To a significant degree, our legal and political system seems to be built around the concept of acceptance of responsibility. ...
But admissions of error and rhetorical claims that "the buck stops here" should not be confused with genuine accountability. Genuine accountability requires that serious mistakes lead to serious consequences for the wrongdoers. And I can think of no more overarching problem with government today - whether the issue on the table is Iraq, Katrina, DOJ, or a host of other matters -- than the disappearance of this basic notion.*
-- Edward Lazarus
The dislike of this administration from many quarters is not just a result of ideology. It grows out of a simple belief that it is run by disreputable people, people who simply do not warrant our respect. Their ideology, poisonous and distressing, furthers this fact, but only partially. Ultimately, one can like people whose views you oppose, even love them (Carville/Matalin). But, it is really hard when you don't respect them.
And, this is the reason why the administration and their enables hit a special nerve. This inability to take responsibility, furthered by secrecy to cover their asses, is a core problem. They come out as cowardly assholes. This is furthered by a self-righteous tone. After all, they cannot act in this fashion if there is even a shred of possibility of error. It is just plain obvious, therefore, that the other side is the problem. They are the ones relying on petty matters and politics.
So, Gonzo's former aide speaks of "mistakes" being made, "incomplete" explanations, and past statements "contradicted" by later events. This is akin to tax fraud being defended because the person made "mistakes" on their forms, put in "incomplete" information, information "contradicted" by later events. That is, after they were forced to show their records. Prosecutors don't generally find such things convincing. Cutting through the b.s., we find that Congress was lied to, stonewalled, and not given information that they had every right to demand.
This is why an honestly somewhat lame piece co-written by Clinton's solicitor general, Walter Dellinger, annoyed me -- congressional oversight power was expressed a tad weakly, the possible wrongdoing deemed "plausible," and Rove still off limits. This was the "reasonable" position. Atrios would understand. The idea advisers are a sort of royal privy council and the duty of the President to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed" is open-ended to the extent that it becomes nearly meaningless of any real content other than politics is suggested by this comment from the former aide:
"In his statement, Sampson says any distinction between performance-related and political reasons is "largely artificial."
"A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district important to effective leadership of the office, is unsuccessful," he says.
This starts to get to the depth of the problem, including my replies to the Dellinger (and co-author) piece. Apparently, we should only really be troubled if the administration interfered with prosecutions in a blatantly illegitimate way. But, things aren't that narrow. We need to underline the fact -- there is a difference between "politics" and professional prosecutors, "politics" and taking care the law is faithfully executed, "politics" and running foreign policy and war. And so on. Likewise, if politics or some other twisted set of priorities is the core concern in such cases, well, damn it, Congress has the right and obligation to know about it.
But, the administration -- full of true cowards -- don't want them to know about it. They don't just want to run some authoritarian form of conservatism -- the depths of which Glenn Greenwald, Thom Hartman (Air America), John Dean and others carefully explain -- but want to deny that they are doing it. We should not take a nihilistic approach that this is what is always done. This is akin to saying we all sin, so let's not focus on the murderers. Thank goodness we have divided government again. Maybe, we can divided government where one side isn't so bad.
[Gonzales adviser Monica Goodling said she would invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than appear before congressional committees. Talking Points Memo has a tidbit noting that she has some concerns though the talking point on the left seems to be that it is just to cover the administration's ass. Another tidbit is that she is a graduate of Pat Robertson's university. One of the evangelistic minions in D.C. ... see the book I reviewed recently.]
---
* He argues, truthfully but only halfway, that:
Is John Edwards really a better candidate for president than Hillary Clinton because he's apologized for initially supporting the Iraq war, while she has not? I don't think so. Public contrition in these circumstances is just an emotion-laden distraction from meaningful inquiry into exactly why each candidate supported the war, when each candidate recognized his or her error, and what policies each would pursue to ameliorate the consequences of the mistakes already made.
True enough. And, that error in judgement -- he was on the front lines with Joe Lieberman -- rankles. But, I think these questions have been at least partially addressed. The fact that they need to be does not erase the fact that HC has not answered them any more ideally. Anyway, truthfully expressed -- and, yes, I trust his integrity -- contrition of this sort does matter. The cynicism it brings, justly so, should not erase this fact. Nor its empty use by Bushies. Finally, he did not just apologize ... he bluntly admitting he was wrong. No "mistakes were made." "I made a mistake."
Thus, Lazarus at least partially misses the point here.