‘Alberto Gonzales does a lot of things’

August 9, 2007

Yesterday, Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and one of the most serious and centrist foreign policy players in the country, suggested it is entirely possible that the Bush administration will invade Iran in order to help the Republican Party win an election.

The same day, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), a 26-year veteran of Capitol Hill and the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared some concerns about the Attorney General. (via BooMan)

One audience member wanted to know if Specter might vote to impeach Gonzales…. Specter described himself as on a “one-man crusade” against Gonzales, but an impeachment, he said, would tie up both houses of Congress and be “a big distraction.

“I think we have ways of getting rid of (Gonzales) otherwise,” he said.

One audience member pressed the Republican senator about opening investigations into whether the government played a role in staging the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or allowed them to happen.

Specter said he had seen the FBI reports and believes the U.S. government played no role in the attacks, but added, “I don’t question the reason for your skepticism. Government does a lot of things.” And, he added, “Alberto Gonzales does a lot of things.”

Between Slaughter and Specter, apparently all kinds of provocative ideas are, all of a sudden, on the table.

As BooMan put it, “The ranking member (a Republican) of the Senate Judiciary Committee describes himself as on a ‘one-man crusade against Gonzales’ and implies his performance is so bad that it can plausibly lead to speculation that 9/11 was an inside job.”

Now, to be absolutely clear, I don’t buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The noteworthy part of all of this is a senior Republican senator saying, out loud and in public, that someone who does believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories is justified because of Gonzales’ outrageous and indefensible behavior. That’s rather startling, isn’t it?

It’s also an interesting contrast with Bush’s comments from this morning.

“Al Gonzales — implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven’t seen Congress say he’s done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, I believe, David, we’re watching a political exercise. I mean, this is a man who has testified, he’s sent thousands of papers up there. There’s no proof of wrong. Why would I hold somebody accountable who has done nothing wrong? I mean, frankly, I think that’s a typical Washington, D.C. assumption — not to be accusatory, I know you’re a kind, open-minded fellow, but you suggested holding the Attorney General accountable for something he did wrong.”

Maybe Bush might want to give Specter a call. The senator seems to have a few thoughts on the subject.

Specter described himself as on a “one-man crusade” against Gonzales

Talk about brass balls. He’d better send an apology and a box of candy to Leahy before they come back from break.

Furthermore, if Specter is on a crusade he is playing the part of Brave Sir Robin.

Sorry, the man pisses me off.

  • Spectre will back off; he always does. There is no reason that opening an impeachment investigation of Gonzales would tie up both houses of Congress. This is complete BS. House committee makes a simple vote to open an investigation, House floor makes a simple majority vote. If they can eviscerate the Fourth Amendment in about one full day’s worth of business, there is no reason this should take any longer. After that, you have staff counsel and members, plus some people brought in to assist, run the investigation until a report is ready to be voted on. In the meantime, the House conducts it’s business, and the Senate is not even involved until the House votes out Articles of Impeachment after receipt of the impeachment report and a determination that Articles are warranted. This is the same BS argument the Democratic leaders are hiding behind and it is a flat out lie.

  • Between Slaughter and Specter, apparently all kinds of provocative ideas are, all of a sudden, on the table.

    And all the wrong people will get the credit, because in politics, being right too soon is way, way, worse than being wrong all along.

    Ask Howard Dean, Spenser Ackerman, Jay Garner, and hundreds of others…

  • “I think we have ways of getting rid of (Gonzales) otherwise,” he said.

    Since when is Specter in the Mafia?

  • Specter described himself as on a “one-man crusade” against Gonzales,

    Some “crusade”… All holy water and “apage Satanas” without a sword or lance in sight.

  • First, I don’t understand how launching another war or an attack on Iran will help the GOP win anything, except the unending scorn and disgust of the vast majority of an electorate that wants out of Iraq.

    Second, isn’t Specter the man with the “magic bullet” theory on the JFK assassination? I mean, for crying out loud, if Specter actually knows something of the magnitude of 9/11 being an inside job, why is he being so coy?

    Does it seem to anyone else that things just make less and less sense with each passing day?

  • I don’t buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    Do you beleive burning jet fuel melts steel? How do you explain the implosion of WTC 7 when no plane hit it? How do you explain members of the Bin Laden family being shuttled out of the country by air when no other planes were allowed to fly? How do you explain the fact all the metal from the WTC was shipped out of the country and melted down before any forensic analysis could be performed? How do you explain the explosions heard by rescue workers. How do you explain the perfectly round hole in the pentagon with no wings and no fusilage and no video to be found? How do you explain no fighters being scrambled?

    The PNAC called for a new Pearl Harbor and they got it. They made it Steve. The unbelievable truth will out.

  • Rest assured everyone, your fearless Dear Leaders, Dick&Bush, gave a full, accurate, and true account of the events of 9/11 to the 9/11 Commission. Although, their testimony was given together, in private, not under oath, and without transcript.

    Obviously, they had nothing to hide and their only interests were that of “national security.”

    By the way, is there a rational argument against re-investigating 9/11? Other than Dick&Bush would rather not have an impeachment on their hands? Couldn’t we do better than the $15M that was spent on the 9/11 Commission? We spent $40M on Clinton-Lewinsky. Shouldn’t we get this one right, down to the finest detail? All of our foreign policy is now based on this world event.

    But World Trade Center 7 was not struck by an aircraft, yet it collapsed at 5:20 PM ET, 9/11/2001, eight hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers. However, World Trade Center 7 was entirely omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. But this is all a conspiracy theory, right? I must be “nuts” to state these empirical facts, right?

  • What’s astounding to me is that Specter is one of the repubs’ few remaining grown ups. His words are always carefully measured. He doesn’t just spout off, 1/2 cocked, like so many of his colleagues.
    But then again, it’s Arlen Specter. Sure as rain, he’ll be backpedalling tomorrow morning.

  • Tempting as it is to argue reality with the 9/11 deniers, that is not the real point of Steve’s piece.

    The much more important point here, about Gonzales, is that it is too late now to do anything about him. As Dahlia Lithwick explains very well, in a piece I would urge everyone to read in preparation to heap unmitigated scorn on the Dems who voted wrong on the surveillance bill, the Dems have already screwed the issue up beyond repair.

    Here is the money graph:

    Make no mistake about it. The vote to update FISA rewarded the AG for years of missteps and misstatements by giving him expanded authority to enforce the president’s alarming constitutional vision. Sans oversight. Sans judicial approval.

    Lithwick is right. Neither Specter nor anything near a majority in either chamber is in a position to go after Gonzales after how they voted on FISA.

  • Now, to be absolutely clear, I don’t buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    I’m the same, which is what makes this so unnerving:

    Specter said he had seen the FBI reports and believes the U.S. government played no role in the attacks, but added, “I don’t question the reason for your skepticism. Government does a lot of things.”

    With my knowledge and judgment, I question 9/11 conspiracy theories. But this is a guy who knows better than me, and his response is not totally dismissive- rather, it’s, “Gov’t does a lot of things.” Wow, reassuring to know!

  • Tempting as it is to argue reality with the 9/11 deniers, that is not the real point of Steve’s piece.

    “Reality.” That’s funny, TimeGhost.

    Neither Specter nor anything near a majority in either chamber is in a position to go after Gonzales after how they voted on FISA.

    How one has voted is irrelevant to why congress can’t touch Gonzales. Nobody in congress is “in a position” go after Gonzales, because of the three supposedly co-equal branches of our government, only the executive branch has guns.

  • Re: Zeitgeist @ #10
    Tempting as it is to argue reality with the 9/11 deniers, that is not the real point of Steve’s piece.

    It’s big of you that you didn’t refer us to some 9/11 Truth “debunking” website. After all, and I think it’s completely reasonable to agree, that the Federal Government should “ensure domestic Tranquility.” As such, I would think that we as citizens of the United States should rest assured that the 9/11 Commission would, as was its charter, provide “a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.” Therefore, a facet terrorism (the destruction of property), such as the collapse of World Trade Center 7 (see my comment #8 above) would be easy for anyone to explain through a simple reference to the 9/11 Commission Report. But such is not the case. WTC7 was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. There is no official government explanation for the collapse of WTC7. But somehow this is to deny reality? The collapse of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is indeed a circumstance surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    But this reasonable concern that I have (as well as many other concerned citizens) is, instead, issued a pejorative label, not scientific scrutiny. Indeed, Zeitgeist, I was under the impression that this is the so-called Reality-Based Community. In reality, the collapse of skyscrapers is a serious concern to reasonable people.

