Echoing GOP talking points, Wash. Post warned Dems of "danger[]" and "risk" of holding Bush administration accountable
In his March 7 "analysis" of the Bush administration's "accountability moment" regarding the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of perjury, lying to FBI agents, and obstructing justice, Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker wrote that "[n]o one has been quicker to declare the return of accountability than Democrats." As evidence, he pointed to the recent congressional investigations into both conditions for wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration. But Baker then warned that "accountability politics can also be dangerous to the touch," citing the Clinton-era investigations that "consumed" Washington and that he described as having "backfired politically." However, Baker's warning about the possibility of Democrats' overreaching echoes the often-repeated warnings during the 2006 election season by Republicans about the dangers of a Democratically controlled Congress actually exercising oversight. And his linking of current oversight efforts to congressional Republicans' investigations of the Clinton administration ignored at least one key difference: The hearings surrounding both the Walter Reed living conditions and U.S. attorney firings have considerable bipartisan support.
Early in the March 7 article, Baker noted that the ongoing congressional investigations, as well as the March 6 conviction of Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, "ha[ve] revived a pattern largely missing through the six years of Bush's presidency, in which high-level officials accused of wrongdoing are grilled, fired and sometimes even jailed." He later claimed that such "accountability politics" could prove "dangerous" for Democrats:
No one has been quicker to declare the return of accountability than Democrats, who are using their newfound subpoena power to sharp effect in hauling up Pentagon officials to answer for poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and in giving fired U.S. attorneys a venue to blame their dismissals on administration politics. In two months, Democrats have held 81 hearings on Iraq. "This is just the beginning," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "What a difference a year makes."
But accountability politics can also be dangerous to the touch. Washington became consumed during the presidency of Emanuel's onetime boss, Bill Clinton, whose administration came under scrutiny of at least seven independent counsels and even more Republican congressional committees. The atmosphere was so toxic that Clinton adviser Paul Begala put an attorney on retainer before even joining the White House staff.
In discussing the "risk for Democrats," Baker reported that "[s]ome Republicans suggested that the public could tire of repeated hearings such as those held this week and write them off to partisanship." He went on to quote former Bush White House communications director Nicolle Wallace warning Democrats that Americans purportedly do not want to see "the obstruction of people trying to do things":
The risk for Democrats would be overplaying the accountability hand. Their attempts to impose limits on Bush's ability to fight the war have collapsed repeatedly and left them unable to fashion a coherent approach to the most serious issue in the country. Some Republicans suggested that the public could tire of repeated hearings such as those held this week and write them off to partisanship.
"They bring up sort of old Washington," said former Bush aide Nicolle Wallace. "The Democrats have to walk a fine line and be careful. People don't want to turn on the TV and see every story being about the obstruction of people trying to do things. ... The people who will stand out in Washington are the ones who will look forward."
But while Baker reported these GOP warnings to Democrats -- and echoed them himself -- his article failed to mention the bipartisan support for the current investigations led by Democrats. Indeed, on February 21, the Post itself reported that Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA), the ranking member of the House Government Reform Committee, "urged the committee to hold a hearing at Walter Reed to give members an 'invaluable firsthand look' at how the Army is processing the wounded." Reporting on the start of the Walter Reed hearings in a March 6 article, the Post noted the "bipartisan nature of the criticism ... in the first of what is likely to be a string of hearings probing problems at Walter Reed and in military health care more broadly."
The allegations of congressional wrongdoing and political maneuvering by the Bush administration in the dismissal of eight U.S attorneys have also provoked bipartisan concern. During a March 6 Senate Judiciary hearing into the matter, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) informed the committee of his belief in the significance of the case, claiming that "if the allegations are correct, there has been serious misconduct in what has occurred."
Further, while Baker did not provide any Democratic response to Wallace's claim, his assertion that congressional Democrats could be in "danger[]" by holding the Bush administration accountable originates from GOP talking points during last year's midterm elections. Media Matters for America noted before the midterms that the view that Democrats would use congressional investigations to obstruct and destroy the Bush administration was a Republican talking point, advanced by then-Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). Moreover, the Republican "warning" about Democrats and investigations falsely assumed that Americans did not want Congress to conduct significant investigations of the administration. In fact, polling at the time indicated that a majority would support Democrats in such investigations.
Finally, Baker quoted Republican political strategist Mary Matalin's "outrage" at the conviction of Libby. Matalin claimed that "Scooter didn't do anything" and that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV is "a demonstrable partisan liar." Baker did not mention that Matalin is on the advisory committee to the "Libby Legal Defense Trust." Further, Media Matters has documented numerous examples of misinformation by Matalin (here and here), including several pertaining to the alleged leak of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.
Oh, please, Mr. Fox, don't throw me in the briar patch!
NO kidding. Yeah... wouldn't want to hold a criminal accountable...cuz, well... people might think tha's baaaddd. This is pathetic.
