BCT Editorial – 5/27/07

This page was last updated on May 27, 2007.

Matter of trust; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 27, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In documents that contain transcripts of congressional interviews with former and current Justice employees, Monica Goodling, who resigned last month as the department’s White House liaison, was quoted as telling Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis the following:

“‘All I ever wanted to do was serve this president and this administration and this department.’

“Goodling apparently forgot that even political appointees are first and foremost public servants. Her obligation was to serve the American people, and it was her responsibility to do what was best for the country and its people, not the president or his administration.”

[RWC] The editorial apparently believes “what was best for the country and its people” and what’s best for “the president or his administration” are mutually exclusive.

“In her testimony before a House committee last week, Goodling admitted that ‘I may have gone too far, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions.’”

[RWC] For whatever reason, the editorial chose not to quote Ms. Goodling fully or accurately. According to the transcript released by The Washington Post, Ms. Goodling actually said, “I do acknowledge that I may have gone too far in asking political questions of applicants for career positions, and I may have taken inappropriate political considerations into account on some occasions. And I regret those mistakes.”

“Public service is a trust, and Goodling and others like her in the Bush administration betrayed that trust.”

[RWC] What of the betrayal of trust embodied in Democrats granting Ms. Goodling immunity from prosecution? Should it be found Ms. Goodling did anything illegal with respect to hiring career (non-political appointees) employees, she can’t be prosecuted.

Finally, can the Times name an administration devoid of anyone who engaged in political considerations when they shouldn’t? Don’t misunderstand me. When federal employees – whether political appointees or career – violate the law, they should be prosecuted. It would be naïve – or intentionally misleading, however, to convey this hasn’t happened during every administration beginning with President Washington.

For example, in 1993 the Clinton White House was in improper possession of 900+ secret FBI personnel dossiers compiled during previous background checks.