Saturday, April 21, 2007

mr. gonzales: when your own vote "no confidence", it is time to go. . .

this morning's washington post reporting
has truly covered the waterfront on the topic:

Bush Rebuffs GOP Pressure For
Gonzales to Step Down After Testimony,
Attorney General Loses Lawmakers' Support

By Peter Baker and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, April 21, 2007; Page A03

. . .President Bush yesterday stood by
his embattled friend, Attorney General
Alberto R. Gonzales, defying the broad
bipartisan consensus emerging in Washing-
ton after this week's Senate hearing that
Gonzales has so badly damaged his own
credibility that he should resign. . .

. . .a wide array of Republicans described
Gonzales with phrases such as "dead
man walking
," and even some White
House aides privately voiced hope that he
will step down, on his own. . .

Telephone calls yesterday to dozens of
GOP lawmakers, lobbyists, and current
and former Bush administration officials
found almost no support for the attorney general. . .

"Congressional confidence in his ability
has eroded severely," said Rep. Adam H.
Putnam (Fla.), the third-ranking House
Republican leader, who yesterday became
the latest to call for Gonzales's resignation.
"There is widespread concern among my
colleagues about the leadership shown by
the attorney general. . . . This has now
reached the point where it's larger
than any one man. . ."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a Judiciary
Committee member, said Gonzales should
"have a frank discussion with the White
House," adding: "If he and the president
decide that he cannot be an effective
leader moving forward, then he should
resign. As he said during the hearing,
'It's not about Al Gonzales.' The bottom
line is that he must do what is in the
best interest of the Department of Justice. . ."

and that was his "base" talkin'. . .

mr. gonzales, your blind-loyalty to mr.
bush should trump his apparently-equally-
blind and empty-headed loyalty to you.

you should resign, if only to stave off
the prospect of emerging bipartisan talk of

i m p e a c h m e n t. . .

No comments: