SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dale Baker who wrote (40789)8/28/2007 10:34:16 PM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543334
 
Bush's Immovable Man Moves On

By Ruth Marcus
Tuesday, August 28, 2007; A13

By the time the end came, I had begun to think of Alberto Gonzales as Bartleby the Attorney General.

Everyone -- well, nearly everyone -- wanted him to go, but he preferred not to. Like the maddening scrivener of Melville's short story who would not leave his job, Gonzales was possessed of a "wonderful mildness." Senators of both parties might rage at his transparent evasions, but "not a wrinkle of agitation rippled him." He was passive in the face of partisan and even bipartisan aggression.

"It was truly a beautiful thought to have assumed Bartleby's departure; but, after all, that assumption was simply my own, and none of Bartleby's," Melville's narrator observed. "The great point was, not whether I had assumed that he would quit me, but whether he would prefer so to do."

Did Gonzales finally decide he preferred to leave, or was it decided for him? Based on Gonzales's previous insistence on staying, I'd guess he was pushed, in one of those Washington, no-fingerprints ways.

During the attorney general's last, disastrous appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee a month ago, Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl asked the question that was on the mind of anyone watching, and wincing, at Gonzales's pummeling: "What keeps you in the job, Mr. Attorney General?"

"Ultimately I have to decide whether or not it's better for me to leave or just stay and try to fix the problems," Gonzales replied. "I've decided to stay and fix the problems."

This captured precisely why Gonzales needed to go. The notion that Gonzales could "fix the problems" ignored the fact that these were problems of his own creation -- in many ways, he was the problem. Gonzales tended to talk about himself as if he were having an out-of-body experience, saying, for example, about the firing of U.S. attorneys: "I am not aware that it certainly was in my mind a problem or basis to accept the recommendation that they be asked to leave."

Gonzales proved that he could, at least for a time, defy the laws of political gravity. By the end, members of his own party -- privately, for certain, and some publicly -- had had enough of his eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind memory and his hair-splitting approach to the truth. Gonzales stayed long enough to drain his departure of nearly all its political benefit. His resignation made Donald Rumsfeld's exit look precipitous.

There is one obvious explanation for Gonzales's longevity: President Bush. Asked about his attorney general at a news conference this month, Bush bristled. "Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," he said.

Yesterday, Bush complained of "months of unfair treatment that has created a harmful distraction at the Justice Department." He added: "It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeding from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

No doubt, Democrats have delighted in seizing on and magnifying Gonzales's failings. But Gonzales himself has acknowledged the "problems" at his department and his own "missteps" and misstatements. He apologized to the fired prosecutors "for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle" and said that he "should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous, and that each U.S. attorney was informed of this decision in a more personal and respectful way."

It was Gonzales's inexperienced senior counsel, Monica Goodling, who admitted that she "crossed the line," taking political affiliations into account in hiring career prosecutors; she described how the attorney general's efforts to recite his recollection of the firings, at a time when it was clear the matter would be investigated, made her "uncomfortable." It was Gonzales's inexperienced chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, who said the attorney general's statements that he was not involved in any discussions about the firings were inaccurate.

It was the president's own former deputy attorney general, James Comey, who offered a devastating account of Gonzales's visit to John Ashcroft's hospital room and Bush's FBI director, Robert Mueller, who backed up Comey's account.

It was the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter (Pa.), who told Gonzales last month, "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly." It was Adam Putnam (Fla.), head of the House Republican Conference, who called on Gonzales to resign, saying his "credibility is so severely damaged . . . that he is no longer able to advance the president's programs before Congress."

In short, it was hardly a vast left-wing conspiracy that did in the attorney general.

Gonzales may have been Bartleby. To the end, though, Bush was Bartleby's enabler.



To: Dale Baker who wrote (40789)8/29/2007 4:42:31 AM
From: Cogito  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543334
 
>>And I seriously doubt Craig gets busted over an innocent, misconstrued remark. That said, I don't think we need undercover cops in men's rooms to begin with.<<

Dale -

I completely agree about the undercover cops in bathrooms. That aspect of this case has a funny smell.

But Craig's explanations don't smell right, either.

- Allen



To: Dale Baker who wrote (40789)8/29/2007 11:22:30 AM
From: Steve Lokness  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 543334
 
Dale;

That said, I don't think we need undercover cops in men's rooms to begin with.

I usually agree with you but on this I don't. For health, safety and just decency reasons I think the public should have a reasonable expectation that gay sex is not happening in public restrooms. There are places where gays hang out and solicit sex. The police learn of them I suspect and then target the locations and make a presence so it stops. Public restrooms are paid and ran for the public. It is wrong to allow them to be used as pervert sex play rooms. If you send your young daughter or son across the country on the train - I think the public should have a reasonable expectation that they don't have to compete for public restroom stalls with politicians soliciting sex - or predatory pedophiles.

Respectfully;
steve