After hearing that
the Wall Street Journal
editorial page had called
for FBI Director Robert Mueller's resignation, my first thought was the obvious one: they spend eight years lauding the uber-hack Louis Freeh, who by-rights created the problem, and they call for the head of Robert Mueller, who is trying to clean it up. Now having read the editorial, it is slightly more persuasive than I'd expected. But only slightly. Mueller does seem to be the kind of by-the-books team-player that perhaps the Bureau doesn't need right now.
But why the need for a resignation even if some mistakes have been made? Doesn't continuity have its merits as well? Is what we really need right now the resignation of an FBI Director and several months with no one at the helm? There is a sort of mania with calls for resignations. Detroit makes cars; Silicon Valley makes gizmos; and editorial pages call for resignations. Even when they make no sense. But what else are they good for? So they do it anyway.
Another point: the argument behind the Journal resignation piece seems to be that there is merit and use in taking responsibility at the top, making an example of yourself to set an example for everyone else, saying the buck stops here and I'm not going to pass this off on some underling.
Seems to me that logic could get you wondering about someone besides the Director of the FBI, doesn't it?
Who's scapegoating who here?