Kyle Sampson was Alberto Gonzales' Chief of Staff. He resigned over Attorneygate. Well, they can't even be straight about his resignation. He resigned, but was still technically there as he transitioned out, which is almost reasonable. But after that it seems he was getting setup with a new office as a lawyer for the environmental division of the Department of Justice. Yesterday, Sampson's lawyer talked about why he resigned:
"Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys. He resigned because, as Chief of Staff, he felt he had let the Attorney General down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective political response to the unfounded accusations of impropriety in the replacement process."
The reason Attorneygate is a story is because it seems the administration fired what are supposed to be independent positions for purely political reasons. Each time the administration speaks they change their story which makes it seem like they are hiding something. The new story also seems to implicate higher and higher people. This becomes an illegal act if it turns out the firings were because of current ongoing cases the administration didn't want continued. There are hints of this but nothing solid yet, which is why more info must be gathered.
But here's the point of this post. Sampson is apologizing not for doing something wrong but for letting it become a story. If you wanted to be cynical it's for failing to coverup things effectively. To be less cyncial, it's for not handling things well. Gonzales and Bush have repeated (Nixon's phrase) "mistakes were made" regarding not the firings but that we didn't tell those involved. The problem is they lied to Congress about it, at this point that's pretty clear.
Another quote from the Nixon era is, "it's not the crime, it's the coverup". The importance of saying something correctly has overtaken the importance of saying something correct. Politicians are so handled today they can't say anything without a staff to back them up. John McCain can't even say if contraceptives prevent the spread of HIV without asking for a study paper. He even says "You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was." Is this a joke? This is man who thinks he has the qualifications to lead a nation?
I think HIlary is quite smart and capable. I liked her health care plan of 1993 but think she badly bungled the politics of it. Given that I was surprised at how effective she's been as a Senator, she's clearly learned a thing or two. I also clearly agree with many of her (social and economic) positions. I have doubts if she could win the national election, based solely on how so many of the right still hate her husband. But my biggest problem with her is that, I have no idea what she would do about the middle east.
People ask HIlary if she thinks her vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq was a mistake. Whether it was or wasn't, the problem is, she won't give a straight answer to it. You can tell her handlers have told her to never admit to a mistake, even if you were lied to about the information at the time. Media Matters might not think the question is important, but I think it's one of the big questions for Hilary, is she real or she is another prepacked candidate you can't trust.
This is why Obama is interesting to people, he comes across as genuine. It's as simple as that, and the state of our politics is as pathetic as that. Imagine if all or even most of the candidates were genuine, maybe then we could choose the candidate who had the best ideas and the best ability to execute them. HDNet is showing A Man for All Seasons, maybe more politicians should watch it.
No comments:
Post a Comment