The Attorney General Alberto Gonzales affair shows how out-of-touch George Bush is on political issues and why his poll numbers are below the freeze mark.However, it also shows the reason why so many believe the President is a bullheaded leader, which could be his strength.
During the hearing this week, Gonzales presented a pitiful display testifying although he was well-prepared.
Even Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma who is one of the staunchest Republicans and a member of the Judiciary Committee called Gonzales to resign.“I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation”, Coburn said.
Coburn is now the third Republican who has called upon the resignation of Gonzales.
Despite the fact that many within the Beltway think that Gonzales lacks all credibility-- which is obvious the worse possible quality that any attorney general should want, and despite the Gonzales testimony that he has no recollection of a very critical meeting that occurred only last November in which he was implicated to be present concerning the firings, President Bush through a statement has defended his Texas friend through White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino stating that Bush was “pleased” with Gonzales’ testimony. The statement also said that Gonzales “has the full confidence of the president”.
Which statement makes one wonder what side of Mars President Bush is on these days?Which statement makes one wonder why Bush cannot read the political tea leaves flapping in the wind?
Then, this is George Bush.This is the President who does not care about the political “fall outs”.One only needs to look east to Iraq and remember how he has completely ignored chief advisors and independent commissions.
Which stubbornness and single-mindedness is what makes Bush likeable in the eyes in even some of his strongest detractors.
It is the “my way or the highway”, the “with us or against us” hard nose quality that makes Bush likeable to many.
Ultimately, Coburn was not just sending Gonzales a message.The chief target of that message obviously is President Bush, who will likely ignore it.As a result, the Presidency will continue to be mired over a growing controversy that is relatively minor in nature.President Bush ultimately will either be the hero or the goat.Then, it is his farm, isn’t it?
Bush is a moron. Gonzales should resign and get it over with. The longer he hesitates, the worse he, and American justice, look. No wonder we're the laughing stock of the world. Impeach a President for getting a blowjob from an intern (a CONSENTING intern, by the way), but let the head cop in the country lie about firing Attorney Generals. Let Junior lie about those missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Let Rumsfeld and Cheney lie about how the Iraqi's would "welcome us with open arms", etc, etc. No wonder the world thinks we're all stupid Americans when we went from a Rhodes Scholar to someone who can't even hold a book right side up. Good luck, America!
Written by Sam T
on 4/22/2007
This controversy is not "relatively minor in nature". President Bush named these prosecutors in 2000. It is very unusual for a president to replace prosecutors he has named between terms. Replacing prosecutors to stop ongoing investigations is illegal. It is called obstruction of justice. The President is not allowed to do it and, a fortiori, the Attorney General is not allowed to. Monica Goodling, Alberto Gonzales' counsel and liason to the White House took the fifth rather than testify. She is protecting herself from incrimination for what crime? It is a crime to lie to Congress. When the highest office of our justice system is mired in such a scandal, our whole justice system is in danger of breaking down.
Written by Ian Schindler
on 4/22/2007
Why did Bill Clinton fire 90+ Attorneys when he took office? Because they were appointed by Republicans. Why did he (or Hillary) fire the Civil Servants working in the Travel Office? Because the Clintons wanted to put "their people in". Political. Of course. But then everything in Washington, DC is political in one way or another. But it is not illegal nor is it a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution gives the President those powers without question or "oversight" by anyone. The right to pardon anyone is also part of the Presidential Powers granted by the Constitution. I just cannot wait to hear the uproar over who Bush pardons when he leaves office. We were promised hearing after hearing and investigation after investigation whether there is a crime or not. After all it is he preception, not the crime that is important. Good Grief.
Written by Sharon
on 4/22/2007
On balance I agree with your comments.
One key point of disagreement: "Then, it is his farm, isn’t it?" I'd say no. George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, and other federal employees are merely caretakers of "our" farm. Their decisions have consequences for how the farm is run in the future, and how well the farm produces for future generations.
The troubling issue here is the matter of precedent. Most Executive branch policies are established by law, or by practices of previous presidents that tend to become settled precedent after a couple terms.
It's worth pointing out that no president in the 150 year history of the Department of Justice has allowed this many U.S. attorneys to be fired mid-term with the direct input from several political advisors (advisors who have no practice in law). It's equally troubling that the answers from this administration haven't been exactly forthcoming as to exactly why these U.S. Attorneys were fired. We've heard shifting stories, which have been continually rebutted by the email trail--and Gonzales's testimony didn't real shed any light onto the reasons for the firings, aside from after the fact justifications (he was after all out of the loop based on his own admissions).
This is another key point: There are circumstances where these type of firings would be blatantly illegal and would endanger the faithful execution of our laws (as the A.G. and his deputy have said--this would be true in cases where the firings were prompted by a desire to influence the outcome of an ongoing case, or future prosecutions for political gain).
This is an especially troublesome issue in the case of public corruption cases; also there's a risk that innocent Americans could have the lives and reputations destroyed due to politically motivated prosecutions. This appears to have happened the case of Georgia Thompson, a mid-level career civil servant in Wisconsin, who was prosecuted by a U.S. Attorney before last year's election. Her conviction was used as an example of "public" corruption under a Democratic Governor during the 2006 Wisconsin Governor's race.
However, just a few weeks ago an appeals court overturned the decision on the basis of shaky evidence. This is all well and good, except for the fact that this woman was unjustly imprisoned for several months, and in the meantime lost her job and home. It is conceivable to me that there will be thousands of Georgia Thompson's in the event that this type of overt politicization of our justice system becomes settled practice. A copy of the appeals courts ruling on this issue is posted at:
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=06-3676_015.pdf
In the event that a Democratic president and congress have control in 2008, I suspect it is likely that this might become a settled precedent--after all people would argue that the Attorney General was merely fired for bungling a public relations issue, and not for a substantive bungling of the administration of our justice system. No American should want this outcome, or for future presidents of either party to exercise their authority in this way. Even if the reasons for the firings were legal--something that we still don't know--this administration has provided a template for how the system could be abused through its unwillingness to fully disclose the reasons for the firings (e.g. by releasing White House emails, memos, notes, and with the testimony of other key officials).
To
Buzz Right Back on this article