Comments on: Really Bad News For Alberto Gonzales

By: Janise Alomar

Janise Alomar — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:18:33 +0000

Gonzalez showed his colors when he along with G.W. Bush executed so many Texans when Bush was that state’s govenor and Gonzalez his attorney.

It ought not be that Gonzalez stays in office because if he is fired or resigns that it will give a large boost to the democrats. Gonzalez ought to be fired immediately for what he did including ‘purgegate’ is illegal.

By: UgLee

UgLee — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:56:09 +0000

Every time I see the interview of Alberto Gonzales I can’t help but think he is a ludicrously incompetent liar. It is often said that attorneys are nothing but professional liars. If that is so, Gonzales must be a really bad attorney. He looks like a little kid who can’t help but betray his lie with a smile.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:27:57 +0000

Bush doesn’t want a smooth talker in the AG position, so the comparison with Snow doesn’t fit. Snow just has to get up and lie to America every night, not actually do anything illegal. The type of AG Bush wants, and more importanly NEEDS, is one who will pull shady, illegal stunts at the behest of the Oval Office. Once Gonzales is gone Bush is going to have an impossible time with a Dem senate of getting a replacement that will fit the bill. Therefore, I’m pretty sure Bush will keep Gonzales as long as he conceivably can.

By: Mikef

Mikef — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:21:53 +0000

FOOTNOTE: What seems to be unspoken in all of this, is that if Gonzales suddenly resigns to spend more time with his family his critics and Democrats in particular could live to regret it. Gonzales was never highly popular with conservatives and perhaps his replacement will be someone more to the liking of conservatives, more eloquent and more politically shrewd.

Suddenly, Mr. Gonzales was never popular among conservatives? They were pushing the man for a seat on the Supreme Court for a while.

The problem with Alberto isn’t that he’s a conservative, its that he’s been running the Justice Department as a political operation.

The AG is supposed to be an independent, professional. He’s supposed to ensure that his office is kept out of political battles. There’s too much evidence that the man was using the office to protect the Bush administration, and to serve a partisan purpose.

The selection of Karl Rove’s former aide to replace a Senate confirmed USA is proof of this point. The man spent his entire career digging for dirt on Democrats, he had no other qualifications for the job.

By: kritter

kritter — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:34:09 +0000

You miss the point, Marlowe. A more savvy AG would have not purged the atty’s midstream in the first place. He would have realized the outrage even the appearance of interfering with ongoing investigations or putting in a crony of Rove’s (in Arkansas) or unnecessarily bypassing the role of the Senate in making their appointments would create. That is what most people are angry at Gonzales for. Of course inconsistent statements in a matter this serious, also help to undermine the DOJ.

W lacks support in Congress and in the polls to pull off a sneaky maneuver like this. If not blatantly illegal- it certainly was blatantly political, in the one agency that most Americans would prefer to maintain its reputation for nonpartisan fairness. Its hard to see how any case can be made that this was above-board, since released e-mails show that the WH and DOJ were intent on subverting the long tradition of not removing the USA’s midstream.

By: Marlowecan

Marlowecan — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:15:53 +0000

Joe said: “What seems to be unspoken in all of this, is that if Gonzales suddenly resigns to…Democrats in particular could live to regret it. Gonzales was never highly popular with conservatives and perhaps his replacement will be someone more to the liking of conservatives, more eloquent and more politically shrewd.”

I think this is completely true. It would be akin to the replacement of McClelland with Snow.

Gonzales’ performance has been extraordinarily incompetent…and infuriating to many on the Right, it seems…as a law school undergraduate with a history book could have easily rebutted Democratic attacks on “Purgegate”. Instead, Gonzales dived for cover, and pointed fingers at others.

The National Review is right, I think, that this may have negatives in throwing the Democrats a scalp. However, giving the Democrats one or two news cycles is preferable to giving them endless Sunday talk fests to imply…while never actually specifying illegality…dark deeds done by night.

But he is Bush’s bud, so who knows? What does Bush care about the GOP, after all?