The Vetting Process:  A “Now” Phrase

14 January 2005 |permalink | email article

  • The embarrassing failure of White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales to successfully vet ex-NYC Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik, Bush’s buddy, as his nominee for homeland security secretary, festers. Gonzales, who skipped FBI vetting protocols, could have nailed Kerik on many issues, including sexual misconduct, personal bankruptcy, waste of public funds and alleged association with organized crime figures. But Judge Gonzales followed orders and flunked the vet test. Despite his unsatisfactory answers on Geneva Convention violations and other torture related issues - he actually parsed how serving Bush would differ from serving the public - Gonzales will win Senate confirmation as attorney general. Will Democrats Biden, Kennedy, Leahy and Schumer will have the courage of their convictions and vote no? Kennedy told CNN “questions remain  unanswered.” Will they be before he votes? Compared to the Kerik disaster, federal appellate judge Michael Chertoff, a former fed prosecutor who helped oversee the Justice Department’s antiterrorism efforts after 9/11 - including the anti-civil liberties Patriot Act - is a surprise choice as Kerik’s replacement as homeland security secretary. While not a Bush toady, he was a controversial U.S. Attorney in New Jersey. But thrice vetted already, Chertoff’s confirmation is certain. Can a veteran crimefighter with harsh Washington insider bureaucratic skills adjust to run a massive organization with 22 agencies and 180,000 employees? The jury has yet to be impaneled.
  • An independent report by a panel convened by CBS to investigate a Sept. 8 broadcast on “60 Minutes” on Bush’s Vietnam-era service in the Texas National Guard includes in its 224-pages a damaging section on the vetting process. The panel found that the segment was “seriously flawed,” caused in large part by the speed with which it was produced. “The vetting process was insufficient,” the panel noted, because “too much deference” was given to the now-dismissed, but much admired, producer Mary Mapes, a close associate of the distinguished but tragically flawed anchor Dan Rather. The official report produced mixed reaction among editorial writers, media pundits and within the blogosphere. Tim Rutten’s L.A. Times media column most succinctly addressed the elusive question: “Just as Rather and his colleagues were unable to prove their allegations that official favoritism allowed Bush to avoid fulfilling his military obligations, so the network’s outside investigators were unable to satisfactorily answer the scandal’s central questions: What part, if any, did political bias play in this debate?”
    •    

353