W is for Wrong

Michelle Neumann

President Bush continued to catapult the propaganda yesterday on the U.S. attorney firing scandal:

US President George W. Bush has denounced Senate plans for a no-confidence vote in his embattled Attorney-General, saying that Alberto Gonzales "has done nothing wrong."

"He has got my confidence. He has done nothing wrong," Mr. Bush said, who has come under mounting pressure, even from his fellow Republicans, to dump Mr. Gonzales.

"There has been no wrongdoing on his part."

No wrongdoing? No wrongdoing?

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around all of this. The Attorney General of the United States has been caught red-handed hijacking the Department of Justice for political purposes. He was acting on the order of, and at the direction of, the White House. They have all been caught red-handed engaging in a rank obscenity against the American people, and yet they have the gall to stand in front of us, with smug little smirks on their faces, and taunt us with the preposterous assertion that they have done "nothing wrong".

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong in thinking that Bush and I have the same definition of the word "wrong". Perhaps it means something different to him. That would explain a lot.

What, exactly, does Bush think “wrong” means?

According to Bush and Gonzales, the following are not wrong:

-Attempting to coerce a medicated and seriously ill John Ashcroft into approving a secret, illegal domestic spying program, with knowledge that Ashcroft lacked the legal capacity to act on behalf of the Department of Justice at the time.

-Firing United States attorneys who refused to abuse the power of their offices for the political benefit of the Republican party (and by “political benefit” I mean, among other things, tampering with elections).

-Misleading Congress.

-Arrogantly and wrongfully withholding or destroying information sought by Congressional investigative committees, because this Administration holds Democrats and our system of checks and balances in abject contempt.

-Lying to Sen. Mark Pryor about the appointment of Rove-flunkie and chief-Florida-voting-cager Tim Griffin as U.S. attorney for Arkansas.

-Making hiring decisions based on political affiliation (which is illegal).

Gonzales himself has admitted, using that infamous Watergate catch-phrase, that "mistakes were made". Yet he still has not done anything “wrong”, according to Bush.

What was it that then-Governor Bush said while out on the campaign trail - about how he would conduct his Administration? About the standard of conduct he would require from every member of his Administration?

"When people hand me a picture of their children saying, “You better bring some honor to this White House. You know, I don't want you to embarrass me again.” And my pledge to America, you may not agree with every stand I take, but you will agree of how I conduct myself in office. ... I'll bring honor to the office, and I have done so and that's what I'm going to do as the President. ...[I will have a h]igh standard. It's going to be a high standard consistent throughout the Administration. You bet."

Does that help us understand what behavior Bush would consider “wrong”? Failure to bring honor to the office? Failure to meet a “high standard”?

Perhaps other members of the President’s party can also shed some light on what constitutes “wrongful” behavior while in office, as I’m sure when they made these statements they were being completely sincere and were not engaging in political grandstanding of any kind (and therefore I will hold them now to their own words):

My preeminent concern is that the Constitution be followed and that all Americans, regardless of their position in society, receive equal and unbiased treatment in our courts of law. The fate of no president, no political party, and no member of Congress merits a slow unraveling of the fabric of our constitutional structure. As John Adams said, we are a nation of laws, not of men.

-Rep. Asa Hutchinson

I am not prepared to accept that the standard of performance for an American president is simply that he or she is not indictable.

-Rep. Edward Pease

There is no business of government more important than upholding the rule of law. A sound economy amounts to nothing beside it, because without the rule of law, all contracts are placed in doubt and all rights to property become conditional.

National security is not more important than the rule of law, because without it, there can be no security and there is little left defending. And the personal popularity of any president when weighed against this one fundamental concept that forever distinguishes us from every other nation -- no person is above the rule of law.

-Rep. James Rogan

Nixon said "When the president does it, that means it is not illegal." That was dead wrong then, and it is dead wrong today -- wrong, that is, unless one subscribes to the principle that the president is not only above the law, but that he is the law.

-Rep. Bob Barr

I do believe the public deserves a president who adheres to a higher principle, and I am not afraid to admit that. It is what our forefathers fought and died for; it is what our veterans risked their lives for; it is what we all pray for, for our children.

-Rep. Mary Bono

Alberto Gonzales is a member of the State Bar of Texas. In its Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, the Texas Bar states that an attorney shall not, in the course of representing a client, "make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person". How many times has Gonzales changed his story as to what really happened at the White House and the DOJ in connection with the firing of U.S. attorneys? Violating ethics rules, certainly at least the spirit of them, is not "wrong", apparently, in Bush's view. That is a shame, considering that many of Bush's close associates are members of the Texas Bar, including Harriet Miers, John Cornyn and James Baker. (I assume they also think that Gonzales has done nothing "wrong". )

What exactly is the standard of what is "wrongful" for members of this Administration? Is there any standard whatsoever? Or is it pretty much IOKIYAR – “It’s OK if you’re a Republican”? I think that’s it exactly – Bush’s definition of wrong: if a Republican (especially him) does it, it is not wrong.

Is putting party loyalty above the Constitution wrong, George?

McKay said he began to have concerns about politics entering the Justice Department in early 2005, when Gonzales addressed all of the country's U.S. attorneys in Scottsdale, Ariz., shortly after he took over as attorney general.

"His first speech to us was a 'you work for the White House' speech," McKay recalled. " 'I work for the White House, you work for the White House.' "

McKay said he thought at the time, "He couldn't have meant that speech," given the traditional independence of U.S. Attorneys. "It turns out he did."

He looked around the meeting room and caught the eyes of his colleagues, who gave him looks of surprise at Gonzales' remarks. "We were stunned at what he was saying."

Is putting party loyalty above the impartial administration of justice wrong, George?

WHAT HAPPENS in a presidential administration when loyalty, to borrow a phrase from "Star Trek," becomes the "prime directive"? What happens when its all-encompassing fog obscures all other values — such as fealty to the Constitution, the rule of law or simple humanity?

What happens is that terrible decisions are made, repeated and then justified by this shibboleth. That's just one of the lessons that has emerged from the U.S. attorney scandal...What has become clear already is that the "loyalty uber alles" mentality has infected a wide swath of the Bush administration. Simple notions like right and wrong are, in their eyes, matters of allegiance, not conscience.

...Loyalty is a virtue with limits. That was one of the many hard lessons from Watergate. In that scandal, some of President Nixon's staffers carried their loyalty to the president all the way to federal prison.

...Somehow Goodling did not understand this keystone concept. She appears to have placed her loyalty to the Bush administration and the Republican Party above any allegiance to the Constitution — which may have led her to believe that Bush acolytes would make the best federal prosecutors. Paradoxically, she knew enough of the Constitution to claim the protections afforded by the 5th Amendment—the right against self-incrimination.

I trust she now understands what is at stake in the U.S. attorney scandal: the rule of law, the independence of the prosecutor and the apolitical calculus of who should be prosecuted.

...We don't need latter-day Haldemans, Ehrlichmans or Colsons going to jail. The nation needs leaders who take ultimate responsibility for the wrongful actions of their subordinates; leaders who do the right thing, regardless of the consequences. Mr. Attorney General, it's time for you to cowboy up and do what's best for the American people you serve.

'Cowboy up,' Alberto Gonzales
A fired U.S. attorney calls on the attorney general to serve the people, not politics.
By David C. Iglesias
May 23, 2007

I won't even go into the litany of other complaints of wrongdoing by Gonzales, including his questionable handling of death penalty cases while working for then-Governor Bush. The executin' process in Texas was so swift and assured, it earned purportedly-pro-life Bush the nickname “the Texecutioner".

How much more wrong could Bush, Gonzales, Rove and their brainwashed minions be? The answer is none. None more wrong. Regardless of his right to hire and fire U.S. attorneys, the President does not have the right to subvert our justice system for the benefit of his political party, nor does he have the right to require that U.S. attorneys act as an army of GOP thugs. Perhaps it is time to send pictures of our children to the White House, to remind President Bush of what he (hopefully) used to believe about our government.

I ask all members of Oregon’s Congressional delegation to speak out forcefully and repeatedly on this matter, and not to give up until all the wrong-doers are properly held accountable.

By Michelle Neumann May 23, 2007