Bush likes Gonzales even more now

April 23, 2007

At a brief White House event this morning, a reporter asked the president, “The Attorney General is still getting a lot of criticism over the U.S. attorneys situation. Was his explanation sufficient, or is there more he needs to do to try to turn things around?” This is the entirety of Bush’s response.

“The Attorney General went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer, in a way that increased my confidence in his ability to do the job.

“One of the things that’s important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys. U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. In other words, we have named them, and I have the right to replace them with somebody else. And as the investigation, the hearings went forward, it was clear that the Attorney General broke no law, did no wrongdoing. And some senators didn’t like his explanation, but he answered as honestly as he could. This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence.”

So, Gonzales goes to the Hill, he forgets everything of any significance, he infuriates Republicans on the committee, White House aides pan his performance (one said Gonzales went “down in flames“), but the president now has “increased” confidence in the Attorney General’s abilities? Which testimony was he watching?

I also enjoyed the idea that Gonzales answered senators’ questions “as honestly as he could.” As Paul the Spud put it, “What does that mean? Answered as honestly as he could? You answer questions honestly, or you don’t. You don’t make attemptsto answer a question honestly. I love how the Black & White President all of a sudden sees nothing but grey areas when it comes to lies and testimony.”

For added fun, White House reporters asked Dana Perino today what was it about Gonzales’ very forgetful performance that made the president feel so much better about the AG’s abilities.

Q There were about 64 variations, according to some accounts in the media, 64 variations of “I don’t recall,” “I don’t remember. So what about that testimony in which he said “I don’t recall,” some variation, 64 times, that made the President say he now has increased confidence in the Attorney General?

MS. PERINO: Look, Ed, I think that you had testimony that lasted I don’t know how many hours, over seven hours, and so many of those questions were repeated over and over. And the Attorney General, who is an honorable and honest man answered truthfully. And I think that’s all that we can ask of any public servant or any of us in this room.

Q But did the President actually see the testimony?

MS. PERINO: He got regular updates from us while we were on the road — we were on the road that day, on the way to Ohio.

Q So how can he say he has increased confidence if he got updates from other people? So he didn’t actually see the testimony, himself, because —

MS. PERINO: He got updates from us, and I think he saw some news coverage of it later that day.

Q But as Jim noted, I mean, Arlen Specter yesterday said that it was “very, very damaging to his own credibility.” So what did the President see — well, he didn’t see the testimony, but what did he hear that he —

MS. PERINO: What the President knows is that the Attorney General answered honestly, truthfully and was as responsive to Congress as he could possibly be during hours of testimony and in turning over all the documents, and then making people that work for him available to the Congress in order to answer their questions.

So, Bush was comforted by testimony he did not see, and Gonzales’ faulty memory is understandable because pesky senators kept asking him a bunch of questions. Got it.

For what it’s worth, later in the same press briefing, Perino, responding to questions about Gonzales’ and Sampson’s collective poor memories, said, “The Attorney General and Kyle Sampson are two of the most honorable people I know. And they were asked multiple questions in various different ways on the same topics in which they did not have full memory. Now what would have been dishonorable is if they had made it up. And they didn’t.”

Of course, because we know what a high value the Bush gang places on truth-telling.

Besides, Dana Perino wants us to know that it would be dishonorable for someone to make up answers to questions they don’t know the answers to. This is, of course, the same Dana Perino who was caught making up answers to questions she don’t know the answer to a week ago.

“What the President knows is that the Attorney General …”

That’s the money quote right there. The President didn’t see anything new, didn’t hear anything new, because he didn’t need to. You see, he “knows” already, just like he “knows” that progress is being made in Iraq. Jesus Christ, people, stop confusing him with the facts!

  • So….”I don’t recall” is presumed to be a truthful answer, I guess. No suggestion that maybe Gonzales not only recalls, but knows that if he shares his recollections, he will be in serious trouble. No, of course not.

    Bush has more confidence in Alberto because Alberto kept the code of silence that is protecting the real inner circle; that’s the job that is most important for Al to do, ya know?

    Honest to God, these people make my head hurt.

  • Hey, Gonzales is doing a heck of a job. That’s not snark. He really is.

    You have to understand that Gonzales is not there to be Attorney General. He’s there to be Bush’s bestest buddy. Of course, in Bushworld a “bestest buddy” is someone who gets flayed alive and/or raked over the coals so you don’t have to. Mission Accomplished!

    Look at what we’re talking about right now: Gonzales’s performance, and Bush’s reaction. We aren’t discussing the allegations themselves, their substance or their appearance, or their implications. We’re talking about what we saw, and not what they did.

