From the limited testimony I saw, Monica Goodling came off like a twit in the congressional hearings. But the fact of the matter is, she couldn't have that much power without the tacit approval of someone important. Plausible deniability doesn't stretch to such endemic malfeasance by a single person. Nuh-uh. I've worked with too many conniving office hens to know that. When politics trumps experience even in counter-terrorism--the so-called strong suit of this sad-sack Administration--it's criminal behavior. Regardless of whether it was gross negligence or actually an evil hand guided by an evil mind.
If you want a good sample of the Bush Junta's legacy, this is an excellent choice. You have people who are willing to kill thousands upon thousands in an illegal war, torture, roll back the definition of American citizenship to the days of the Union Jack, etc., etc. All in the sacred name of the War! On!! Terror!!!. Yet, ask them to make the "sacrifice" of (horrors!) sharing office space with a liberal who happens to be competent in counter-terrorism? Too much for their hothouse flower sensibilities: Break out the smelling salts!
I'm not the gambling sort, so I won't wager with myself over whether Mukasey will have the cajones to investigate, much less with any alacrity. He's bench-warming for a lame-duck President, after all. So I will not be at all surprised if the next Administration will be handed yet another mess to sort out. For all that, it won't do to let the interest flag in such things. Not just for the obvious reasons of giving a d--n that our so-called "leaders" live up to all that stuff we had to memorize in the 8th Grade. No, I think that the behavior of these high-ranking flunkies in the next few months will serve as a reliable bellwether for the GOP insider view on John McCain's prospects in November.
Update, 29 July 2008, 15:58 GMT:
Seems that the NYT's coverage went further up the political food chain. Quelle surprise, the White House's commissars had their sticky little fingers in the pot.
According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”That, folks, is the set of priorities these jack-booted thought-police worked with. Abortion. Homosexuality. Florida recount. Guns. All of which have sweet F.A. to do with law enforcement or counter-terrorism. Even the "guns" emphasis was meant to screen out people who believe that there should be fewer guns out there, instead of more.
Makes you feel sooooo much safer, dun'nit? Personally, all I can think of the Spanish Armada. As in the micro-managing King Philip tapping poor old Medina-Sidonia and loading down the ships with hundreds of priests. And we all know how well that worked out...
