Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Gonzales: ’I may have created confusion’
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, August 02, 2007

You know, I've purposely avoided the "Gonzales affair" because, frankly, it bores me to death. It is a partisan circus - part payback and part witch hunt. However, that said, Alberto Gonzales has managed, during all of this, to make himself look foolish, inept and, to use Harry Reid's favorite word, incompetent.

At some point his continued presence at the Justice Department becomes a detriment and he hurts the reputation of the office he holds and the department he heads.

Some will say that's the fault of the Democrats. I don't dispute that their partisanship is indeed one of the reasons Gonzales is in the situation he finds himself in. But just as much falls on Gonzales himself. Very few times have I ever seen anyone handle himself so poorly as has Alberto Gonzales. At times he just has the "deer-in-the-headlights" look. His answers to questions are inapt, inept and, as he admits, confusing. If this is how he prepares for important cases as a lawyer, the only place I'd ever want to see him is as opposing counsel in a courtroom. A win would be guaranteed.

Bush, unfortunately, is loyal to a fault. And that fault has to do with backing people well beyond what he should when they've demonstrated no real reason to back them except stubborn loyalty. And since Bush probably won't do it, its time for Gonzales to step up and call it quits.

Or said more succinctly, resign Mr. Gonzales. End this circus.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
McQ:

My view is that Gonzalez lied under oath just as plainly as Bill Clinton did. So you are right that the honorable thing would be for him to resign. I don’t think Bush will let him resign, however, because he is the firewall against what would be uncovered with a new, more independent AG in place.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
I find it incredible that the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee seem unable to think "outside the box".

These guys are supposed to be the best and brightest legal minds in the Senate, but it appeared repeatedly that they just could grasp that a discussion about intelligence may include a secret component.

The offer by Gonzales to discuss the matter further, in closed session, should have been a tipoff, but that was denied.

This make the committee members either stupid or liars.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Gonzalez lied under oath just as plainly as Bill Clinton did
Please cite example of each
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
For Clinton:

"I did not have sex with that woman."

There aren’t any instances of Gonzales lying, at least not in this latest fracas; in fact, his answers were "technically correct".

yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
When is this Administration going to learn that presentation matters nowadays? I wouldn’t say it’s as important as the substance, but in a day of instant media, it’s damn close. How else do you inspire the people who would support you, if only they understood what the hell was going on?
 
Written By: Jinnmabe
URL: http://
If Gonzales leaves, who will survive confirmation hearings? He’s a liability, but Bush is stuck with him now. My guess is that nobody to the right of Fitzgerald could get confirmed.
 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
"I did not have sex with that woman."
Wrong. This was part of a news conference. If all President were libel for perjury based on their news conferences, they would all be in jail.

Clinton’s perjury was before a federal judge as part of a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones case.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Two very real problems with a Gonzelez resignation. One, Dems and the MSM (redundant, I know) would play it as if their charges had merit, and two, confirming an AG sympathetic to the President’s agenda (and that’s what the AG is supposed to be and do) would be virtually impossible.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Wrong. This was part of a news conference.
He said the same under oath.

And you then confirm that:
Clinton’s perjury was before a federal judge as part of a sworn deposition in the Paula Jones case.
Pedantry can be fixed, it just takes effort in your part.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://tomdperkins.blogspot.com/
McQ:

Doesn’t the fact that Gonzales, a Harvard Law School graduate claims that he can’t remember or wasn’t involved with the most criticial decisions and meetings regarding the USAs also seriously undermine his credibility? If you were on a jury and the defendant testified that couldn’t remember what happened after he walked into that room with that gun what would matter more: how guilty he looked or his ridiculously selective memory?

Also, when Sen. Schumer asked who sent Gonzales to the hospital he refused to answer. He didn’t cite executive privilege or his 5th Amendment rights, he just refused to answer a question asked by a US Senator in a committee hearing. Now, aside from how blatantly illegal and unbecoming a civilian officer of the United States that is, are you really saying that if it weren’t for how sleazy you believe Gonzales appears that average, non-partisan, Americans would look at that testimony and have complete confidence in Gonzales’s integrity and past actions?
 
Written By: badger
URL: http://
Doesn’t the fact that Gonzales, a Harvard Law School graduate claims that he can’t remember or wasn’t involved with the most criticial decisions and meetings regarding the USAs also seriously undermine his credibility?
My goodness, Badger ... would I be saying "his continued presence at the Justice Department becomes a detriment and he hurts the reputation of the office he holds and the department he heads" and calling for his resignation if I thought he had any credibility?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It doesn’t matter how many people call for Gonzalez’s resignation; he isn’t going anywhere unless Bush tells him so. If you really think Gonzalez should go, you should be calling upon the President to ask for his resignation or to fire him. It isn’t up to Gonzalez.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Speaking of hacks, John Cole is continuing his sneering at QandO and other blogs who got on the Beauchamp story:
”Beauchamp... gave certain segments of the nutters a chance to really feel patriotic and really pitch in on the war on terror from their laptop in Santa Monica [sigh, another “chickenhawk" jape] Having served as judge, jury, and executioneer (sic) after deeming everything Beauchamp said as a lie ...[you blogs]... are merely waiting for the investigation to finish [my emphasis]. You see, that is how it works- first you deny, then you smear, then you have a linkfest attacking the person, then you shift the goalposts on your accusations, then you smear some more, AND THEN you investigate.”
This guy is an expert at making statements that constitute hoisting himself on his own petard. First it is that “name calling” bitch Malkin, now we are “merely [!] waiting for the investigation” instead of smearing, attacking, shifting the goalposts and smearing some more.

