Slate Gabfest comment

Below is a letter I sent to Slate after listening to one of their podcasts:

I just listened to the Gabfest for March 30. I believe it was Emily that stated that the General Attorney Alberto Gonzales Attorney Firings scandal was over.

The gist of the comment was that Democrats got as much mileage out of it as they can and that they should quit while they are ahead. There is a common thread on some of the "scandals" that drives me nuts. People are brought in for testimonies and then later they get into trouble for lying. At that point, there seems to be no real outrage or attention paid to the original cause for the attention.

I find the attorney firings to be VERY troubling. Why? Because if the judiciary is not truly independent, if their very careers survive at the whim of the executive, this is a huge separation of powers issue. Are we to expect that whatever party has the presidency can pick and choose corruption prosecutions based on party? If the opposition may have done something wrong, turn up the efforts full force, but if your own party does something wrong, looking into it will get you fired. Does this not fulfill the definition of corruption to a tee?

I had the same problem with 2 other "scandals". Scooter Libby is not being punished for outing a CIA agent. That's the real crime here. I'm not saying that it's completely inconsequential that he lied, but on a scale of 1 to 10, the CIA outing is a 9.5 and the lying is a 1 or a 2. I would have to say that I draw the same conclusion in reverse for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I was seriously disappointed that he lied, because up until then, they had nothing on him. Then when he lied, they had something to stick to him. He should never have given them the satisfaction. That was a cover-up of an affair? Ever see anyone thrown out of office or arrested for an affair? No. So in that case, there wasn't a crime until he lied. In the CIA and attorney cases, the crime isn't even being investigated once we've got someone lying.

So I find myself arguing that this "gotcha" game is a distraction from what should be our real concerns. While lying is not a good thing, you have to keep your focus on what is important.

One more story that is a strange corollary to this. Look at the Kerry questioning of Fox testimony for the Belgian ambassador position. Here Kerry is saying that Fox says that 527s are bad, that truth is important, and yet he funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that attacked Kerry - attacks that were later found to be erroneous. Yet Fox's position is that he just gives money to people and doesn't even think about it. I guess if they will take that money and attack Fox's political opponents, he wants to be able to have his political way but not get his hands dirty. Well, his hands are dirty. Is this the kind of person we want to represent our country? If he was the Sudanese ambassador, would he continue to fund the government to fight terrorism even if they used the money to kill their own people? Relative moralism is not a Christian Core Value. How did we get to this point where what really happened is not important as long as it gets the job done?

Heck of a job Bushie.