Smart bombs: Mistakes were made

Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal editorial on the U.S. attorneys kerfuffle (they didn’t use that word, but they will) notes that the just-jettisoned U.S. attorney from Western Washington is a Democrat. No he isn’t. John McKay is a Republican who was recommended by other Republicans and selected by a Republican president.

The editorial also noted that when President Clinton replaced U.S. attorneys in 1993 his act was “unprecedented.” No it wasn’t.

Stuart M. Gerson, who was the acting attorney general in 1993 as the Clinton administration fumbled to name an attorney general (Zoe Baird? No. Kimba Wood? No. Janet Reno? Yes!), wrote the following during an online chat last week at the Washington Post:

“It is customary for a President to replace U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of a term. Ronald Reagan replaced every sitting U.S. Attorney when he appointed his first Attorney General. President Clinton, acting through me as Acting AG, did the same thing, even with few permanent candidates in mind. What is unusual about the current situation is that it happened in the middle of a term.”

Gerson can’t be accused of partisanship. He was a holdover from the first Bush administration. So, just how unusual was the sacking of the eight U.S. attorneys in the middle of a presidential term? The Congressional Research Service studied the history of this from 1981 to 2006 and found that 54 U.S. attorneys had departed – all but eight left voluntarily to accept federal judgeships, take other government jobs, run for office or resume private practice. One died. Five of the remaining eight were fired or resigned due to alleged misconduct, not for failing to follow presidential prerogatives. There was no information on the other three.

So despite the Wall Street Journal editorial’s assertion, it isn’t unusual for presidents to name their own U.S. attorneys upon taking office, but it is unprecedented to dump eight of them for anything other than misconduct. It gets even stranger when you consider that those doing the firing also did the hiring.

The trouble with Harriet. White House spokesman Tony Snow says it was then-Bush adviser Harriet Miers who alone hatched the idea to replace all 93 U.S. attorneys at the outset of President Bush’s second term.

Released e-mails show that Miers certainly promoted the idea in February 2005, but was she the only one? ABC News reported on Thursday that unreleased e-mails show that Karl Rove, the president’s chief political adviser, raised the possibility of a mass purge in January 2005. The U.S. Justice Department released e-mails Thursday night that confirm that. (They also show that Alberto Gonzales was involved before taking over as attorney general.)

You might ask at this point: “What would be the point of that”? Great question! Why would the likes of, say, Jim McDevitt, who is the U.S. attorney for Eastern Washington, be shown the door? E-mail traffic shows that the administration considered 80 percent to 85 percent of them to be “loyal Bushies” who were doing a fine job. Yes, I know they – all together now – serve at the pleasure of the president. But there has to be a better reason than, “Just cuz,” right?

Since Rove says the controversy is “just politics” and nothing untoward has happened, he shouldn’t have any qualms about heading up to Capitol Hill and explaining the whole mess. He should bring Miers with him.

Just politics, eh? It’s not surprising that Democrats would pounce on the U.S. attorneys mess, but they’re not the only ones disgusted.

In an article at LegalTimes.com, Joseph DiGenova, a conservative who was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia under President Reagan, said: “They have the right to fire them; they do not have the right to smear them.”

Mark Corallo, who was the Justice Department spokesman under former Attorney General John Ashcroft, said: “These are people who worked hard in the pursuit of justice. To go out and trash their reputations – it’s galling.”

At the White House, it’s easy being green. The New York Times got a copy of the administration’s Climate Action Report, which is more than one year overdue, and found that the United States is expected to increase its greenhouse-gas emissions through the next decade at about the same rate as last decade.

An administration spokeswoman said the data show that the administration’s approach is working. Really? That’s like taxes going up 11.6 percent one year and 11 percent the next and calling it a victory for tax-cutting.

Meanwhile, on March 9, European Union leaders agreed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020.