This guy exemplifies the “ready, fire, aim” school of blog posting. His posts have a very high humor content as a result. Probity; not so much.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
Bush, unfortunately, is loyal to a fault.
You seem to have this exactly backwards. Bush requires loyalty from his people but doesn’t give it. He requires Gonzales to fall on his sword making himself look like an incompetent boob who didn’t have the first clue what his department was doing or why, as a shield for the Whitehouse’s involvement in this mess. Are you telling us that you actually believe Gonzales doesn’t remember where he got his instructions, or anything else about this affair? When you ask whether this is how he prepares for important cases are you really suggesting that you believe his complete lack of substantive answers is due to a lack of preparation? Requiring self-immolation of one’s lieutenants to hide one’s own sins is the opposite of loyalty.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Actually, Amp, Q&O was pretty reasonable throughout the whole affair, and we actually had what I would consider a decent discussion in one of the comments threads.
 
Written By: John Cole
URL: http://www.balloon-juice.com
Speaking of hacks, John Cole is continuing his sneering at QandO and other blogs who got on the Beauchamp story:
Yeah, well honestly, if he can’t figure this all out without someone having to explain it to him (you noticed he dropped out of the discussion here like you’d drop a hot rock), why bother worrying about what he says?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ: I think my last post made it clear that I’m not accusing you of blindly defending Gonzales and your call for him to resign (which he won’t) is commendable. My last post clearly questioned the extremely limited boundaries of your criticism, namely that Gonzales should resign because he’s lost credibility because the way he looks while testifying and because his answers are “inapt, inept, [and confusing].”

Your criticism seems to imply that if it were Tony Snow testifying, there’d be no problem and I believe that completely misreads the situation. Yeah, Gonzales is not our most telegenic cabinet official, but the reason he gives muddled answers, can’t remember memorable events, feigns disinterest in major departmental personnel matters and occasionally refuses to answer direct questions without any legal basis whatsoever is because he probably doesn’t have any good answers to give. The reason why the supposed justifications for firing many of the USAs don’t make any sense and no official admits basing any sort of decisions on them is because they are likely spurious. The answers would be just as ludicrous coming from even the most tv-ready Administration official. The problem is the presentation, not the presenter.
 
Written By: badger
URL: http://
Bush, unfortunately, is loyal to a fault.
You seem to have this exactly backwards. Bush requires loyalty from his people but doesn’t give it. He requires Gonzales to fall on his sword making himself look like an incompetent boob who didn’t have the first clue what his department was doing or why, as a shield for the Whitehouse’s involvement in this mess.
Exactly.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
Your criticism seems to imply that if it were Tony Snow testifying, there’d be no problem and I believe that completely misreads the situation.
No, instead, it completely misreads my point. If Tony Snow were in Gonzales’s place and doing what Gonzales is doing, I’d be calling for Snow to resign as well.
Yeah, Gonzales is not our most telegenic cabinet official, but the reason he gives muddled answers, can’t remember memorable events, feigns disinterest in major departmental personnel matters and occasionally refuses to answer direct questions without any legal basis whatsoever is because he probably doesn’t have any good answers to give. The reason why the supposed justifications for firing many of the USAs don’t make any sense and no official admits basing any sort of decisions on them is because they are likely spurious. The answers would be just as ludicrous coming from even the most tv-ready Administration official. The problem is the presentation, not the presenter.
This may come as a bit of a surprise, Badger, but I have yet to catch the Gonzales act on TV. I have, however, read fairly extensively about it. So my criticism isn’t based on how he looked or sounded or whether or not he feigns disinterest or gives muddled answers.

It has to do with a level of performance over time that I find to be detrimental to both the office and the department. And I think he should resign.

Obviously if I think his performance is substandard and am calling for his resignation, I’m not awarding him credibility points.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
It has to do with a level of performance over time that I find to be detrimental to both the office and the department.
You seem to assume that it is Gonzales’s job to do what is beneficial to his department and his office. In that case his failure to so far resign is indeed incomprehensible. Is it not more in line with the facts to suppose that both the President and Gonzales regard his job as doing what is beneficial to the President? The detriment the office and the department are entirely beside the point. In his real job of shielding the President from the consequences of his policies with regards to the DoJ, Gonzales’s performance is outstanding. He will only resign when his resignation is more useful to the President’s relentless obstructionism than is his current obfuscation. Until then he is required to hold his hands in the fire, looking like a complete prat. Presumably he expects, foolishly IMHO, some future reward for his current sacrifice from his liege. Why should he be different than Rumsfeld?
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
You seem to assume that it is Gonzales’s job to do what is beneficial to his department and his office.
I’m not assuming anything of the sort.

Instead of commenting on unfounded assumptions, why not deal with what I actually said?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I am consistently amazed at how characters like Retief can go on and on about high crimes and misdemeanors, the good of the country, the Constitution, etc. and never, ever mention how great it would be for the Democrats politically if, somehow, anyhow, AG Gonzalez could be forced to resign. Now, if that were just a collateral factor, OK. Since it is the entire reason for the huing and crying...
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
This may come as a bit of a surprise, Badger, but I have yet to catch the Gonzales act on TV. I have, however, read fairly extensively about it. So my criticism isn’t based on how he looked or sounded or whether or not he feigns disinterest or gives muddled answers.
Really?
Very few times have I ever seen anyone handle himself so poorly as has Alberto Gonzales. At times he just has the "deer-in-the-headlights" look.
“Deer in the headlights look”.
Really? Can one determine through text a “deer-in-the-headlights look”? Hmm.

I must say. It does appear that your criticism is mainly about his performance in front of inquisitors rather than his performance as AG.

You know, I’ve purposely avoided the "Gonzales affair" because, frankly, it bores me to death.
Good thing it doesn’t bore some of us. Lest we continue with shenanigans like this…
The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was at home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.
Eight days later, huh.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Really? Can one determine through text a “deer-in-the-headlights look”? Hmm.
Front page pics in most of the major newspapers and all over the net does help in that sort of determination, yes ... but it doesn’t require TV.

Now put that jerky little knee away and go play with the bees.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
So you can determine a “deer in the headlights look” from just stills, huh?

How perceptive.

Tell me. Does it look like this?
Only in this case, it would be more like a mouse in the headlights.

Heh.
Cheers.








Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
So you can determine a "deer in the headlights look" from just stills, huh?
Heh ... I must assume you’ve never seen our boy in stills if you have to ask that question.

As for the rogue deer you’ve highlighted I’d only say that most would immediately turn off their headlights if he showed up in them.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As for the rogue deer you’ve highlighted I’d only say that most would immediately turn off their headlights if he showed up in them.
True dat.

If I ever see your rogue deer in my headlights… especially wearing spandex in front of his BigWheel… I would definitely turn my headlights off. As I would not want to see it anymore.

LOL.

I must say, I enjoy Dale’s photography. It’s always worth the viewing.

Cheers.





Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Dude, that’s not a big wheel...
There’s no, um, BIG wheel on that trike.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
McQ:
So my criticism isn’t based on how he looked or sounded or whether or not he feigns disinterest or gives muddled answers.
McQ:
Alberto Gonzales has managed, during all of this, to make himself look foolish, inept and, to use Harry Reid’s favorite word, incompetent....Very few times have I ever seen anyone handle himself so poorly as has Alberto Gonzales...His answers to questions are inapt, inept and, as he admits, confusing.
 
Written By: badger
URL: http://
Alberto Gonzales has managed, during all of this, to make himself look foolish, inept and, to use Harry Reid’s favorite word, incompetent....Very few times have I ever seen anyone handle himself so poorly as has Alberto Gonzales...His answers to questions are inapt, inept and, as he admits, confusing.
Yup ... all figures of speech, Badger. I’m not sure what you are pursuing or what your point is, but if it amuses you, have fun with it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
why not deal with what I actually said?
Well McQ, as at the start of the last post, here are your words:
It has to do with a level of performance over time that I find to be detrimental to both the office and the department. And I think he should resign.
Are you sure you want to go on pretending that if his performance is detrimental to the office and the department, and he ought to resign, that doesn’t imply that his performance ought not to be detrimental to the office and the department, but beneficial to them? Really?

& amp, Gonzales’s resignation would not be good news for Democrats because, as McQ suggests in his original post, that resignation would go a long ways towards ending the circus. Gonzales in place is a handy firestop between the president and the consequences of his policies. Gonzales gone would serve well as the scapegoat for those same policies. Gonzales gets left holding th ebag for Bush on this either way. Other than that, thanks for your imputation of bad faith on my part. You’re ever so helpful.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Retief, in refuting charges of bad faith in his commenting:
"Gonzales’s resignation would not be good news for Democrats..."
Nuff sed.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Are you sure you want to go on pretending that if his performance is detrimental to the office and the department, and he ought to resign, that doesn’t imply that his performance ought not to be detrimental to the office and the department, but beneficial to them? Really?
Do you really want to continue to look this foolish and push this nonsense further?

Really?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider