No oath,no transcript is not ‘somewhere in the middle’

April 19, 2007

I’ve had a few discouraging words about the Washington Post’s John Solomon, after a series of news-less front-page exposes left me wondering, “What is Solomon thinking?”

Yesterday, we got a much clearer sense of exactly what Solomon is thinking.

The Post’s money and politics reporter did an online Q&A with readers yesterday afternoon and addressed the White House’s stonewalling on the prosecutor purge scandal.

Arlington, Va.: Wouldn’t the best strategy for the Bush administration be to stonewall every single request from the Democrats? They can keep things tied up in courts until well after the Bush presidency ends. Why would they choose to cooperate on even the smallest of matters?

John Solomon: Stonewalling comes with its own political consequences. While the courts might take time to methodically decide issues, the public’s patience with getting answers it might demand from an administration is finite. The Bush administration folks I’ve talked with say they want to pick their battles carefully. They need to cooperate with Congress where they can in hopes of achieving some legislation accomplishments in its final two years. All-out stonewalling would run contrary to that goal. I expect the administration will continue to propose solutions somewhere in the middle _ like the one they offered to allow Congress to interview Karl Rove and Harriett Miers in private with no transcripts. (emphasis added)

I can understand the White House communications team describing the no-oath/no-transcript offers as being “somewhere in the middle,” but for a Washington Post reporter to buy into the spin — and repeat it to readers as fact — is thoroughly disappointing.

Although, given Solomon’s bizarre reporting of late, it might help explain a few things.

The White House’s offer isn’t “in the middle” of anything — it’s on the fringe. Dems want Rove and Miers to testify in an open hearing under oath. The Bush gang wants Rove and Miers to be interviewed privately without an oath and without a transcript that would ensure accountability. Somewhere “in the middle” would include concessions from both sides — but according to Solomon, the Bush position is already a compromise, without having to concede anything.

In other words, as far as this investigative reporter at the Washington Post is concerned, the White House deserves credit for stonewalling, because as he sees it, stonewalling and conciliation are practically the same thing.

As Greg Sargent noted, even Senate Republicans aren’t willing to go this far.

Indeed, even GOP Senator Arlen Specter — who was initially floating the White House’s line but now opposes the no-transcript idea — says that the White House’s no-transcript position isn’t “in the middle” at all, but rather is, well, the White House’s position. Here’s Specter on Larry King (via Nexis):

“I think the president is wrong when he does not want to have a transcript made of what Karl Rove has to say…Look here, Larry, what I think we’ve got to do is stop the bickering and come to terms and find a way to accommodate the various concerns, the president’s executive privilege with the Congressional need to know and get to the facts.”

How could anyone covering this stuff closely possibly characterize the White House’s offer as “somewhere in the middle”?

Solomon strikes again.

I’ll bet Solomon’s “compromise” even fails the smell test of most Republicans, especially if you asked them if Clinton should have gotten that kind of deal.

What a shameless whore.

  • While the courts might take time to methodically decide issues,

    That’s a little unfair. Courts might be ‘methodical’ in the sense that they follow rules to make sure they’re fair and consider everything they’re supposed to in making their decisions- but a big part of the reason courts are so slow is they are busy dispensing justice to everyone else and have full dockets. If the case came to court, the President and congress would have to wait in line like anyone else to receive justice, unless the case was seen by the court as meeting certain standards for an expedited hearing.

  • Is this asshole aware of just how full of shit he is? Actually, he probably is – he’s full of enough shit that he passes the IQ test low enough for the WaPo to hire him.

  • I sure hope someone asks Gonezales if he thinks Congress would get the most accurate testimony from people who get the “private with no transcripts” deal, especially if it’s the “only one interview, and never answer any more questions” special.

    Maybe ask him how many times he’s offered that kind of deal to anyone.

  • Actually, CB, I’d have to say that S’lo-GIN-mon strikes again. Anyone who drinks what this guy is serving is difinitively a sh*t-faced drunkard….

  • There is one obvious good question for John Solomon, but you won’t read it in any Post chat:

    Why are you such a whiny little Republican bitch?

    But that’s okay, because it’s got one obvious good answer:

    Because I’m too dumb to care about where my paycheck comes from.

  • BTW, the WH “offer” is even worse then you and the odious Solomon describe since it would also narrowly limit the permissible subject matter of the questions and (I think, but am not positive) also sets a limit on who may attend the “interview.”

  • That’s a little unfair.

    I just wrote this because ‘methodical’ can carry a connotation of pedantry or foot-dragging, especially when applied to the courts. The courts definitely have room for improvement, but they are definitely slighted too much.

  • I find it confusing that there seems to be a disconnect between the professionalism of most print journalists, including those at the WaPost (many of whom are superb), and political journalists – many of whom are total wankers (as Atrios would say). Soloman is maybe a bit more substance free, a bit more clueless, than most, but he doesn’t really stand out that much. Hell, Matt Cooper doesn’t see he did anything wrong in his role on the Plame story. None of the “journalists” involved in that scandal have put out a statement recognizing they were used, and vowing not to do it again. Most of the DC “elite” think they are doing a dandy job.

  • Anyone familiar with the Sicilian concept Omertà knows all they need to know about what the Bush Crime Family means by testifying. I am so sick and tired of journalists and Democrats according these criminal slimebags the courtesy owed to members of polite or even civil society. They are already proven to be very dangerous, organized criminals and should always be approached and treated as such.

  • Let’s treat this as if it were one of those math problems we used to do in 3rd grade:

    train 1 (White House) leaves station A (won’t let you talk to them at all), while train 2 (Congress) leaves station B (we want those people to testify, in public, under oath, with transcripts).

    They meet: we’ll let you interview them but: in private, no transcripts, no oath, no probing.

    The problem is that train 1 may have left the station but is moving at a quarter of the speed of train 2. So, when they meet, it’s not in the middle; it’s still as near station A, as makes no diff.

    I think Solomon should take one of those Fox-y “are you smarter than a 5th-grader?” tests… 🙂

  • I can understand the White House communications team describing the no-oath/no-transcript offers as being “somewhere in the middle,” but for a Washington Post reporter to buy into the spin — and repeat it to readers as fact — is thoroughly expected.

    Fixed it for you.

  • The Bush gang wants Rove and Miers to be interviewed privately without an oath and without a transcript that would ensure accountability.

    With all due respect, CB, think this sutuation calls for going further than that.

    The Bush gang wants Rove and Miers to be interviewed privately without an oath and without a transcript so they can lie with impugnity.

    That’s more like it. Seriously — and Gonzales’ testimony is illustrative here — the only reason the Administration would insist on these conditions is so they can lie, and Democrats need to keep pointing this fact out.

    If they want to hide behind executive privilege, let them stonewall and reap the political damage. If there’s going to be testimony, let the sun shine in.

  • What Gregory said. Interviews instead of testimony. Private instead of public. Without an oath instead of swearing to tell the truth. Without a transcript so nobody can contradict them later.

    Those are the required ingredients for a license to lie.

    That’s what Bush wants for himself and his lackeys: a license to lie.

    That’s your talking-point phrase of the day: a license to lie.

    Repeat as necessary.

    • Comments are closed.