When Bush Does It, It’s Criminal Behavior; When Obama Does It, It’s Human Resources

Another one of those seemingly boring, legalistic White House
scandals has popped up again—the kind that was legion during the
Clinton era.  This one bears scrutiny because of the contrast between
the media’s treatment of it and a similar but benign Bush controversy.

In 2006, George W. Bush asked eight U.S. attorneys to resign.  Bush
had full discretion to fire the attorneys, who as members of the
executive branch served at his pleasure.  He could have removed them
for not wearing flag pins if he felt like it.  The mainstream media and
Congressional Democrats screamed bloody murder.  Proving that Democrats
are more likely to defend evil than Republicans are to defend good,
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sheepishly resigned over his
involvement.

In the past week, the Obama administration has discharged two
Inspectors General: Gerald Walpin, IG for the Corporation for National
and Community Service, which includes AmeriCorps; and Judith Gwynn, IG
for the International Trade Commission; and made life miserable for a
third, Neil Barofksy, IG for TARP.

Obama fired Walpin in retaliation for his critical report on Obama
supporter and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson’s misuse of funds with
nonprofit organization St. Hope Academy.  The agency received $850,000
from AmeriCorps to tutor students, redevelop buildings, and fund arts
programs; instead, Johnson used the money to pad salaries, pay
employees for personal favors, and bribe constituents to interfere in a
local election.  Johnson was barred from receiving federal funds.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office agreed that Johnson could receive federal
funds if St. Hope paid back half the grant—which was never going to
happen, because St. Hope had gone out of business, though Johnson still
gets to receive federal funds.

The ITC fired Gwynn because of a report she issued that an agency
employee had taken documents from her that she needed to do her job.

Obama, instead of giving Congress 30 days’ notice regarding Walpin
as required, had a staffer contact Walpin at night on his cell phone
and tell him he had one hour to resign or be fired.  When Walpin asked
why, he was told it was “time to move on” and any connection with the
St. Hope affair was a “coincidence.”

Walpin wrote an e-mail explaining that he could not make this
decision with such short notice and that he believed his independent
judgment was being threatened.  He refused to submit to Obama’s Chicago
machine thug tactics.

Walpin quickly contacted Senator Charles Grassley, who wrote a
letter to Obama asking why Walpin had been fired, adding: “There have
been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin…  [H]e has identified
millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds either wasted outright or spent
in violation of established guidelines.”

Obama’s response was to dash off a note to Congress stating that
Walpin was to be fired in 30 days and immediately put on suspension,
with this non-explanation: “It is vital that I have the fullest
confidence in the appointees serving as Inspectors General.  That is no
longer the case with regard to this Inspector General.”  Democratic
Senator Claire McCaskill insisted that Obama had not provided
sufficient reason for the firing—perhaps she had lost “confidence” in
him.

The White House then admitted it had lied about the reason for the
firing.  In another letter to Congress five days later—this one
containing the real reason Obama fired Walpin, honest!—Obama
wrote that Walpin was, at one—one—AmeriCorps board meeting “confused,
disoriented, and unable to answer questions.”  You might quibble that
an executive who offers three different stories in the space of a week
is unable to answer questions himself.

Walpin replied that the board kept cutting him off before he could
respond.  Walpin’s only recourse would have been to speak over his
inquisitors—the result of which no doubt would have been the board
declaring him “hostile, belligerent, and unable to withstand criticism.”

Obama’s staff called Walpin’s firing an act of “political courage”
because—get this—some people might think it had been politically
motivated, but really, it wasn’t!  Obama should get Rod Blagojevich to
recite Rudyard Kipling poetry in defense of his bravery.

Here’s the kicker: the law Obama broke, the Inspector General Reform
Act, is one he cosponsored last year.  The point of the law was to
strengthen the independence of inspectors general and protect them
against political firings.  The language of the bill—Obama’s bill, just
to remind you—states, “The requirement to notify the Congress in
advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that
Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons.”

Bush’s firing of his attorneys, while politically motivated, was
within his right; Obama’s firing was illegal (according to the law
Obama cosponsored).  So naturally, mainstream newspapers broke the Bush
story the second they got a whiff of it and didn’t remove it from their
front pages until months later.

Their response to the Walpin firing has been decidedly more tepid.

Five days after the firing, the Washington Post published a blog
entry on the controversy.  On the sixth day, it covered the story in
print for the first time.

The New York Times ignored the incident for six days.  When it got
around to printing a story, it opened with the very balanced headline
“White House Defends Inspector General’s Firing” and a picture of
diligent AmeriCorps workers assembling chicken coops at the Okefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge.

The only “risk” for potential U.S. attorneys after the Bush
“scandal” was that they might not get jobs with an administration that
had a different political philosophy.

The risk for potential IGs after Obama’s actions is that they will
be removed for investigating organizations with ties to the White
House, and thus be unable to serve as watchdogs.  According to Walpin,
the effect of this incident “is going to be immense in chilling the
responsibility and actions of inspectors general to do their
independent investigations.”

But to the mainstream media, this isn’t news—it’s just personnel review.