Gonzales Goes Down
Posted by MichaelW on 30 Jul 2007 at 2:36 pm | Tagged as: Law, MichaelW's Page, Domestic Politics
Well maybe not as fast as some of us would like. I’ve not been a big fan of Gonzales, but neither have I been a huge detractor.
He strikes me as politically tone deaf, which is the primary cause of much of his current troubles in my opinion, and the evidence adduced so far reveals him to be an incredibly incompetent manager.
However, although I think Gonzales should have been put out to pasture some time ago, because I’m not a means-justifies-the-ends type of person, I’d rather see him forced out for the right reasons. While some have taken issue with his legal reasoning with respect to certain aspects of the administration’s approach to the GWOT, I haven’t been terribly persuaded by that rhetoric, especially after looking more closely at some of the challenged writings. Similarly, the current kabuki-like proceedings over the U.S. Attorney firings is complete nonsense no matter how you slice it and dice it, with the exception of what was revealed by Ms. Goodling’s testimony. Now certain members of Congress are threatening to try Gonzales for perjury. This is yet another inept tact to removing the AG:
Today the New York Times filled in the blanks on Alberto Gonzales’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. As we discussed in detail here and here, Gonzales testified that he had visited John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to resolve a legal dispute that had developed over an intelligence program, but that the program in question was not the “terrorist surveillance program” that had been confirmed by President Bush, i.e., the interception of international communications where one participant is associated with al Qaeda. About that program, Gonzales said there had been no serious legal question.
This testimony was met with incredulity by the Senators. “Do you expect us to believe that?” Arlen Spector asked. Committee members Schumer and Leahy flatly accused Gonzales of lying, and called for a special prosecutor to carry out a perjury investigation. …
Today the Times confirms that Gonzales told the truth. The legal dispute that broke out in 2004 was about the NSA’s “data mining” project, in which databases of telephone records were reviewed for patterns suggestive of terrorist cells
It was never really clear as to why Gonzales would have lied about this incident in the first place, and the hoopla surrounding his testimony usually skipped the fact that the AG offered to brief Senate members behind closed doors so as to not compromise classified information:
Gonzales could see that some of the Senators were confused, and he offered to explain to them where the controversy resided, and why it was different from the “terrorist surveillance program” that President Bush had publicly disclosed. Of course, this would have to be done in closed session, since it involved disclosure of classified information>:
SPECTER: Going back to the question about your credibility on whether there was dissent within the administration as to the terrorist surveillance program, was there any distinction between the terrorist surveillance program in existence on March 10th, when you and the chief of staff went to see Attorney General Ashcroft, contrasted with the terrorist surveillance program which President Bush made public in December of 2005?
GONZALES: Senator, this is a question that I should answer in a classified setting, quite frankly, because now you’re asking me to hint or talk — to hint about our operational activities. And I’d be happy to answer that question, but in a classified setting.
The Senators declined Gonzales’s invitation. That tells you everything you need to know: they are not interested in learning the truth, but only in seeking political advantage.
Again, as with the US Attorneys scandal, this is just political kabuki played out for partisan advantage. There are two real problems with this.
(1) The Democratic Senators are drowning out substantive reasons for Gonzales to be let go with their political maneuvering, and creating space for political opponents to support the embattled AG while sounding sane and reasonable. If the Leahy and Schumer had instead concentrated on the complete lack of oversight with respect to the DOJ, and on the apparently illegal IJ hirings uncovered by Monica Goodling’s testimony, they would have a viable issue on their hands with which to berate the White House.
(2) This entire fiasco is about as clear an example as you will find of Administrative bungling compounded by Congressional unseriousness. The Bush Administration has shown itself to be incredibly incompetent on more than one occasion, and the DOJ scandal provides yet more evidence. But the lack of any concern about “the People’s business” on the part of Congress is on grand display when Senators spend so much time attempting to score political points rather than effectively handling the very real issues put before them. If ever you needed a picture-perfect moment to underscore the idea that Congress is in the business of re-election, and nothing more, then the Attorney-Gate proceedings will suit that purpose just fine.
Is it any wonder that our political class is held in such contempt?
Technorati Tags: Attorney-Gate, U.S. Attorney scandal, Alberto Gonzales, Congress, Monica Goodling, Kyle Sampson, James Comey, John Ashcroft, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, approval ratings, perjury proceedings
2 Responses to “Gonzales Goes Down”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
Michael,
Spot on. The man should be out of there, but the ineptitude of his opponents has kept him on, and the Justice Dept. in the hands of a man who I wish wasn’t there.
Ironically, when valid criticism’s of nominees and appointees have been voiced it has led to better choices. See Harriet Myers.
Thanks, Lance. It really is amazing how much incompetence there is to go around.
BTW, congrats on the new abode.