    And let’s not forget the words of our Dear Leader to the United Nations on November 10, 2001:

    We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty.

    We had a discussion earlier today about “accountability” in the mysterious world of George W. Bush. In George W. Bush’s world, no one, except 19 hijackers, and the terrorist organization al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden, is accountable for the events of 9/11. Who is accountable for our air defense, Mr. Acting President? Dick&Bush are excused from answering questions regarding the events of 9/11, from the media, and from the Congress, and apparently from you, Zeitgeist.

    So what’s next? I am fearful that my government might someday incriminate me for expressing my dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission Report and calling for a new investigation. I am fearful that if there were another terrorist attack upon the Good People of America, that an investigation and exposition will, again, be shrouded in secrecy and impropriety, and conducted only as a cautionary afterthought.

    But, hey, onward to Iran! Long live the “Constitutional Republic” of the United States of America!

  • sheesh, people—you’re coming across like a bunch of Rosie O’Donnells here with this 9/11 stuff.

    I watched the news reports on 9/11. I recorded the damned things for my wife (she was at work). I’ve still got the tapes.

    1.) WTC north tower collapes with heavy debris impacting WTC 7. It’s like Mike Tyson slamming into a little kid with a full-speed roundhouse punch. The bottom third of the buildings front was torn out (think “Oklahoma City Bombing Lite” here).

    2.) Within the half-hour, burning debris from WTC north tower—having been physically inserted into WTC 7 by the collapse—causes several fires to break out. Now remember, when WTC north and south came down, one of the things that happened was that the water mains for the entire complex were—well, how can I put this lightly?—CRUSHED BEYOND ALL IMAGINATION?

    3.) Now then—if I take any skyscraper, mash the f*** out of its bottom third on one side, set several consecutive floors on fire, and cause the internal fire suppression systems to fail completely, I’d have to say that I’m looking at a building that’s going to fall down by day’s end.

    WTC 7 is a victim of the circumstances surrounding 9/11. It’s collapse is not a nefarious plot by the evil Bushylvanians. 9/11 itself might be—but this particular building is just that—a building that took more “punch” than it was ever designed to withstand.

  • Steve…fires alone (and impact WAY up high) seem to account for what happened. But even forgetting that…

    Can you explain WHY in this world they wouldn’t do forensic on it, the debris from the planes and from the building? ANY plane hits ANY thing, and they get the debris in a hanger and piece what is left together. Add the steel, and debris from the WTC…the government itself is to blame for these suspicions, since it could have been aboveboard and allowed the truth to come out and quelch suspicions. By not doing so it fueled them, and gave them creedence.

    Also, when it is standing orders for a scramble when ANY plane in a flight corridor deviates from its path, meaning…NO ONE has to give an order to scramble, it happns automatically while that is happening somene tries to contact a figure of authority in case there may be need for a decision to shoot down the plane. So someone must have given an order stopping scrambling…WHO, WHY?

  • It amazes me that when someone says…” I don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories”, they cannot tell you why they don’t. The key word is “believe”. Why can you believe that we ended up murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis by invading them based on faulty, made-up intelligence yet refuse to believe the same government would not kill 3000 innocent Americans. The reason is because they don’t WANT to believe. They know this government is capable of killing that many people so they know they CAN. They just want to believe it was those people and not these people.
    Without a thorough investigation saying I don’t believe is like saying I don’t believe it rains in the desert. At this point saying I don’t believe really means I don’t want to know so I discard wanting to find out.

    What Specter was saying is that if they are capable of doing this I can see how some would think they are capable of doing that. In other words it’s like saying…”Do you think I’d lie about lying to you”. Gonzales is the perfect example.

    To a grand jury if there were this much information(as in 9/11 situation) involving the murder of a single person they would undoubtedly bring an indictment against the perpetrator to stand trial in a court of law. Yet we can’t even get a real investigation going because of statements that suggest all “conspiracy theories” are ludicrous and the products of nut jobs. “I don’t believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories” means I don’t want to believe and have therefore concluded that those who do are whack-jobs so I have just dismissed it. How can anyone say I don’t believe when they don’t know what it is they don’t believe.

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance— that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”>>Herbert Spencer

    • Comments are closed.