A Failure To Communicate

Borrowing a quote from “Cool Hand Luke,” one could describe the disconnect regarding statements by Congress and the White House regarding the recent removal of US Attorneys. “What we have here is a failure to communicate!” It is entirely possible that Bush and his Administration are speaking sincerely when stating that, in their view, there was nothing wrong in the summary firing of the US Attorneys and replacing them with hand picked political loyalists. Equally sincere are the expressions of outrage by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that the firings transgress the standards by which the American system of justice has survived. The disconnect lies in a very different set of values held by the members of Congress (or at least their vocal constituents) and the Bush Administration.

The US Constitution permits the Administration to appoint officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. This long standing precedent and practice has generally been thought to enable a sitting President to further his general policy objectives through the appointment of qualified persons who shared or were sympathetic to those policies. Thus, the notion of Presidential prerogative has traditionally meant the ability to further broad administrative policies, such as tax reduction, environmental initiatives, space exploration, health care policies, etc. Generally speaking, the concept has not been applied to allow the President to remove or replace an appointee for absolutely any reason, particularly if the reason is to further an illegal or patently unethical purpose.

In contrast, the Bush Administration follows the interpretation of unitary Presidential power that allows the President to do essentially anything he pleases without limitation and without any effective checks or balances in the exercise of that discretion, short of impeachment. Under that interpretation, firing US Attorneys because they have successfully prosecuted GOP financial supporters and key allies is perfectly acceptable. The concept of “equal justice under the law” does not protect the traditional independence that US Attorneys have maintained in the past. For example, removal by Bush of a female appointee because he preferred a man in the position would not be subject to challenge, despite the US laws against gender discrimination. It is enough that the President no longer wants the appointee in the position. His reason for removal is unconstrained and irrelevant because he is not answerable for his motives.

In addition, there are very different sets of values with regard to “right and wrong.” We have been given a view of the disconnect in this arena by the Downing Street Memos [pretext for iraq invasion], the revelation of the Gonzalez Memo regarding acceptability of torture as an interrogation tactic respecting prisoners or detainees in the Bush War on Terror [violations of International Law and Geneva Conventions], the revelation of extraordinary renditions [violations of human rights and International Law], documented abuses of domestic surveillance authority[violations of US laws] and a litany of other similar instances. In summary, the concept of what is “wrong” held by George W, Bush and his subordinates does not comport with what the majority of this country, regardless of religion, gender, race or socioeconomic status believe to be improper and unethical. The same could probably be said of the rest of the world.

Consequently, it makes perfect sense that the White House would offer to permit aides to speak with Congressional investigators into the firing of US Attorneys only if such discussions occurred in private, without being under oath and without transcripts. We have seen a number of instances where Bush Administration operatives have knowingly and deliberately lied to members of Congress, and the American people, in order to further their political agenda or to shield the Administration from criminal prosecution [See Gonzalez Memo]. Indeed the current furor over the firings has been sparked by misrepresentations and differing accounts of the basis or circumstances of for the removals offered to Congress under oath. So it makes perfect sense that the Administration would not permit aides to come before Congressional investigators unless they are unburdened by the constraint of having to tell the truth and be held accountable for the veracity of their testimony.

Such latitude is often extended as a courtesy to Administration officials at the highest levels because of the sensitivity of certain issues and the desire to gain a better understanding and background into events that the Congress is investigating or policies it is weighing in proposed legislation. The presumption in those instances is that the Administration officials would be truthful and candid, and not intentionally mislead Congress. However, that latitude has traditionallybeen granted based upon a level of trust that has been earned. No such trust has been earned by the Bush Administration, and is definitely not warranted in a situation where the crisis at hand was precipitated by Administration officials lying to Congress.

If George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would deliberately deceive Congressional leaders and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in “unofficial” meetings regarding topics as important as the pretext for the invasion of Iraq and the violation of national security laws regarding the outing of a covert CIA operative, what is the probability that subordinates would be truthful in statements to Congress regarding the firing of US Attorneys? To the Bush administration, there is nothing “wrong” with lying to Congress, as long as you do not get caught and if it furthers a political objective of the President. The failure to communicate involves a differing set of ethical values and the difference between Adminstration situational ethics and public's basic concepts or right and wrong.