Please. Like the millions wasted investigating the Clinton's has anything to do with accountability.
These people passing for journalists are insufferable.
Just to be clear, Baker:
You equate the "accountability" sought in scandals involving US soliders held in deplorable hospital conditions and the allegation of a CIA officer being outed in political revenge to the "accountability" sought in an extra-marital blow job. Then you warn that the American people will consider both arenas of Congressional oversight to be "partisan" in equal measure.
With that argument, I can't figure our if you're on the Bush White House payroll or just the most condescending SOB to opine in WaPo of late.
OH yeah, PLEASE don't hold criminals accountable. It's better for everyone to just IMAGINE things are fine. I would imagine all the people in prison think the same thing.
ACCOUNTABILITY??? ME?
Sure wish we could see some of that old time liberal media bias because all I am seeing is "Pardon Libby" "Don't hold the Thug party accountable" "No underlying crime". etc etc.
Has anyone noticed this is the new theme of the rightwingers who are all claiming a vast left wing conspiracy?
They keep saying there was 'No underlying crime" so why was an investigation started?
Talk about living a lie. Or as they call it...TRUTHINESS.
Limbaugh, regarding the libby case: "They are POKING THE BEAR! They'll be SORRY!!"…
What is wrong with these people? Do they really have such a grandiose self-image of power that us mere mortals need to be warned about the maelstrom of carnage we are about to unleash? And why am I thinking that, more and more, weiner IS the epitome of the republican party?
No underlying crime?? Don't recall the JURY being charged with that one....
It might just be me but I would like to donate to Scooters' Defense Fund because if he goes to his type of prison, someone might hit him with a tennis ball during a doubles match. And that would be cruel and inhumane punishment. Can you picture this...if the Scoots decides to open his mouth and start talking about "possible crimes" committed by this bunch, he could be sent to Gitmo or somewhere else because of National Security. His mouth is likely to stay closed.
Watching Kate O'Biern on Matthew's show was amazing. She actually believes that Libby should be pardoned immediately, and that the PARDON will exonerate Libby, a declaration that the trial was a mistake and the verdict wrong.
Aside from the fact that she is completely ignorant of what a pardon MEANS (to accept one, the recipient will be ADMITTING HIS GUILT), this shows the two sides of this partisan issue.
The SANE side sees government officials as corruptable and worthy of being watched constantly, and held accountable. The LAW applies to them.
Kate's side sees this current Administration as populated by grandfatherly but stern well-intentioned men who wish only to make this a better nation, and will sacrifice anything to this end. These people supercede any LAW. Hold THEM accountable? For WHAT? For being SAINTS?
Yes. Kate's is the INSANE side of the equation.
Tex, that's what's been cracking me up, the "pardon the innocent guy" contradiction.
I went over to Newsbusters last night. and the posts were great. It's apparently the liberal media railroading Libby, and the zombies are screaming that he's innocent AND should be pardoned immediately.
Tex: "to accept [a pardon], the recipient will be ADMITTING HIS GUILT"
-----
And the recipient has to express remorse. Not a single member of the W maladministration has the scruples to go that far.
Do you know who Kate O'Beirne's husband is? Check my post below for a link.
All FOR accountability! Let us hold accountable all the liars and cheats working for this administration undercover, passing as members of the media. Executions might be extreme, especially since I generally oppose capital punishment; but forfeiture of all assets, certainly; public service projects encompassing repair of all the physical damage to the nation sustained as a result of the catastrophic environmental and infrastructure policies espoused by these culprits and enacted by the administration; and, for additional labor, the managements of the corporations (media and other) enriched by those depredations. Hmmmmm . . .
I LIKE IT!
On second thought, Gasbag is somewhat correct - there is a danger here, which only he would ever be so perspicacious as to spy:
if the Repugnants were to be held accountable for all their crimes and misdemeanors of the past dozen years, not only would Gasbag himself be charged, and his employers as well; but with the damage to the Democratic Party in the process, the Greens would by default become a major party! The Rapture might be postponed many years, if the earth were to be preserved! O, woe!
former bush aide nicolle wallace: "they bring up sort of old washingrton....the people who will stand out in washington are the ones who will look forward". doesn't that have a familiar sound? old washington is presumably the clinton administration when the gop congress went on a spree of partisan witch hunts. somehow, investigating contractors ripping off taxpayers does not bother me. sounds like doing their job.
It's quite simple: Republicans have no sense of personal accountability.
This is where the divide between thinkers and non-thinkers will be delineated. Thinkers realize that this case is totally different from Clinton's. The non-thinkers...well, they still support Puddinhead George and will continue to do so no matter what he does or says, because he loves Jeeeeeezzzzzuuuusssss!
I have to admit, when reading the beginning of the article, without getting into depth about why he thinks Dems may want to be careful about accountability, I was thinking, "Well, he's right."
