‘Why?’ is what matters in firings

Re “It’s Bush’s privilege,” Opinion, June 22

Once again, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, the Bush apologists, attack the congressional investigation into the U.S. attorney firings with the false statement that “there is no evidence that firing these U.S. attorneys was unlawful or inappropriate.” Only someone who does not understand, or more likely wants to confuse, the concepts of evidence and proof could make such a statement.

While there is not yet proof, there is lots of evidence that the firings may have been related to successful prosecutions of Republicans or the refusal to pursue indictments of Democrats, which would make them, at the very least, inappropriate, and quite possibly criminal. Congress would do this country a disservice if it did not pursue this evidence.

PAT GALLAGHER

Venice

*

This is the same pablum those on the right have been repeating since the chicanery surrounding the U.S. attorney firings was exposed; it is particularly despicable coming from such supposed former Justice Department scholars. They must know that this is not just about who or when President Bush fired the attorneys; it’s about why. Executive privilege does not shield this administration from charges of obstruction of justice, and singling out attorneys who pressed charges against Republicans -- or worse, singling out those who would not press false charges against Democrats -- certainly should be investigated. If not by Congress, then by whom, the Justice Department? Surely Rivkin and Casey can see the conflict of interest in that?

For an administration that has repeatedly affirmed that we should not be troubled by encroachments on our personal liberties if we have done nothing wrong to then try to shield itself behind executive privilege, rather than let the truth come out, is transparently hypocritical. And the public will long remember and not forget those who defend their actions.

ARTHUR LESSARD

West Hills

*

Not so fast, counselors. So Bush “should stand firm and refuse to permit his subordinates’ compliance” to congressional subpoenas because, under the guise of executive privilege, he can summarily dismiss any of his appointees and Congress has no authority to intervene?

What if dismissals -- for failure to follow the administration’s priorities -- involve pressure to investigate political candidates of the opposing party? What if duly appointed Justice Department attorneys find no basis for further investigation or charges for violation of law? Is that your idea of justice duly dispensed under our Constitution?

It may surprise you that countless Americans understand and respect executive privilege but do not want it exercised to alter our constitutional principles of justice. Congress should investigate to determine if wrongdoing has taken place. Executive privilege, as you acknowledge, is not absolute.

The conclusion that the president should tell our Congress “see you in court” expresses an arrogance that trivializes the Constitution, the principle of checks and balances and our representative government.

SOL LEVINE

Thousand Oaks