Hey, in case you thought our Congress was in the grips of partisan bickering while the country grapples with high fuel prices, Iraq, tanking economy, etc. - not to worry. The NYT tells us that the "House voted Tuesday to designate National Watermelon Month and National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day."
Awesome.
Putting political opponents in jail is the sort of thing that happens in third-world dictatorships.
It certainly is! That's why it's so great that we live in a free and open democracy, where that sort of thing never happens. Right? Right?
Wrong. Sadly, the authors of that above statement are relating it to the United States. Today the New York Times editorial board makes the case that under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush's Justice Department has thrown the principle of nonpartisanship out the window, then jumped up and down on it and spat on it, all without regard to the rights and liberty of their political opponents.
The media is abuzz today about the announcement that the Justice Department is launching an internal investigation into whether or not Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liason who resigned in April, illegally took partisan affiliation into account when hiring nonpolitical career federal prosecutors.
Additionally, statements released by some of the fired US attorneys raise new questions about how their dismissal was handled. From the Washington Post:
In newly released statements, the two alleged that they were threatened by Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty's chief of staff immediately before Gonzales testified in the Senate in January.
Paul K. Charlton of Phoenix and John McKay of Seattle said that Michael J. Elston called them on Jan. 17 and offered an implicit agreement of Gonzales's silence in exchange for their continuing not to publicly discuss their removals. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee the next day and refused to provide details about the firings.
"My handwritten and dated notes of this call reflect that I believed Mr. Elston's tone was sinister and that he was prepared to threaten me further if he concluded I did not intend to continue to remain silent about my dismissal," McKay wrote in response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee.
Elston is denying this, of course. But that's not the end of it:
Common Blog
