« Pants on Fire II | Main | Banning Fast Food »

Dot Connection

30 Jul 2008 03:23 pm

One of the oddest aspects of some of the debates over the Bush administration and various forms of legal due process has been how unkosher it's viewed to suggest that the sort of powers Bush wants might be used abusively, in the manner of a Richard Nixon. It's odd because the rules Bush is trying to discard were put in place for the very specific reason that the Watergate investigation led to revelations of a much larger pattern of abuse. It's a pattern that reached a high point under Nixon, but wherein Nixon was clearly building on the abuses of his predecessors. So it wouldn't by any means be unprecedented for the Bush administration to use, say, surveillance powers to spy on political adversaries.

Meanwhile, as Paul Krugman says surely the recent revelations coming out of the Justice Department should be relevant here. People were being hired and fired for career positions on explicitly partisan political grounds. That's serious wrongdoing. And it's at the Justice Department. That's not evidence that partisan abuses were happening at the NSA, but combined with the history it should surely raise an eyebrow or two and in a rational world would be fueling demands for a more thorough examination of what the administration was really up to.

Share This

Comments (25)

Can there be any doubt that these same hiring practices and policies were used elsewhere - IRS, BLM, DOD (and this list would go on and on)?

the pattern from Nixon has been that irregular means are used first against foreign enemies of the United States, then domestic dissidents and then against mainstream political opponents.

What was it that was so objectionable to the wiretapping program that Ashcroft and Comey wouldn't sign off on it?


"So it wouldn't by any means be unprecedented for the Bush administration to use, say, surveillance powers to spy on political adversaries."

Hasn't the Bush administration already used DOD surveillance powers to spy on political adversaries?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_12/007819.php


Regarding the politicization of DoJ - which all by itself is seriously banana-republic stuff - isn't it about time someone asked, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

it's only been viewed as unkosher by apologists for entrenched power. sadly, a good number of them are democrats.

and another good number are pundits....

One strongly worded letter coming up!

Part of me wishes I was alive for the Nixon days, so that I could see how the whole bit was covered. The list of crimes one could levy against this administration is ridiculous... and Pelosi sits on her hands, because it "could be divisive."

"That's not evidence that partisan abuses were happening at the NSA,.."

Ted Kennedy's name being on the early 'no fly' list hints to me of some malicious hackery in the system.

I'd rather they started prosecuting once Bush and his magic pardons have left the building.

Assuming of course, Obama gets elected. Otherwise McCain will pardon anyway and use Ford as a precedent to 'heal the nation'

Can there be any doubt that these same hiring practices and policies were used elsewhere - IRS, BLM, DOD (and this list would go on and on)?

Or EPA, CDC, FDA...

Part of me wishes I was alive for the Nixon days, so that I could see how the whole bit was covered.

At first, hardly at all, grudgingly, and in large part dismissively. NYT ignored it for quite a bit because it wasn't "their" story. It dawdled along on the back pages for quite a long time before it really started to penetrate. It was only after the election that it really began to build, and what really drove it was Congress taking an interest and starting to hold hearings. Nobody really wanted to believe the POTUS could have been involved in that kind of tawdry activity, and the media as ever saw its primary function as Maintaining The Narrative and Preserving the Decorum, just as now.

"People were being hired and fired for career positions on explicitly partisan political grounds. That's serious wrongdoing. And it's at the Justice Department."

Why would this constitute "serious wrongdoing" in your eyes? Since you don't say that it's illegal, I am assuming that this does not violate any laws. So what's your problem with either hiring or firing of people based solely on "partisan political grounds"?

Assuming Obama wins, you wouldn't want him to get rid of those evil Republicans at Justice or anywhere else in government jobs who could impede the will of the One?

Chicounsel asks: "Why would this constitute "serious wrongdoing" in your eyes? Since you don't say that it's illegal, I am assuming that this does not violate any laws. So what's your problem with either hiring or firing of people based solely on "partisan political grounds"?"

Dipshit - it's a violation of the Hatch Act. Take a few minutes and look it up yourself.

Damn, Repiglicans are fucking morons. Monica Goodling is the poster child for Bushpig idiocy.

just to go back to the nixon era, it took judge sirica and the then-young-and-caring woodward and bernstein; otherwise the story would have disappeared.

as for chicounsel: as lord keynes tells us, people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

administrations can and do make political appointments to serve their "opinions," but the career positions are supposed to be part of the fact-based community....

Dipshit - it's a violation of the Hatch Act. Take a few minutes and look it up yourself.

Cue Chicounsel bringing up the traditional resignations of political appointees at the beginning of Clinton's term, despite having been schooled in the differences, repeatedly, over at Drum's blog.

