Post-Gazette Editorial – 2/3/05

This page was last updated on February 6, 2005.

Delaying action / Democrats stand for principle on Gonzales; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; February 3, 2005.

The only “principle” Democrats are standing for is partisanship. Despite their best efforts – with help from their fellow travelers in the old media – Democrats were unable to tar President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld with Abu Ghraib. Democrat antics with respect to Judge Gonzales were merely another attempt to attack President Bush and to set conditions to undermine AG Gonzales.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Democrats in the Senate this week won a brief round in their battle against the inevitable confirmation of Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general. They were charting a tricky political course but it would be more dangerous to the well-being of the country if Mr. Gonzales were given a free pass.”

[RWC] Who claimed any nominee should receive a free pass? What “brief round” did Democrats win? All they did was repeat the treatment they recently gave Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

Just as they did four years ago to Attorney General Ashcroft, Democrats want to demonize Judge Gonzales from the beginning in an attempt to undermine his stature in the eyes of the country.

“Certainly, presidents of any party deserve considerable deference on those they choose to be members of their Cabinets, but deference is not the same as a rubber stamp.

“Although nothing is surer, Mr. Gonzales should not be confirmed. The standards set for detention and interrogation at Guantanamo Bay, which are now alleged to include sick sexual coercion by female inquisitors, seem also to have infected the treatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.”

[RWC] I defy the P-G to provide any evidence supporting this contention. On February 7, 2002 – over a year before we went into Iraq, President Bush issued an executive order regarding Afghanistan declaring, “I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.” How can anyone interpret this order to mean the Bush administration – or Judge Gonzales – fostered prisoner abuse? As White House counsel at the time, Judge Gonzales almost certainly drafted that order.

On a side note, the anti-Bush crowd is so intent on accusing President Bush of endorsing torture that they are constantly lowering the definition of torture. To these guys, requiring a prisoner to stand for a few hours is abuse. We’re getting pretty close to the point where asking a prisoner a question more than once will be considered “torture.”

“While Mr. Gonzales, as White House counsel, cannot be held responsible for individual abuses, he was in a position to set the context in which they occurred with his advice to the president.”

[RWC] The same advice that resulted in President Bush ordering, “I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.”

“Before the judiciary committee, Mr. Gonzales tried his best to explain away such concerns, but the Democrats were not persuaded -- and correctly so.

“The very idea that the Senate is poised to confirm a nominee who actually had to affirm he was against torture is preposterous, indeed almost a cruel joke.”

[RWC] What an idiotic sentence! If someone asks you a baseless question, that impugns your integrity? It’s a variation on “When did you stop beating your wife?”

“A further offense against good sense was offered this week by Republican senators supporting Mr. Gonzales. ‘Every Hispanic American in this country is watching how this man is treated,’ said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. Thus, from the party that has opposed affirmative action and in the past has been harsh about immigration from places like Mexico comes the sly suggestion that Democratic opposition is racist.”

[RWC] I don’t agree the primary reason Democrats are going after Judge Gonzales is his ethnic background. Liberals clearly don’t like minority conservatives – especially those of “humble” beginnings – in positions of responsibility because they lay bare the liberal lie that liberalism is the only road to success for minorities. One of the last things liberals want are conservative role models for minorities. That said, I believe his ethnicity is only one of the reasons Democrats oppose Judge Gonzales and probably not the primary reason.

Once again we have opposition to institutional discrimination – a.k.a. affirmative action and so-called diversity programs – and enforcement of our immigration laws portrayed as something akin to racism. Apparently only liberals can make racism accusations. What’s even more amazing is they have a former member of the KKK in their midst, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

“But, of course, it is the height of condescension to treat a minority with kid gloves just because he is a minority. No, those who have opposed Mr. Gonzales have judged him by the content of his character as suggested by his record. That, alas, suggests he should not be the next attorney general.”

[RWC] “It is the height of condescension to treat a minority with kid gloves just because he is a minority?” Do the editorial authors recognize hypocrisy when they practice it? The P-G obviously believes in affirmative action programs and the purpose of these programs is to give preferential – kid glove – treatment to politically correct minority groups in the hope doing so will put minority votes in their pockets.

While I’ve heard many Democrats oppose Judge Gonzales allegedly because of his legal advice to President Bush, I haven’t heard anyone question Judge Gonzales’ character, until now.