Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Dan Froomkin writes today, "When the White House issues squirrelly statements under fire, the most cynical interpretations may well be the closest to the truth."

Absolutely. The cynicism directed at them is deserved and appropriate since in nearly every instance in the past it's proven to be correct. For years, this administration enjoyed an unfettered atmosphere of entrusting the benefit of the doubt and they massively abused it for far too long, making many look foolish in the process. Times have indeed changed and the rule now is to not trust anything they say, and instead just assume the opposite is true. They've earned that skeptical reception and have only themselves to blame.

Therefore, when GW chooses to defiantly thumb his nose at calls for under-oath testimony, Leahy et al should pursue it vigorously without yielding a bit. It simply means there's much wrong to be discovered. Also, the pressure should continue unabated even after they attempt to end the hunt by tossing another fall-guy (Gonzales) on the growing scandal pile.

Stay with the rotten scent until the source is found. Don't compromise or grow weary of the fight. We've had six years of that crap, six years too many.

No comments: