I read with interest Robert Kuttner's piece on Attorney General Gonzales ("You're Fired," 3/26/07), hoping to learn some facts I hadn't known that might justify his removal. Alas, what I found was a case of guilt by association, and meaningless references to long-past historical events.
Kuttner asserts that "The firings of U.S. attorneys had multiple political motives, all contrary to longstanding practice." This statement and the examples that follow show that he's been an earnest consumer of media spin regarding this story. But he fails to make the case for either part of that assertion.
The only reason for removing Gonzales that he deigns to mention is the alleged abuses of the Patriot Act by the FBI. But the reason he knows about those is because of an investigation by -- guess who -- Alberto Gonzales's Justice Department. Strike Two.
He also accuses the Attorney General of "tampering with criminal investigations on political grounds," a very serious charge indeed. But he fails to even mention one such instance, much less make the case. That's strike three, but there's more.
Kutter writes, "&this investigation is hardly partisan, since several Republican senators and congressmen have already called for Gonzales to resign." The reasons for Gonzales's waning support among Republicans are, first, that he's not conservative enough -- a charge I presume Kuttner wouldn't agree with; and second, that he was so stupid as to blunder into this meaningless "scandal" in the first place, in effect giving rope to the lynch mob.
In Kuttner's version of justice, actual proof of a crime is unnecessary. By contrast, the Whitewater investigation produced about a dozen convictions for real crimes, including those of a sitting governor. But it might be hard to explain the difference to the torch-wielding Democratic mob.
Bill Ireland
Ontario, CA
Webb's Progressivism
Terence Samuel wrote ("According to Jim," 3/23/07), "Senator Webb is turning out to be more multi-dimensional -- and more progressive -- than anyone could have expected."
It is probably best that he speak for himself and not be presumptuous. There were many, many of us who worked for Webb's election because he has integrity, seriousness of purpose, is articulate in both speech and written word, connected in substantive rather than superficial ways with people, cares about people's welfare, is rational and intellectually honest, is accomplished in many diverse fields.
He is conservative in the sense of not being cavalier and wasteful of people's lives and taxpayer money, which I think can also be called progressive in our present context, and makes sense and presents thoughtful positions even if they are not exactly identical to one's own. And yes, he does not pander, he answers questions asked straightforwardly, and, if he were to say there is classified information which lead him to a position, one has the trust in him to believe he has done due diligence with respect to this information and he is not duped by irrational arguments and will not defer to title alone. Seems there was a war about that which has been forgotten.
It is not surprising, since it happens frequently, that the realizations of many political pundits lag behind what the non-professional knows, and pundits really should not think that others are more ignorant and less perceptive than they are. The opening of this article which make such claims is an ego massage for Samuel, but factually incorrect.
Joe Chiara
The American Prospect welcomes and publishes letters to the editor for both its print and online versions. To respond to an article, email: letters@prospect.org.
