My Suspicious Mind

On one level, sure, it's nice to hear that no Republican Senators were willing to go on Chris Wallace's Fox News show, but on another level one needs to ask yourself why did Chris Wallace report that? Maybe he did it even thought it reflects poorly on the Bush administration just because, as a reporter, Wallace is in the business of reporting the facts.

Sorry, bad joke.

Presumably, the idea here is that we're supposed to believe that Republicans are shocked, shocked to find out that there's perjury happening in this attorney-general's office. Just as the fact that George W. Bush is a horrible president is supposed to be no reflection on conservatism, we, too, are supposed to believe that the fact that the Republican Party, with the complete and utter backing of every significant conservative institution in the country, fought tooth and nail, day after day, week after week, month after month to ensure that there was absolutely no oversight of the executive branch whatsoever is just totally unrelated to Gonzalez' unraveling.

Comments

Unfortunately, there will be no unraveling of the AG. Dems have made a wrong move by asking for a special prosecutor. If one is appointed, the matter would definitely drag on till much after January 2009, and at that point it will be a moot issue even if he is then charged with some wrongdoing.

The Dems have given the administration a great opportunity to continue to hide behind the 'ongoing investigation' dodge till the clock runs out.

Posted by gregor | July 30, 2007 8:03 AM

Republicans are willing to neglect defending Gonzales because they know this isn't at root about Gonzales. Chris Wallace is willing to report this fact because if there's to be a Republican fall guy, better that he be an obvious flunky like Gonzales: the fact that he hasn't been fired isn't because he's seen as innocent, but because he's protecting people who are more guilty than he is. Congressional Republicans must know or sense this. Who wouldn't at this point?

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 8:05 AM

Presumably, the idea here is that we're supposed to believe that Republicans are shocked, shocked to find out that there's perjury happening in this attorney-general's office.

Well, since the fact is that there was no perjury, this presumpsion would obviously be wrong. Not that I would ever expect any Democrat to be swayed by the facts.

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 8:14 AM

Hey, someone needs to get Al's phone number over to Chris Wallace ASAP. We've found a Republican willing to step up and defend Alberto Gonzalez!

Posted by DMonteith | July 30, 2007 8:24 AM

Well, since the fact is that there was no perjury, this presumpsion would obviously be wrong. Not that I would ever expect any Democrat to be swayed by the facts.

Do you know how absurd you sound claiming possession of "facts" that you couldn't possibly know the veracity of one way or another? How the fuck do YOU know there wasn't perjury?

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 8:25 AM

Chris Wallace was telling the right wingers to not bother with writing letters saying "Why didn't you have someone on defending Gonzales and Bush! Are you a bunch of libtards now?!?!?"

Posted by stm177 | July 30, 2007 8:42 AM

Matt,

For you to make an effective joke about Chris Wallace being a partisan hack, it would help if Chris Wallace actually were a partisan hack. Since he isn't, the joke fails. Not everyone on Fox is Rupert Murdoch's sock puppet.

Posted by Fred | July 30, 2007 9:10 AM

Fred,

Are you trying to make the same joke, just a different way???

Posted by ProfD | July 30, 2007 9:15 AM

Typical Republicans, haven't they heard of innocent until proven guilty? Their hatred of Hispanics, except when they're cutting the lawn, knows no bounds.

Posted by Wayne | July 30, 2007 9:22 AM

"The Dems have given the administration a great opportunity to continue to hide behind the 'ongoing investigation' dodge till the clock runs out."

As opposed to the "refusing to comply with subpoenas and lying to Congress" dodge? Short of enough Republicans agreeing to impeach, which seems unlikely, I fail to see what choice the Dems have. Gonzales isn't going to resign and Bush isn't going to sack him.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | July 30, 2007 9:40 AM

The real question is when they actually have a chance to do something about Gonzalez are all these shocked, shocked Republican Senators going to vote with the Democrats to impeach and remove him or is Gonzalez just another Iraq occupation which the Republicans will oppose for appearances only while in reality they continue to slavishly do Bush's bidding?

Posted by Ron | July 30, 2007 9:46 AM

....I fail to see what choice the Dems have

Of course they can always initiate the impeachment proceedings. Force them to squirm.

Posted by gregor | July 30, 2007 9:51 AM

How the fuck do YOU know there wasn't perjury?

A better question would be, "How do you know perjury occurred?" Isn't that what an investigation is for?

