YEARS AGO — and perhaps still — the British Army carried in its rule book an offense called “dumb insolence,” which is essentially the refusal to respond to an officer who asked a question or gave an order. It was a court-martial offense.
To all appearances, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is engaging in dumb insolence every time he testifies before Congress. He seems incapable of giving a straight answer to any question. Either Gonzales claims not to remember or he couches his answer in so many qualifiers that he appears to be preparing to defend himself against a perjury charge down the road. If the same question comes up twice in different sessions, he is likely to give conflicting answers.
The result is that Gonzales appears to be arrogant and afraid and not terribly competent as a lawyer. That is not a reassuring image for the nation’s top law-enforcement officer to project. Gonzales’ performance has troubled Republicans and Democrats alike.
The arrogance comes from his boss. President George Bush is devoted to Gonzales and stands by his man. To keep Gonzales safe, Bush will bury Congress in claims of executive privilege until the cows come home.
Gonzales’ fear may stem from the fact that he knows that, whatever else happens, the cows will be coming home on Jan. 20, 2009. His boss will be out of power, and the attorney general may be out of luck.
Before this little exercise in bland obstructionism goes any further, Gonzales would do well to consider the example of a previous attorney general. John Mitchell’s loyalty to Richard Nixon and his willingness to break the law for political cronies made him the first attorney general in the nation’s history to be sent to prison. That is what’s known in the legal trade as a precedent.
Even the slipperiest lawyer playing dumb knows that.
oldcelt (anonymous) says...
I take strong issue with this editorial. It is much too mild. This administration has lied and cheated for so long that having an officer of the court at the national level who is a merely a puppet of despots is business as usual. If only Gonzales' nose would grow with each canard and lie that passes his lips, perhaps he and Giuseppe would both be impeached. That, as Ms. Stewart says, would be a good thing.
Good job, Patrick!
July 30, 2007 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
treetrunk (anonymous) says...
Your hatred of Bush is overwhelming. Clinton was a bum, but I did not hate him. I just thought he disgraced the office and should resign. As for Gonzales and the others that will not appear before your "kangaroo court", they have agreed to meet with congress behind closed doors for national security reasons. Your side has refused because they want a dog and pony show.
July 31, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BabblingBrooke (anonymous) says...
Whatever happened to National Security? .
If they took television out of the hearings, I wonder how many fewer hearings there would be.
Even behind closed doors, nothing stays Classified, because there is always someone that leaks the information to the Press. Then we get another biased version of the story.
Isn't there something better Congress could be doing than beating this dead horse? ...... Just askin.......
July 31, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
Once again, Pat Kelley hits the nail on the head, although I also think he's a little too gentle. Gonzales took an oath to the Constitution, not George Bush. And his loyalty should be to the American people, not some Texan who gave him a leg up. If our democracy can't operate in the "light of truth" then what good is it? How does firing a good lawyer because she or he is a Democrat affect national security? I don't think "my way or the highway" belongs in a democratic society.
Kudos Pat!
July 31, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BabblingBrooke (anonymous) says...
And, "my thoughts" you know for a FACT that a good lawyer was fired because he or she is a Democrat? Nothing else?
Then why waste time on any more quesions?
I wonder.......would you have said the same thing about firing a good lawyer because he or she was a "Republican?".............
Just askin.........
July 31, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
According to the very first sentence of the New York Times report from 1993, “Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States attorneys, leading the federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia [Jay Stephens] to suggest that the order could be tied to his long running investigation of Don Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.” Ms. Reno said she wanted the resignations “so that the U.S. Attorneys presently in position will know where they stand and we can begin to build a team.” In other words, we want people who agree with us and are on our political side.
President Bush did not fire his attorneys when he came into office. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush 41 and 43 ALL simply accepted resignations, per tradition, or let their terms expire if they didn’t resign (most did, by the way — in the case of Bush 43, 91 of 93 resigned). Clinton (via Reno) actually demanded each of their resignations and this was unprecedented.
July 31, 2007 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Exactly why did Clinton fire all 93? NON-politically motivated, I'm SURE.....
Latest Congress approval rating poll: 15%
Your tax dollars at work.
August 1, 2007 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BabblingBrooke (anonymous) says...
Did you read that, Patrick Kelley, oldcelt and mythoughts?
Thank you open_eyes and treetrunk.
Our opinions are important, but I like it when they are backed up by "facts", not just opinions.....Especially when personal insults are directed at the President of the United States.
Maybe if Congress calls enough hearings, and questions everything the President and the Republican party does, they will deflect any attention to their bad poll ratings.
I know both parties do it.....but, that doesn't make it right.
August 1, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
What Clinton did is irrelevant right now unless you are interested in electing his wife to the White House - and I hope that does not happen. Measuring one president by the actions of another is always incorrect, but trying to justify wrong actions of a sitting president by way of dysfunctional reveries about another is just bizarre. Caligula was a pathetic jerk who elevated his horse to the rank of a god. That doesn't mean it would validate George doing that for his dog, though.
What is relevant is that the AG is a skank whose priorities are serving the priorities of the Presidency rather than performing his job in the interest of the nation and its people. (Note: that was a personal insult. What Kelley did was simply note bad behavior in office, an objective observation.)
The Justice Department should not be run by pols in the White House, whether it is Clinton or Bush. "We" bad mouth Bush right now because Bush is the current President. Current policies and actions are grotesquely invasive of our civil liberties and our national security, both of which are suffering from this president and the appointed members of his administration. Thus do many of us cry out against them.
I believe that Kelley's comments were understated, too. He was correct: Gonzales should go.
August 2, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )