One of the things missing from the recent discussions regarding the scandal around the Bush Administration and "Purgegate" is an accurate comparison to what took place during the Clinton Administration.
Conservatives try to compare the Bush Administration's purge of eight US Attorneys, who apparently weren't investigating Democrats quickly enough and also weren't spending enough time looking at question claims of voter fraud, to the Clinton administration letting all of the US attorneys go at the beginning of his term.
After 12 straight years of Republican rule and 20 out of 24 years, it isn't hard to imagine the need for purging. After only six years the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration felt the need to dump up to 20% of his own Attorneys and only keep prosecutors who were "loyal Bushies."
The conservative mantra is that the attorney's, and others, serve at the pleasure of the President so what's the big deal with getting rid of people? The big deal is that when the Clinton Administration tried to get rid of travel office staff the press and conservatives jacked the controversy up so much that a special prosecutor was eventually appointed to investigate "Travelgate."
Think about that - conservatives and the press demanded a special investigator to look into a Democratic President getting rid of travel office staff over questions of how the office was run, yet many have no problems if a Republican president gets rid of US attorneys for political purposes.
The key for conservatives has been to confuse issues just enough so someone who only hears a little bit will accept the GOP talking point (Libby found Not Guilty - Fox) no matter how little it has to do with reality.
The question now is, have the sound bites moved beyond the twisting point and is the public finally starting to truly understand how bad the Bush administration is?
No comments:
Post a Comment