one day you’ll be in the ditch, flies buzzin’ around your eyes, blood on your saddle

Slowly but surely, the 2006 US election result is catching up with the Bush administration. The steps taken by the Democrat-controlled Congress and Senate are – so far – not as spectacular as the many excesses of the pre-2006 period where Bush enjoyed almost unquestioning support from Republican dominated houses. However, the administration’s ability to act arbitrarily and with impunity is gradually being stripped away, and the White House is being exposed to the kind of scrutiny it probably never imagined possible (Karl Rove famously declared his vision for a permanent republican majority in Congress just after Bush’s 2004 election win).

What is already an extremely significant investigation, and one that is only likely to get more important, is the Senate inquiry into the firing of a number of US attorneys – the US Federal Government’s prosecutors. It’s already fairly clear that there was a political motivation to the firing of a number of attorneys before the end of their four year tenures.  What is emerging now is just how politicised the firing were: Republican or Democrat sympathies were not the only factor. Rather, there is evidence to suggest that attorneys were pressured into investigating and prosecuting Democratic politicians and into dropping investigations into Republicans. There is plenty, in fact, to suggest a calculated campaign was waged to turn the US Justice Department into the inquisitorial wing of the Republican Party. The author of a recent study remarks (here) that:

The firings of the U.S. attorneys and documents that have been turned over to Congress really call into question the legitimacy of all prosecutions brought by the U.S. attorney in cases involving partisan interests.

This Guardian article is long but an extremely interesting read on the topic – just when you thought nothing new about the Bush administration could surprise you, they manage to exceed your expectations yet again (and incidentally, why does the best coverage of US politics come from the UK, anyway?). The article details the firings of a number of attorneys who – despite good records in a legal sense – failed to sufficiently cooperate in obtaining politically motivated outcomes, mostly the droppping of investigations into corruption by Republican politicians.

The Senate has already sought to have Karl Rove and other senior White House officials testify before Congress regarding their knowledge of, and role in, the firings. The White House made a typically arrogant offer:

The White House has offered Congress private interviews with Mr. Rove and Miss Miers, without a transcript and not under oath. Democrats say that is not enough. “What we’re told we can get is nothing, nothing, nothing,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said yesterday.

Rather than take up that offer, the Senate has now authorised subpoenas which would compel the relevant people to testify, or face contempt charges if a majority of the Senate voted to approve such measures. If the subpoenas are actually issued, then the White House is on a collision course with Congress, and will probably end up in court fighting about whether it has any legitimate basis for resisting them.

As Time remarks,

…divining the true motives behind the dismissals is only part of the battle under way in Washington. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have spent six years expanding presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the judiciary, from authorizing domestic wiretapping to limiting habeas corpus and changing bills through signing statements. Democrats, in control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12 years, are determined to reclaim what they can.

Congressional investigations and the political appointment and firing of US attorneys might not seem like the most interesting subject matter in the world to most people. It’s a lot more interesting to speculate about, for example, who killed the Pakistani cricket coach and why there was no sign of a struggle even though he was strangled. But this type of thing is very, very important. It is the very essence of the separation of powers in action, and it is rarely so visible or so dramatic. It shows others who think like Bush and Rove that, whatever they might do, and whatever they might think they are entitled to do, they are not untouchable, and their misdeeds may one day catch up with them. So long as executive governments believe that there is a possibility of judicial or parliamentary investigation into the use and abuse of power, they will limit what they do to that which they believe they can effectively hide or spin out of existence.

This episode also highlights just how important voting can be. Though many people perceive that their vote has little, if any, impact, the 2006 US elections have created an environment which has radically changed the way the White House operates:

“It’s like night and day,” says Ken Duberstein, a former White House chief of staff for President Reagan. “You’re dealing with your ability to control the agenda, to control hearings, to control subpoenas.”

Democrat control of the Senate was only won by a narrow margin, with some seats being taken by razor-thin margins. If only fractionally fewer people had taken an interest in politics, the current revelations might never have taken place and the Democrats would certainly not be in the excellent position they are currently in to pry open the doors to the White House.
Powell stepped down. Rumsfeld is gone. Attoney-General Gonzales’ position is looking increasingly untenable. It will be intriguing to see what is left of the Bush administration by the time the 2008 presidential election rolls around.