Maybe Gonzales Won't Recall His Painful Day on the Hill

[SixPackInBoxers]

Maybe Gonzales Won't Recall His Painful Day on the Hill

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A02


Alberto Gonzales's tenure as attorney general was pronounced dead at 3:02 p.m. yesterday by Tom Coburn, M.D.

The good doctor, who also happens to be a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made this clinical judgment after watching Gonzales suffer through four hours of painful testimony. The Oklahoman listed the cause of death as management failure and other complications of the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors.

"It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious," Coburn told the beleaguered attorney general. "You ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered, and I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

The hearing was billed as Gonzales's chance to explain the contradictions, omissions and falsehoods in his response to the firings. But instead of contrition, the attorney general treated the committee to a mixture of arrogance, combativeness and amnesia. Even his would-be defenders on the Republican side were appalled.

"Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch," said Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

"Why is your story changing?" demanded Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

"Significantly, if not totally, at variance with the facts," said Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee's ranking Republican.

"Really deplorable," said John Cornyn (R-Tex.). After this blow, from an administration loyalist and an old Texas friend, Gonzales stuttered in his reply.

Gonzales had weeks to prepare for yesterday's hearing. But the man who sat at the witness table sounded like the sort of person who forgets where he parked his car.

Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase "I don't recall" and its variants ("I have no recollection," "I have no memory") 64 times. Along the way, his answer became so routine that a Marine in the crowd put down his poster protesting the Iraq war and replaced it with a running "I don't recall" tally.

Take Gonzales's tally along with that of his former chief of staff, who uttered the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times before the same committee three weeks ago, and the Justice Department might want to consider handing out Ginkgo biloba in the employee cafeteria.

Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), usually an administration friend, asked about a pivotal meeting about the firings that Gonzales attended less than five months ago.
"Senator, I have searched my memory," the attorney general answered. "My schedule shows a meeting for 9:00 on November 27th, but I have no recollection of that meeting."

"This was not that long ago," said a puzzled Sessions. "You don't recall any of that?"

"Believe me," Gonzales repeated. "I've searched my mind about this meeting."

"Well," the senator concluded, "I guess I'm concerned about your recollection."

For much of the very long day, the attorney general responded like a child caught in a lie. He shifted his feet under the table, balled his hands into fists and occasionally pointed at his questioners. He defended his actions: "The decision stands." He denied responsibility: "This was a process that was ongoing that I did not have transparency into." He blamed the victims: "Poor judgment . . . poor management." He blamed his subordinates: "When there are attacks against the department, you're attacking the career professionals."

Mostly, though, he retreated to memory loss. He was asked about the firing of the Arkansas U.S. attorney. "I have no recollection about that." The Nevada prosecutor? "I just don't recall the reason." The western Michigan U.S. attorney? "I don't recall."

The audience included demonstrators from the liberal group Code Pink, about 15 people in orange prison jumpsuits with the name "Gonzales" on them, pink tiaras proclaiming "Justice," a black hood and a large Gonzales mask. When Gonzales took his place early after a lunch break, the demonstrators taunted him until he and his party retreated backstage. When the hearing ended, the activists treated the nation's top law enforcement official to a version of "Na Na Hey Hey (Kiss Him Goodbye)."

Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) did little to quiet the demonstrators and their occasional shouts of "Resign!" and "Stop lying!" In Leahy's defense, the protesters' sentiments were hard to distinguish from the Republican senators'.

Graham, paraphrasing Gonzales's explanation that the fired prosecutors weren't "the right people at the right time," asked: "If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?" The Code Pinkers erupted in laughter.

Even Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the lone member of the committee to attempt a defense of Gonzales, twice called the matter "poorly handled."

Specter, scolding the witness for "not being candid," pointed out: "I know you've been preparing for this hearing."

"I prepare for every hearing, senator," Gonzales replied, acidly.

Specter glared at the witness and hectored him about his past misstatements. "I don't think you're going to win a debate about your preparation, frankly," he said. This, too, delighted the orange-jumpsuit crowd.

"I apologize," the attorney general said. The water in Gonzales's drinking glass was still sloshing from his pounding on the witness table.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Kremlin justice in the U.S.

by Jonathan Chait in the LA Times.

The U.S. attorney scandal is part of a larger Bush administration offense -- using law enforcement as a tool of the ruling party.
April 19, 2007

AS ATTY. GEN. Alberto R. Gonzales takes to Capitol Hill to testify today, it's worth keeping in mind what this whole imbroglio is really about. It's not about whether Gonzales and his minions lied to Congress and the public. (They did, repeatedly.) It's not even about whether the Justice Department improperly fired federal prosecutors. (It did, of course.) It's about whether the Bush administration sought to subvert democracy by turning the federal judicial system into a weapon of the ruling party.

Many people think of democracy as free elections, some other basic rights (like free speech) and not much more. But really, that's only the beginning. There are plenty of countries that have free and fair elections and yet are clearly not democratic because their ruling parties have a permanent, immovable hammerlock on power.

One key thing that separates strong democracies (such as the United States) from weak democracies (such as Russia) is that the latter use the police power of the state as a tool of the ruling party. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin doesn't mind throwing his enemies in jail or sending out the police to break up protests.

I realize that the United States is not becoming Russia. But isn't this behavior, in a sense, what the Bush administration stands accused of? If true, it's an incredibly serious violation.

The prosecutor scandal first surfaced in New Mexico, where Republican officials and the Bush administration repeatedly pressured the U.S. attorney to bring electoral fraud charges against Democrats before the election. The prosecutor, David Iglesias, refused and, suspiciously, was subsequently fired.

But President Bush may have had more success elsewhere in cases that have gotten less publicity. In Wisconsin last year, for instance, a federal prosecutor indicted an appointee of a Democratic governor on a charge so spurious that a federal appeals court unanimously threw out the conviction this month, calling the evidence "beyond thin." But the conviction, and the appearance of corruption, played a major role in November's gubernatorial race. The U.S. attorney in Wisconsin who brought this flimsy case had originally been targeted for dismissal by the Bush administration but was later removed from the list of those to be fired.

Communications professors Donald Shields and John Cragan have found that, since Bush took office, U.S. attorneys have investigated or indicted 298 Democratic officeholders and only 67 Republicans. This massive disparity, which I have not seen any Republican even try to explain, is deeply suspicious.

And there are other ways in which Republicans have tried to use the legal system to win partisan disputes. In 2003, Texas Democrats fled the state to try to thwart a highly partisan Republican redistricting plan. GOP leaders sent state troopers to bring them back, and a state police officer even sought the aid of the Department of Homeland Security to track the plane carrying the Democrats. In 2004, Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee left a hearing to hold their own caucus elsewhere in the Capitol. Republican Bill Thomas of Bakersfield, then the chairman of the committee, ordered the Capitol police to break up the meeting.

The New York Times reported in March that New York City, led by a Republican mayor eager for his party to enjoy a smooth convention, had its police spy on all manner of groups planning demonstrations at the 2004 Republican National Convention. The espionage was carried out under the rubric of anti-terrorism, but many of the groups targeted (such as the satirical street theater group Billionaires for Bush) had not the slightest whiff of violent intent.

It would be very easy to overreact to all these things and conclude that our democracy is imperiled or that Republicans are wannabe Putins. But almost nobody seems to be overreacting.

Most people are under-reacting. Allowing the security apparatus of the state to help tilt elections is an extremely grave precedent. When the line of acceptable behavior can be moved without much protest, it often can be moved further the next time.

No, we're not becoming Russia. But becoming just a little bit like Russia still ought to be considered a major scandal.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Editorial in yesterday's Washington Post:

Roughed Up on the Hill
The attorney general makes a poor case for keeping his job.

Friday, April 20, 2007; Page A30


YESTERDAY'S "reconfirmation hearing" for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) called it, didn't go particularly well -- but then again, there was no reason to expect that it would. It was impossible to watch the hearing without feeling sorry for Mr. Gonzales, who is bogged down in uncomfortable terrain. He has to acknowledge that he knew something, but not much, about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, which makes him appear a feckless manager, a dissembler, or both. His long-awaited appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee underscored the degree to which his credibility gap has widened into a chasm, for Republicans as well as Democrats.

Mr. Specter, the committee's ranking Republican, questioned whether the attorney general "had been candid -- more bluntly, truthful" in earlier claims that he was not involved in the firings and said that he was "carrying forward this same pattern of not being candid" in his prepared testimony. Another of the committee's more maverick Republicans, South Carolina's Lindsey O. Graham, told Mr. Gonzales: "You said something that struck me, that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time.' If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?"

But more reliable administration supporters also were scathing. "I believe that you should have been more involved in the entire process," said Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions. When Mr. Gonzales said he did not remember a Nov. 27 meeting at which the firings were discussed, Mr. Sessions replied: "I'm concerned about your recollection, really, because it's not that long ago. It was an important issue. And that's troubling to me, I've got to tell you."

Similarly, Texas Republican John Cornyn: "General Gonzales, you and I have known each other a long time, and I believe that you are a good and decent man. But I have to tell you that the way that this investigation has been handled has just been -- been really deplorable." And Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn bluntly told Mr. Gonzales that he should quit. "It was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious," Mr. Coburn said. "It's generous to say that there were misstatements. . . . And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered."

Some Republicans were more supportive, but the overall attitude toward Mr. Gonzales was skeptical, and appropriately so. For instance, explaining his "imprecise and overbroad" statement that he had had "no discussions" about replacing the U.S. attorneys, Mr. Gonzales said that he "felt a tremendous need to come out quickly and defend the department," before he had a chance to check the records. But he made that statement on March 13, nearly two months after he was first questioned at a Senate hearing about the firings, and he was defending himself, not the department.

"The moment I believe I can no longer be effective I will resign as attorney general," Mr. Gonzales said yesterday. That moment has arrived, whether or not the attorney general and the president are willing to acknowledge it.

 

[Centexfarmer]

You've got quite a collection here!

From today's Dallas Morning News:

Seeing Is Believing
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]06:21 AM CDT on Friday, April 20, 2007
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
In his Senate testimony yesterday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said, "The moment I believe I can no longer be effective, I will resign as attorney general." With respect, we suggest that Mr. Gonzales watch the tape of his disastrous showing in Thursday's hearing. Seeing is believing.

Senate Judiciary Committee members mauled the attorney general yesterday, but that was no surprise. Knowing that he was walking into an ambush, it was shocking to see how ill-prepared Mr. Gonzales was. His responses throughout a tough day of direct questioning failed to defend the firings, failed to explain his own role credibly and failed to establish that he is capable of running the Department of Justice.

A signal moment came early, when one senator asked the attorney general to explain why he fired New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Mr. Gonzales responded that Mr. Iglesias had "lost the confidence" of Sen. Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican. It was no doubt an honest answer, but it raises the question: Who runs the Justice Department, the attorney general or powerful Republican senators?

Judging by the testimony, Mr. Gonzales let his senior aides – especially Kyle Sampson, his 35-year-old chief of staff – have extraordinary leeway in directing policy. Mr. Gonzales repeatedly attempted to distance himself from the firing decisions – which he may or may not support now; he gave conflicting statements – by saying he was merely accepting the advice of senior staff.

The attorney general testified that he "never liked" a Sampson plan to install a Karl Rove aide as U.S. attorney in Little Rock – but the plan proceeded anyway. Riposted Democrat Charles Schumer, "Does that indicate someone who is running the department?"

No, it doesn't. The overwhelming impression Mr. Gonzales left was that of an out-of-touch executive who had little idea why these prosecutors were fired in his name. When the attorney general provided specific reasons, they came across as so shabbily constructed after the fact that even Sen. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, remarked, "Mr. Attorney General, most of this is a stretch

When we called for Mr. Gonzales to resign almost three weeks ago, we said that his record of evasion and mismanagement in this personnel matter was so egregious that there's nothing he was likely to say in his testimony that could save his reputation and his job. His sloppy performance before the Judiciary Committee vindicated that prediction.

We'll make another one now: Mr. Gonzales will emerge from this hearing having lost what Republican support on Capitol Hill he had.
Alberto Gonzales is undoubtedly exactly what President Bush says he is: a good man. But he has been an inadequate manager at the Justice Department.

Mr. Bush has always been loyal to him, and now it is time for Mr. Gonzales to be loyal to the president – and resign.

 

[slobone]

Why is Gonzales handling this so incompetently? Why does he seem to know so little about what actually happened?

You don't suppose -- is it just possible -- that he's taking the fall for somebody closer to the President -- like Karl Rove, say, or Harriet Miers?

Naah -- couldn't be.

 

[lancelva]

Why is Gonzales handling this so incompetently? Why does he seem to know so little about what actually happened?

That's like asking, "Why do cows eat grass?"

 

[naked gent]

In keeping with republican tradition Gonzalez is taking the responsibility.....but not the blame.

 

[NickCole]

I'm not surprised. This is Bush & Co.

