BCT Editorial – 3/23/07

This page was last updated on March 25, 2007.

Missing; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 23, 2007.

The Times appears desperate to turn what at this time appears to be a nonevent into a scandal. If you recall, the Times published an equally insightful editorial on this topic just seven days ago. Apparently that attempt didn’t attract enough buyers.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“As the Bush administration tries to explain away the machinations behind the firings/resignations of eight federal prosecutors, one argument being advanced by its defenders is that the Clinton administration once asked for the resignations of all 93 U.S. attorneys.

“Why, they ask, wasn’t and isn’t this an issue?

“That is what historian Diarmond MacCulloch calls a truth that misses the point.”

[RWC] What, has “The Colbert Report” fallen out of favor with Times editorial authors? I expected the editorial to refer to this as “truthiness.”

“What the defenders fail to point out is that this request came at the start of President Clinton’s first term. And, as the Bush White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the rest of the we-can-do-no-wrongers of this administration have been pounding home, U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president.”

[RWC] I don’t know if the first sentence of this paragraph is a lie or the result of the Times choosing its news sources poorly. Every time I heard the fact mentioned that Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys, the source always noted it was at the beginning of his first term. Indeed, I noted this in my critique of “Wrong turn.”

“Well, the U.S. attorneys in office when Clinton took over were serving at the pleasure of President George Herbert Walker Bush. Did not Clinton, then, have the right to appoint U.S. attorneys to serve at his pleasure at the start of his term in office, just as President George W. Bush did when he took office in 2001?”

[RWC] Of course Mr. Clinton had the right. No one has claimed otherwise. As I noted in the aforementioned critique, U.S. attorneys are political appointees just like Cabinet members and other administration members. If your performance doesn’t further the president’s lawful policies, you should not expect to keep your job.

The point people were making is that Bill Clinton firing 93 U.S. attorneys received little notice while President Bush firing 8 U.S. attorneys is portrayed as a scandal.

“You now have 93 more reasons to remember that the truth isn’t always accurate.”

[RWC] So let me get this straight. It’s OK to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys at the beginning of your administration, but it’s not OK to fire 8 U.S. attorneys you appointed, even after their terms expired?

I have to admit, the editorial’s “logic” is over my head.