Someone other than Alberto Gonzales seems to think he's doing a good job, and that opinion is the one that counts, GWB's. The President had this to say about Albie's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
"The attorney general went up and gave a very candid assessment, and answered every question he could possibly answer, honestly answer.”
While I don't think George II is particularly linguistically astute, I also can't help but wonder about the qualifier in that sentence, "honestly answer." People seldom qualify a statement when they don't have a quibble with its contents and there seems to be a quibble here. The simple statement would have been that the AG, 'answered every question he could answer,' the qualifier of, "honestly answer," is exceedingly odd. Lack of memory, however dubious, would be included in, "answered every question he could answer," honesty has not squat to do with the statement unless it's brought in for another unstated issue. Now an entire kettle of fish is opened.
What questions couldn't he honestly answer? "I don't recall," is not an answer, it is an excuse for no answer, so then, does, "honestly answer," refer to, "I don't recall," or something else? This is the President of the USA speaking on an issue that one would think he took seriously, considering it regards the top law enforcement officer in the US, his appointment, his responsibility. George's pretense at being a "cowboy" has nothing to do with reality, he's the son of big old money, Ivy League educated (sort of), and the associate of the same groups, he's no hick, unexposed to the language of the "elites" (that would be the literate). Anyone can get tongue-tied on occasion and his modest intellect with tremendous draws on its attention can certainly get credit for plenty of that, but this isn't tongue-tied, this is an entirely extraneous addition except in regard to unstated thoughts. Call it a Freudian slip.
No, I don't think this bunch is being forthcoming and forthright, the documents with huge redaction's deny forthcoming and forthright seems disqualified by their chief spokesman. It certainly is not enhanced by a performance that included over 70 faulty memory excuses, c'mon folks this guy is supposed to be a lawyer and memory is just a little important to lawyers. Evidently a former Texas Supreme Court justice, former counsel to the President, and current USAG shouldn't be allowed to go outside without his address written on his palm. Sure I buy this one.
“There’s no traction with the public because there is no serious allegation of wrongdoing,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. Maybe not, but then White House officials are also saying that for Gonzales to step down would lead the people to think there was wrong-doing. I actually wonder if these guys would recognize something with "traction with the public."
3 comments:
My beef with Gonzo is that he called the few Minute Man patriots defending our borders "vigilantes". Bush of course is a corproate globalist who has committed an impeachable offense of allowing an invasion and Gonzo is the point man on that. But since most of the democrats are going to side with Bush and vote for amnesty there is no chance they will bring this issue up
Who's the biggest ass-hole and destroyer of the Bill of Rights Dum-Dum Gonzales or righter than God Ashcroft. These two are the worst Attorney Generals in my time.
The problem with these incompetents is that they can't distinguish between politics, policy, and the law. That is an incredibly dangerous blindness.
Post a Comment