Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today, effective immediately, telling reporters that he wanted to spend more time eavesdropping on his family.
Mr. Gonzales, a champion of domestic surveillance and warrantless wiretaps while in office, said he was “totally stoked” about turning his prying eyes on his own family.
“Domestic surveillance begins at home,” Mr. Gonzales said at a White House press conference. “That means nobody in my family is above suspicion, not even the little ones,” an apparent reference to Mr. Gonzales’ children.
(go to borowitzreport.com for rest of article)
-------
Here is my response to Mr. Borowitz: "Might he not also simply fire (or have someone fire) his children? I can hear the remaining Bush loyalists now, saying that said firings are not illegal. (After all, don't all children serve at the pleasure of their parents?)"
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 16
On a serious, "whoa!" note, I heard a long-time DOJ attorney on NPR this afternoon. He noted that there are portraits of all of the AG's, that many are hanging in various offices, and that the ones noone wants because they have dubious legacies hang on a "Wall of Shame" on the 7th floor. He said something like: they will need to create a new wall for Mr. Gonzales' portrait. Ouch!!!
(BTW, Mr. Luthor, you might better appreciate the art of titling an article if you actually "published" any. But, that might require you to do more than simple, mindless sniping.)
What Mr. C perceives as an insult is apparently (a) the reference to lack of articles, and (b) the sniping reference.
I don't care or mind that Mr. Luthor nor Mr. C. don't publish articles. But, when Mr. Luthor tries to snipe based only on the headline, I felt it necessary to point it (lack of headline-writing efforts) out. I also explained that in my response, along with an admission that I agreed with Mr. Luthor that Gonzales should not have given a reason and a pinch of self-deprecation.
As for the "sniping" reference, I plead the truth as a defense - not only based upon his response to me (that I'm too close-minded to accept a valid reason), but upon reviewing the first page of his recent comments.
Regarding Mr. C's question: I fully understand "political appointees". What relevance that had to anything I've written in this thread (or any other thread, for that matter), I am not sure. Mr. Gonzales was - is - under pressure for a LARGE number of reasons. His credibility with Republicans and Democrats alike was destroyed by self-inflicted wounds in hearings about a number of subjects - not just the US Atty firings. And, by the way, even though the President can hire/fire USA's, what part of keeping politics out of prosecutors' arsenal do you not understand? (Would you feel the same way if a President/AG with whom you did not agree was heavily leaning on prosecutors to selectively prosecute you and your party-mates for purely political reasons?)
This isn't funny to the folks that have stood by Mr. Gonzales... all two of them.
(*Keith C. mysteriously deleted his comment after I responded to him with some substance.)