In a posting titled “Whew! Those National Security Briefings Sure Happen Fast!” on their blog “The Board,” the Editorial Board of the New York Times write about the seeming instantaneous “education” of newly installed Attorney General, Michael Mukasey:
At his Senate confirmation hearings, Attorney General Michael Mukasey repeatedly refused to answer some of the most important questions because he said he had not yet received top-secret briefings.
Fast forward to less than one day after he was formally sworn in, and Mr. Mukasey suddenly has a fully formed view of one of the most complex issues before Congress and the American people — the legal issues surrounding government spying on Americans…
On his second official day on the job (he had been working for a few days unofficially), he cosigned a letter with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell warning that a bill sponsored by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, is a dire threat to national security. Mr. Mukasey said he would recommend that the president veto it if it reaches his desk.
The Attorney General’s letter listed some dozen provisions that were objectionable, including, of course, the fact that it does not give amnesty to the telephone companies that may have broken the law by turning over data to the government without a warrant.
The blog posting goes on to observe that since Mukasey was able to act so fast on the FISA issue, which has been debated for more than a year prior to his arrival, that he should be expected to resolve the U.S. Attorney scandal with similar dispatch. Dispatch is most likely the operative word, as a good Bush soldier, in the tradition of Alberto Gonzales it would not be surprising if the U.S. Attorney scandal will simply be dispatched to the round file by Mr. Mukaseky.
The posting by the Times Editorial Boards ends with:
<blockquoteMemo to the Democratic Senators who voted for Mr. Mukasey because they believed he was a good and decent man who appreciated the rule of law and would not rush to judgment on important issues: What part of “hoodwinked” don’t you understand?
We, at BFD do not think that is an accurate assessment, instead of being “hoodwinked” it seems to us more like Senators Feinstein and Schumer were “complicit” in the continued abrogation of our constitutional guarantees.
The Mukasey Era At the DOJ Looks Like More Of The Same To Us.
So much for starting with a clean slate.