Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Ignorance in defense of extremism is no vice
Keep that analysis coming!
He goes on to complain about how AG Gonzales is too in-your-face Hispanic for his tastes.
Orin Kerr has a bit more to say. Highlights:
I haven't written about the U.S. Attorney's story because I'm having a hard time figuring out just how big a deal it is. Parts of it are obviously very troubling: I was very disturbed to learn of the Domenici calls, for example. ... At the same time, several parts of the story seem overblown. U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, and the press seems to overlook that in a lot of its reporting.Translation: Any Republican conduct that fall short of violation of a statute isn't of interest. Gonzales (or Rove) could call a US Attorney today, say, "indict a Democrat, any Democrat, by Thursday, or your ass is grass," and Kerr wouldn't bat an eye.
On a more serious note, as Josh Marshall explained, "The issue here is why these US Attorneys were fired -- a) because they weren't pursuing a GOP agenda of indicting Democrats, that's a miscarriage of justice, and b) because they [Gonzales and others in the AG's office] lied to Congress about why it happened." My emphasis. Kerr is, whether deliberately or by dogged incuriosity, missing the point.
Back to Kerr:
Also, I know one or two of the Administration figures named in some of the stories, and based on my knowledge of them and their character (although no secret details of the story — I have not spoken with anyone about it) I have a feeling that they're getting a bad rap.Translation: I don't want to learn, much less write, anything negative about my friends. So, with my ignorance studiously maintained, I'll just assume all is well.
No one expects anything different from Jonah; but it's disappointing to see Kerr stick his head in the sand on this.