NY Times slams Bush's 'nasty and bumbling comments' on US Attorney firings; Calls on Congress to subpoena Rove, others

NY Times slams Bush's 'nasty and bumbling comments' on US Attorney firings; Calls on Congress to subpoena Rove, others

Ron BrynaertPublished: Wednesday March 21, 2007

Democratic leaders were right to reject an "unacceptable" offer presented by the White House on Tuesday which would allow unsworn testimony by White House officials behind closed doors, and should press on with planned subpoenas for Karl Rove and others, according to the lead editorial in Wednesday's New York Times.

"In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that 'people just need to hear the truth' about the firing of eight United States attorneys," the Times editorial states. "That’s right. Unfortunately, the deal Mr. Bush offered Congress to make White House officials available for 'interviews' did not come close to meeting that standard."

In his address, Bush defended his administration's disclosure of an "unprecedented" amount of documents showing how the firing of those U.S. attorneys was handled. "There is no indication that anybody did anything improper," said Bush, asserting that Democrats were more interested in "scoring political points" than constructing an honest account of the firings.
The Times editorial continues, "Mr. Bush’s proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress. Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark."

In a statement released before Bush's remarks that was sent to RAW STORY, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called on Rove to testify under oath.
"After telling a bunch of different stories about why they fired the U.S. Attorneys, the Bush Administration is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt," Reid said. "Congress and the American people deserve a straight answer. If Karl Rove plans to tell the truth, he has nothing to fear from being under oath like any other witness.”

Not very happy with the offer, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called it a "very clever proposal," and said that it will be considered by the Congressional committee leaders. Democrats have been calling for on-the-record testimony by Rove, Miers and others, and the Senate may issue its own subpoenas.

"The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush’s threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation," the Times editorial states. "Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials’ statements to Congress, which may have been untrue."

However, the Times editors find it "no great surprise that top officials of this administration believe they do not need to testify before Congress," since "this is an administration that has shown over and over that it does not believe that the laws apply to it, and that it does not respect its co-equal branches of government."

Still, the editorial adds, "Congress should subpoena Mr. Rove and the others, and question them under oath, in public. If Congress has more questions, they should be recalled."
Excerpts from Times editorial:

#
It is hard to imagine what, besides evading responsibility, the White House had in mind. Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth? And why would Congress accept that idea, especially in an investigation that has already been marked by repeated false and misleading statements from administration officials?

The White House notes that making misrepresentations to Congress is illegal, even if no oath is taken. But that seems to be where the lack of a transcript comes in. It would be hard to prove what Mr. Rove and others said if no official record existed. The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.

The White House argued that presidential advisers rarely testify before Congress, but that is simply not true. Many of President Clinton’s high-ranking advisers, including his White House counsels and deputy chief of staff, testified about Whitewater, allegations of campaign finance abuses and other matters.
#
TIMES SELECT SUBSCRIBERS CAN READ FULL EDITORIAL AT THIS LINK