Home / Alberto Gonzales Resigns in Disguise

Alberto Gonzales Resigns in Disguise

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

When my daughter reads my articles she often comments, after laughing aloud, that she pictures many of my words as political cartoons. So, draw this Al Gonzales drama as political cartoon. He would be the lapdog (bulldog face) of the president with Rove in the room as dog trainer. On the floor would be a newspaper that looks like the U.S. Constitution in newsprint. I would love to picture Karl Rove teaching Bush to train Gonzales as the alpha male and how to use newspaper as both a discipline tool and a place for the dog to relieve himself, shall we say. 

The only problem—the dog trainer failed to teach the new dog owner how to use the Constitution—I mean newspaper. Naturally, the use of paper is nothing new to dog owners. And the tricks that were taught to Gonzales were not new. Title III, from 1986, was in place long before the Patriot Act merely expanded executive power. The criminal list and the statutes for which wiretaps can be ordered were broadened. This means surveillance can be done in real time on virtual electronic devices including cellular phones. The president, since 1968, could wiretap without first obtaining a warrant. But Gonzales wanted to go into homes without first wiping his paws on the welcome mat. His handiwork violated (to a point) both in letter and essence the Constitution as written. 

The official biography for Alberto Gonzales’, Bush’s longtime Texas buddy, cites February 2005 as the beginning of his term as AG.  Yet he worked hard grab power and put it into play for his master before his time in the White House too. Many in the know are saying that he was flat-out fired. Why would the son of a sharecropper, living the American dream, want to leave? Who quits a job like that without pressure in less than three years? What, 2.5 years. You mean he did all that damage in less than three years? Rethink the timeline.  If you subtract the last six months when the calls really began for his resignation, including from this writer, from the 2.5 years since appointment, then he began making a mess in the Oval Office after only his first year as AG.

Failing to get the nod for a Supreme Court seat after six months as Attorney General, he remained AG. As a man of 49 he would have been on the court for decades! It is that very reason he was not confirmed. I hope that the American public never forgets that Alberto “Okay to torture” Gonzales did not become a member of the Supreme Court for making torture in prison look lovely. The hearings crushed any hopes that he or Bush had of seeing him permanently seated on the Court. Wow, America dodged a big bullet. We would all have to move to Mexico.

What I really want to know is will the Democrats pursue the legal case against him? I hate to predict that they will not go after him. On August 13th I wrote “Rove Resigns, Bush Quips,” and predicted a Gonzales resignation nicely:

Who will replace Karl Rove? He has left a vast political void, and a brain drain for Bush. Without a doubt, the news of Rove’s resignation will resonate on the Hill. The obvious question: how does this bode for Alberto Gonzales? Will Gonzales be the straw man left holding the bag of kryptonite? I predict he too will return to Texas, via resignation. 

His actual date of resignation (September 17th) puts his leaving at exactly one month after Rove resignation. Bush lamented that AG's "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons.” Huh? I think he dragged the AG office through the mud. And even his boss of 13 years could no longer afford to feed him. It is clear that Bush needed Gonzales gone. Bush-bloggers and political pundits have been shouting “Get Gonzales Gone,” now for months. That dog would not hunt six months ago. But it’s hunting now for a replacement. It is about time.

Powered by

About Heloise

  • What on earth is this talk about the ‘legal case against him’? No sane person is even suggesting that Gonzales did anything illegal.


  • Dave, you just won’t let go of that bone, will you? There are many people, many sane people, who have suggested that Gonzales may be guilty of perjury and/or obstruction of justice.

  • Many people believe a lot of things out of pure self-interest and partisanship, Doug.

    Sounding idiotic and having a poor memory under stress isn’t a crime. And as yet no one has been able to point to an instance where he clearly and knowingly lied.

    Last I checked we considered people innocent until proven guilty, though I see that the left is continuing its relentless efforts to do away with that vital constitutional protection.


