THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED COLUMNISTWhen Will Fredo Get Whacked? By FRANK RICHPublished: March 25, 2007 Alberto Gonzales has been present at every dubious legal crossroads in President Bushs career.
PRESIDENT BUSH wants to keep everything that happens in his White House secret, but when it comes to his own emotions, hes as transparent as a teenager on MySpace. On Monday morning he observed the Iraq wars fourth anniversary with a sullen stay-the-course peroration so perfunctory he seemed to sleepwalk through its smorgasbord of recycled half-truths (Iraqi leaders are beginning to meet the benchmarks) and boilerplate (There will be good days, and there will be bad days). But at a press conference the next day to defend his attorney general, the president was back in the saddle, guns blazing, Mr. Bring Em On reborn. He vowed to vanquish his Democratic antagonists much as he once, so very long ago, pledged to make short work of insurgents in Iraq. The Jekyll-and-Hyde contrast between these two performances couldnt be a more dramatic indicator of Mr. Bushs priorities in his presidencys endgame. His passion for protecting his power and his courtiers far exceeds his passion for protecting the troops hes pouring into Iraqs civil war. But why go to the mat for Alberto Gonzales? Even Bush loyalists have rarely shown respect for this crony whom the president saddled with the nickname Fredo; they revolted when Mr. Bush flirted with appointing him to the Supreme Court and shun him now. The attorney generals alleged infraction misrepresenting a Justice Department purge of eight United States attorneys, all political appointees, for political reasons seems an easy-to-settle kerfuffle next to his infamous 2002 memo dismissing the Geneva Conventions strictures on torture as quaint and obsolete. Thats why the presidents wild overreaction is revealing. So far his truculence has been largely attributed to his slavish loyalty to his White House supplicants, his ideological belief in unilateral executive-branch power and, as always, his need to shield the Machiavellian machinations of Karl Rove (who installed a protégé in place of one of the fired attorneys). But the fierceness of Mr. Bushs response to the ludicrous extreme of forbidding transcripts of Congressional questioning of White House personnel indicates there is far more fire to go with all the Beltway smoke. Mr. Gonzales may be a nonentity, but hes a nonentity like Zelig. Hes been present at every dubious legal crossroads in Mr. Bushs career. That conjoined history began in 1996, when Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, was summoned for jury duty in Austin. To popular acclaim, he announced he was glad to lend his average guy perspective to a drunken driving trial. But there was one hitch. On the juror questionnaire, he left blank a required section asking, Have you ever been accused, or a complainant, or a witness in a criminal case? A likely explanation for that omission, unknown to the public at the time, was that Mr. Bush had been charged with disorderly conduct in 1968 and drunken driving in 1976. Enter Mr. Gonzales. ---MORE-- http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/2007/03/ides-of-march-2003-frank-rich-march-to.html And More http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/ http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/ http://mparent7777-3.blogspot.com/ http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/38 MARC PARENT CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS http://mparent7777.blogspot.com/ New website mparent7777 mparent --------------------------------- Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.