And remember that at the root of this whole Gonzales mess is the Rove attempt to, at any cost, maintain a Republican majority in Congress. That's the reason the US Attorneys were canned. And we're seeing one reason why RoveBush was desperate for that, right now -- Republican majority gave Bush & Co a pass over and over and over but Democrats hold them accountable.

It's sad to say but true that with the smarmy state of the current Republican Party, we can't let them be in power. They're just too corrupt and incompetent -- what a combo.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

This most unfortunate and disastrious President remains in the same state - a state of denial. This is from today' Washington Post:


"Bush Rebuffs GOP Pressure For Gonzales to Step Down
After Testimony, Attorney General Loses Lawmakers' Support

By Peter Baker and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 21, 2007; Page A03


President Bush yesterday stood by his embattled friend, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, defying the broad bipartisan consensus emerging in Washington after this week's Senate hearing that Gonzales has so badly damaged his own credibility that he should resign.

Bush expressed "full confidence" in Gonzales through a spokeswoman and praised his "fantastic" service, in hopes of quashing speculation that the attorney general would be pushed out. But a wide array of Republicans described Gonzales with phrases such as "dead man walking," and even some White House aides privately voiced hope that he will step down on his own.

The continuing erosion of Republican support suggested that Gonzales lost ground during a day of often-hostile questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, rather than repairing the damage caused by the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Nearly every committee Republican appeared skeptical of Gonzales's handling of the firings and their aftermath. Telephone calls yesterday to dozens of GOP lawmakers, lobbyists, and current and former Bush administration officials found almost no support for the attorney general.

"Congressional confidence in his ability has eroded severely," said Rep. Adam H. Putnam (Fla.), the third-ranking House Republican leader, who yesterday became the latest to call for Gonzales's resignation. "There is widespread concern among my colleagues about the leadership shown by the attorney general. . . . This has now reached the point where it's larger than any one man."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Judiciary Committee member, said Gonzales should "have a frank discussion with the White House," adding: "If he and the president decide that he cannot be an effective leader moving forward, then he should resign. As he said during the hearing, 'It's not about Al Gonzales.' The bottom line is that he must do what is in the best interest of the Department of Justice."

Bush traditionally has bristled at pressure to dismiss advisers under fire, particularly those close to him, such as Gonzales, a longtime confidant from Texas. When he has eased out top officials, he has usually dictated the timing so as not to appear to be caving in to critics. Giving in, he has reasoned, would only embolden his foes to seek more scalps.

But in this case, according to Republican strategists, Bush faces the choice of leaving in place a law enforcement chief who has undermined his effectiveness in his department and on Capitol Hill, or reversing gears in the coming days and weeks if the political situation continues to deteriorate.

"Everybody at the White House . . . all think he needs to go, but the president doesn't," said a Republican who consulted the Bush team yesterday. Another White House ally said Bush and Gonzales are ignoring reality: "They're the only two people on the planet Earth who don't see it." A third Republican intimately familiar with sentiment inside the White House said the hope is that Gonzales will leave on his own. "At some point, he'll figure out that it's not a sustainable situation," the Republican said.

Gonzales gave no indication that he sees it that way. After weeks of seclusion to prepare for Thursday's testimony, he tried to return to a normal routine, presiding over an afternoon awards ceremony for National Crime Victims' Rights Week.

"I am humbled when I see people who have suffered so much able to stand up and take action," Gonzales told victims' advocates. "It makes me even more determined to do whatever I can, too."

Gonzales spoke yesterday with about eight GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and John Cornyn (Tex.), according to a Justice official, who said the "calls went well."

"The attorney general told them that he heard them loud and clear and is committed to building a strong relationship with Congress," said the official, who would discuss internal department issues only on the condition of anonymity.

The administration sent other signals that Gonzales will be around for a while. The White House announced that he will join two other Cabinet members in helping colleges review questions raised by the massacre at Virginia Tech. And the Justice Department scheduled a news conference Monday on identity theft.

"I can understand there are some people who still don't want to support the attorney general. That is their right," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "But he has done a fantastic job at the Department of Justice. He is our number one crime fighter. He has done so much to help keep this country safe from terrorists."
A few others jumped to Gonzales's defense. "Based on what I know, this doesn't appear to be a situation where there's anything unlawful or improper," said Helgi C. Walker, a former aide. "I'm afraid it's just motivated by personal feelings, which is too bad because he's a great man who has accomplished a great deal."

Cornyn, who on Thursday called the handling of the U.S. attorneys matter "deplorable," warned fellow Republicans yesterday that removing Gonzales would only encourage Bush opponents. "This is, at its base, a political fishing expedition, and they're not going to be satisfied with just Al Gonzales," he told CNN.

Other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, however, refused to defend Gonzales. Specter, the panel's senior Republican, sent Bush a private letter yesterday containing his advice on what to do. Specter's office declined to describe the recommendation, but the senator was highly critical at Thursday's hearing.

Another Republican, Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), released a statement saying: "Although [Gonzales's] answers suggested that there were serious managerial issues at the Department of Justice, I did not see a factual basis to call for his resignation. As for whether the attorney general should resign, that is a question I leave to him and to the president."

Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney in Little Rock, said he found the testimony unsatisfying. "I'm not sure that the attorney general really understands what has happened, and here he's had 90 days to think about it, investigate it and consider the ramifications," Cummins said. "I think a more candid explanation would have served him and the president better."

Staff writer John Solomon and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report."

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Context (or should I call you Irresistable?),

Thanks for doing an edit on my post #3. As one who is somewhat challenged in this regard how do you put the box around, or as you say put in quotes, and also post a heading in caps?

And BTW good gallery. Which one is you?

 

[chance1]

I'm not surprised. This is Bush & Co.

And remember that at the root of this whole Gonzales mess is the Rove attempt to, at any cost, maintain a Republican majority in Congress. That's the reason the US Attorneys were canned. And we're seeing one reason why RoveBush was desperate for that, right now -- Republican majority gave Bush & Co a pass over and over and over but Democrats hold them accountable.

It's sad to say but true that with the smarmy state of the current Republican Party, we can't let them be in power. They're just too corrupt and incompetent -- what a combo.

uh no - this is Alberto Gonzalez

Nick - ever have an employee who u hired not pan out? not be as good as u hoped?

the guy clearly has to go - obvious to all - AG that is

getting rid of the attorneys was legal - not the right play - but legal

this goes around and around - and on display for all is Alberto Gonzalez - and he is getting smaller and smaller each day

the real problem is that when Bush appointed him, it was a great day for minorities - all over shouted yeah ............

now AG's clear incompetence sends a message otherwise - incorrect for sure - but nevertheless

he should step down already

this Bush loyalty thing is going a bit far

and the Dems will have another scalp

what's the score?

what's the fucking score?

petty - very petty

 

[naked gent]

I'm not surprised. This is Bush & Co.

And remember that at the root of this whole Gonzales mess is the Rove attempt to, at any cost, maintain a Republican majority in Congress. That's the reason the US Attorneys were canned.

Nick if its true that the underlying cause of all this is a republican scheme to inflate or create a voter fraud problem which will help them push voter ID laws with the intent of surpressing minority voter turnout thereby helping them win elections, then how truely sad it is that Mr. Gonzalez is allowing himself to be used as a tool to hurt his own people.

Shame on him.

 

[bludevl32]

Naked Gent,

Republicans sell out their own ALL the time......didnt you see Cheney sell Mary down the river during the 2004 elections? (BTW, she and her fatherless baby are now "off limits.")

Simple greed and selfishness. THOSE are Republican family values.

 

[NickCole]

uh no - this is Alberto Gonzalez

Nick - ever have an employee who u hired not pan out? not be as good as u hoped?

Is that the excuse for everyone else involved in Bush & Co scandals?

Libby?

Wolfowitz?

Doan?

Domenici?

Rove?

Griles?

Safavian?

Stillwell?

Wooldridge?

Fontana?

Cooney?

Keroack?

Cobb?

MacDonald?

And the list goes on and on.

They just didn't pan out, eh?

the guy clearly has to go - obvious to all - AG that is

getting rid of the attorneys was legal - not the right play - but legal

Yep. Funny how it's almost always their lying and covering up that trips up deceptive people.

this goes around and around - and on display for all is Alberto Gonzalez - and he is getting smaller and smaller each day

the real problem is that when Bush appointed him, it was a great day for minorities - all over shouted yeah ............

It was not a great day for minorities, it was a great day for incompetents and liars.

