Gonzales is sorry — about what?

With [tag]Attorney General[/tag] [tag]Alberto Gonzales[/tag] poised to testify under oath tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the embattled AG is engaged in a bit of p.r. offensive, publishing a WaPo op-ed and previewing tomorrow’s testimony. It’s hard to offer any real analysis of Gonzales’ previews; he doesn’t exactly say much. (James Brown’s “Talkin’ loud but saying nothing” was made for just such an occasion.)

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales offered a measured apology for his mistakes in the dismissal of eight United States attorneys, but said in testimony prepared for a Senate hearing on Tuesday that he had “nothing to hide” and that none of the prosecutors were removed to influence the outcome of a case.

In his testimony, which was released Sunday by the Justice Department, Mr. Gonzales provided an account of his actions that was largely consistent with his past assertions that his role was very limited and his recollection fragmentary.

Mr. Gonzales said that he did not select any of the prosecutors slated for dismissal last year and that he largely delegated the effort to his former chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson.

“I have nothing to hide,” he said in his testimony, “and I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here.”

The “measured apology” is of particular interest. In his Post op-ed, for example, he tells the purged prosecutors that he’s sorry for his role “in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.” Similarly, in his planned testimony, Gonzales is prepared to say, “I am sorry for my missteps that have helped fuel the controversy.”

But that’s not much of an apology. He’s not sorry for firing these prosecutors without cause; he’s sorry his firings became a scandal. He’s not sorry for a massive scheme to use U.S. Attorneys’ offices to focus on bogus “voter fraud” charges; he’s sorry that everyone’s talking about it. That’s not actual regret. It’s akin to getting drunk at a wedding, beating up the best man, telling off the bride’s mother, and getting sick during the toast … and then expressing regret “if any of the other guests had an unpleasant time.”

It kind of misses the point of why everyone’s upset.

Apologies necessarily require some kind of acknowledgement of wrongdoing. Gonzales wants to thread the needle — admit that he’s partially responsible for the fiasco, but deny any substantive mistakes. As a result, he’s contrite, but not for anything too significant.

An LA Times story notes some of Gonzales’ planned acknowledgements. The AG wishes he would have “handled this differently.” He thinks perhaps the process should have been “more rigorous.” He wishes the firings had been dealt with “in a more personal and respectful way.” When he denied his earlier involvement in the process, he was “less than precise with my words when discussing the resignations.”

Anyone buying this?

Gonzales may or may not realize it, but he’s in the midst of a major, multi-faceted scandal. Tomorrow, he’s walking into a buzz saw of scrutiny. Carefully crafted apologies, followed by a faulty memory and buck-passing, isn’t going to impress anyone. Indeed, reviewing his statements from the weekend, it seems Gonzales is still a couple of weeks behind — he’s responding (inadequately) to questions from March, while the scandal has spiraled in April to include more damning evidence, missing emails, a massive cover-up, and a series of contradictory claims.

If Gonzales expects to get away with expressing regret for an “undignified Washington spectacle,” he’s going to be very disappointed.

Let’s face it, Gonzales wants a do over. -Kevo

  • Just not up to his assignment, is he? Just never has been, has he? A perfect mirror of George W. Bush, is our Abu.

  • I thought it was telling that Cheney refused to defend him. He only still has the AG job but for the grace of Bush. See how long that lasts.

  • he’s sorry for his role “in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.”

    That’s really Alberto apologizing to himself, innit?

  • and to top it all off, he’s already told the committee what he’s going to say. don’t you think the senators will read it and have their questions ready? i think he’s gonna get skewered……….

  • Political question of the week – Who goes first? Gonzales or Wolfowitz?

    I’m leaning Gonzo because there’s a good chance he’ll blatantly perjure himself tomorrow, but Wolfie was pimpin his ho at the World Bank and Bush perhaps regards that as a larger embarrassment.

    Any other views?

  • It kind of misses the point of why everyone’s upset.

    I think the blogosphere is jumping the gun here and missing the narrower issue by just looking at the big picture. Gonzales and his flunkies are already on record in statements to Congress that have been disproven by the emails and other testimony. He has to somehow reconcile his statements that he wasn’t involved, wasn’t in meetings, etc This isn’t about the big picture issues – Gonzales has to face people he blatantly lied to and somehow do damage control and maybe stop the blood-letting.

    Don’t focus on conspiracy theories of “a massive scheme to use U.S. Attorneys’ office to focus on bogus “voter fraud” charges” and don’t pretend to know what he’s actually sorry for – that’s just pundritry arrogance of the worst kind – you don’t know what’s going on in his mind. It was obnoxious when the right wing pundits pretended to know what Clinton’s true motives were – and it’s equal obnoxious now for our side to pretend the same thing with Gonzales.

    Focus instead on what’s actually on the table today.

  • Shorter Gonzalez:

    “I’m sorry you guys blew this out of proportion.”

  • I’ve compiled a list of 10 complicated questions for Gonzo:

    1) What were the “proper reasons” for which the prosecutors were fired?
    2) Why were they fired?
    3) Why were they fired?
    4) Why were they fired?
    5) Why were they fired?
    6) Why were they fired?
    7) Why were they fired?
    8) Why were they fired?
    9) Why were they fired?
    10) Why were they fired?

  • From TPM:

    Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the president did not tell Gonzales to fire Iglesias. He also said that Gonzales did not recall discussing with Domenici whether or not to replace Iglesias.

    Perhaps waterboarding might refresh his memory….

  • One of the points here is that he is screaming to anyone who will listen: “..none of the prosecutors were removed to influence the outcome of a case.” That would be an interesting twist, but it’s not the issue, especially in the Wisconsin case. The question is, were any of these prosecutors fired because they didn’t sufficiently INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN ELECTION?

  • The fact is that Gonzo all along has been a stooge for the Bush Crime Family. As far I know (1) he did nothing for personal gain and (2) the boss approved all his actions (even if capo Cheney wants to weasel out now that the lights are turned on).

    A true crime boss — Al Capone, Jimmy “The Weasel” Fratianno, Carmine “The Snake” Persico, Vito Genovese, Joseph “Joe Bananas” Bonanno, George “Bugs” Moran, Jack “Legs” Diamond, Arnold Rothstein, “Fat Tony” Salerno, Charles “Lucky” Luciano, Sam “Momo” Giancana, Carlo Gambino — would’ve had more personal integrity and a sense of self pride. Would any of them have ordered his consigliere to take the fall? All those scumbags had more respect for themselves than that.

    One thing the boss can rely on, apparently, is Gonzo’s adherence to the code of Omertà or whatever they call that in the murky world of Texas politics. Which ought to make the hearings about as exciting as a fallen Soufflé.

  • Bush is going to stick with Gonzales until it becomes obvious that the Congress will impeach Gonzales. He has to, unless he can find someone to nominate as Attorney General who can pass Democratic Senate confirmation and who Bush can also trust not to aggressively pursue the many administration scandals just waiting to be exposed.

    When Gonzales finally does go, the problem for the Dems is going to be sticking together to force the appointment of an honest Attorney General and not some hack like Orrin Hatch. That is going to be very tough since the Senate is evenly split. (Yes, I know what the numbers are, but we can figure lieberman as usual will side with the Repubs.)

    I actually don’t think Hatch will take the job. Unless he is a toatl nut as well as a hack. Why give up probably the safest seat in the Senate for a less than two year appointment that will undoubtedly be nightmarish.

  • …and his recollection fragmentary.

    What is it with Bush officials and the Reagan defense?

    Last I checked, Ronnie was developing Alzheimer’s, while these are all young, supposedly intelligent people.

    So either they’re full of crap (most likely) or this administration has some of the most idiotic, forgetful clowns in the history of the country (unfortunately, a distinct possibility).

  • MW is right. I’ll be surprised if Bush dumps Gonzales anytime soon. In addition to the obvious problem of finding a successor, there’s the matter of Bush’s ego and strong sense of spite. Keeping the AG in is a good way of giving the finger to all the critics. And if it it hurts all those weak-kneed Republicans who aren’t man enough to defend the chimperor, so much the better.

  • Ed Stephen:

    The fact is that Gonzo all along has been a stooge for the Bush Crime Family.

    He fits the role to perfection.

    If you had to pick someone to “administer justice” in a mafia movie… wouldn’t you pick someone with a thick tongue, a heavy neck, and bad skin too?

  • “The AG wishes he would have ‘handled this differently.’ He thinks perhaps the process should have been ‘more rigorous.’ He wishes the firings had been dealt with ‘in a more personal and respectful way.’ When he denied his earlier involvement in the process, he was ‘less than precise with my words when discussing the resignations.'”

    With so many managerial shortcomings, isn’t it appropriate for Alberto to resign? Even he admits he is not up to the job.

  • AG AG is in a rather unique pickle for this round of hearings. He has made only vague, unverifiable statements before, which could be explained away by saying he hadn’t known what was going to be asked and therefore didn’t have the facts at hand.

    This time he’s been given the exact questions that are going to be asked, or some of them anyway, so he’ll have no justification to say that he doesn’t know the answers or would have to check and get back to them.

    Unless he lies. And they have enough background information from many sources to nail him instantly if he tries.

    For an incompetent political hack and intellectual fool who’d be flipping burgers if not for his personal relationship with one man of similar skills but vastly more power, this will not be a good time.

  • “I’ve compiled a list of 10 complicated questions for Gonzo:

    1) What were the “proper reasons” for which the prosecutors were fired?
    2) Why were they fired?” – Ohioan

    Not my question.

    My question is: “Why were the other 87 U.S. Attorneys NOT fired?”

    What exactly have they been doing as “Loyal Bushies”?

    The mishandling of the firings (it’s for performance issues, hah!) is a scandel on par with Travel(Office)Gate.

    The politicalization of the other 87 U.S. Attorneys is a scandel on par with Nixon’s politicalization of the CIA or IRS.

  • Ummm……..NPR is reporting that the Gonz will not testify until Thursay. I wonder what’s up?

  • Comments are closed.