  • gonzo marx

    i’ll have to wait until my home PC is back online to provide the many links for possible perjury charges against Gonzalez…but there ARE there and well documented

    from what’s been in the news, the Senate investigation is iffy, but the House will be proceeding with the investigation…let’s wait until that’s gone further before saying anything definitive

    but perjury looks likely, obstruction may be there as well, and just leaving their jobs does not let either Rove or Gonzalez off the subpeona hook

    “time wounds all heels” – R.A.H.


  • troll

    check out the last line of “Go West”…predating “Pandora’s Box” publication by 10 years

    …proper attribution (unless there is an earlier RAH use) = Groucho

  • “Last I checked we considered people innocent until proven guilty, though I see that the left is continuing its relentless efforts to do away with that vital constitutional protection.”

    All I can do is roll my eyes. Write sentences like this with one hand, and accuse others of being partisan with the other.

    Gonzales may well have lied under oath to Congress when he said he wasn’t at meetings he really did attend, or wasn’t involved in decisions several other people said he directed.

    Beyond that, it’s mostly a matter of his championing, and writing legal defenses of, policies that some of us find unconstitutional, anti-democratic, and disgusting. I’ll not claim he should be tried in a court of law for doing this – but it’s understandable that there are people who would like to go that route. It has little to do with ‘presumption of innocence,’ a red herring in this context.

    But since he was a really wretchedly bad attorney general, we should just be glad to be rid of him. And I hope Dave can at least join in that sigh of relief.

  • God, imagine if Bush had succeeded in putting him on the Supreme Court. We’d be stuck with him for decades.

  • Gonzales only had lapses in memory–could happen to anybody. Reminds mo of the old Steve Martin bit–“I forgot it was illegal to rob banks.”

  • Handy, most of what you’re talking about happened when he was White House counsel. In that job he was a legal hack hired to find justifications for what the administration wanted to do. As such he did a reasonably good job and satisfied his employer. How does this make him any better or worse than those in similar jobs in any other administrations?

    As attorney general he was unremarkable and those few supposedly controversial decisions he was involved in were trivialities played up into bogus causes by partisan flaks.

    Compared with prior attorney generals he was like a shining beacon of harmless mediocrity.

    Do you remember John Ashcroft? He’s the one who signed off on the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. He’s the one who approved the warrantless wiretaps. He’s the one who tried to cover up the Plame leak. He’s the one who ordered federal violation of state sovereignty and arresting terminally ill patients in his campaign against medical marijuana.

    Has Ashcroft been indicted? Where is the crusade against him?

    But wait, let’s not forget Janet Reno on whose watch we saw not only the persecution and mishandling of the Richard Jewell investigation, which is one of the worst cases of false prosecution in our nation’s history, but even worse, she presided over the Mt. Carmel Massacre where 78 people died including innocent women and children, all with Reno’s explicit approval. No serious attempt was made to bring her to trial. If Gonzales ought to be tried for perjury then Reno ought to be charged with criminal negligence at the very least and probably conspiracy to commit murder.

    So let’s get real about the trivial little footnote that is Alberto Gonzales.


  • Dr Dreadful

    the Richard Jewell investigation, which is one of the worst cases of false prosecution in our nation’s history

    How can you have a false prosecution against someone who was never charged?

  • Dr. D., Jewell’s name was leaked to the media as a suspect by the FBI and they did nothing to exonerate him or indicate that there was another suspect in the case for years after the leak. So in the eyes of the public and the media he remained the main suspect in the bombing until he was cleared in Eric Rudolph’s confession SEVEN YEARS later.

    True, it may not explicitly be false prosecution, but it’s gross prosecutorial neglect and irresponsibility.


  • Nancy

    IMO, Jewell should have sued the FBI – AND the MSM – for defamation & slander. If I’d been on the jury, he’d have won, too.

    Dave, Dave, Dave *sigh* … Jesus X. Christ. There are none so blind as those determined not to see, are there???

  • The Justice Dept’s internal investigations unit is looking into the possibility that Gonzales lied to Congress.

  • gonzo marx

    for troll i n #5 – i stand corrected…had not known of the earlier usage…thanks for the info


  • troll

    xxoo – platonic-ally speaking of course