    Gonzales’s primary responsibility right now, his main job, is to twist slowly, slowly in the wind. And he’s doing exactly that. Turns out he’s really good at it. So he’ll get to keep his job. On those terms.

  • Bush is like the make who abandoned ship in shark-infested waters—and got stuck with the leaky liferaft. The worse that leak gets, the tighter the passenger will cling to it—knowing, of course, what the consequences of abandoning the leaky liferaft will be. As the passenger knows that the sharks will not do well by him, then so, too does Bush know what will happen to his presidency—and to him—once Gonzo makes that last, whimpering “pfffffffffffffttt….”

  • I believe the answer to all of this has been presented. It’s simply that, as far as Bush is concerned, what Gonzo said is all he needed to say, all anybody had a right to expect from him.

    Dahlia Lithwick who writes the Jurisprudence column in Slate suggests that this is perfectly in line with the White House’s view of things, abd that AG the AG is simply following that logic all the way into the hearings:

    “[It’s hard to understand] Until you stop to consider that the president wasn’t watching the same movie as the rest of us and that Gonzales wasn’t reading from the same script. Perhaps what we witnessed yesterday was in fact a tour de force, a home run for the president’s overarching theory of the unitary executive.

    “The theory of the unitary executive is a radical vision of executive power in which the president is the big boss of the entire executive branch and has final say over everything that happens within it. At its core, the theory holds that Congress has very limited authority to divest the president of those powers.”

    The whole article is at: http://www.slate.com/id/2164751?nav=tap3

  • What are the president’s priorities? “I emphasize, that is the priority for me as the president. It’s my faith, my family, and my country.” On one hand – the almighty Decider gives Abu Gonzo a thumbs up. On the other – he gives Americans a one-finger victory salute.

  • Shorter version:
    “Ms. Perino, how is it possible that Gonzales’ testimony increased the President’s confidence in him?”

    “Because we told him it did, and he believes us.”

    “Did he actually watch any of the testimony?”

    “Um, I think he might have seen something about it on the evening news on TV in the hotel lobby as he was being walked past by Secret Service.”

    It’s pretty clear where Abu learned his “float through obliviously and allow your underlings to tell you what’s happening” management style.

  • In The Federalist Papers #65, Hamilton stated:

    “The subjects of its (court of inquiry) jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar property be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself”(emphasis added)[11].

    There is probably no commentary written on impeachment–past or present–more hotly debated than Hamilton’s interpretation of a removable offense. Why? Hamilton introduces a discussion about the political character of impeachable offenses. What did Hamilton mean by “abuse or violation of some public trust?” How do you determine “injuries done immediately to the society itself?”

    The abuse or violation of some public trust indicates what is more commonly known as an abuse of power. Abuse of power is an action that may not violate criminal law directly but, does violates one’s oath-of-office. Hamilton clearly conditions such a violation as an injury “to the society itself,” meaning the nation as a whole. Abuse of power suggests that someone deliberately misuses the power of their office for personal or political gain which irreparably harms the nation; although it may not directly violate a single provision in the Constitution. The character of abusing power may go far beyond the nature of usurping power from another branch (which was already discussed). For example, a President who recklessly launches a nuclear attack against a nation without any just cause or reason could be impeached, convicted and removed from office under the grounds that Hamilton laid out. In the example discussed above, the President did not handle his power responsibly. The thrust of Hamilton’s argument was to insure that presidents or other high government officials did not act disdainfully of the power vested in them by the Constitution[12].

    Content copied from the link I posted to in an earlier thread.

  • It comes down to this:

    “I can fire them if I want too!”

    “We didn’t fire them to stop the investigation of ANOTHER Republican Congresscritter.”

    Are we all clear?

  • Of course Bush thinks Gonzales answered as honestly as he “COULD!” “Could” being the operative word here when actual full honesty would have probably opened Gonzales and others in the Bush administration to criminal charges. Of course Bush is pleased with Gonzales and his performance. Gonzales didn’t give up Rove or anyone else!

  • I find it quite amazing that America still exists. ..Or does it?

    [and Blair is Chamberlain]

  • “U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. In other words, we have named them, and I have the right to replace them with somebody else.”

    So the U.S. attorneys were replaced on the direct order of the President of the United States, eh?

    Never mind AG AG, then. When might we have the pleasure of George’s presence in front of the committee to answer questions about how he justified his decisions? Just asking.

  • If you’ve ever dealt with a practicing addict you know they hate to answer questions. Especiallly questions that make it clear the person already knows the addict is lying.

