Gonzales: Oops
Aug 31st, 2007 | 17 responses
Potentially bad news for Alberto Gonzales:
The Justice Department’s inspector general indicated yesterday that he is investigating whether departing Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales gave false or misleading testimony to Congress, including whether he lied under oath about warrantless surveillance and the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
The disclosure by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in a letter to Congress signals an expansion of the department’s internal investigations into Gonzales’s troubled tenure, probes that were not previously known to be focused so sharply on the attorney general and his testimony.
I know that quite some readers of this blog might disagree with me on this, but I consider this investigation to be well deserved. The question whether he lied under oath is fairly easy to answer; of course he did. An example? Whenever Gonzales said “I can’t recall” he lied. Of course he could recall. The only problem is it difficult (read: virtually impossible) to prove that someone does remember something that person says not to remember. But we all know he lied, and he knows we all know it. He was not concerned about it though, since he knew (knows) that we cannot prove it. When, however, the inspector general can prove that Gonzales lied about other things (about subject he actually said something different than “I can’t recall”), it is time for the latter to start worrying (and for Bush as well).
Gonzales was one of the worst attorney generals in modern history. The question now is whether the inspector general can prove that he lied about certain things as well. We will see where it goes, but if I were American I would be happy that some people want to restore honesty and accountability.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
17 Responses to “Gonzales: Oops”
Of course the desire to have honesty and accountability will end as soon as Senator Clinton is elected president. Then the partisan screaming for investigations will shut up and those few remaining Republican may begin to scream about the lack of oversight. However, as soon as january 2009 comes around, the Democrats in Congress may actually have to hold hearings on real legislation instead of wasting their time with meaningless investigation.
A better discussion would be who will serve in the Clinton cabinet and how many hard question will they get from Congress? May guess is that the next Clinton Administration will be full of retreads from the last administration and they will face close to zero hard questions from Congress.
SD- Now some conservatives’ response to requests to clean their own house, will not only be “but Clinton did it too” but “Clinton will do it too”????
LMAO- can you ever just focus on the topic in the post without bashing Democrats before they’ve committed an offense?
When ever I read anyone using the terms accountability or oversight, I am highly suspect. I seriously doubt that the Democrats in Congress really care about oversight and that any mention of oversight will end on January 20, 2009. When the Democrats controls every part of government, I predict that most of the media will stop claiming that Americans like divided government or that Congress’ has oversight as one of its function.
Starting in January 2009, Congress will probably not have another “oversight” hearing but will be in do things while not accept responsiblity mode.
Kim,
I think MvdG said it best, “Even politicians [people] who present themselves as conservatives are often not much more than populists, lyers[liars] and, yes, ideologues… When someone presents himself (or herself) as a conservative, this person often repeats mantras and slogans. ”
SD just continues to prove he’s nothing more than a conservative ideologue. When any criticism that is justified about conservatives/republicans comes out he jumps out with the standard GOP approved slogans to try and deflect blame back to “The Clintons”.
Rambie,
Maybe you should go back to 1998 and see how hard the Democratic Party establishment was spinning on the Clinton scandals.
If nothing else, look at the number of articles about sexual harassment in the workplace that started after the Clearance Thomas hearings and then look up how they become non-existent after the Clinton sex scandal started.
Now the Democrats refuse to discuss any more policy changes about sexual harassment in the workplace after Clinton.
I am just saying that I doubt that the Democratic Party will have no real interest in legislative oversight of the executive branch once the Democratic Party is back in charge of the executive Branch. You guys are the ones who keep trying to fall back on Moveon.org talking points about blaming the Clintons.
Do you really believe that whoever the political hack is who is the Attorney General in the next administration will ever be called by a Democratic controlled Congress to testify under oath? I doubt that it will happen.
If you really want to see how ideology has affected politics, look at how the hard core Democratic Party operatives are more interested in the Republican Primaries instead of the Democratic Primaries.
For the love of god SuperD, again you’re comparing sex scandals with the undermining of the constitution and torture. No liberal when they think of accountability thinks in the next sentence of Larry Craig. While we take great delight in any family values GOP’er getting caught acting imperfect like the rest of us, thats not in the same league as the things Bush and Gonzales have pulled.
We say stop torture, you say stop boinking interns.
We moderates will indeed be interested in making sure the next president includes oversight in their administration and they will be raked over the coals just as hard as this one. Of course I find it almost impossible to believe we’d have another president to give us as much cause as Bush does, whoever it is.
Please, SD is not a conservative, he is a right-radical apologist. He has no interest in rational discourse, or balanced, effective government, etc.
He just looks to spew forth a parody of faux-Republican rhetoric, and watch the ensuing fireworks.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out he is really a DU-type lefty having fun.
Wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out he is really a DU-type lefty having fun.
Was your first clue his posts in other topics where he spews a parody of faux-Democratic rhetoric? LMAO.
SD, didn’t you ever learn that “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
Yes, some Dems were spinning in 1998 but that’s doesn’t justify it today by the GOP today. Even leaving aside what the “spinning” is about, there was no justification for it then and there is none now.
Rambie,
The question is how much oversight and investigation will the Democratic Party do when they are looking at their won. My prediction is none.
Look at how activist on the left refuse to discuss the possible configuration of the future Clinton Administration. It is like Senator Clinton will be sitting in the White House by herself making all of the decisions and doing all of the work. Should those “moderates” interested in good government begin to question who will be the future President Clinton’s Attorney General, Sec. of State, Sec. of Defense, and who will her serve as her senior advisors.
