College student shouts ‘You lie!’ to Alberto Gonzales during speech.
College student shouts ‘You lie!’ to Alberto Gonzales during speech.
Former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales recently spoke at the University of Tennessee at Martin about “Living Legal History: Working with the White House, the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court.” Gonzales received a “mixed” response from students and residents, and he had a Joe-Wilson moment when a student interrupted his speech and shouted out “You lie!”:
At one point, Gonzales referred to America’s war on terrorism.
“President Wilson and Roosevelt engaged in massive collections of electronic communications during the first and second world war,” Gonzales said. “The collection performed by President Bush was much more narrow.”
At this moment, a student in the crowd interjected with: “You lie!” After some quiet applause the speech continued.
Gonzales is currently a political science professor at Texas Tech, where students and faculty have protested his appointment. (HT: TPM)
- Comments
- 74
Gonzales flip flops on torture investigation.
Gonzales flip flops on torture investigation.
On Tuesday, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales surprised everyone by defending Attorney General Eric Holder’s investigation into interrogation abuses during the Bush administration:
We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists. And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.
Today, however, Gonzales is backpedaling. In a new interview with the Washington Times, he said that just because he thinks it’s “legitimate to question and examine” the interrogators’ conduct, he doesn’t endorse an investigation:
I don’t support the investigation by the department because this is a matter that has already been reviewed thoroughly and because I believe that another investigation is going to harm our intelligence gathering capabilities and that’s a concern that’s shared by career intelligence officials and so for those reasons I respectfully disagree with the decision.
Gonzales backs Holder’s torture investigation.
Gonzales backs Holder’s torture investigation.
In an interview with the Washington Times today, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales defended Eric Holder’s decision to investigate CIA interrogation abuses, despite claims by Vice President Cheney that it is an “outrageous political act.” “As chief prosecutor of the United States, he should make the decision on his own, based on the facts, then inform the White House,” said Gonzales, whose tenure was marked by intense political meddling on the part of White House officials. More from the interview:
We worked very hard to establish ground rules and parameters about how to deal with terrorists. And if people go beyond that, I think it is legitimate to question and examine that conduct to ensure people are held accountable for their actions, even if it’s action in prosecuting the war on terror.
Listen here:
Of course, Gonzales said he was reassured that Holder was interested the “one percent of actors” who went beyond the legal authorization and not the 99 percent who “are heroes and and should be treated like heroes for the most part.” No doubt that Gonzales puts himself in that 99-percent group.
Gonzales Offers Tortured Defense Of His Pro-Torture Past
Gonzales Offers Tortured Defense Of His Pro-Torture Past
In an interview with Law.com, disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempts to walk back pro-torture arguments he made to President Bush, claiming that he was only criticizing isolated provisions such as “a requirement that you provide athletic uniforms, commissary privileges, scientific instruments, [and] a monthly allowance” to detainees. According to Gonzales, “I didn’t mean to say that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions requiring basic humane treatment were outdated. No, I didn’t say that.”
Gonzales’ attempt to whitewash his previous statement, however, does not jibe with the facts. Here’s what Gonzales actually wrote in a 2002 memo to President Bush:
The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments.
So while Gonzales did indeed criticize provisions which supposedly require the United States to provide detainees with athletic uniforms and scientific instruments, he also clearly rejects the Geneva Conventions’ limits on torture and other abusive interrogation techniques as “obsolete.”
Moreover even if Gonzales’ defense of his prior views could be taken at face value, they, at best, reveal him to be a completely incompetent attorney. Many of the provisions Gonzales labels as “quaint” simply do not exist. For example, nothing in the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War requires a detaining power to provide detainees with “athletic uniforms” or “scientific instruments.” The only provisions which even vaguely resemble such a requirement are Article 27, which mandates that detainees must be given appropriate “[c]lothing, underwear and footwear,” and Article 72, which provides that detention guards cannot seize mail sent to detainees which contains harmless items such as “scientific instruments” and “sports outfits.”
Similarly, while the Geneva Convention does include provisions requiring that detainees be given access to a kind of store, such provisions exist solely to ensure that the detainees most basic needs are met. Under the heading of “QUARTERS FOOD AND CLOTHING OF PRISONERS OF WAR,” Article 28 provides that a “canteen” must be set up in prisoner of war camps which provides necessities such as “foodstuffs” and “soap” (possibly because many prisoners of war are addicted to cigarettes when they are captured, the convention also provides for access to tobacco). To enable detainees to obtain food and soap from the canteen, Article 60 provides for prisoners to receive a modest “advance of pay.”
In other words, the “commissary” and “scrip” provided for under the Convention are really just a way of ensuring that the detainees basic needs are provided for. It is a mechanism to feed and clean detainees, not a requirement that detainee camps house their very own Wal-Mart.
Despite his attempts to whitewash the past, the meaning of Gonzales’ 2002 memo is clear. Gonzales believed that Geneva’s ban on detainee mistreatment is “render[ed] obsolete” by modern day terrorism; and he affirmatively misrepesented the contents of the Geneva Convention in a memo to the President of the United States.
Gonzales ‘angry’ his reputation has been tarnished: I don’t deserve this treatment.
Gonzales ‘angry’ his reputation has been tarnished: I don’t deserve this treatment.
The New York Times Magazine has a new interview with former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales, who is set to begin a job teaching political science at Texas Tech this fall. Gonzales is also currently writing a book — although he doesn’t yet have a publisher — in which he plans to discuss more about why he resigned. In the meantime, Gonzales said that he has been upset at the way his legacy has been ruined:
Would you agree that your reputation was damaged by your service as attorney general?
It has had an effect, a negative effect, no question about it, and at times it makes me angry because it is undeserved. But I don’t want to sound like I am whining. At the end of the day, I’ve been the attorney general of the United States. It’s a remarkable privilege, and I stand behind my service.
Gonzales truly believes that he has been unfairly characterized. “What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service?” he asked last year. (Here’s a reminder.) Gonzales still has not received any offers for jobs from any law firms since leaving the White House.
Texas Tech Faculty Circulate Petition Protesting Gonzales
Texas Tech Faculty Circulate Petition Protesting Gonzales
Earlier this month, Texas Tech announced that it had offered former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales a position to teach political science during the upcoming fall semester. Gonzales will be a visiting professor leading a course on “contemporary issues in the executive branch” and focusing on “recruiting and retaining first generation and under-represented students.”
Students and angry alumni quickly spoke out, starting Facebook groups and writing scathing editorials. Many of the Texas Tech faculty, however, remained silent.
Not any longer. Approximately 45 Texas Tech faculty members have signed onto a petition calling Gonzales’ hiring “objectionable.” They charge that Gonzales is nothing more than a “celebrity hire” who won’t be worth his $100,000 salary:
The faculty members also take aim at Chancellor Kent Hance, who said that one of the reasons he hired Gonzales was because he’s a “good friend“:
The petition then outlines Gonzales’ conduct in the White House that “demonstrated significant ethical failings,” including rejecting the Geneva Conventions and frequently misleading Congress and the American people. Philosophy professor Walter Schaller, the creator of the petition, said that he plans to deliver it to Hance once he gathers all the signatures. Hance has already dismissed the faculty’s efforts, saying “you don’t go around making decisions based on faculty positions.”
In an interview this week with the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Gonzales gave a preview into some of the topics he will be discussing in his political science class, including, not surprisingly, the “accomplishments” of the Bush Justice Department. “We did some very strong work on behalf of the American people during my tenure as attorney general and I’m very proud of that record,” he said. He added that his class would also examine “some of the problems the current administration is confronting.”
Alberto Gonzales says Sotomayor ‘should be confirmed.’
Alberto Gonzales says Sotomayor ‘should be confirmed.’
Earlier today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a member of the Judiciary Committee, announced that he would vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is also on the committee, said he would vote for her. On NPR today, another prominent Republican, former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, also endorsed Sotomayor’s confirmation:
MARTIN: And what is your assessment of that? What’s your view of that, if you got a vote? Which I recognize you’re saying you don’t, but if you had a vote, do you think she does?
