Gonzales stands up to Bush? Please

May 21, 2007

I know I noted this over the weekend over at TPM, but a) a lot of folks don’t read on weekends; b) I think it’s an important point; and c) TPM doesn’t have comments and I like to give you guys a chance to weigh in.

The AP had an interesting item Saturday, highlighting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ perspective on being close friends with the president. As the embattled Gonzales sees it, his close relationship with Bush, which spans decades, is inherently “a good thing” for everyone.

“Being able to go and having a very candid conversation and telling the president: ‘Mr. President, this cannot be done. You can’t do this,’ — I think you want that,” Gonzales told reporters this week. “And I think having a personal relationship makes that, quite frankly, much easier always to deliver bad news.”

“Do you recall a time when you (were) in there and said, ‘Mr. President, we can’t do this’?” Gonzales was asked.

“Oh, yeah,” the attorney general responded.

“Can you share it with us?” a reporter asked.

“No,” Gonzales said.

Now, I think there are two ways to look at this.

1. Gonzales is lying about this little story, and there’s never been a time in which he’s had to keep the president from going too far. He’s the quintessential “yes man,” who does as he’s told.

2. Gonzales is telling the truth, and the Attorney General/WH Counsel — the one who’s approved of abandoning the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law — believes some of the president’s other requests are beyond the pale.

I’m struggling to decide which is worse.

AG AG is such a toady that it’s impossible to imagine him saying no to ANYTHING Bush asks.

  • Could be he’s not distinguishing between an AG veto on political grounds, which was the fact (‘You can’t do this (because it’ll look bad)’), and one based on legal advice (‘You can’t do this because it’s illegal’), which is what he’s leading us to believe was the case.

  • ***“Do you recall a time when you (were) in there and said, ‘Mr. President, we can’t do this’?” Gonzales was asked.

    “Oh, yeah,” the attorney general responded.

    “Can you share it with us?” a reporter asked.

    “No,” Gonzales said.***

    Oh—wait. Wasn’t that the time when, during the 2003 SOTU, Bush wanted a blowjob from Gonzo? Yeah—I think that was when Gonzo said “no.” Actually, I think he said “not tonight, dear—I have a headache.”

  • Let’s just say Laura (and possibly Barney) would be really upset if the truth came out.

    I’m surprised GoneZo didn’t deploy another one of his I don’t remembers. “I know I did but I can’t recall the circumstances, or what we were talking about or where we were…”

  • It’s so ludicrous especially in light of Comey’s testimony that I can’t believe Gonzales actually expects anyone to accept that image of him. He and Bush have joined at the hip since Texas. He’s AG in name only..He’s actually Bush’s WH and personal attorney and that is his loyalty, to support Bush no matter what. It’s laughable to think he ever said no to Bush on anything.

    Now, since you say you like to read our comments let me say you’ve let another day(on the way to being our last as a democracy) go by without even mentioning what should be dominating the headlines right now because of its serious consequences and that is this:
    With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
    In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

    Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

    He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”
    Don’t you see what is happening here. There’s an excellent post at the Dmocratic Underground on just what this is signaling and what it means and how URGENT a response and plan of action is necessary. So I ask you again, PLEASE get this the publicity it requires before it is too late to do anything about it. Thanks

  • Well, he obviously didn’t say “no” to torture. That would have been a handy time to exercise that wonderful openess they have. Gonzales is not even just a yes-man. He’s a yowsah-boss man. One when Bush told him to step, he said, “no. I’m going to fetchit.”

    Say, Swan, could you elaborate a bit on #2?

  • Gonzalez Stands Up to Bush

    Bush: Fredo, go write me up a memo sayin’ torturin’ our prisoners is OK.

    Gonzalez: I must stand on principle, Mr President. As WHC, it is I who should be the one writing a memo for you that says torturing our prisoners is OK.

    Bush: OK, whatever.

  • Abu G is Shruby’s personal Shmoo.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmoo

    In this case, the Shmoo has turned itself into a smuggly grinning condom which Shruby wears while he screws the world and it offers protection to Shruby from the dangerous contagions of truth and accountability.

    And after Shruby takes it off, he can fry it up and have it for dinner. Tastes like chicken.

  • “Can you share it with us?” a reporter asked.

    “No,” Gonzales said.

    Simple – QED

    He could not recall such a time, though in his mind, he feels it did, in fact, occur. But, at this time, he is not able to recall why, in fact, he feels this way….though he is confident in his certainty.

    His statement is, simply, an expression of how he has come to understand his relationship, as counselor to the president, to have occurred, even if he cannot recall the particulars that occurred that give rise to his feeling of certainty.

    Notwithstanding, his ability or inability to recall certain specific events related to the counsel provided to the President, you can rest assured, that said counsel was, at all relevant times, unvarnished, candid, and at times, contrary to what Shrub wanted to hear or could otherwise be considered to be “bad news.”

    So the answer to the question is Yes, I have delivered bad news from time to time. However, a this time, I am unable to elaborate any further.

    So help me God, So sayeth Alberto.

  • I’m kinda dumb. Can anyone explain to me how Rove Cheney and Bush are going to avoid criminal prosecution in the years post-2008? Maybe that’s jumping the gun but I doubt it.

    It’s pretty clear to anyone who’s paying attention that Gonzales won’t leave and Bush won’t force him out because Congress will accept nothing less than a non-loyalist to replace him. The new AG will play fair with congress and nail all their asses to the wall and they know it. Fine. Maybe I missed a day in school but executive privilege doesn’t extend to drunks clearing brush on Texas ranches.

  • It’s true, I did stand up to him, and if you really must know here’s how it went down:

    We were taking a little siesta at the “Ranch”. Clearing bush is hard work. It’s hard! And when we awoke we were famished. Meester Preznit said he wanted some Chili without beans. Said they don’t do no beans in this here Chili down in Texas, that’s only sumin dem Liberals up in Connecticut and Maine do. But I told Meester Preznit that beans were okay. Beans were okay. I dun it, sho nuff!

    Now stop botherin’ us with all these questions. We gotta pro-tect the children!

  • TPM doesn’t have comments….????

    Since when?
    They may not have a nice bunch of oranges but,
    I’ve commented a number of times @ TPM.

    • Comments are closed.