|
Gonzales in extremis Well, Somebody Has to Defend Him!By Rick Horowitz
Admit it -- you think he did it. The "he" in question, of course, being Alberto Gonzales, our nation's top law-enforcement official. (Stop giggling!) And the "it"? Having a role in firing those U.S. attorneys. A bigger role than he's admitted to, certainly. There you go again, leaping to conclusions -- and all because the latest Friday-night document dump seems to place Mr. Gonzales right in the thick of things just days before seven of the firings took place. Taking part in an hour-long meeting about the firings in one's own conference room would seem to qualify as being involved, wouldn't you think?
"Not so fast!" I say. I grant you, he hasn't exactly made it easy for himself. Everyone knows that this attorney general's mouth always has room for a smile. What most people hadn't realized until recently is that that very same mouth can simultaneously accommodate multiple versions of the past and at least two of the attorney general's feet, which he keeps inserting at every opportunity. Kids, don't try this at home. Anyway, where the dispute seems to be centered for the moment is on the apparent conflict between the Friday-night documents and Mr. Gonzales' own words of just a couple of weeks ago. This was at his famous appearance before the media on March 13, when the firestorm was just starting to build, and where Mr. Gonzales compared himself to a corporate CEO who couldn't possibly be expected to know what each of his 110,000 employees was up to. (Of course, the one-in-110,000 employee the press was asking about happened to be his chief of staff, but...) He knew, he said, that "there began a process" of "evaluating strong performers, not-as-strong performers, and weak performers." That "so far as I knew," his chief of staff was involved in that process. That there were districts around the country "where we could do better for the people in that district." And then came these crucial lines: "But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." So when the documents came out last Friday night, everyone was so quick to call him a liar. How could he say he wasn't involved in seeing any memos? How could he say he wasn't involved in any discussions about what was going on? But he didn't say that! He didn't say "I was not involved in seeing any memos." He only said "was not involved in seeing any memos." He didn't say "I was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." He only said "was not involved in any discussions about what was going on." Everyone assumed he was talking about himself, but what if he wasn't? What if he was saying "Ecuador was not involved in seeing any memos"? Or Pope Benedict? What if he was saying "Britney Spears was not involved in any discussions about what was going on"? Then he wouldn't be lying at all, would he? Everyone's always so quick to judge! I know, I know -- later in that same meeting with the media, he also said "I never saw documents." But what if he only saw "document"? What if there was only one list of the attorneys to be fired? And when he said "We never had a discussion about where things stood"? What if everyone was sitting? And when he -- I ask you: If
Alberto Gonzales isn't perfect for this job, then why are his initials
exactly the same as "Attorney General"? Posted 3/27/07. Rick
is watching every word! (Tell your friends!)
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
