Saturday, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card admitted that White House investigators and aides knew of Bernard Kerik's flaws unearthed by the media when the administration put forth his nomination. 'Many of the questions that have been raised in the media were well understood by the White House when they considered Bernie Kerik,' he said. Despite this admission, Monday, President Bush said , 'I was disappointed that the nomination of Bernard Kerik did not go forward'.
This event is best understood in the context of history. This administration came to power in 2001 after running on a platform of 'Restoring Honor and Dignity to the White House', ostensibly because President Clinton having an affair tarnished its honor and dignity. If that is true, why did the Bush administration allow and put forward the nomination of an individual who:
1 - Was accused of having simultaneous extramarital affairs with two women
2 - Was accused of having connections with individuals suspected of doing business with organized crime figures
3 - Did not complete the required background form when, in 2000, Giuliani nominated him as police commissioner
4 - Admitted that he had employed an illegal alien as a nanny and failed to submit required Social Security payments.
If Clinton's conduct, according to House Republicans in the late 1990's, constituted the high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment, how should the country view nominating someone who has done the same and more, to a law enforcement/security position in the cabinet?
