BCT Editorial – 3/16/07

This page was last updated on March 20, 2007.

Wrong turn; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 16, 2007.

As you read this editorial, keep in mind Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys immediately upon taking office in 1993. According to all reports, no incoming president had ever before canned all the sitting U.S. attorneys. Using the editorial’s own words, are we not to believe those firings were not the result of “politics and arrogance?” One U.S. attorney – Michael Chertoff, now head of Homeland Security – did escape the Clinton purge, but only because then-Sen. Bill Bradley (D-NJ) lobbied strongly on his behalf.

Despite all this, little was made of the purge. Since there was so little controversy over the act, it’s easy for outlets like the Times to omit mention of Clinton firing 93 U.S. attorneys while skewering President Bush for firing eight U.S. attorneys who had completed their terms.

Finally, as much as it may offend our sensibilities, U.S. attorneys are political appointees selected because it’s anticipated they will implement the administration’s law enforcement policies. As the editorial grudgingly concedes, no one has claimed anyone did anything illegal with regard to the firing of the U.S. attorneys. Based on the info available to date, this is simply another effort to smear the Bush administration with innuendo.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“What’s legal is not the same as what’s right. Such is the case of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush Justice Department.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note a very important point; the President appoints all U.S. attorneys for four-year terms. I suspect the editorial author wants us to believe U.S. attorneys work their way up the ranks because the firing of political appointees is a non-story.

“If you’ve listened to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials of late, it wasn’t very long before you heard them say that the firings of these U.S. attorneys were perfectly legal. And they were perfectly right - and absolutely wrong.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial never tells us why the firings were “absolutely wrong,” unless you count the Times boilerplate of “politics and arrogance.”

“As the White House and Justice Department e-mails showed, politics and arrogance, two all too common attributes of this White House, were behind many of the firings.”

[RWC] Here’s another nugget the editorial failed to note. All of the fired U.S. attorneys had completed their four-year terms. Gee, I wonder why the editorial failed to mention this fact. <g>

When the editorial speaks of “politics,” does not the author understand U.S. attorneys are political appointees? Here’s a hypothetical example. If your administration has a policy to crack down on voter fraud, illegal immigration, organized crime, etc, would it not make sense to fire a U.S. attorney who drags his feet on these cases?

“Specifically, Americans ought to be concerned about the way in which this administration rated U.S. attorneys. In an e-mail in early 2005, Kyle Sampson, Gonzales’ chief of staff, recommended retaining ‘strong’ U.S. attorneys ‘who have produced, managed well and exhibited loyalty to the president [sic] and attorney general [sic].’

“Shouldn’t he have considered ‘strong’ U.S. attorneys those who have produced, managed well and exhibited loyalty to the Constitution and the American people?”

[RWC] I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn the editorial engaged in a little selective quoting. Here’s the exact quote the Times apparently didn’t want us to see.

“From: Sampson, Kyle

“Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 5:42 PM

“To: ‘Harriet Miers’

“Subject: U.S. Attorneys

“To be clear, putting aside the question of expiring terms, the analysis on the chart I gave you is as follows:

“bold = Recommend retaining; strong U.S. Attorneys who have produced, managed well, and exhibited loyalty to the President and Attorney General.

“strikeout = Recommend removing; weak U.S. Attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors, chafed against Administration initiatives, etc.

“nothing = No recommendation; have not distinguished themselves either positively or negatively.”

Now you know why the editorial engaged in selective quoting. The meaning of the cited quote changes – and to the Times disadvantage – when the excerpt is put into the context of the entire e-mail note.

“Clearly, this mess represents yet another wrong turn for this administration. While what is unfolding might not be illegal, what it represents is a far cry from the honesty and integrity that this president pledged to bring to the White House.”

[RWC] A mess?! This is simply another non-event turned into a scandal by Democrats and their mainstream media allies.

“Another wrong turn for this administration?” Come on; let’s be honest. By definition, the Times believes any turn by the Bush administration is a “wrong turn.” At this point, the only “wrong turn” I’ve seen in what should have been a non-event was when the administration and congressional Republicans decided to “play nice” and not aggressively defend the firings.

The editorial talked about “honestly and integrity,” yet provided no unrefuted evidence to support its allegation.