Thursday, March 22, 2007

Defining Deviancy Down

Let's make note of two statements from the Journal's editorial pages today. First, the editors themselves:

What would be genuine grounds for outrage is if a U.S. attorney were dismissed to interfere with a specific prosecution, or to protect some crony.


and, the nauseating John Yoo in a predictable OpEd

Unless there are more clear facts of interference with prosecutors for partisan purposes, Mr. Gonzales should keep his job.



Josh Marshall thinks that those lines may have already been crossed:

It's yet another example of how far this White House has gone in normalizing behavior that we've been raised to associate with third-world countries where democracy has never successfully taken root and the rule of law is unknown. At most points in our history the idea that an Attorney General could stay in office after having overseen such an effort would be unthinkable. The most telling part of this episode is that they're not even really denying the wrongdoing. They're ignoring the point or at least pleading 'no contest' and saying it's okay.

No comments: