Mahony, Rove, Both Miscreants, Must Go
On Dec. 5, based solely on denial of the records, I urged in this blog that Mahony be forced to resign, as another Catholic miscreant, Cardinal Bernard Law was forced to do in Boston. Now that Mahony is revealed in a lead L.A. Times story Tuesday by John Spano to be a perjurer, the case is even clearer.
Mahony has been protecting pedophiles, lying to parishioners about sex crimes committed under his jurisdiction, which raises the question of whether he might not be a pedophile himself. In any case, he belongs in jail, not in a worthy religious position.
Meanwhile, President Bush is trying to stonewall Congress on behalf of another miscreant, his political advisor Karl Rove. He offers, in the sordid firing of eight U.S. attorneys for trying to do their jobs in honest ways, to make Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers, the ditz he tried to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court, available for interviews, but not under oath.
This is unsatisfactory, and by a voice vote to issue subpoenas in the House Judiciary Committee today Congress is saying so.
It is obvious with Rove and Miers, not to mention Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, that like Mahony they must be put under oath, so we can tell who is lying and prosecute them for perjury in that case. The dishonorable Mahony stonewalled for four years. We don't want Mr. Bush to stonewall through the end of his presidency. He may be no Mahony, as pointed out by Matt Weinstock, a commentator below, but he still has emerged as an unreliable, I believe unsavory. character.
It may be that the President doesn't realize how unpopular hs administration has become, and how unacceptable it is to the American people that liars occupy high places. Rove, in particular, should have been prosecuted in the CIA leak case. He has been a bad influence for a long time. Now, is the time to get rid of him.
The New York Times editorial this morning is appropriately devastating on the President's proposal to send Rove and Miers before Congress for interviews only, not under oath.
"Mr. Bush's proposal was a formula for hiding the truth, and for protecting the president and his staff from a legitimate inquiry by Congress," the editorial says. "Mr. Bush's idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances. The people, in other words, would be kept in the dark.
"The Democratic leaders were right to reject the offer, despite Mr. Bush's threat to turn this dispute into a full-blown constitutional confrontation.
"Congress has the right and the duty to fully investigate the firings, which may have been illegal, and Justice Department officials' statements to Congress, which may have been untrue."
One thing more about this. The Republicans in Congress have largely been sticking with Mr. Bush on the vital issue of the war, jeopardizing their chances in the 2008 elections. On this matter, the firing of the U.S. attorneys, they definitely cannot afford to do so. They can afford to associate with Mr. Bush in his refusal to provide officials under oath no more than Republicans stuck with Richard Nixon in the Watergate investigation.
Labels: Religious issues