Worse, if memory serves me right, Chicounsel claims to be a lawyer...

Dipshit - it's a violation of the Hatch Act. Take a few minutes and look it up yourself.

Cue Chicounsel bringing up the traditional resignations of political appointees at the beginning of Clinton's term, despite having been schooled in the differences, repeatedly, over at Drum's blog.

Worse, if memory serves me right, Chicounsel claims to be a lawyer...

Gregory says: "Worse, if memory serves me right, Chicounsel claims to be a lawyer..."

Maybe he went to the Jesoid Retard Skool Of Law with Goodling. They probably studied together for the Christitutional Law exam.

Gregory, Moe.etal

If there was a violation of the Hatch Act present in this latest Bush scandal, presumably that would constitute a crime, instead merely being "serious wrongdoing". But since the only ones who appear to be saying that the Hatch Act was violated are commentaters on liberal blogs, forgive me for rolling my eyes at your responses. After all, I still have unopened Fitzmas presents and I sure that Karl Rove must be getting ready to flee the country after being found in contempt of Congress by the Judiciary Committee.

Chicounsel, I realize that you're a Repiglican, which suggests that you're both stupid and a congenital liar, but it is NOT just "commentaters" (sic) on "liberal blogs" who are saying the law was violated here. The DOJ's own Inspector General said this: "In sum, we concluded that the evidence showed that Goodling violated both federal law and Department policy, and therefore committed misconduct, when she considered political or ideological affiliations in hiring decisions for candidates for career positions within the Department. In particular, the evidence showed that she considered political or ideological affiliations in deciding several waiver requests from interim U.S. Attorneys, in promoting several candidates for career positions, and in disapproving a candidate for an EOUSA career SES position."

Even the Bush-sucking AG Mukasey had this to say: "I have said many times, both to members of the public and to Department employees, it is neither permissible nor acceptable to consider political affiliations in the hiring of career Department employees. And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the Department."

Granted, we do not have a functional Justice Department now, but under President Obama I hope little Miss Goodling gets the criminal prosecution she deserves.

And your little dog Albert, too.

Ah, but then obviously the DOJ's IG is a commentator on liberal blogs.

Circle squared, nothing to see here.

The dog that didn't bark here is the major newspaper bureaus. I keep getting told that (like the WSJ) the WaPo newsroom is the cat's meow notwithstanding Fred "Jackassedness Personified" Hiatt. But really, these newsrooms--and I mean you, gray lady!--need to go back and look at all the dudgeon they dredged up at the drop of a hat in the Nixon--hell, the Clinton--era. It's like they're all sleepwalking through the dismantlement of the Republic. It's the definition of surreal. Congressfolk are fundamentally cowardly--they won't pick up a stick until constituents are screaming at them. The papers need to start the baying. It's a national disgrace. And it's actually scary.

"What the administration was really up to" was to create a permanent one-party state in which the machinery of the state - including the criminal law and police apparatus - would be used to maintain the power of the Republican Party for the indefinite future. The administration was trying to bring an end to democracy in America and they haven't given up. If you can disenfranchise voters, launch criminal investigations of candidates of the opposition, and imprison your adversaries, you can govern forever. The two-term limit on the presidency is no obstacle to a perpetual dictatorship. In fact, it facilitates dictatorship, as long as each president can choose his successor.

The model for this is Mexico under the PRI, which was a corrupt and dictatorial one-party state with an orderly transition of presidential power for seventy years. There's no reason it couldn't have happened here. These people are subversives, they are criminals of the highest order, and they deserve to be impeached, condemned, and imprisoned.


"There's no reason it couldn't have happened here."

It already did happen. Chicocounsel is correctly patriotic - he's defending the regime that currently exists (though he doesn't understand the nature of that regime). You're engaging in some form of nostalgia, for a type of governance that is now gone and cannot be restored.

Punishing these people is not even my primary concern; I'm worried that the entire executive branch will need to be purged.

Thank god this is coming out now, so that we can point to it when the Right accuses Obama of "politicizing" the executive branch when he has to fire these plants.

Unless we pursue de-Stalinization, it'll take a decade--at least--to get these moles out. In the meantime, functioning of the government will be subverted by executives trying to make Obama look bad.

I'll reiterate: this report says that the executive branch is full of people who will fuck up their job and fuck up their country to spite a Democratic president.

Luke writes: "I'll reiterate: this report says that the executive branch is full of people who will fuck up their job and fuck up their country to spite a Democratic president."

They've fucked up the country under their own president. They'll never change.


Comments closed August 13, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.