A great day for minorities is when Rosa Parks says no I'm sitting right here or Marian Anderson says fine then I'll sing at the Lincoln Memorial or Martin Luther King gathers white and black together to march for the simple truth that a man should be judged by the content of his character. It is a very bad day for minorities when people like BushRepublicans use them to lie to the United Nations to start a war or pull the shenanigans Gonzales pulled. BushRepublicans have provided no authentic great days for minorities.

now AG's clear incompetence sends a message otherwise - incorrect for sure - but nevertheless

No the message is that Bush & Co are incompetent and cheaters and liars.

he should step down already

this Bush loyalty thing is going a bit far

Bush loyalty is as perverted as everything else about him.

There is nothing good and decent that Bush can't turn into something ugly and dishonest.

As Isikoff writes in the current Newsweek:

"Publicly, the White House was standing by its A.G. One White House adviser (who asked not to be ID'ed talking about sensitive issues) said the support reflected Bush's own view that a Gonzales resignation would embolden the Dems to go after other targets—like Karl Rove. "This is about Bush saying, 'Screw you'," said the adviser, conceding that a Gonzales resignation might still be inevitable."

and the Dems will have another scalp

what's the score?

what's the fucking score?

petty - very petty

There's nothing petty about this.

Bush & Co used every means they had, including it turns out our US Attorney's offices, to dishonestly win elections so they could secure a permanent Republican majority.

But as soon as Americans gave Democrats the power to hold Bush & Co accountable all the slime started to ooze through the cracks. Not petty at all.

 

[Andreus]

this Bush loyalty thing is going a bit far

great advice to give to your buddy gonzo bushrepublicans here

glad you finally had the courage to see it, acnowledge it, and own your bad behaviors

this is the first step on the road to becoming a productive citizen again

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

What Gonzales Really Told Us
****By William Rivers Pitt
****t r u t h o u t | Columnist

****Friday 20 April 2007

****The testimony given Thursday by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a hearing to investigate the firing of eight United States attorneys deserves a place of high honor in the Gibberish Hall of Fame. It was astonishing in its vapidity, almost to a point beyond description. The emptiness of Gonzales's answers, after several hours, became the political version of a Zen koan. They simply stopped my mind.

****It was, in the main, an unspeakably gruesome performance. The aspect most commentators immediately seized on was the amazing number of questions Mr. Gonzales answered with either "I don't recall," or some permutation thereof. Estimates put the final count somewhere between 74 and 100 "dunno" replies, an amount truly Reaganesqe in stature.

****There was no bristling give-and-take during this hearing, no fiery debate, no "Have you no sense of decency" moment when the rogue official is brought snarling to bay. Indeed, the only time tempers flared was when exasperated senators became fed up with Gonzales's inability to answer virtually any of the questions put to him. The annoyed senators, Republican and Democratic alike, at several points rained condescendingly rhetorical questions upon him in extremis, expecting no answers because they knew none were ever going to come.

****Judiciary Committee member Tom Coburn, a conservative Republican senator from Oklahoma, dropped one of the more devastating bricks of the day after slogging through Gonzales's feeble display. "It was handled incompetently," said Coburn of the firings that inspired this hearing, if not of the testimony he'd just endured. "The communication was atrocious, it was inconsistent. It's generous to say that there were misstatements; that's a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation."

****The sentiment was repeated in the waning moments of the hearing by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who said: "Mr. Attorney General, at the beginning of the hearing, we laid out the burden of proof for you to meet, to answer questions directly and fully, to show that you were truly in charge of the Justice Department, and most of all, to convincingly explain who, when and why the eight US attorneys were fired. You've answered 'I don't know' or 'I can't recall' to close to a hundred questions."

****"You're not familiar with much of the workings of your own department," continued Schumer. "And we still don't have convincing explanations of the who, when and why in regard to the firing of the majority of the eight US attorneys. Thus, you haven't met any of these three tests. I don't see any point in another round of questions. And I urge you to re-examine your performance and, for the good of the department and the good of the country, step down."

****Dana Bash of CNN reported comments made by appalled Republicans during breaks in the hearing. "Loyal Republican after loyal Republican in this hearing room," said Bash, "and more specifically in private to CNN today, have made it clear that they are frankly flabbergasted by how poorly they think the attorney general has done in this hearing. During the lunch break, in private, several very loyal Republicans made it clear to CNN that they were really dripping with disappointment."

****Another CNN reporter, Suzanne Malveaux, offered other Republican statements of dismay. "Two senior White House aides here," reported Malveaux, "described the situation, Gonzales's testimony, as 'going down in flames.' That he was 'not doing himself any favors.' One prominent Republican described watching his testimony as 'clubbing a baby seal.'"

****Ouch.

****So what is to be made of this? As attorney general, Gonzales is the top official in the Department of Justice. The list of DOJ-related agencies that Gonzales is expected to oversee is nearly 60 items long. Among these are the FBI, the ATF, the DEA, the Civil Rights division, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the US Marshals Service, the Office of the Solicitor General and, of course, all the US attorneys spread across the 50 states. The DOJ's own web site explains that, "Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the attorney general has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws."

****Is it possible that the man charged with such awesome responsibilities is, in fact, a blithering idiot? Nothing in Thursday's hearing served to disabuse anyone of this notion, and in the final analysis that may be the whole point of the exercise ... and the tip of a very dangerous iceberg.

****Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration sought to use the US attorneys' offices within key battleground states, along with political appointees within the DOJ's Civil Rights division, as a hammer to break apart voting protections for minorities. "For six years," reported Greg Gordon in the Baltimore Sun, "the Bush administration, aided by Justice Department political appointees, has pursued an aggressive legal effort to restrict voter turnout in key battleground states in ways that favor Republican political candidates, according to former department lawyers and a review of written records. The administration intensified its efforts last year as President Bush's popularity and Republican support eroded heading into a midterm battle for control of Congress, which the Democrats won."

****"Questions about the administration's campaign against alleged voter fraud," continued Gordon, "have helped fuel the political tempest over the firings last year of eight US attorneys, several of whom were ousted in part because they failed to bring voter fraud cases important to Republican politicians.... On virtually every significant decision affecting election balloting since 2001, the division's Voting Rights Section has come down on the side of Republicans, notably in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Washington, and other states where recent elections have been decided by narrow margins."

****Beyond that is the specific case of California US Attorney Carol Lam, who prosecuted and convicted Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham in a massive Congressional bribery scandal. Lam was later fired from her position, supposedly because she was failing to effectively prosecute immigration cases, or something to that effect. (Mr. Gonzales could not actually recall exactly why Lam was sacked, to nobody's great surprise.)

****However, allegations have been raised that she was actually removed because her investigations into Cunningham were leading her closer to the centers of Republican power. Back in March, none other than Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania raised the issue on the Senate floor. Specter openly questioned whether Lam had been removed because she was "about to investigate other people who were politically powerful."

****On the surface, yesterday's hearing and the galaxy of un-recollections offered by Gonzales may seem to have been a waste of time. In fact, this was a revelatory moment of grave import. Decisions to disrupt elections and voting rights, decisions to derail investigations into Republicans, are made for political reasons by political people. In this administration, the political people all work in the White House.

****There can be little doubt, after yesterday, that Alberto Gonzales was elevated to his position by Bush to affect a political takeover of the Justice Department. The muscular legal arm of federal power became just another tool to establish Karl Rove's dream of a permanent Republican majority in government by disrupting the vote and by obscuring GOP corruption. Thus, it doesn't matter if the attorney general is a pudding, because there were other chefs in the kitchen at Justice.

****It can be easily argued that Gonzales couldn't answer simple questions, not because he is especially dumb, but because he truly didn't know how. He wasn't there to run the place, but to open doors for, and get out of the way of, Bush's political hatchetmen. Any appointees who weren't going along with the program, including those fired US attorneys, were swept aside.

****It can just as easily be argued that he was able to answer those questions, but avoided doing so for tactical reasons. The New York Times's editorial on Friday raised this line of thinking by stating: "At the end of the day, we were left wondering why the nation's chief law-enforcement officer would paint himself as a bumbling fool. Perhaps it's because the alternative is that he is not telling the truth. There is strong evidence that this purge was directed from the White House, and that Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, and Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, were deeply involved."

****Either way, subpoenas need to be delivered to the hatchetman-in-chief, Karl Rove, as well as to members of his crew, to gather their sworn public testimony on the matter. It was made clear Thursday that Gonzales wasn't in charge at Justice, and Rove appears likely to have been the man who stood in his stead. Why? That's why we ask questions.

****For the record, decisions to disrupt elections and voting rights, and decisions to derail investigations into Republicans, are flatly illegal. The first is fraud, the second is obstruction of justice, and both are felony crimes. The exposure of Gonzales on Thursday represents a long step towards pinning legal accountability to the door of a certain Pennsylvania Avenue house, and to the lapels of those persons within who are, at last, running out of excuses.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
****William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

If proof was still needed, this just shows how far this President is removed from reality - and from the elected Republican members of Congress rather than his unelected neo-con advisers who have created the most ghastly and dangerous administration in the US's history. The White House has become the "nut house". These people he has surrounded himself with are not true Republicans any more than he is. If they were all just idiots it would be easier to swallow but I fear greatly that they are not. What is going on in this Adminisration is far more sinister and rotten to the core.

This must never - ever - be allowed to happen again.

This is the editorial in today's Washington Post:

Hearing Problem
What will it take for the president to lose faith in Alberto Gonzales?

Tuesday, April 24, 2007; Page A20


ATTORNEY GENERAL Alberto R. Gonzales's testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," President Bush said yesterday. Maybe that's because he didn't actually watch the testimony -- he was on the road that day.

In fact, Mr. Gonzales's testimony was anything but reassuring about his capacity to lead the department. He emerged, once again, as a negligent manager, scarcely aware of the major personnel moves his department was about to make in the president's name.

"I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president," Mr. Gonzales said at one point, acknowledging that he had discussed New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias with Mr. Bush, though he didn't actually remember doing so. Is this really what Mr. Bush wants in the nation's chief law enforcement officer?

Another question: The president had acknowledged that Mr. Gonzales had work to do to repair his credibility with lawmakers. Does it not matter that he failed to do so?

We're not talking about Democrats who were never going to be mollified, but Republicans, and not just mavericks in the party, who are fed up with Mr. Gonzales. "The attorney general's testimony was very, very damaging to his own credibility. It has been damaging to the administration," Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the committee's ranking Republican, said on "Fox News Sunday." At some point, the president has to take that into account.

In the meantime, the focus on Mr. Gonzales is obscuring the need for more information about the firings, especially of Mr. Iglesias, including evidence from the White House officials involved. Mr. Specter has proposed a reasonable accommodation to obtain White House testimony, starting with closed-door, but transcribed, hearings.

The White House has been sticking to its unacceptable, take-it-or-leave-it offer of one-time, closed-door conversations without transcripts. "I think the ball is still in the Democrats' court; they haven't decided whether or not to take us up on our offer," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday. Democrats are in control of Congress, and they have subpoena power. The administration's intransigence could leave it with a worse outcome than if it showed some willingness, even belatedly, to negotiate.

 

[smelter]

Bush and his minions live in some kind of alternate reality. They piss on the Senator's shoes and then try to convince them its raining!

ATTORNEY GENERAL Alberto R. Gonzales's testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job," President Bush said yesterday.
<snip>

"I now understand that there was a conversation between myself and the president," Mr. Gonzales said at one point, acknowledging that he had discussed New Mexico U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias with Mr. Bush, though he didn't actually remember doing so.
<snip>

The White House has been sticking to its unacceptable, take-it-or-leave-it offer of one-time, closed-door conversations without transcripts. "I think the ball is still in the Democrats' court; they haven't decided whether or not to take us up on our offer," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said yesterday.

 

[Xpione]

Lol, I think someone should repleace him. What kind of attorny can't "recall" the important things he did.

 

[Centexfarmer]

uh no - this is Alberto Gonzalez

Nick - ever have an employee who u hired not pan out? not be as good as u hoped?

the guy clearly has to go - obvious to all - AG that is

getting rid of the attorneys was legal - not the right play - but legal

this goes around and around - and on display for all is Alberto Gonzalez - and he is getting smaller and smaller each day

the real problem is that when Bush appointed him, it was a great day for minorities - all over shouted yeah ............

now AG's clear incompetence sends a message otherwise - incorrect for sure - but nevertheless

he should step down already

this Bush loyalty thing is going a bit far

and the Dems will have another scalp

what's the score?

what's the fucking score?

petty - very petty

Well I can tell you as a matter of fact that the Republicans screwed over a lot of their own to appoint Alberto Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court while George W. was Governor, and they were even more happy to see Alberto go when he left with GW to Washington.

I don't recall ANYONE proclaiming a "great day for minorities" within the Republican Party or anywhere else at or during any step of Gonzales' carreer.

Most "Hispanic" Attorney's here in Texas that I know think that Alberto Gonzales should still be back in Houston chasing ambulances.

Gonzales is out of his league. Not because he's Hispanic, but because he never had to pay any dues to get where he is within his legal profession. He's been riding on Bush's coat tails every step of the way.