From the AP (via CNN), this morning:
Specter calls Gonzales testimony ‘very damaging’
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has hurt the Bush administration and the Justice Department with his poor handling of the firing of eight federal prosecutors, a leading Republican said Sunday.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Gonzales was certainly undermining himself and his agency’s law enforcement efforts.
Also from the AP (also via CNN), also this morning:
Bush: Gonzales testimony ‘increased my confidence’
WASHINGTON — President Bush gave embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a strong vote of confidence on Monday despite scant support for him among key Republicans.“This is an honest, honorable man, in whom I have confidence,” Bush said.
The president said that Gonzales’ testimony before skeptical Judiciary Committee senators last week “increased my confidence” in his ability to lead the Justice Department. Separately, a White House spokeswoman said, “He’s staying.”
Well, there you have it. And it’s time to officially close the books on the ol “Is President Bush really dumb or is he a shrewd operator playing dumb?” debate. Granted, those books have been closed before, but now it’s time to glue ‘em shut, wrap them in chains, padlock the chains, throw ‘em into a sack, and drop the sack into the ocean over the Mariana Trench where it will sink to the lowest, most remote depths on the planet, to be viewed only by strange, bulbous, slimy creatures with faintly glowing appendages (and who will also consider the whole thing “a no-brainer”).
Let’s remind ourselves that George W. Bush was the candidate that more Americans wanted to have a beer with, a criterion about as useful as selecting a Miss America based on how “easy” she looks. It wasn’t even a “Mr. Smith” scenario, in which America wanted to be led by a regular guy possessed of uncommon abilities; Bush didn’t seem to have those uncommon abilities. It wasn’t clear that he even had the more common ones. He just seemed like he wasn’t a smarty-pants.
He wasn’t. And in 2000, that was all that mattered. We’d just been through a rewarding but exhausting relationship with a very intense, complex guy. Bush seemed nice enough, and he really wanted to go out with us. What could possibly go wrong?
Like a lot of bad dates gone tragically awry, we found out the answer to that question nine months later. And all of the sudden we were stuck with the guy for the most difficult and consequential part of our lives. And that’s when the self-deception really kicked into gear.
Even from Democrats, the couple of years following September 11th were filled with talk of Bush being shrewd, pretend-dumb, or at least completely beholden to the ingenious, Machiavellian forces of Rove and Cheney. Or Rumsfeld. Ashcroft, maybe? Someone in there was supersmart and brilliantly using the tragic events of 9/11 to achieve their own well-thought-out political ends… Even people relentlessly opposed to the Administration didn’t want to believe that we were facing the new horror of international Islamist terrorism behind a dimwitted millionaire manchild and the Special Ed class he installed around him.
It’s time to believe it. Even a lot of the more intelligent people in the administration have special “challenges” that should have kept them out of the mainstream - particular obsessions or compulsions or desires that make them unable to see reality and unfit to serve. And even those defective autocrats are outnumbered by the rank-and-file of Pat Robertson Community College graduates who are barely capable of completing the paperwork that documents their larger incompetencies.
Could it be true? Could we be going to war because the guy on top is still mad on his Dad’s behalf and his friends either want to broaden their oil portfolios or test out a completely ill-conceived geopolitical hunch? And nobody’s got even the basic competence to effect those goals or evaluate our chances? Really? No. Somebody here has to know what they’re doing…
Nobody did. Nobody who was listened to, anyway. And the President who’d gotten as far as he had by trusting his “gut” reasoned he’d might as well continue to trust it (in fairness, his gut does seem to function a lot more efficiently than his head). He continues to trust it to this day, even as the leaders in his own party have stopped the whole “smiling and backing away” approach and have adopted a new “screaming and running” strategy.
The Libby thing, the Gonzales business, the climate change issue, even the Iraq War are just beginning to show us the tip of the iceberg of blind, selfish, cloddish incompetence that we’ve allowed into our highest offices. The Republicans who are now fleeing towards the exits bear some responsibility for so cynically backing the “most electable” guy in their midst, reasoning that putting their party back in charge was worth electing someone of questionable abilities. And the millions of Americans who voted for the guy and hundreds of reporters who covered him… everybody figured that if really was that dumb, then somebody would’ve stopped him…
Nobody did. Bush was a literally Texas leaguer, and he dropped right in there. And with a mighty, strong, firm, likable, from-the-gut “Duhh!” he will continue to provide unwavering leadership and hire people who are sadly, literally “like-minded.”