Posted by Fred Jones | July 30, 2007 10:08 AM

Ginger Yellow and gregor, there is a third possiblity, Inherent Contempt of Congress, wherein the Sargent at Arms of the Congress can seize and jail people that do the dance that Abu Gonzales is doing. They have a cell in the basement and Arlen Specter (!) pointed that out to AbuG last go round. They'll have him back next week to "clarify" his conflicting answers, an opportune moment to send the evildoers a message.
Fred Jones, check the videotape, there's blatant perjury in there among the fancy dance steps.

Posted by cv | July 30, 2007 11:09 AM

"... but on another level one needs to ask yourself why did Chris Wallace report that?"

A simple theory is that he wants the Republicans to produce a spokesman when he requests one.

Posted by James B. Shearer | July 30, 2007 11:32 AM

A better question would be, "How do you know perjury occurred?" Isn't that what an investigation is for?

I don't know that perjury in the technical sense has occurred. I do know that Gonzales gives every indication of a man with much to hide from Congress, and that he has given contradictory testimony, both as to his own prior testimony and that of others. For Al to be so arrogantly confident that perjury hasn't occurred would, in this situation, be the less reasonable position. He's confusing "presumption of innocence" with "probable cause" and acting as though that's somehow a wise frame of mind.

Posted by Bill | July 30, 2007 12:10 PM

Matthew Yglesias writes that "the idea here is that we're supposed to believe that Republicans are shocked, shocked to find out that there's perjury happening in this attorney-general's office." Well, I guess I'm "shocked, shocked," to learn that in Matthew Yglesias world, when Democrats commit perjery and pardon folks, it's o.k., but when Republicans do it, it's bad. The fact is, both parties are corrupt, Matthew. You just got lost like so many poor folks out there who actually believe one side is good and the other bad, when both parties are corrupt, globalist entities that are addicted to taxpayers money like an addict to crack. The reason our country is in the tank is because of true believers like the neo-cons, and their opposite side of stupidity, Matthew Yglesias.

Posted by Tom | July 30, 2007 12:13 PM

I can't really accept Matt's suggestion that Republicans consciously chose to have an Attorney General who is an embarrassing, non-credible buffoon. Sure, they may want to tear down layers of executive oversight, but that's so their Republican Leaders can stride across the heartland conquering evil unencumbered by miserable bureaucratic pedants.

This Attorney General is humiliating, not to mention incapable of conquering anything more daunting than a breakfast order without committing several serious felonies.

Posted by southpaw | July 30, 2007 12:17 PM

What, exactly, are you trying to say here, Matt?

Posted by Jamey | July 30, 2007 2:05 PM

RE "I can't really accept Matt's suggestion that Republicans consciously chose to have an Attorney General who is an embarrassing, non-credible buffoon."
----------
I do. Because Republicans know that if said loyal "buffoon" didn't fire several US Attorneys, a lot more Republicans would be facing having their fat asses in prison. See "Duke" Cunningham,etc.

Posted by Don Williams | July 30, 2007 2:23 PM

tom, it helps to be informed.

for example, if you actually knew anything about yglesias' world, you would know that matthew hates the pardon power and doesn't think it's ok in any circumstances.

that said, it's even less okay in scooter libby's circumstances, and when you can show us a democrat pardoning that is the equivalent of scooter libby (or, for that matter, bush 41 pardoning all the iran-contra crew or ford pardoning nixon), we'll all get equally worked up.

and then, presumably you are among the misbegotten souls who don't understand that perjury must be material, ergo, clinton didn't commit perjury in the paula jones deposition whereas there is a prima facie case that gonzalez has committed perjury.

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 3:19 PM

No Tom, the reason this county is tanking is because idiots like you can't see their own nose because its attached to their face. Sure there are altogether corrupt Democrats out there. And yes, even politicians who believe in higher principles have done some shady stuff to achieve the position of power they hold. The problem is people like you who can't tell the difference in degree or kind that we are witnessing between the two parties currently. I would explain the difference if I could, but how can I do justice to the experience of the last 6 years? If you haven't already figured it out already, I'm certainly not going to be able to persuade you.

Posted by mpowell | July 30, 2007 3:43 PM

" . . . presumably you are among the misbegotten souls who don't understand that perjury must be material . . ."

Is that all it takes to be considered a misbegotten soul these days? We really are suffering from a crisis of low standards.

Posted by southpaw | July 30, 2007 5:42 PM

...perjury must be material, ergo, clinton didn't commit perjury in the paula jones deposition.

A rose by any other name......Clinton lost the ability to practice law over that. He paid a $90,000.00 fine and received admonishment for "deliberately misleading the court".

The reason why Clinton's lying is important and not the non-issue as liberals would like to believe is because if a man will lie about one thing to save himself, he will lie about other things to save himself. At the very least, it's a breach of trust.

It's important.

Posted by Fred Jones | July 30, 2007 10:38 PM