Of course it is not fair. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been brutalized in the press and TV. So, why must I add my voice to the chorus of complainers?
Call it my existential imperative. I cannot not do this. It is not because I hold any animus toward Mr. Attorney General. Rather, I possess a powerful feeling about his seeming inability to talk straight and honestly.
Yes, I am guilty of convicting him of behavior that has yet to be proven in any court of law.
Perhaps he is not being dishonest or dissembling. Even if his pronouncements are not prevarications, they are certainly bumbling assertions, which leave listeners shaking their heads. His words do not pass what I call the “sniff test,” that being a gauge for the smelliness of utterances.
For those of you who have seen or heard snippets of his Congressional testimonies, you know of which I speak. His responses over time were so consistently non-responsive that one was forced to come to one of two primary conclusions: Mr. Gonzales was incompetent or he was diverting attention from some inappropriate (and maybe illegal) actions taken during his watch as the Nation’s Top Cop.
Although one’s political biases can be so strong that nothing a sitting Republican can say or do will satisfy the all-knowing Democrat – and vice versa – all but the most diehard partisan would probably accept and even excuse what I suspect were the reasons behind several of the recent major snafus between the Attorney General, Congress, and the citizens of this country.
Start first with the firings of eight U.S. Attorneys around the country. Many believe that the reason was that these individuals did not demonstrate the sort of political fervor desired by the White House in pursuing its agenda. I do not believe anyone has finally and unequivocally proven such, yet it seems quite feasible that this mindset was behind the entire process. If Mr. Gonzales merely acknowledged that changes were made to bring in people whom the Administration believed would more zealously prosecute – excuse the pun – the President’s plan, no one would be particularly shocked or upset, except, again, those partisans who are so fanatical that they blame the opposition party for cloudy and rainy days.
Think back to the surveillance/wiretapping issue, which Mr. Gonzales dodged repeatedly much to the frustration and consternation of sitting Senators and Congressmen and women from both parties. Why not say that the President and he believed that if errors were to be made at this time in our history, he and Mr. Bush wished to do so in favor of security rather than preserving privacy? Some (many) may disagree, but if that is a true and sincere belief being held by the President and his Administration, state the position, and take whatever lumps may come. In this way, you never have to worry about how to explain your position today or tomorrow, as the reason is real, sincere, and straightforward. Undoubtedly, many people will attack you, but for the President and Administration in power, it holds at least 51% of any Executive Branch vote, so it may continue to pursue its agenda relatively unimpeded until a future election forces its members out of power.
Given all the above, which is not exhaustive, it is amazing that Mr. Gonzales – or Mr. Bush -- would think so long and hard about the Attorney General’s resignation. While my calling for someone’s resignation is totally meaningless – and I am not calling for Mr. Gonzales' -- one would expect that high office holders would be savvy enough to recognize when the public has lost confidence in them and when to act honorably and step down for the good of the country.
After the Senate reconvenes next Tuesday (April 10th), we will again be exposed to the clambering cacophony about Mr. Gonzales from the Congress, media, and cable TV political pundits. In fact, articles in the USA Today and The Washington Post yesterday provide early previews into the coming coverage crush.
At what point will the Attorney General see that the sun has set on his service?
+++
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 685 words.
© April, 2007