Democrats are in danger when they make moves to hold the administration and the previous holders of power to account for their actions, their lies, their unlawfulness. This is because the GOP has shown itself to be completely petty and vindictive -- shown precisely by their bulldogging the oral sex issue after they couldn't convince anyone that the Clintons were involved in true white-collar crime. Unfortunately, I believe the Democrats currently in power in the house and senate know this, and do fear it and therefore won't do what is necessary to bring even a modicum of honor and respect back into American political life by identifying and aggressively attacking government corruption. After all, if they spend 2007-2008 working on fixing government instead of heavily campaigning and doing photo ops, when the GOP takes over again they may try the same thing they did during the Clinton era.
So yes, the Democrats have reason to think they need to be careful about how they approach government corruption if they want to continue being fearful of the GOP, and few Democrats have shown that they're willing to grow a backbone just yet. What Baker doesn't note is that the Democrats also should have real fear of what public opinion will do to them if they just prosecute the safe issues - Walter Reed is an EASY issue, because no one but the most corrupted, drooling troglodyte could oppose fixing a problem that directly impacts those who have been wounded in Bush's war.
It's things like the Plame leak and hints of treason for political gain, the attorney firings, lying to send our troops to die overseas, the post-Katrina and post-9-11 response that have a deep and resonating meaning with a great deal of the American public, including many (most?) of the people who voted these Democrats in. By ignoring these issues and instead focusing on comparitively miniscule agendas, they will once again alienate the people who were voting for real change - not symbolic change - in government.
I've heard some radio shows local to me (Durham, NC) talking about this issue over the last couple of days, and what people have been saying is that the democrats don't have the "stomach" to take on the Bush administration, and that if the republicans were still in control, they would be raising Kane over this whole thing. Umm, yeah, OK. The repulicans would roll over for the Bush administration, and do nothing. Anyway...
They were taking calls, asking people if they think that they should go after MORE people on the Bush administration, and I can already tell what the talking points are that have been issued to the good republican foot soldiers. Essentially, it is this; bring up Sandy Berger anytime that they are talking about Scooter Libby. Of course, the people with brains realize that one has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other, but in the brain addled world of some people, Berger didn't do any time, so why should Scooter? And, believe it or not, I actually heard a local caller rant and rave about how Scooter being convicted is, get this, all Bill Clinton's fault. I'm not sure how he came to this conclusion, being that Scooter didn't serve under Clinton and all, and that Bill has nothing to do with this (just like Berger), but in their world view, anything bad that happens to the Bush administration is either the media's fault, or Clinton's fault, and has been since they took office. Living in a red state, I heard this mantra repeated time and again as they took calls in on this issue, with no dissenting opinions from the folks at large. I've got to give the radio show host credit, he was totally 180 degrees from everyone calling in, and he had good conversations with people asking them why they thought the way that they did, and to try and convince him with facts that they were right, and he was wrong. It was sort of a refreshing give and take, and when people would start getting belligerent on him, he would warn them once before cutting them off, and if they didn't come back and start talking sort of rationally (in a clam manner), he would say, "Sorry caller, we're going to have to cut you off, because you're not making coherent statements" and then move onto the next person.
Anyway, from the small percentage of people calling into this show in NC, it appears that the media HAS railroaded Libby (even though they have barely covered this story), and that Bill Clinton is responsible for all of the woes of Mr. Libby. It utterly amazes me.
Mag, you and I apparently listen to the same stations, and I was one of the callers yesterday afternoon (as a matter of fact!).
The overwhelming majority of the type of comments you're referring to (including mine) were referring to what the Republicans would do if it were a Democratic administration in power, instead - they'd bulldog the issue until they got what they wanted. The Democrats in the house and senate have shown NO such devotion to a goal, and haven't even shown themselves to want justice as a goal at all. Shortly after they won the majority, I recall one of the members of Democratic leadership saying that they had no interest in prosecuting the administration for war crimes leading to the Miserable Failure that is our war in Iraq. It stunningly spineless - it's apparent that there have been crimes committed all over the map by GOP leadership, and while I can understand being so stunned with them as to not know where to start, the DNC leadership hasn't showed any initiative in starting anywhere at all.
Scooter may not meet the administration's criteria to qualify for a pardon, but surely he merits a Medal of Freedom, judging by some of Bush's recipients.
If Baker thinks there is a "danger to Democrats" for conducting oversight (or the GOP meme, political investigations) suggest he is intentionally obtuse or needs to return to his civics class or take one.
As to Mary Matalin, a case of the pot calling the kettle black. But then the GOP, especially under Karl Rove's tutelage, have been doing this effectively for years and have not been called on it by the media.
While we are bringing this up, every time Kate O'Beirne is on the air. I think there should be a disclosure as to who her husband is and his role in the mess we are in with regards to Iraq. Her personal relationship to this administration, is important to understand when hearing her opine. Check here