Al, the President's ManAlberto Gonzales is bloodied by his trip to the Senate.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Thursday, April 19, 2007, at 8:09 PM ETSen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., calls this "the most astounding thing" he's seen in 32 years.
At bottom, the worst ickiness is that while Gonzales thinks he should retain his position despite all he has to apologize for (after all, he has learned from his mistakes), he's more than willing to point to the single mistake made by his subordinates that doomed their careers, one by one. (Daniel Bogden = low "energy." Paul Charlton = "poor judgment." Kevin Ryan = "bad manager." John McKay = bad "information sharing." Carol Lam = Carol Lame.) He is willing to detail everything Paul McNulty should have done differently and everything Kyle Sampson did wrong. Time and again Gonzales wants to claim the benefit of the doubt for all the "great things" he's achieved as attorney general, but he's the only one who gets it. Second chances only run one way at Justice.
Which leaves Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to ask why the attorney general should not be "judged by the same standards you've used to judge the U.S. attorneys." The senator calls Gonzales' handling of the situation "incompetent" and "atrocious" and says that it's generous to call his false claims "misstatements.'" Coburn suggests that "the best way to put this behind us is for you to resign." Did I mention that he is a rock-solid Republican?
At the end of the day, what has doomed Alberto Gonzales will keep him hanging on long after it's clear he should go. He serves at the pleasure of the president, and the president's pleasure is his only concern. It's hard to imagine things getting worse for this attorney general. Yet somehow, and until the president shows him the door, he doesn't see the situation as all that bad.
Dahlia Lithwick is a Slate senior editor. Photograph of Alberto Gonzales by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images. Graphics courtesy Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's office.
Remarks from the Fray:
It's wrong to think that Bush is loyally standing by an old friend and retainer. That's what he's doing in appearance, but the political substance is quite different.
The game here is not what happens to Gonzalez, or even to Justice. It's keeping the hounds away from the White House. Gonzalez is a pawn in that game. If Bush lets him go, especially without a big show of backing him, he runs the risk that Gonzo will do a Brownie. Much better for Bush to keep him on as a firewall.
As long as Gonzalez is AG, he's Bush's boy. He won't be out there spilling in the beans on how WH staffers, including Rove, plotted the transformation of Justice from the nation's law enforcement arm to the Republican party enforcement arm. (It's a good idea to remember here that Rove's little playmate, Grover Norquist, has long boasted that by controlling the federal government the Republican party can destroy the Democratic one.) Missing e-mails notwithstanding, there are just too many who know what has been going down. If Bush can prop Gonzalez up, even as a corpse, it will reassure the underlings that the White House still has the power to protect them. And they'll keep their mouths shut, like Monica Gooding plans to.
Bush is not worried about angering anybody in Congress, including Republicans. First, he isn't running again. Second, he's already angered everybody; being unreasonable one more time can't make it much worse. Third, Bush strokes his veto power like a 13-year-old beating off.
Gonzalez has only one talent, and it's to soldier loyally on no matter what. Where other, smarter, men would whither in shame at being unable to give plausible policy explanations for the slaughter of attorneys at Justice, Gonzo just looks earnest and keeps falling back on his painfully vague cant. He can do that all day if you want. Doesn't matter that the whole world knows it's evasive bullshit. Bush has told him that His Wonderfulness the President of the United States stands behind him. Gonzalez thinks he only has to endure this trial by fire and all will eventually be well. And he may be right--Bush may keep him come hell or high water. He'll be like a rotting corpse and Justice will become a fetid swamp of demoralization and decay (like many other federal agencies have become under the Boy President), but that's nothing compared to Gonzalez' importance to Bush as a firewall.
--Fritz_Gerlich
(To reply, click here.)
Have we overlooked the fact that the firings of these U.S. Attorneys would be of little interest if it were not for the modifications to the patriot act?
As AG reminds us, U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. Granted this wording is really creepy in a decadent Court of Versailles sort of way, but nonetheless that is how it is. What is disturbing is that the USA Patriot Act was modified in the dead of night to allow the appointment of replacement Attorneys with no timeframe for congressional review. [...]
Why do we think that the Republicans on committee are so eager to push the (the comparatively benign) incompetence angle? [...] Why are we not examining the changes to the Patriot Act made on Arlen Specter's watch? [...]
Don't give Gonzales a free pass for incompetence, bring pressure to bare to find out what really happened here.
--EMStoveken
(To reply, click here.)
Mr. Gonzales had the unmitigated gall to tell the Committee that he did not feel obligated to resign because the Committee failed to demonstrate that his acts of omission or commission constituted a crime. In short, by demonstrating incontrovertible incompetence, ignorance and ineptitude, Mr. Gonzales argues that he is entitled to continue in office. The members of the Committee seemed disheartened and saddened by the sorry spectacle.
The surreal testimony of Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated a deeper flaw in the man. One was driven to the inescapable conclusion that here was a lawyer who had managed to graduate Harvard without the benefit of a legal education. Although he had practiced and studied law, he never understood the Law, spelled with a capital "L".