After all of the hand ringing about President Bush’s advisors, I find it amazing how the left does not want to mention that Senator Clinton will even have advisors. Of course, it will not matter who she picks because the Democratic controlled Congress will rubber stamp whoever she wants without any oversight.
SD- Its odd but I seem to remember her husband actually getting more of his agenda through when the Republicans were in charge of Congress. There was a lot of opposition to Bill Clinton’s administration from Democrats during the first two years, and they were furious with him that many lost seats and control of both houses in 1994.
Looking backward to other Democratic presidents, both LBJ and Carter faced stiff opposition from members of their own party and left office defeated and miserable.
Republicans are the party of Reagan who came up with the 11th commandment- never criticize a fellow Republican. That’s why the GOP has been a rubber stamp for Bush- that and fear of retribution from Karl Rove and the RNC. I think you are projecting- especially since even now the Democrats are divided, with the Blue Dogs supporting the war, and the others opposing it. The Democrats also ran more conservative candidates last time, to win in districts that they normally lose in. That’s one of the reasons they havent’ gotten much of their agenda through. Many Democrats are not happy with Hillary Clinton as the nominee for ’08.
kritter,
The reason that the Democrats lost in 1994 had little to do with disagreeing with President Clinton but with agreeing with his tax cuts and making excuse for his policy initiatives. In was much more than President Clinton threw the Democrats in Congress under the bus the save himself instead of them spending even one minute questioning what he was doing in 1993 and 1994.
LBJ and Carter were no incompetent and the Democrats in Congress went along with both of them. How many times was Harold Brown sworn in and forced to testify about the Iran hostage crisis? My guess is zero.
Your right SuperD, maybe the democratic president will
1) Initiate needless wars on bad information
2) Violate habeus corpus and internation toture treaties
3) Hold closed door sessions with energy industry bigwigs to make an energy policy that serves them and not our national interests, neither short nor long term
4) Use the DoJ as a personal attack dog farm and shield members of the democratic party from prosecution
5) Expose undercover CIA operatives then pardon staffers for lying about their role in it
6) Appoint mining and energy lobbyists to fill all important spots in Dept of Interior, because whose got the time to watch that little dept with a war on
7) Hand China another trillion of our national debt to save taxes for the wealthy
As long as the next president can keep their pants on who cares right? I’m sure no one on these boards would have a problem with any of that as long as it was a liberal doing it.
Sam,
I guess dropping bombs on Serbia, Sudan, and Asghanistan does not court. I guess having private meetings with the healthcare industry does not count. I guess rummabing through FBI files does not count. I guess using the IRS to try to silence right of center organizations does not count. I guess putting the trials lawyers assocation in charge of DOJ was better? I guess giving secret to China did not really matter. Of course the Clinton Administraiton also told us taht profit/losses/earnings do not really matter to the business cycle.
Actions taken in Serbia, Sudan and afghanistan were all in response to violent events that occured and affected our interestes directly. All were handled in a reasonable timeframe and did not result in a never ending war that was dumped in the following administrations lap.
Private meetings with the healthcare industry? I don’t recall exectutive priveledge being invoked on that one.
Not sure what you are talking about with FBI files being rummaged thru. *
IRS silencing right of center organizations? Which ones and how were they silenced? *
Yes, putting trial lawyers in charge of the DoJ is better than putting Gonzales in charge of DoJ. Does that even need to be backed up with an arguement or can we just let that one rest on common sense?
No one GAVE China nuclear secrets, they STOLE them. Bush on the other hand GAVE China the opportunity to buy up our debt by driving it so freaking high we have to take any financing we can to support it. That trillion $$ is going to mean much much more in the next 2 decades than hydrogen bombs will.
* – I’m placing bets that these are pretty small potatoes(passed off as a main course meal by conservatives) when I get more info on them.
SD- I lived in DC in the late ’70′s and remember that much of the opposition to Carter’s policies came not from the GOP, but from Ted Kennedy- who did not think Carter was liberal enough, and who at the time still had presidential ambitions. Also you are forgetting the antiwar wing of the Democratic party who opposed LBJ, and the southern Democrats who opposed him on his civil rights agenda. I know this doesn’t fit with your partisan worldview that the Democrats are as bad or worse than the Republicans have been, but facts are facts.
Even now, Pelosi can’t unite the Democrats on the war and other issues because there are two distinct wings of the party. The Blue Dogs are more likely to side with Bush on national security issues than with the liberal wing and Pelosi.
You’d like to believe the Democrats have in the past and will in the future act as a rubber stamp for a Democratic president, but it just isn’t true. We don’t have a Karl Rove or a Tom Delay to enforce party discipline. Which is fine with me.
For heaven’s sake!
This shouldn’t be a contest for which party is capable of doing the basest things!
Where Gonzales went wrong, IMO, was that he failed to recognized the differeence between a role as the Prsident’s lawyer and the role as the naion’t lawyer.
That’s a more crucial failing, IMO, that any indivicual decision he made. Making the WH, not the nation, his client is about as dectructive to our system of government as anything can be.
He set a precedent. Bad precedents give dangerous ideas to succeeding administrations, regarlless of party affiliation.
I welcome the uproar over Gonzales, not because it’s bad or good for one party or the other, but because I’m hoping that enough of an uproar will make it harder tor the next crew to follow in his footsteps.
I hope the reaction will send one message” don’t do this!