- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I also disagree with Joe. While we need some accountability in this administration, I think the public tires easily of long, dragged out special prosecutions -- especially in cases like this, where the line between obfuscation (which is not unique to members of the Bush administration) and perjury is blurry. This is not like the special prosecution into the Plame matter, where the prosecutor was named to investigate potential violations of substantive law, and only when he could charge none did he resort to a prosecution for tampering with the prosecutorial mechanism; here, you want an investigation strictly into the lies told during a congressional investigation. Here, I don't know of any suggestion that officials have done anything illegal (other than perjury), though there is substantial evidence that they have acted improperly. A special prosecutor seems to me to be overkill in this situation.
You think the administration isn't being held accountable for this scandal? You think voters won't take account of it in the 2008 elections? Ultimately, I think the congressional hearings are, in this instance, all the procedure we need to inform the American people that something smells -- even if we never know all of the details around the firings. And I think we need to strive to be consistent in our views on special prosecutors, because it's always easy to flip-flop about whether they are either critically necessary or wasteful and dangerous invasions upon executive privilege, based on who's occupying the Oval Office at the time. For self-interested reasons as well, Democrats should be cautious about making too much political hay of the misconduct of this frightful and frightening administration, because if Americans were looking for "a uniter, not a divider" seven years ago, they surely must be seeking one now.
