The count: Gonzales 64, or 71

Posted on April 21, 2007
| buzz-it! | Huff it!

The previous count: Sampson 122, Lorita Doan 29

The Gonzales hearing did not go quite as I expected. Two weeks of preparation including “murder board” sessions, and still the AG was not up to the task. I believe my expectations were not met because I incorrectly believed saving himself would be his objective.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote:

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.

Certainly some of his “I don’t recall” variations were for his own protection. In a corrupt administration that has raised obfuscation to an art form, perjury is about the only charge that can be made to stick. Dana Milbank of the Post put the count of Gonzales’s claims of faulty memory at 64. NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it at 71. Both can be correct, as there are many ways to say “It serves my purpose to sit here and pretend I’ve lost my mind, but insist I still should be the U.S. Attorney General.”

Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla. A tired artful dodge used by officials under fire is the statement “I take full responsibility,” uttered now by Gonzales on several occasions. It’s usually employed to say also, “end of story.” One of my favorite quotes from committee questioners came from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

To me, there has to be consequences to accepting responsibility. And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. 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 that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.

Gonzales is not falling on his sword, in this play, however. The underlying problem of the Justice Department being used as just another political tool will remain, even if Gonzales leaves. The understood pact is that he stay in place, take all the heat and protect the administration, that is, Rove and Bush. His reward is keeping his job. This way both objectives are met.

Bush might mitigate his problems by appointing a new AG known for intelligence, integrity, and independence. That’s not too likely. Someone like that just might initiate a proper investigation from within, and on all sorts of things that have not yet come out.

The Boston Globe writes:

“There were no bombshell revelations in yesterday’s hearing, but it did provide new evidence of why Gonzales has been so deceitful about the firings. In at least some of the cases, the attorneys — all Bush appointees — were being canned for blatantly partisan reasons, either because the administration believed they were prosecuting Republican officeholders too aggressively or not prosecuting allegations of voter fraud by Democrats aggressively enough.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. describes such behaviors by the administration and Justice as “improper.” Other interpreters might say “criminal.” To use U.S. Attorneys to selectively investigate and prosecute your political enemies for purely political purposes, is abuse of power. Protecting allies from rightful prosecutions is obstruction of justice. These were two of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon. The third was contempt of Congress. How blatant is that in the present administration?

Getting Gonzales out of the government would be a worthy goal. He has no one’s confidence except for the president’s. Let’s not fool ourselves that the AG’s removal would fully redress the abuses that have been exposed. Congress must now move to understand fully the White House’s involvement.