GONZALES: Well, listen, based on the answers to the questions, I think that yes, she should be confirmed.
Listen here:
Gonzales had previously said that he believed Sotomayor was “well qualified” for the Supreme Court.
Texas Tech Administrators Brush Aside Outcry Over Gonzales Hiring, Defend $100,000 Salary
Texas Tech Administrators Brush Aside Outcry Over Gonzales Hiring, Defend $100,000 Salary
Last week, Texas Tech announced that it had offered former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales a position to teach political science during the upcoming fall semester. Gonzales will be a visiting professor leading a course on “contemporary issues in the executive branch” and focusing on “recruiting and retaining first generation and under-represented students.”
Reactions from angry students and alumni were swift. Two Facebook groups with several hundred members total have even popped up:
The Daily Toreador, the student newspaper, wrote an editorial saying that Gonzales was Texas Tech’s worst hire since controversial coach Bob Knight. The editors noted that while students may be excited to take a class from such a notorious figure, “when he’s talking about the right thing to do…remember his lasting image in American politics“:
By leaving Capitol Hill in disgrace, Gonzales did not fulfill his duty as attorney general, and he did not reach his full potential as a role model for minorities.
So why hire him?
This trumps hiring a fiery coach from Indiana known for tossing a chair across a basketball court. Gonzales is notoriously accused of much more serious problems.
One point of contention is the former attorney general’s salary. Gonzales, a visiting professor, will be earning $100,000 for the year — which is approximately what full professors make — in addition to any speaking and mediation fees he does for outside work. Tech Provost Bob Smith has defended the pay, saying that it’s appropriate for someone “with a national presence and a long list of accomplishments.” Texas Tech alumni and high school government teacher David Ring said that making $100,000 “to teach one section of no more than 15 students…doesn’t seem like a fare shake to those professors at the school who, I don’t know, haven’t perjured themselves in front of the U.S. Congress.”
One Texas Tech faculty member said that administrators at the school don’t value a liberal arts education. She noted that at a Texas legislative hearing last year, Chancellor Kent Hance — who considers Gonzales a “good friend” — said that “research on ‘the best part of Shakespeare’s play’ isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.”
Hance is largely ignoring the criticism. He said that he received a “substantial number” of supportive e-mails about the hire, and just nine critical ones. He added that “he wasn’t dwelling on the negative ones because they didn’t come from loyal university donors.”
Alberto Gonzales lands a teaching position at Texas Tech.
Alberto Gonzales lands a teaching position at Texas Tech.
Life has been tough for Alberto Gonzales since he stepped down as President Bush’s attorney general. He was, for a while, “unable to interest law firms in adding his name to their roster.” Gonzales blamed his bad luck on the “rough economy.” Last June he was finally able to get hired “to provide assistance to a special master on a patent case.” The Austin-American Statesman now reports that Gonzales has also “lined up a fall-semester teaching spot at Texas Tech University.” He will be working in the political science department on a “’special topics’ course on contemporary issues in the executive branch.” (HT: Wonkette)
Ney challenges Gonzales: ‘Let’s see what you think of waterboarding — after you’ve tried it!’
Ney challenges Gonzales: ‘Let’s see what you think of waterboarding — after you’ve tried it!’
Disgraced former congressman Bob Ney — now a radio talk show host — today issued a challenge to former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales: “Let’s see what you think of waterboarding — after you’ve tried it!”:
“If Alberto Gonzales wants to clear his name by saying he didn’t cooperate in torture, then let him try it himself,” said Ney, whose 1 PM show on WVLY and WVLY.net is heard in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and throughout the western panhandle of West Virginia.
“When it comes to the worst abuses by the Bush administration, Alberto Gonzales is scurrying under every rock you turn up,” said Ney, who served in Congress from 1995 to 2006, when he resigned to face criminal charges in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal.
“Whether it was rushing to the sickbed of his predecessor, John Ashcroft, to try to pressure him to sign off on illegal warrantless wiretaps, or getting the Justice Department to approve clear violations of the Geneva Conventions, there was Alberto Gonzales. He didn’t follow the law; he did whatever he was told. He’s part of the ‘Great Lie’ that was the last administration.”