For Mr. Gonzales, there is no pragmatic difference between a government under law and a government of men. Adherence to that distinction, however, is precisely why the Department of Justice has always served as more than the President's attack dog. This Attorney General sees law as a hand tool, an instrument to achieve the goal of a client. He has no concept of a supervening, institutionalized legal system where it can be said that no man is above the law. Instead his legal universe is atomistic and fragmented. It is good guys versus the bad guys, and he is there to help the good guys win.
If given the chance to start over, the Attorney General would again terminate the eight U.S. Attorneys, according to his testimony. All he would change is "the process" of reaching the same end. The law serves Mr. Gonzales as a means to an end; the Law as an end in itself is invisible to the Attorney General. Such blindness, if only for that reason, makes him unfit to serve as the top lawyer in the government.
--May-I
(To reply, click here.)
(4/23)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Harry Reid's Clever Scheme To Tax Rich People To Fund Health Care
Fix Your Terrible, Insecure Passwords in Five Minutes
Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson's Best Movie Since Rushmore
Why Doesn't Health Care Cover Birth Control?
Why Do They Play Bagpipes at Military Funerals?
The Four Reasons Precious Is So Fat
Remarks from the Fray:
It's wrong to think that Bush is loyally standing by an old friend and retainer. That's what he's doing in appearance, but the political substance is quite different.
The game here is not what happens to Gonzalez, or even to Justice. It's keeping the hounds away from the White House. Gonzalez is a pawn in that game. If Bush lets him go, especially without a big show of backing him, he runs the risk that Gonzo will do a Brownie. Much better for Bush to keep him on as a firewall.
As long as Gonzalez is AG, he's Bush's boy. He won't be out there spilling in the beans on how WH staffers, including Rove, plotted the transformation of Justice from the nation's law enforcement arm to the Republican party enforcement arm. (It's a good idea to remember here that Rove's little playmate, Grover Norquist, has long boasted that by controlling the federal government the Republican party can destroy the Democratic one.) Missing e-mails notwithstanding, there are just too many who know what has been going down. If Bush can prop Gonzalez up, even as a corpse, it will reassure the underlings that the White House still has the power to protect them. And they'll keep their mouths shut, like Monica Gooding plans to.
Bush is not worried about angering anybody in Congress, including Republicans. First, he isn't running again. Second, he's already angered everybody; being unreasonable one more time can't make it much worse. Third, Bush strokes his veto power like a 13-year-old beating off.
Gonzalez has only one talent, and it's to soldier loyally on no matter what. Where other, smarter, men would whither in shame at being unable to give plausible policy explanations for the slaughter of attorneys at Justice, Gonzo just looks earnest and keeps falling back on his painfully vague cant. He can do that all day if you want. Doesn't matter that the whole world knows it's evasive bullshit. Bush has told him that His Wonderfulness the President of the United States stands behind him. Gonzalez thinks he only has to endure this trial by fire and all will eventually be well. And he may be right--Bush may keep him come hell or high water. He'll be like a rotting corpse and Justice will become a fetid swamp of demoralization and decay (like many other federal agencies have become under the Boy President), but that's nothing compared to Gonzalez' importance to Bush as a firewall.
--Fritz_Gerlich
(To reply, click here.)
Have we overlooked the fact that the firings of these U.S. Attorneys would be of little interest if it were not for the modifications to the patriot act?
As AG reminds us, U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. Granted this wording is really creepy in a decadent Court of Versailles sort of way, but nonetheless that is how it is. What is disturbing is that the USA Patriot Act was modified in the dead of night to allow the appointment of replacement Attorneys with no timeframe for congressional review. [...]
Why do we think that the Republicans on committee are so eager to push the (the comparatively benign) incompetence angle? [...] Why are we not examining the changes to the Patriot Act made on Arlen Specter's watch? [...]
Don't give Gonzales a free pass for incompetence, bring pressure to bare to find out what really happened here.
--EMStoveken
(To reply, click here.)
Mr. Gonzales had the unmitigated gall to tell the Committee that he did not feel obligated to resign because the Committee failed to demonstrate that his acts of omission or commission constituted a crime. In short, by demonstrating incontrovertible incompetence, ignorance and ineptitude, Mr. Gonzales argues that he is entitled to continue in office. The members of the Committee seemed disheartened and saddened by the sorry spectacle.
The surreal testimony of Alberto Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated a deeper flaw in the man. One was driven to the inescapable conclusion that here was a lawyer who had managed to graduate Harvard without the benefit of a legal education. Although he had practiced and studied law, he never understood the Law, spelled with a capital "L".
For Mr. Gonzales, there is no pragmatic difference between a government under law and a government of men. Adherence to that distinction, however, is precisely why the Department of Justice has always served as more than the President's attack dog. This Attorney General sees law as a hand tool, an instrument to achieve the goal of a client. He has no concept of a supervening, institutionalized legal system where it can be said that no man is above the law. Instead his legal universe is atomistic and fragmented. It is good guys versus the bad guys, and he is there to help the good guys win.
If given the chance to start over, the Attorney General would again terminate the eight U.S. Attorneys, according to his testimony. All he would change is "the process" of reaching the same end. The law serves Mr. Gonzales as a means to an end; the Law as an end in itself is invisible to the Attorney General. Such blindness, if only for that reason, makes him unfit to serve as the top lawyer in the government.
--May-I
(To reply, click here.)
(4/23)