Alberto Gonzales resigned his position as Attorney General today, effective September 17, 2007.
While President Bush accepted his resignation, he also complains that Gonzales has been unjustly maligned by Democrats and that “his name has been dragged through the mud“. I agree with President Bush about these issues.
I agree that Gonzales has been unjustly maligned by Democrats (and that “his name has been dragged through the mud”), but I don’t disagree that Gonzales was suited for the job of Attorney General. Bush seems to have surrounded himself with people he knew well and had worked with in his past careers (seems reasonable) but about a few of those he carried forward with him to the Presidency — Alberto Gonzales especially, also Harriet Miers, to name but a few — they appear to have been unqualified for the profound positions to which they were appointed.
However, specifically about Gonzales and as to why I say he was not qualified for the A.G. position, for the most part, he lacked the ability to contend reasonably and well with maligning accusations that were then free to roam the universe of insanity, such as in the minds of Senators Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin, if not also, Russ Feingold and Dianne Feinstein, to a great degree.
I don’t agree with the often irrational and emotionally damaged accusations by that key lot of Democrats about the Bush Republican Presidency and Gonzales specifically. However, about the one but significant part — that Gonzales wasn’t qualifed — I do agree. All the other nasties lobbed at the Bush White House by this fear-mongering Senate hate group is embarrassment, because it reveals an extremely unstable group of people in the Senate among mostly Democrats. I’m surprised the likes of Schumer and Durbin, especially, can sit up, what with that great burden of irrationality sitting in their heads:
…Earlier this month, at a news conference, Mr. Bush dismissed accusations that Mr. Gonzales had stonewalled or misled a Congressional inquiry: “We’re watching a political exercise,” Mr. Bush said. “I mean, this is a man who has testified, he’s sent thousands of papers up there. There’s no proof of wrong.”
…Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee and has been calling for Mr. Gonzales’s resignation for months, said this morning: “It has been a long and difficult struggle, but at last the attorney general has done the right thing and stepped down. For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional, and desperately needs new leadership.”
Senator Schumer said that “Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations.”
Another Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has been highly critical of Mr. Gonzales, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, said the next attorney general must be a person whose first loyalty is “to the law, not the president.”
Gonzales just may have issues with truthiness. It’s not been proven and therefore, exists as burning issue in the field of suspicion that characterises the two-mile radius surrounding Schumer at every time and place wherever he goes. I doubt Schumer could leap over a two-foot Truth Jump without a toe or entire leg catching in the marker.
But Gonzales failed to protect the Justice Department from the two-mile-radius-wide paranoid screed from the likes of Schumer and his other Democrats, and about that, there is no limit to what and where their accusations will go (and have). Our Attorney General needs to be more competent than this, needs to be present and able to establish issues or effectively refute them, when and if ever questioned as has Gonzales been, and I’m sure, will be other Republicans before any and all Democrats in Congress. An Attorney General especially needs to be reliable as to enforcing our laws but there’s nothing inherently corrupt or unethical about an A.G. being aligned with a President, contrary to Schumer’s and Reid’s paranoia. It’s, actually, unreasonable to demand that any A.G. not be in good relationship with a respective President.
To put it bluntly even moreso than I already have here, it’s the ongoing failing of Democrats that they cannot bring their own character nor mental (and political) state in-line with that with which they condemn Republicans by.
Schumer — and Reid, among other Democrats — declaring that they will never agree to appointments of individuals nominated by President Bush again (for no other reason other than Bush is a Republican and a President they don’t respect or like), is the language of gang-land lunacy. Yet Schumer — and Reid — now declare that they’ll support an A.G. who supports “the law” and “not the President.”
If that isn’t rumble-talk, I don’t know what is. That it makes no sense is beside the point, apparently, to these Democrats in Congress.
However, let’s the rest of us hold them to their rumble-standard when or as a Democrat in any future White House ever nominates anyone else ever again to anything: unless they declare they don’t support the President, they lose.
What a duplicitous position from immensely foul people in our Congress. They’re ALL, supposedly, elected to “uphold the law” and yet, Democrats always work their utmost in elected office to disable anyone and all who may try to uphold the law — especially if they’re Republicans.
Because, an Attorney General of course is appointed to uphold the law, and yet, these Congressional Democrats are not offended due to “the law” so much as they are offended due to “the political party that isn’t the Democratic one.” If they were offended by upholding the law or not upholding it, they’d be upholding the law/s themselves. Yet, look closely as to who these people actually are, what they’ve done, how they’re doing it.
I’m glad Gonzales has resigned — I don’t believe he is competent to the job — but the real question is, why aren’t these Democrats booted from The Hill? Never a more incompetent if not plainly foul set of people has plagued our Congress as now as to the likes of Schumer, Feingold, Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein and Durbin. Look at the groups they allow to counsel Congress, to influence legislation, look closely at their affiliates and what they represent.
Ask these Democrats (each and all) what their positions are as to illegal aliens. They’ll respond — if and as they do or will — with generalized mantras about “labor.” That means, amnesty. Ask them about their positions on national security, our nation’s defense and border and immigration enforcement. They’ll respond with meaningless wiggle-words that express the counter-purposes of that which they profess.
And, in fact, Gonzales has been their friend on many of these accords. We need to rid our nation of the whole batch of these enablers who service the same goals, and not limit the chastisement to the likes of Gonzales. Or George Bush, for that matter. Because the problems put upon our nation run deeper from among the Democrats.