Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Fitzgerald Champ or Chump Redux
Monday I asked if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was a ‘champ’ or a ‘chump’. I sorely hope that the answer is a champ. Today in his column (1) Pat Buchanan gave his answer, champ it is. Mr. Buchanan laid out his argument with his usual eloquence. But with his very first sentence he destroyed any credence his opinion might have. He opens with, “Unlike Archibald Cox and Lawrence Walsh, Patrick Fitzgerald is no posturing partisan who assumed he had been chosen by Divine Providence to take on a White House and bring down a president.” Therein lays the problem. There has only been one posturing partisan political hack, er, Special Prosecutor whose sole intent has been to bring down a president. That hack, man, is Kenneth Starr.
History has yet to decide whether Starr was just a small small man in search of a great stage or a hired gun by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and other right wing extremists in their destructive pursuit of the great white whale. Starr is the only Special Prosecutor to step outside the Constitution in an illegal quest to entrap a president. We must note that Mr. Cox and Mr. Walsh while remaining within the law both investigated other presidents who went about their jobs by trying to subvert the Constitution.
Mr. Buchanan’s failure to even mention Kenneth Starr much less express outrage at his tactics makes one wonder if Pat is indeed the true believer of conservatism and freedom that he claims to be or if he is just another posturing partisan. Another thing that gives me pause is his defense of Karl Rove. Pat says,” He (Fitzgerald) heeded a plea from Rove's attorney not to indict his client, who, after all, had told Fitzgerald the truth about other crucial conversations, but had forgotten the Cooper phone call.” Why does Pat say Rove told the truth? He never has in his entire political life. The one consistency he has exhibited is his compulsion to lie and deceive. Why would a conservative and believer in democracy defend Rove who is one of the main Republican extremists trying to tear down democracy by destroying the electoral process?
Buchanan goes on to praise Fitzgerald for conducting a limited investigation as dictated by law. Obviously Pat is not familiar with the law. He should read Title 28 Section 600.4 paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations (2). This is the law under which Fitzgerald conducted his investigation. It plainly allows the Special Counsel to expand his original investigation by giving him authority to, “investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation.”
About the only thing Pat got right in the column was when he placed blame on Congress for not doing its job. But then who controls both houses of Congress? If Bill Clinton were President under this same set of circumstances he would have been impeached and convicted a long time ago, and rightly so.
(1) Pat Buchanan
(2) Title 28 CFR
Fitzgerald
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.
Monday I asked if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was a ‘champ’ or a ‘chump’. I sorely hope that the answer is a champ. Today in his column (1) Pat Buchanan gave his answer, champ it is. Mr. Buchanan laid out his argument with his usual eloquence. But with his very first sentence he destroyed any credence his opinion might have. He opens with, “Unlike Archibald Cox and Lawrence Walsh, Patrick Fitzgerald is no posturing partisan who assumed he had been chosen by Divine Providence to take on a White House and bring down a president.” Therein lays the problem. There has only been one posturing partisan political hack, er, Special Prosecutor whose sole intent has been to bring down a president. That hack, man, is Kenneth Starr.
History has yet to decide whether Starr was just a small small man in search of a great stage or a hired gun by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and other right wing extremists in their destructive pursuit of the great white whale. Starr is the only Special Prosecutor to step outside the Constitution in an illegal quest to entrap a president. We must note that Mr. Cox and Mr. Walsh while remaining within the law both investigated other presidents who went about their jobs by trying to subvert the Constitution.
Mr. Buchanan’s failure to even mention Kenneth Starr much less express outrage at his tactics makes one wonder if Pat is indeed the true believer of conservatism and freedom that he claims to be or if he is just another posturing partisan. Another thing that gives me pause is his defense of Karl Rove. Pat says,” He (Fitzgerald) heeded a plea from Rove's attorney not to indict his client, who, after all, had told Fitzgerald the truth about other crucial conversations, but had forgotten the Cooper phone call.” Why does Pat say Rove told the truth? He never has in his entire political life. The one consistency he has exhibited is his compulsion to lie and deceive. Why would a conservative and believer in democracy defend Rove who is one of the main Republican extremists trying to tear down democracy by destroying the electoral process?
Buchanan goes on to praise Fitzgerald for conducting a limited investigation as dictated by law. Obviously Pat is not familiar with the law. He should read Title 28 Section 600.4 paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Code of Federal Regulations (2). This is the law under which Fitzgerald conducted his investigation. It plainly allows the Special Counsel to expand his original investigation by giving him authority to, “investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation.”
About the only thing Pat got right in the column was when he placed blame on Congress for not doing its job. But then who controls both houses of Congress? If Bill Clinton were President under this same set of circumstances he would have been impeached and convicted a long time ago, and rightly so.
(1) Pat Buchanan
(2) Title 28 CFR
Fitzgerald
The Bush Credo - No Sacrifice Is Too Great For Others To Make.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
