“Loyal Bushies”

That quote is not from Kos, or any other crazy left wing anti-bush, America hating, terrorist sympathizing, nutroots blogger.

It is from AbuGonz’s recently resigned Chief of Staff, and he used it in a 2005 e-mail describing his thoughts after a conversation with AbuGonz about the US Attorneys. 

The vast majority of U.S. Attorneys, 80-85 percent, I would guess, are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc., etc.

Like I said earlier, AbuGonz now has no recollection of this conversation. What a shock. The point here, though, is that “doing a great job” was defined as “loyal Bushies.”

Is anyone comfortable with that? Again, this is not the crazy ramblings of liberal conspiracy theorists. This is the administration’s own people plainly asserting that what primarily counts for service in the administration is not competence, intelligence, character, or even success, but loyalty to the president.

That’s fine and dandy for positions like press secretary. If that’s your job, you’re nothing but a mouthpiece, so all that matters is how well you can say what you are told to say. You are not paid to think or exercise independent judgment, you are paid to parrot your bosses positions. 

But if the employee is a US Attorney? Sorry. Yes, an attorney has to serve his client’s interests. But the attorney must do so within the bounds of his loyalty to the law and the courts. “The customer is always right” has no application to the attorney-client relationship. A good attorney often tells his client “No.” Sometimes that’s because the client wants to make stupid arguments, sometimes it’s because the client wants to do something illegal, and sometimes it’s because what the client thinks is a winning strategy is really a loser. Whatever the reason, an attorney has to exercise his own judgment; he cannot just be a tool for the client.

And George Bush would not even be the client of the US Attorneys. The Attorney General – and by extension the USAs – represent THE UNITED STATES. That’s the client, not Dubya. Now, obviously, when the client is an entity the client can only act through people. But those people occasionally want to do something that is not in the client’s best interests (think the people acting for Enron). Again, what does a good attorney do in that situation? She tells the client “No.”

So if being a “loyal Bushie” meant doing things like seeking indictments for non-existent cases of voter fraud, or short-circuiting investigations of Republicans, or rushing investigations of Democrats so that they will hit the press prior to elections, then being a loyal Bushie meant being a corrupt attorney.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

4 Comments on ““Loyal Bushies””

  1. Brian Says:

    The thing that really sickens me about this whole thing is the Rove felt that the GOP lost Congress because of scandals. His solution to that was to expunge all non-Bushies and fill those positions with lackeys who presumably would prosecute Dems more vigorously. So, instead of fixing whatever was actually causing some on the GOP to become corrupt his solution was to try to hide their actions.

    Philosophically I’m much more in line with the GOP (at least what I think the GOP stood for at one point in time) than I am the Dems. The only exception would be civil liberties. But Bush has considerably eroded my support for the GOP and the two party system in general. I’m sick of politicians fighting for their team and against the other team rather than fighting for Americans. More and more I think we need more than two political parties. That would at least take away the incentive to tear down a specific opponent because you might turn voters away from them, but they wouldn’t have to turn to you. I digress…

  2. Willie Says:

    There is a good article about Gonzales’ conference call Friday to all 93 USA’s in today’s Sunday Washington Post. Here is a quote from one of them, a senior prosecutor, “The whole thing is just a fiasco and has devastated the credibility of U.S. attorneys around the country,” one senior prosecutor said yesterday. “I would call it too little, too late.”


  3. […] very sympathetic to an argument that Harriet Myers, because she is the President’s lawyer (contra the AG and USAs), should not testify at all before Congress about her dealings with the President. What I am saying […]


  4. […] The US Dept. Of Justice? After the AbuGonz hearing yesterday, I think it is obvious – if it was not already- that he has treated DOJ as nothing but a tool for the advancement of his own party. Even Jeff […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: