropping bombs, or looking for an excuse to do so.
Sandy Berger, via TPM Cafe. Please forward to the Wiki.
My own point was simply that he got off very very easy.
No, I don't think the leader of the opposition party should be conducting foreign policy, especially against the request of the executive branch.
Joe Wilson is a liar, via the Washington Post. There's even more, but his supporters refuse to hear it.
Time presses, so this will be short.
If you had read the Wikipedia article, you would have seen that the January 2007 report is included.
I guess you're a mindreader, because I don't see how else you can conclude that Nancy Pelosi is the only one conducting foreign policy in Syria.
Joe Wilson's story was supported and the conflicts explained by Valerie Plame in her testimony.
-------------
Why shouldn't the *opposition party* ('opposition' to what, by the way?) conduct foreign policy? Somebody has to, especially since the party of Neros are fiddling as our interests, and current foreign policy (such as it is) circle the drain.
Joe Wilson, Nancy Pelosi, Sandy Berger, Scooter Libby...
Red herrings on parade...
Every irrelevant thing here but the kitchen sink.
But frantically naming other names and pointing out that other scandals exist in no way shows that what the DoJ did here was right.
All it does is confuse the issue.
If you really have a problem with red herrings, Winston, then you should point them out as they arise, not several days later.
Huh?
Your comment thread isn't dated, but Tom Van Dyke first mentioned Wilson and Libby in his second comment. If you're going to complain about red herrings, the time to do it is the first time they make a stink. Waiting until the post is about to drop off the front page won't accomplish much.
-
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home