Dragged Through The Mud
In my FindLaw column on Wednesday, I'll take a look at the sins of AG Gonzales, but here I want to focus briefly on President Bush's claim that Gonzales had his "good name . . . dragged through the mud for political reasons." I want to float an odd theory: BUSH ACTUALLY BELIEVES THIS.
Let's put aside the fact that the claim makes no sense. Why did Democrats (never mind Republicans) decide to drag the Gonzales name through the mud? If politics were the reason, wouldn't they have made similar claims about all Bush appointees? Why haven't they dragged the good names of Condi Rice, Henry Paulson and Dirk Kempthorne through the mud?
That sort of analysis is just far too reality-based. Here is how Bush intuits the matter:
1) Alberto is a loyal buddy;
2) People in Congress are saying nasty things about Alberto;
3) Therefore, the people saying the nasty things must have base motives, like politics.
This theory explains how it was that after one of the most dismal of a string of dismal performances before Congress, the President was able to say that he thought Gonzales did an excellent job of answering questions. Bush probably didn't watch any footage or read a transcript of the testimony. (In No End in Sight, Bush is accused by someone who should know of not even reading the executive summary of national intelligence documents, so why would he waste time watching or reading about Senators bloviating?) As Stephen Colbert would say, Bush just knew with his gut that Gonzales would have done a fine job of standing up to those jabbering legislators. Therefore he did.
Let's put aside the fact that the claim makes no sense. Why did Democrats (never mind Republicans) decide to drag the Gonzales name through the mud? If politics were the reason, wouldn't they have made similar claims about all Bush appointees? Why haven't they dragged the good names of Condi Rice, Henry Paulson and Dirk Kempthorne through the mud?
That sort of analysis is just far too reality-based. Here is how Bush intuits the matter:
1) Alberto is a loyal buddy;
2) People in Congress are saying nasty things about Alberto;
3) Therefore, the people saying the nasty things must have base motives, like politics.
This theory explains how it was that after one of the most dismal of a string of dismal performances before Congress, the President was able to say that he thought Gonzales did an excellent job of answering questions. Bush probably didn't watch any footage or read a transcript of the testimony. (In No End in Sight, Bush is accused by someone who should know of not even reading the executive summary of national intelligence documents, so why would he waste time watching or reading about Senators bloviating?) As Stephen Colbert would say, Bush just knew with his gut that Gonzales would have done a fine job of standing up to those jabbering legislators. Therefore he did.
posted by Michael C. Dorf @ 9:50 PM
3 Comments:
At 12:11 AM,
Mithras said…
An odd theory, but not odd enough to be true, I think. While Bush may be incompetent at many of the tasks Americans usually require of a President, I'm sure he's quite well informed as to what powerful people of both parties think, including what they think of each other. Anyone who smirks and nicknames people and generally behaves in a clubby manner so much has to be. He might not watch the hearings but after a few hours of phone calls and schmoozing, he'd know how they went.
-M
At 12:17 AM,
Derek said…
Maybe there is a third premise before we get to the conclusion:
3) if someone is a loyal buddy, it's my duty to support them irrespective of what they may or may not have done in reality.
That would at least partly explain why he wouldn't feel the need to examine the testimony - it's irrelevant.
I'm not trying to imply that Bush doesn't actually *believe* Gonzales was victimized by Congress (although of course I have no idea), just that he might think of Gonzales like most parents think of their children - e.g. "it doesn't matter what people say about him or what evidence they produce, he's my son and I know he's a good person."
At 1:19 AM,
Sobek said…
"Therefore, the people saying the nasty things must have base motives, like politics."
I think you can arrive at this conclusion without your first two premises. Try this:
1. Harry Reid (for example) is a politician.
2. Politicians have base motives, like politics.
3. Therefore the things that Harry Reid says about Gonzales has base motives, like politics.
Whether Reid happens to be objectively justified in attacking Gonzales does not change the fundamental fact that politicians, generally speaking, have base political motives.
The best evidence of this conclusion is the fact that politicians generally do not condemn their own, even for similar behavior. Bill Clinton fired every single U.S. Attorney, even those who were investigating Clinton's friends (and who, coincidentally, were not investigated after the terminated attorneys were replaced)? Reid says nothing. Clinton issues a long list of utterly unjustifiable last-minute pardons, including for convicted FALN terrorists? Reid says nothing. Dianne Feinstein uses her position on the Armed Services Committee to make her husband millions of dollars (and, incidentally, depriving places like Walter Reed of needed funds)? Reid says nothing. Reid gets embroiled in a real estate scandal while serving as chair of the Senate ethics committee, then pleads ignorance of the ethics rules (and hangs up the phone on inquisitive reporters)? Well, I can't imagine Reid wants to say much about that.
Please none of you take this as a defense of Gonzales or Bush, because I simply won't defend either of them. I'm just saying that it's possible for Gonzales to be an incompetent twit and for his detractors to be motived by something base, like politics.
Post a Comment
<< Home