In a conversation with ThinkProgress at the America’s Future Now conference this week, Ney joked that Gonzales should have served time in the Morgantown, WV federal prison — just like he did.
Gonzales on Sotomayor: ‘By any measure, she is well-qualified.’
Gonzales on Sotomayor: ‘By any measure, she is well-qualified.’
Since President Obama announced Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court this morning, conservatives — such as Karl Rove — have publicly questioned whether she has the qualifications and “intellect” for the job. Today on CNN, however, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said there is “no question” that Sotomayor is qualified:
GONZALES: I have no questions in my mind about her qualifications in terms of education, experience. A president is not required to nominate the most qualified person to the court. I think he’s obliged to nominate someone who is well-qualified, and I think by any measures, she is well-qualified. I think there are legitimate questions about her judicial philosophy.
Watch it:
Of course, Sotomayor may not want the endorsement of one of the most incompetent Attorneys General in history.
Alberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
Alberto Gonzales: ‘Empathy’ Means A Judge Saying ‘I Don’t Care What The Law Says’
Following Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s announcement that he planned to retire, conservatives have attacked and mocked President Obama’s statement that he is seeking a replacement who has “empathy” for “the daily realities of people’s lives.” “I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind!” bellowed RNC Chairman Michael Steele last Friday.
Now, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is getting in on the act. Appearing on NPR’s Tell Me More yesterday, Gonzales claimed that he is “worried” that judges with empathy would make “decisions based on what they think makes them feel good”:
GONZALES: I do worry a little bit, well, I worry, I worry about about justices on the court making decisions based on what they think makes them feel good. I don’t think it’s fair to expect society to anticipate the outcome of a case based upon what makes a justice feel good. In essence what you’re saying, I think, is that I’m going to, I don’t care what the law says, I’m going to come out, I’m going to pursue an outcome that I think is fair and just. I’m going to rewrite the law. And I think that’s dangerous.
Listen here:
Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick skewered the ridiculousness of “the Republican war on empathy” this past Monday, noting that “When the president talks about empathy, he talks not of legal outcomes but of an intellectual and ethical process: the ability to think about the law from more than one perspective.” Lithwick points out that in their attack on empathy, the GOP is basically arguing for judicial “solipsism“:
Obama may be wrong that empathy is the single most important quality a jurist can possess. But his Republican detractors cannot possibly be right, or even wise, in suggesting that a judge who listens only to herself is preferable to a judge who both listens to others and also considers her impact on others.
Now, if the GOP really wants to run out on a rail anyone with empathy or anyone who values it, far be it from me to object. Democrats will be more than happy to feel their pain. But to the extent that the debate over empathy may shape every Supreme Court discussion we are going to have this summer, let’s just be clear that the opposite of empathy isn’t rigor. It’s pretty close to solipsism, or the certain conviction that everything you’ll ever need to know about judging you learned from your own fine self.
Gonzales is not in a strong position to criticize others who supposedly “don’t care what the law says.” During his many years of service to President Bush, Gonzales earned a reputation for “dogged obedience to the President, which often has come at the cost of institutional independence and adherence to the rule of law.” While serving Bush, Gonzales advised him that the Geneva Conventions were “obsolete” and may have lied to Congress about the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.
Transcript: More »
Gonzales to attend White House correspondents’ dinner.
Gonzales to attend White House correspondents’ dinner.
Out of work and under investigation by Spanish authorities for his role in authorizing the Bush administration’s torture regime, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be coming back to Washington, D.C. to attend this weekend’s White House correspondents’ dinner. The Washington Post’s Sleuth reports:
You might think Gonzo would be a little bashful about showing up at a place that will be jam-packed full of the new guard in the Obama administration and the very Democrats in Congress who drove him from office. But no, he’ll be there all right this Saturday night. Gonzales is a confirmed guest of the Houston Chronicle, his old hometown paper.
Wanda Sykes is the entertainer for tomorrow night’s event, and President Obama will also deliver some (funny?) remarks.
Gonzales And Ashcroft Disagree With Rice: Just Because A President Says It Does Not Make It Legal
Gonzales And Ashcroft Disagree With Rice: Just Because A President Says It Does Not Make It Legal
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently tried to defend the Bush administration’s torture program in a discussion with a group of Stanford students on April 27. Channeling Richard Nixon, Rice said that “by definition,” once the president authorized “enhanced interrogations,” they were automatically legal:
Q: Is waterboarding torture in your opinion?
RICE: I just said, the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
Today, Dan Abrams released the transcript of a panel discussion he conducted with former attorneys general John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales that same day. When Abrams asks them a question similar to the one posed to Rice, Ashcroft and Gonzales come to a very conclusion — Nixon is wrong:
ASHCROFT: When the President does it. If he has the authority to do it, it means it’s not a crime.
ABRAMS: Take away the caveat there. If has the authority to do it. What President Nixon was saying was “When the President does it, that means its not illegal.”
ASHCROFT: Well, no. Obviously the President does not have carte blanche to do things – [Applause] that are illegal. [...]
ABRAMS: Do you disagree with President Nixon as well? [...]
GONZALES: I think that’s its dangerous to say that the President would have that kind of authority.
Also in the interview, when asked how about the job President Obama is doing, Gonzales replied, “I tend to follow President Bush’s model in terms of saying less — as opposed to Vice President Cheney’s [Laughter]. I’m often asked the same question.”
Transcript: More »
Harman responds to CQ: Report ‘recycles three year-old descredited reporting.’
Harman responds to CQ: Report ‘recycles three year-old descredited reporting.’
Rep. Jane Harman’s (D-CA) office issued a statement this afternoon responding to a story by CQ’s Jeff Stein, which reports that the NSA caught Harman offering a quid pro quo to unnamed Israeli agents in return for their help in becoming House Intelligence Committee chair. The report also said that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stopped an FBI investigation into Harman’s quid pro quo deal because he needed her help to sell the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. Harman’s statement denies the report and deflects blame onto the Bush administration for wiretapping a Member of Congress:
The CQ Politics story simply recycles three year-old discredited reporting of largely unsourced material to manufacture a ’scoop’ out of widely known and unremarkable facts – that Congresswoman Jane Harman is and has long been a supporter of AIPAC, and that some members of AIPAC regarded her as well-qualified to chair the House Intelligence Committee following the 2006 elections. Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former AIPAC employees and the Department has never informed her that she was or is the subject of or involved in an investigation. If there is anything about this story that should arouse concern, it is that the Bush Administration may have been engaged in electronic surveillance of members of the congressional Intelligence Committees.
Harman’s statement appears not to have fully addressed the issue regarding Gonzales, simply stating that the Department of Justice “has never informed her that she was or is the subject of or involved in an investigation.” This, of course, leaves open the possibility that an official from another executive department or a member of Congress told her of the case.
Spanish court agrees to consider criminal case against former Bush administration officials.
Spanish court agrees to consider criminal case against former Bush administration officials.
A Spanish court “has agreed to consider opening a criminal case against six former Bush administration officials…over allegations they gave legal cover for torture at Guantanamo Bay.” The officials include former attorney general Alberto Gonzales, former undersecretary of defense for policy Douglas Feith, former Cheney chief of staff David Addington, Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes. The AP has more details on the case:
Spanish law allows courts to reach beyond national borders in cases of torture or war crimes under a doctrine of universal justice, though the government has recently said it hopes to limit the scope of the legal process. [...]
Human rights lawyers brought the case before leading anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzon, who agreed to send it on to prosecutors to decide whether it had merit, Gonzalo Boye, one of the lawyers who brought the charges, told The Associated Press. [...]
The judge’s decision to send the case against the American officials to prosecutors means it will proceed, at least for now. Prosecutors must now decide whether to recommend a full-blown investigation, though Garzon is not bound by their decision.
Gonzales Claims U.S. Attorneys Were Not ‘Fired for Political Reasons,’ DOJ Report Said ‘Quite The Opposite’
Gonzales Claims U.S. Attorneys Were Not ‘Fired for Political Reasons,’ DOJ Report Said ‘Quite The Opposite’
On CNN last night, host Campbell Brown asked former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales how he let nine U.S. attorneys get fired “for political reasons” while he was running the Justice Depatment. “I disagree with that,” replied Gonzales, claiming that a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general on the 2006 firings had concluded that the attorneys were not “fired for partisan political reasons.”
Gonzales claimed that the report found that “most of these U.S. attorneys” were fired for “perfomance related reasons” and that it didn’t “draw definite conclusions” about the other firings:
BROWN: Your office fired nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons. There has been no disagreement about that. I mean, how could you let that happen?
GONZALES: Campbell, Campbell, Campbell. I disagree with that. You said that nine U.S. attorneys were fired for partisan political reasons. That’s not what the report said. Quite the opposite. The report clearly found that there were performance related reasons for the removal of most of these U.S. attorneys and with respect to the remainder, they didn’t have enough information to draw definite conclusions.
Watch it:
Gonzales’ assertion that the report vindicated his office of any political motives for the dismissals, however, is false. The report did draw “definite conclusions” about the firing of New Mexico U.S. Attorney David Iglesias
The evidence we uncovered in our investigation demonstrated that the real reason for Iglesias’s removal were the complaints from New Mexico Republican politicians and party activists about how Iglesias handled voter fraud and public corruption cases in the state.
As detailed above, many Republicans in New Mexico believed that fraudulent registrations by Democratic Party voters was a widespread problem in New Mexico, an evenly divided state politically that has had very close national elections. Beginning in the summer of 2004, New Mexico Republican Party activists talked to Iglesias about the “party’s . . . efforts” on the voter fraud issue, and sought to involve him in those efforts.
Iglesias refused to prosecute voter fraud cases sought by GOP activists and the report concluded that then-Sen. Pete Domenici’s (R-NM) complaints to the White House were a “primary factor” in Iglesias’ being placed on the firing list.
Gonzales: I don’t think anyone is going to prosecute me.
Gonzales: I don’t think anyone is going to prosecute me.
In his confirmation hearings, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder declared “waterboarding is torture,” worrying conservatives that he might pursue criminal prosecutions of officials involved in detainee interrogations. In an interview with NPR today, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he doesn’t believe he’ll be prosecuted:
On the question of prosecuting officers who employed any of the “extreme tactics” that the Bush administration has acknowledged, without admitting to any “torture” of detainees: “I don’t think that there’s going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.” Gonzales said. “Because again, these activities…. They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.”
When Holder is confirmed – with a vote expected Wednesday – he “will have to make a decision as to whether or not move forward with an investigation or a prosecution,” Gonzales said. “But under those circumstances, I find it hard to believe…
“Nonetheless, the very discussion about it is extremely discouraging,” the former attorney general said.
Gonzales recently wondered, “What is it that I did so fundamentally wrong?” As ThinkProgress noted, he politicized the Justice Department, approved torture, lied about warrantless wiretapping, and distorted pre-war intelligence.
On flight back to Texas, Gonzales cried, received a kiss from Bush.
On flight back to Texas, Gonzales cried, received a kiss from Bush.
Immediately after President Obama’s swearing-in yesterday, George W. Bush and a group of his loyalists — including Margaret Spellings, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzales — flew back to Texas for a “welcome home” rally. Cox News reporter Ken Herman caught up with Gonzales, who shared some of the moments from the plane ride:
GONZALES: The last thing he said as he was getting off the plane — he kissed me on the forehead — and he said, “Just stay strong.” [...]
HERMAN: Any tears shed on the plane by anybody?
GONZALES: By me, yeah. There were a few.
HERMAN: Why?
GONZALES: Just pride. Just love and appreciation for the man and what he did, Ken. I feel — being on this trip did a lot for me, in terms of just making me realize — it was a small part, but I played a part in protecting our country, and I take a great deal of pride in that.
When asked whether he still feels “good” about his service, Gonzales replied, “Absolutely. Even better.” Watch it:
The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever
The Top 43 Appointees Who Helped Make Bush The Worst President Ever
This item originally published in yesterday’s Progress Report. To receive The Progress Report in your email inbox everyday, click here.
Next week, “change is coming to America,” as President George W. Bush wraps up his tenure as one of the worst American presidents ever. He wasn’t able to accomplish such an ignominious feat all by himself, however; he had a great deal of help along the way. The ThinkProgress team heralds the conclusion of the Bush 43 presidency by bringing you our list of the top 43 worst Bush appointees. Did we miss anyone? Who should have been ranked higher? Let us know what you think.
1. Dick Cheney — The worst Dick since Nixon. The man who shot his friend while in office. The “most powerful and controversial vice president.” Until he got the job, people used to actually think it was a bad thing that the vice presidency has historically been a do-nothing position. Asked by PBS’s Jim Lehrer about why people hate him, Cheney rejected the premise, saying, “I don’t buy that.” His top placement in our survey says otherwise.
2. Karl Rove — There wasn’t a scandal in the Bush administration that Rove didn’t have his fingerprints all over — see Plame, Iraq war deception, Gov. Don Siegelman, U.S. Attorney firings, missing e-mails, and more. As senior political adviser and later as deputy chief of staff, “The Architect” was responsible for politicizing nearly every agency of the federal government.
3. Alberto Gonzales — Fundamentally dishonest and woefully incompetent, Gonzales was involved in a series of scandals, first as White House counsel and then as Attorney General. Some of the most notable: pressuring a “feeble” and “barely articulate” Attorney General Ashcroft at his hospital bedside to sign off on Bush’s illegal wiretapping program; approving waterboarding and other torture techniques to be used against detainees; and leading the firing of U.S. Attorneys deemed not sufficiently loyal to Bush.4. Donald Rumsfeld — After winning praise for leading the U.S. effort in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001, the former Defense Secretary strongly advocated for the invasion of Iraq and then grossly misjudged and mishandled its aftermath. Rumsfeld is also responsible for authorizing the use of torture against terror detainees in U.S. custody; according to a bipartisan Senate report, Rumsfeld “conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees.”
5. Michael Brown — This former commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association was appointed by Bush to head FEMA in 2003. After Katrina made landfall as a Category 4 hurricane, Brownie promptly did a “heck of a job” bungling the government’s relief efforts, and was sent back to Washington a few days later. He was forced to resign shortly thereafter.
6. Paul Wolfowitz — As Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2005, Wolfowitz was one of the primary architects of the
Iraq war, arguing for the invasion as early as Sept. 15, 2001. Testifying before Congress in February 2003, Wolfowitz said that it was “hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-SaddamIraq than it would take to conduct the war itself.” Wolfowitz eventually admitted that “for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction,” as a justification for war, “because it was the one reason everyone [in the administration] could agree on.”7. David Addington — “Cheney’s Cheney” was the “most powerful man you’ve never heard of.” As the leader of Bush’s legal team and Cheney’s chief of staff, Addington was the biggest proponent of some of Bush’s most notorious legal abuses, such as torture and warrantless surveillance, and is a loyal follower of the so-called unitary executive theory.
8. Stephen Johnson — The “Alberto Gonzales of the environment,” EPA Administrator Johnson subverted the agency’s mission at the behest of the White House and corporate interests, suppressing staff recommendations on pesticides, mercury, lead paint, smog, and global warming.9. Douglas Feith — Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 2001-2005, Feith headed up the notorious Office of Special Plans, an in-house Pentagon intelligence shop devised by Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz to produce intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. A subsequent investigation by the Pentagon’s Inspector General found the OSP’s work produced “conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence.”
10. John Bolton — As Undersecretary of State, Bolton offered a strong voice in favor of invading Iraq and pushed for the U.S. to disengage from the International Criminal Court and key international arms control agreements. A recess appointment landed Bolton the job of U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, despite his stringent animosity toward the world body. Today, he spends his time calling for war with Iran. More »
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll