Why be "fair and balanced" with Bush administration criminals?

the wapo strikes again, by first of all - no surprise - completely misstating the issue and omitting any context...

The White House and congressional Democrats have drawn deep lines in the sand over who will testify, and how, as Congress investigates the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. The stubbornness and overheated rhetoric on both sides threaten an unnecessary constitutional crisis that would only bog down the inquiry in a distracting fight over process.

no, no, no... the constitutional crisis is not "unnecessary," it's a must... the "line in the sand" is a line that has to be drawn if there is ever to be a halt to the bush administration's demands for ever more unfettered, unaccountable power... second, it's not just the DEMOCRATS, dammit... by making that statement, the issue is once again being labeled partisan...

note also that the wapo completely fails its readers by not noting that there are a number of republicans who are just as disturbed by all this as there are democrats...

then, it goes on to either miss or deliberately avoid a key point about bush's non-starter offer for confidential, off-the-record interviews...

Lawmakers would do well to demonstrate more understanding of the legitimate institutional concerns at stake here -- is the president not entitled to confidential advice on personnel matters?

what fails to be mentioned here became patently clear yesterday - that if there had been no discussion with bush regarding the attorney issue, then there's nothing to talk about in the first place, as reporter ed henry pointed out in a press briefing with tony snow...

Tony Snow explained that the standoff between the Executive Branch and Congress revolves around Bush’s right to “privileged communications with close staff members.” But he also stated that “the president has no recollection” of conversations about the attorney firings being raised with him. That means, as CNN’s Ed Henry noted, that the White House is now claiming executive privilege over conversations that never existed.

then they go on to make a suggestion that, while reasonable on its face, on closer reading makes no sense...

As we suggested last week, a two-step process could pull both sides back from the brink. First, Mr. Gonzales and other Justice Department officials should testify about their decisions to remove the ousted eight. If questions remain, Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should be interviewed. They don't have to testify under oath, since lying to Congress is a crime. But their testimony must be as open as possible and should without question be transcribed.

if lying to congress is a crime and the testimony is open and transcribed, what is the problem with making it fully official and putting them under oath...? how this op-ed reads to me is that the wapo fully realizes what kind of a mess this whole thing really is but is trying to be all things to all people, or, to use the dreaded term, "fair and balanced..." bullshit, wapo... trying to achieve fairness and balance when dealing with criminals is NOT the way to go...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet