Considering the inquisition that Bush's Attorney General Albert Gonzalez is undergoing, you'd think that Janet Reno would have undergone almost 12 times as much criticism given the fact that she fired almost 12 times as many. But it seems that there was--comparatively speaking-- barely a peep. Apparently it just wasn't considered to be that big of a deal back then. Why? Well, I hate to accuse the media of bias, but it couldn't seem to be more clear in this case.
And as for today's scandal, it's not that nobody that would know is around.
ABC brought on George Stephanopoulos – who defended the Clinton firings as the White House spokesman in 1993 – to describe this as an urgent matter putting pressure on Karl Rove to testify before Congress and for Gonzales to resign!Most of the electorate (including myself) is unable to weigh the allegations of "politicization" in the Justice Department because we don't know what is acceptable. Do those attorneys serve, like the Attorney General, at the pleasure of the President? We're hearing about how the AG should have some "independence". The man on the street doesn't have the answers to these questions, and it's easy to assume from the media frenzy that these allegations have weight.
However, if independence in an AG is so important, wasn't John F. Kennedy's tapping his own brother Robert as his Attorney General a terrible breach of protocol, at best? And if Bush's firing of 8 US attorneys was bad, wasn't Clinton's firing of 93 US Attorneys much, much worse? And here's another question: rather than sacrificing Gonzalez, as appears imminent, why is the White House not defending itself with the above information? Correction: A few news outlets, mostly in the Mid-South, are carrying this AP story: Rove defends removal of prosecutors, cites Clinton-era dismissals.
And why am I not getting the full story from the press?
Click the headline for the full story...
No comments:
Post a Comment