    So of course the pResident admires Goner even more now. He went through BushBaby’s worst nightmare. No wonder he couldn’t bring himself to watch it and needed “updates.” Does anyone really believe BushBrat didn’t have full access to every single mode of communication known to man while he was in his plane/limo/whatever on the way to Ohio?

    If so, I’ve got a nice bridge I’d like to sell…

    tAiO

    p.s. I give Perino three months max before she decides to spend more time with her family.

  • Hey, CB, how about naming every post today “This is about Bush saying, ‘Screw you`’? Mutatis mutandis (“This is about Bush partisans like Kristol saying ..” “This is about wornout mainstream pundits like Broder saying …”), that’s a pretty accurate description of each and every one.

  • Wake me when they start the impeachment.

    Really, there’s no point in pretending for any longer that this isn’t a horrific farce. Gonzales had what ought to be a career-ending disaster of a hearing, and Bush asserts he has increased confidence in him. Alas, this is not a surprise; as I predicted last week, Bush is not ready to can Gonzales.

    My advice to the Dems: stop dithering and realize you have to impeach. Start with Abu G – he’s obviously unfit and he’s been lying to congress continuously. The firings are a perfectly fine excuse, if you need one. Lurita Doan is also low-hanging impeachment fruit. Once you’ve done it a few times, it’ll be easier to work up to impeaching the big guys like the chimp and Deadeye.

  • When Bush is confident in Gonzo’s ” ability to do the job”, he is not talking about law enforcement, but something more akin to prostitution.

  • Here’s an interesting piece of the puzzle.

    A paragraph from LiberalWacko’s #7 Slate reference:

    The theory of the unitary executive is a radical vision of executive power in which the president is the big boss of the entire executive branch and has final say over everything that happens within it. At its core, the theory holds that Congress has very limited authority to divest the president of those powers. An expanded version of this theory was the legal predicate for the torture memo: “In light of the president’s complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president’s ultimate authority in these areas. … Congress may no more regulate the president’s ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield.” [emphasis added]

    and a paragraph in the Conyers Report (“The Constitution in Crisis”) page 23:

    According to Mr. Herskowitz, George W. Bush’s beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a
    notion ascribed to now-Vice President Dick Cheney: “Start a small war. Pick a
    country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade.” (ref 72)

    That “notion” ascribed to now-Vice President Dick Cheney, dormant in my memory, suddenly sprang to life when I read that paragraph in Dahlia Lithwick’s article. Looks like a good place to dig.

  • The final paragraph (from Gonzo for Gonzo):

    Viewed in that light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. He took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre.

  • FWIW, Bush isn’t doing himself any favors with congressional Republicans. At this point, I bet they’re as eager for him to go away as we all are–maybe more so, since his ever more transparent incompetence, and indifference to it, must be dragging them all down.

    I wonder if comprehensive incompetence is an impeachable offense.

  • The president’s remarks about the “honesty” of his buddy, Alberto Gonzales, proves he and his administrators are as incompetent and untruthful as presidential administrations can get. And President George W. Bush is concerned and “proud” of his legacy?

  • I wonder if comprehensive incompetence is an impeachable offense.

    Failing to replace a demonstrably incompetent subordinate in an important position is culpable negligence, and ought to constitute an impeachable offense.

    We can add it to the FISA violations, the lies leading up to the invasion, torture, obstruction and all the rest of the bill of particulars.

  • I wonder if comprehensive incompetence is an impeachable offense.

    Let’s see them argue it isn’t an impeachable offense after they are impeached.

    The courts will not touch this “political question”, so the right answer is the one accepted first.

  • Footnote to #20. In the latest version of the Conyers Report, “Constitution in Crisis”, the Cheney strategy appears on page 19, not 23.

  • Roddy wrote:

    “You have to understand that Gonzales is not there to be Attorney General. He’s there to be Bush’s bestest buddy. Of course, in Bushworld a “bestest buddy” is someone who gets flayed alive and/or raked over the coals so you don’t have to. Mission Accomplished!”

    Perhaps the primary job of all of Bush’s employees is to make him look smart and competent in comparison. I’m reminded of the movie Back to School , in which Rodney Dangerfield says, “If you want to look thin, hang out with fat people!”

  • If I were a reporter, I would have asked Dana (if I were lucky, the Prez) about the “One of the things that’s important for the American people to understand is that the Attorney General has a right to recommend to me to replace U.S. attorneys.” comment made by the Prez. What the heck is he talking about? AG AG didn’t recommend anyone. His staff did. According to AG AG, he wasn’t even involved. Neither was the Prez, right?

    • Comments are closed.