This isn’t news to many of you, of course. But watching Gonzales up on the stand and then watching the President’s response really brought it home for me. We’re being led by those kids at the lunch table who could barely be trusted not to plunge their pudding spoons into their own eyes. And they’ve got nukes.
About that beer…





28 comments
Yr. Ed.
April 23, 2007 at 10:47 am
1It’s “a criterion.“
Maximum Bob
April 23, 2007 at 11:21 am
2During the 2000 election, Congressman J.C. Watts told those who questioned Bush’s intelligence, “You can buy clever.” But he never explained how a dim bulb could be compelled to listen to clever, or even recognize it in the first place. Next time, we should make a point of asking.
siobhan
April 23, 2007 at 12:44 pm
3What can you do about people like this? Down is up, and the decider is doing great compared to congress (at least that’s the way you can spin it if you don’t actually bother to cite poll results for this year vs. the old congress).
Ann
April 23, 2007 at 1:12 pm
4And why the hell quote Reagan for that old joke? He never said an original thing in his entire life. It just serves to promote the myth of Reagan’s folksy wisdom.
Bits
April 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm
5Strange that you mention those “strange, bulbous, slimy creatures with faintly glowing appendages”? Last night I thought about them for the first time in 20 years. Have they actually been in the news lately … does a certain person bring them to mind for a lot of us?
Mojo
April 23, 2007 at 2:51 pm
6a criterion about as useful as selecting a Miss America based on how “easy” she looks
There’s another one?
Steve
April 23, 2007 at 3:02 pm
7Hey, Adam, you’re supposed to be a comedian. Make me laugh.
All I want to do after reading the above is to weep uncontrollably.
piglet
April 23, 2007 at 4:18 pm
8When Al Gore “lost” the election in 2000, I thought to myself how he would probably be able to laugh at the country someday and say, “I told you he would eff it up.” I just had no idea how horribly thoroughly the Bushies were going to allow him to say that.
Rabbi Yehuda Abramowitz
April 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm
9“(in fairness, his gut does seem to function a lot more efficiently than his head)”. Oy, vay iz mir! I’m glad I’m not the poor schmuck who had to verify that statement!
cooper
April 23, 2007 at 5:35 pm
10siobhan, James P. Pinkerton is a raw meat wingnut from way back. Pay him and his opinions no mind.
Maximum Bob
April 23, 2007 at 6:58 pm
11Sorry to go off topic, but I just read on the NY Times site that David Halberstam died in a car accident south of San Francisco. He was 73.
It is on days like these that I fear we are running out of good guys.
siobhan
April 23, 2007 at 7:54 pm
12I think it was in your neck of the woods, MBob. (You’re south bay, right?) They said it was on Willow near Dumbarton Bridge. From the Chron:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/23/BAGGPPE0TL3.DT L
SpottedDog
April 23, 2007 at 8:28 pm
13I listened to the Wait Wait podcast today, and I was chuckling to myself all afternoon. “that’s alot of nappy bottomed Hos”. Very clever. What struck me is that there was a very small window for that joke. Brilliant.
t.a. barnhart
April 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm
14Molly ivins always said Bush wasn’t as dumb as people wanted to make him out to be, and since she went to school with him, i guess she’d know.
no, rather than dumb, you have two other things. one, as Al Franken noted so many times, Bush has no intellectual curiosity. that’s the ultimate definition of stupid, i think: to not care enough to want to find out, to learn, to explore.
but worse is that Bush and the rest are True Believers. it’s not that he’s too dumb to see that Gonzo has to go. he believes so utterly in their cause, and that God is behind them, that it is literally impossible for him to see or hear anything negative coming from his AG, or from Iraq, or from anywhere else he needs things to be perfect. and quite likely, the faith he had when he took office has been exacerbated by the pressure of office — that is, he’s gone totally fucking nuts. just like Nixon did. every bad characteristic is made far worse by desperation and failure and the unfairness of it all. he’s deteriorating right before our eyes, and to call him dumb is to underestimate just how bad it’s become.
historyenne
April 24, 2007 at 2:17 am
15I think in the case of his response to Gonzales, its not dumbness so much as the belief that, as he is the Decider, and a popular war president with the whole country behind him (he doesn’t read the papers, remember), that he only needs to say that something is true to make it true. It’s stubborn self-delusional-ness, which is more a function of dumbness than dumbness itself. He has the luxury of believing what he wants to believe without the pesky interference of reality. Must be nice.
jg
April 24, 2007 at 5:27 am
16The Boston Globe has an interesting take on the political advatages of stiking by Gonzalez.
David
April 24, 2007 at 5:48 am
17Every time I see a clip of the Uncurious One (lack of intellectual curiosity is a very useful definition of dumb), all I can think is, “Jesus and Mary, this clusterf**ck is the president of my country. Do cry for us.
Sharon
April 24, 2007 at 5:51 am
18I’d have a beer with GW, as long as I can bring the pretzels.
Maximum Bob
April 24, 2007 at 8:23 am
19Thanks for the link, siobhan. The story also made the front page of this morning’s Mercury News. Very sad.
siobhan
April 24, 2007 at 9:17 am
20I feel really bad for the guy who was driving. He was doing it for the opportunity to spend time with someone he admired, and then to have that happen… how do you get over it?
uncle chet
April 24, 2007 at 3:20 pm
21On another note, readers here may find this article about Karl Rove surprisingly up-lifting and encouraging.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/24/rove-investigation-launched/
Back to lurking.
Zee Man
April 24, 2007 at 3:29 pm
22Okay. I admit it. gillian got me hooked on Sparky and all his friends, so now Tuesday is the best day of the week. Thanks, gillian.
gillian
April 24, 2007 at 3:39 pm
23Time for Toles! And you’re welcome, Zee Man.
cooper
April 24, 2007 at 5:17 pm
24uncle chet, MSNBC pointed out that the person in charge of the investigation has been accused of using his position to push Republican congressional candidates and mix official policy with partisan politics. (Now there’s a surprise.) He may not want to get to the bottom of Karl Rove’s transgressions, but rather use his investigative powers to interfere with the Senate’s look into these same issues and, in general, just muddy up the water, so that Mr Rove skates away again.
David
April 24, 2007 at 6:11 pm
25It’s always time for Toles, gillian. Thanks.
Dennis Kucinich is introducing articles of impeachment against Cheney for lying us into invading Iraq. John Conyers is chair of that committee. Let the fecal matter fly. Cheney is far more significant than anyone else in the invasion of Iraq and the outing of Valerie Plame. Bush strikes me as a willing rubber stamp who has been led to believe that wielding the rubber stamp is presidential. The most comical manifestation of his mindset, of course, is casting about for a commander-in-chief for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They just need an inkpad big enough for his forehead, and a plastic surgeon to affix a raised OK and his signature to said forehead.
President Bobblehead
April 25, 2007 at 4:41 am
26I do have a timetable: When the United States has achieved climax, namely securing Iraq’s oil for US, we will withdraw, except for the requisite (didn’t think I knew that word, did you?) forces to protect our hard won military control over our oil reserves in Iraq. Dick has made it clear to me that we are not leaving with our oil. To do otherwise would fail to honor our American men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Operation Iraqi Freedom, not to mention piss off Exxon-Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Conoco, Halliburton, and the American Enterprise Institute. People, I do have a constituency to answer to.
LeRoy
April 25, 2007 at 7:18 pm
27Speaking from a “realpolitik” p.o.v, the Bush Administration should probably circle the wagons for A.G. Gonzalez. Can you imagine the White house trying to get a new A.G. through a Democratic-lead confirmation hearing with openly hostile senior Republicans also in opposition? The only candidate the Bush administration could get through would be an independently-minded Republican. The advantage of having an A.G. who is loyal to the executive branch and not the Republican party is that the other questions which have troubled this administration, such as the suspension of habeus corpus, the domestic wire tapping issues, signing statements which bypass laws, ignoring the Geneva conventions, not allowing congressional over-sight. An independently-minded A.G. would probably be sceptical of the executive branches bids for executive authority. A.G. Gonzalez is loyal to the person, not the party and will be willing to accept the slings and arrows of a Democratic congress, a senior Republican minority, a Washington media fearful of the next administration, a growingly dubious American public and history.
(P.S. I thought I put this in earlier; please delete if it’s not funny enough.)
David
April 26, 2007 at 5:12 am
28LeRoy,
I think you’re dead on.