In his letter resigning from the office of Attorney General, John Ashcroft took credit for a number of developments, some real (but likely due to demographic factors outside of the control of the AG), some purely imaginary:
“During the last four years our violent crime rate has plunged to a 30-year low. Under your ‘Project Safe Neighborhoods’ the number of gun crimes has fallen to its lowest level in modern history. Drug use among America’s young people has fallen and continues to fall significantly.” ….
“The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts.”
On the basis of such crowing, he summed up,
“Therefore, I humbly state my desire to resign from the office of United States Attorney General.”
Humbly?
P.S. Regarding the claim that “The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts,” perhaps Mr. Ashcroft is comparing his performance to the abysmally low standard set by his predecessor, Janet Reno. Even by that standard of wanton disregard for the law, however, Mr. Ashcroft’s tenure is one of disregard for the highest positive law of the land, the United States Constitution.
This is a sincere question: Who is the last attorney general the U.S. had who was not a complete and utter disaster?
I’ll take a gamble on that. I say it’s a gamble because without a doubt one can find fault with anyone’s tenure. But if the standard is “a complete and utter disaster,” I’d nominate Richard Thornburgh and Griffin Bell as relatively recently attorneys general who were not “complete and utter disasters.” I may get responses about how one had this awful policy and the other that awful policy, but the standard specified admits a fair amount of bad policies, mistakes, errors in judgement, moral misunderstandings, etc., etc.
The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts.
He makes terrorism sound so absolute and uncontinuous. If the safety of Americans has been acheived, then the PATRIOT Act is no longer necessary at all right? And the rule of law has been upheld, except in the case of those mean old “activist judges.” Of course.