“Clueless” Gonzales Chastised
Rizwan Ghani
April 20, 2007
In all probability that time has come. It is not the question of Gonzales as a man. Who they say is a good man. It is the question of credibility of nation’s chief law enforcement officer.
His testimony once again reflected how clueless Gonzales was about the plot that led to firing of eight US attorneys, its timings and even the details.
His handling of entire firing issue has been termed as “bungling’ by one of the members of Senate judiciary committee. Sen. Arlen Specter bluntly informed nation’s chief law enforcement officer, “We have to evaluate whether you are really forthright”. Reportedly, Gonzales used the phrase “couldn’t recall” seventy one times on different occasion during the testimony.
This observation is serious because in course of the hearing Gonzales admitted having conversation with Bush on Oct. 11 and Iglesias’ name was added to the list between Oct. 17 and Nov. 15. Gonzales acknowledged speaking with Karl Bush and Rove about complaints over election fraud cases in New Mexico, where David Iglesias was the attorney. Gonzales could not give reason for Iglesias firing. Same is true for Santiago attorney.
From the day one, critics have alleged that eight fired attorneys were dismissed to interfere with ongoing corruption investigations in ways that might help politicians. In all probability protesters wearing orange garb and pink police costumes were among the spectators. The words “Arrest Gonzales” were duct taped to their backs.
But what dwarfs these observations is his “disconnect from the (firing) process” as put by another member of the committee promoting calls for his resignation.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer called Gonzales to resign. I believe there are consequences for mistakes. . . . And I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Coburn said.
Had Spectre, committee’s ranking Republican not decided not to ask publicly for Gonzales resignation his latest posturing over firing before the committee in all probability would have prompted Spectre to call for his resignation. Half a dozen Republicans have already sought his resignation over the issue and its handling.
However, reportedly White House spokesperson Dana Perino said yesterday that Bush "was pleased with the attorney general's testimony" and that Gonzales "has the full confidence of the president."
Independent opinion believes that Gonzales is out there covering what in all probability was not his idea in the first place. That is one reason Gonzales has been shifting positions on critical questions including who ordered the firings, the timing and reasons for the firings.
It was expected that Gonzales who reportedly had assistance for preparing for the hearing should have been able to answer critical questions including timings, so that members could reach a decision in light of already tabulated information from different sources including justice dept.
Gonzales however failed to provide answer to critical timing question. He said, “I recall making the decision but I don’t recall when the decision was made”. In all probability, information contained in the justice dept e-mails made it difficult to answer the question.
It also brings to forefront two serious assertions: Is he avoiding the truth? Alternatively, he did not do it.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham openly questioned whether Gonzales was telling the truth about the reasons behind the firings. In either case, it undermines his credibility and erodes his moral standing as chief law enforcement officer. In turn head and represent country’s respected Justice department that sets standards for rest of the country. American justice system is a beacon light for countries across the globe struggling to have independent and respected justice system.
Gonzales is likely to get in deeper trouble over his remarks in which he told the committee, “The process that led to the resignations was flawed, I firmly believe that nothing improper occurred”.
It has cost eight attorneys their jobs and left their resumes tainted (for no fault of their own). Ironically, Gonzales finds nothing wrong with the process that has so far failed to inform the attorneys like rest of America as to why they were axed. Interestingly Gonzales referred to firings as resignations.
Gonzales is not giving information about timing of firings and reasons for their firing to avoid legal and political repercussions for Bush. In other words he is still acting in individual capacity instead of acting as chief law enforcement officer or US justice department.
All this amounts to compromising credibility of justice department. It also raises question over his own oath that expects him to uphold national and departmental interest supreme over individual preferences.
In all probability that is one reason The Slate dubbed Al, the President’s man. In a way, Gonzales has played to the opposition gallery by asking the committee to prove what was wrong with firing of David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney of New Mexico. An echo of comments in which Bush had said, there is no credible proof of any wrongdoing.
This brings us to the same unanswered question. Who ordered firings? Gonzales has accepted that he did not review the evaluation records of the dismissed prosecutors. Sen. Kennedy asserted that since Gonzales knew very little about the performance of replaced attorneys how could he testify that the judgment ought to stand.
Reportedly, there have been proposal for reinstatement of eight dismissed attorneys on case to case basis. However, the attorneys have maintained that they would return as a group same as they were dismissed.
Although answers to critical questions are still not there much to the disappointment of everyone but then important windows have been opened to important leads that can help the direction of who ordered the dismissals. Unless Bush comes clean on the dismissals, the patchy details would soon grow into towering trees casting shadows.
The purpose of hearing was to determine whether the committee believes that Gonzales should remain in office. Going by what has transpired in the hearing Gonzales failed to defend his position.
The moment I believe I can no longer be effective I will resign as attorney general, Gonzales said after first making it clear that he did not believe it had come to that.
In all probability that time has come. It is not the question of Gonzales as a man. Who they say is a good man. It is the question of credibility of nation’s chief law enforcement officer. It is time Gonzales leads by personal example and uphold his obligations to his nation. Something only he can do, with what all he knows.
Some still believe truth can still be the way out. Can that be an option? Who knows? America is known for its forgiving spirit.
There are accusations that Democrats are playing politics. It might be true to great extent but this time round they are visibly doing it with a noble cause- protecting and upholding nation’s law.
His testimony once again reflected how clueless Gonzales was about the plot that led to firing of eight US attorneys, its timings and even the details.
His handling of entire firing issue has been termed as “bungling’ by one of the members of Senate judiciary committee. Sen. Arlen Specter bluntly informed nation’s chief law enforcement officer, “We have to evaluate whether you are really forthright”. Reportedly, Gonzales used the phrase “couldn’t recall” seventy one times on different occasion during the testimony.
This observation is serious because in course of the hearing Gonzales admitted having conversation with Bush on Oct. 11 and Iglesias’ name was added to the list between Oct. 17 and Nov. 15. Gonzales acknowledged speaking with Karl Bush and Rove about complaints over election fraud cases in New Mexico, where David Iglesias was the attorney. Gonzales could not give reason for Iglesias firing. Same is true for Santiago attorney.
From the day one, critics have alleged that eight fired attorneys were dismissed to interfere with ongoing corruption investigations in ways that might help politicians. In all probability protesters wearing orange garb and pink police costumes were among the spectators. The words “Arrest Gonzales” were duct taped to their backs.
But what dwarfs these observations is his “disconnect from the (firing) process” as put by another member of the committee promoting calls for his resignation.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer called Gonzales to resign. I believe there are consequences for mistakes. . . . And I believe the best way to put this behind us is your resignation," Coburn said.
Had Spectre, committee’s ranking Republican not decided not to ask publicly for Gonzales resignation his latest posturing over firing before the committee in all probability would have prompted Spectre to call for his resignation. Half a dozen Republicans have already sought his resignation over the issue and its handling.
However, reportedly White House spokesperson Dana Perino said yesterday that Bush "was pleased with the attorney general's testimony" and that Gonzales "has the full confidence of the president."
Independent opinion believes that Gonzales is out there covering what in all probability was not his idea in the first place. That is one reason Gonzales has been shifting positions on critical questions including who ordered the firings, the timing and reasons for the firings.
It was expected that Gonzales who reportedly had assistance for preparing for the hearing should have been able to answer critical questions including timings, so that members could reach a decision in light of already tabulated information from different sources including justice dept.
Gonzales however failed to provide answer to critical timing question. He said, “I recall making the decision but I don’t recall when the decision was made”. In all probability, information contained in the justice dept e-mails made it difficult to answer the question.
It also brings to forefront two serious assertions: Is he avoiding the truth? Alternatively, he did not do it.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham openly questioned whether Gonzales was telling the truth about the reasons behind the firings. In either case, it undermines his credibility and erodes his moral standing as chief law enforcement officer. In turn head and represent country’s respected Justice department that sets standards for rest of the country. American justice system is a beacon light for countries across the globe struggling to have independent and respected justice system.
Gonzales is likely to get in deeper trouble over his remarks in which he told the committee, “The process that led to the resignations was flawed, I firmly believe that nothing improper occurred”.
It has cost eight attorneys their jobs and left their resumes tainted (for no fault of their own). Ironically, Gonzales finds nothing wrong with the process that has so far failed to inform the attorneys like rest of America as to why they were axed. Interestingly Gonzales referred to firings as resignations.
Gonzales is not giving information about timing of firings and reasons for their firing to avoid legal and political repercussions for Bush. In other words he is still acting in individual capacity instead of acting as chief law enforcement officer or US justice department.
All this amounts to compromising credibility of justice department. It also raises question over his own oath that expects him to uphold national and departmental interest supreme over individual preferences.
In all probability that is one reason The Slate dubbed Al, the President’s man. In a way, Gonzales has played to the opposition gallery by asking the committee to prove what was wrong with firing of David Iglesias, former U.S. attorney of New Mexico. An echo of comments in which Bush had said, there is no credible proof of any wrongdoing.
This brings us to the same unanswered question. Who ordered firings? Gonzales has accepted that he did not review the evaluation records of the dismissed prosecutors. Sen. Kennedy asserted that since Gonzales knew very little about the performance of replaced attorneys how could he testify that the judgment ought to stand.
Reportedly, there have been proposal for reinstatement of eight dismissed attorneys on case to case basis. However, the attorneys have maintained that they would return as a group same as they were dismissed.
Although answers to critical questions are still not there much to the disappointment of everyone but then important windows have been opened to important leads that can help the direction of who ordered the dismissals. Unless Bush comes clean on the dismissals, the patchy details would soon grow into towering trees casting shadows.
The purpose of hearing was to determine whether the committee believes that Gonzales should remain in office. Going by what has transpired in the hearing Gonzales failed to defend his position.
The moment I believe I can no longer be effective I will resign as attorney general, Gonzales said after first making it clear that he did not believe it had come to that.
In all probability that time has come. It is not the question of Gonzales as a man. Who they say is a good man. It is the question of credibility of nation’s chief law enforcement officer. It is time Gonzales leads by personal example and uphold his obligations to his nation. Something only he can do, with what all he knows.
Some still believe truth can still be the way out. Can that be an option? Who knows? America is known for its forgiving spirit.
There are accusations that Democrats are playing politics. It might be true to great extent but this time round they are visibly doing it with a noble cause- protecting and upholding nation’s law.
Print
Email
