Defending Core "Values"

I received an e-mail with this article attached to it, with the following note attached: "See, Republicans admit when theyre wrong. Liberals dont." If the person had read the article carefully, however, they would see that this impression of the message is false. This article does not admit any wrong of a significant nature. In fact, it only re-enforces the Republican policy that is most important to the current executive - The Unitary Executive Theory. The first three paragraphs are, more or less, a factual description of recent events in the Justice Department (with some political sniping at the Dems for good measure). However, in the second paragraph, there is a short line that is meant to deflect attention from the scandal, but instead should bring more attention to it: "But guess who usually recommends U.S.-attorney nominees? U.S. senators." "Usually"? Not true. The quote below is taken from this About.com link: The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill of 2005 is news today because it has enabled the President -- through the office of the Attorney General -- to arrange for US Attorneys to resign and then to replace them with political appointees, in the pejorative sense of that phrase, who do not need to be confirmed by the Senate. Lest we think this is simply an Op-Ed column, the evidence for this statement is also noted here: When introduced as HR 3199 in July 2005, the bill totaled seven pages (web text converted to PDF). When signed by the President in March 2006, it had morphed into Public Law 109-177, a "final print" behemoth at 277 pages. The bill is in the news because of this clause: SEC. 502. INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS. Section 546 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (c) and (d) and inserting the following new subsection: ''(c) A person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President under section 541 of this title.''. In order to interpret this, we turn to some analysis: The language that was replaced by PL 109-177 specified that if a US Attorney resigned before the end of his term, that the Court nominated an interim US attorney until the Senate acted on a Presidential nomination. The term for the interim US Attorney was limited by law to 120 days. Now, the President makes the appointment, there is no limit to the interim appointment, and there is required no Senate oversight. So, US Senators do NOT recommend US attorneys, especially in this case. Why, then, would "the editors" of NRO not mention this, as it is particularly pertinent to the discussion of Gonzalez and the DOJ scandal? The reason is that, if Congress has no hand in this scandal, then it is the sole domain of the Executive branch - the President. The editors must take care to protect the President and Vice-President, and the Unitary Executive Theory that they support. Intimating that Congress was party to the process spreads blame so widely and thinly that it ceases to be a problem for the Executive. The article continues in a relatively objective vein, until the end of the fourth paragraph: ...sparked demands that the executive branch’s authority be circumscribed. If forced to choose, we’d much prefer the former. The administration’s supporters should consider whether the price of keeping Gonzales in office will be the surrender of important policies in order to try to appease his critics. "Important policies"? What damage would be done if the executive branch's authority was "circumscribed"? In my opinion, there is only one "important policy" in the current Republican party, and therefore in NRO - Unitary Executive Theory. UET would definitely be at least partially "surrendered" if the executive branch's authority was "circumscribed", since UET is based on unbridled executive authority. Support for my theory comes in reading other NRO posts. The phrase "support for" or "protect traditional powers of the President" is repeated over and over when discussing various aspects of politics. This is the NRO euphemism for UET. Calling the UET powers "traditional" is an attempt to legitimize this view of executive authority, and to sub-consciously influence a readership which has responded favorably to talk of "traditional family values" (note the repeated use of the word "traditional"...). Continuing in the NRO article, paragraph six returns to partisan politics, trying to invoke a Nuremberg-type defense that shows where Democrats have made similar mistakes in the past. Just because your opponents have made mistakes does not justify you making those mistakes again. Cut out the obviously partisan stuff, OK? Paragraph seven begins the really interesting stuff. The article says: Blunders in the U.S.-attorney controversy have already forced a costly reversal in policy. The administration has dropped its opposition to Democratic legislation that would restore federal judges’ ability to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, a practice that the Bush administration had rightly seen as an improper intrusion on executive prerogatives. So, the administration has been opposing "Democratic legislation that would restore federal judges’ ability to appoint interim U.S. attorneys"? In other words, remove the offending portion of The Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill from earlier in this post? Why would the current administration want to block that? Again, Unitary Executive Theory rears its ugly head. "A practice that the Bush administration had rightly seen as an improper intrusion on executive prerogatives"? The use of the term "rightly" again shows NRO support for UET - the most important of all Republican ideologies - again. The best part of the article: Next will be an assault on the Patriot Act...we are inclined to agree that the FBI’s authority should be scaled back. Attorneys at the Justice Department should sign off before the FBI issues NSLs. This change can be made administratively, and requires no revision of the Patriot Act. This would seem, on the surface, to be an act of contrition and reconciliation, as the reader originally suggested. But, in reading it again, this is definitely not the case. "Attorneys at the Justice Department should sign off before the FBI issues NSLs". Remember that the Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill allows the Executive to manipulate who serves as Justice Department Attorneys, therefore turning this supposed FBI "check" into a rubber stamp. It will have no effect at all on the actual process. It is also very important to slip in and reinforce the phrase "requires no revision of the Patriot Act", because, of course, The Patriot Act is the single biggest legislative step towards UET that has been made. Republicans could hardly cope with a reversal of it. The last point: When he took office, Gonzales pledged to put the mission and well-being of the Department of Justice above all other considerations. Perhaps he should have added, "except for service to my political party". This NRO article is admittedly well-written, however it purports to show contrition for events that have occurred, while at the same time supporting the only thing that really matters to the current administration - The Unitary Executive Theory. I sincerely doubt any current administration official will ever admit that they are wrong about UET. I dare them to prove me wrong. P.S. - Apologies to the reader for my massive dis-assembly of the article as linked, but I had just finished reading this article, and Gonzalez was on my mind.