10 1/2 Hours of “Strong backing”

March 20, 2007

7:15am today: Gonzales has "strong backing" of Bush
5:45pm today: Bush statement on the AG

If, like everybody expects, Bush announces Gonzales resignation, those were ten and a half hours of "strong backing". The presidents support for Michael Brown and Donald Rumsfeld had more stamina. Rove and Cheney – next please …

President Bush sent a powerful message of support Tuesday for embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, calling his longtime friend to express unwavering support in the face of calls for his resignation.
…
Bush called Gonzales from the Oval Office at 7:15 a.m. EDT and they spoke for several minutes about the political uproar over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, an issue that has thrust the attorney general into controversy and raised questions about whether he can survive. The White House disclosed Bush’s call to bolster Gonzales and attempt to rally Republicans to support him.
"The president reaffirmed his strong backing of the attorney general and his support for him," Perino said. "The president called him to reaffirm his support."
Bush Affirms Support for Gonzales

—

THE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE U.S. ATTORNEY MATTER SHORTLY AFTER RETURNING FROM KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI AT 5:45 PM, EDT, TODAY, MARCH 20, 2007, IN THE DIPLOMATIC RECEPTION ROOM
White House announcement

Posted by b on March 20, 2007 at 20:23 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Gonzales quietly appoints two new section chiefs

During a week when Albert Gonzales was very busy dealing with the firing of the eight US Attorneys, he managed to carve out enough time to finally appoint permanentt chiefs for the Public Integrity Section and the Fraud section. There was no public announcement.

~~before stepping down?~~ being moved laterally?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 20 2007 20:54 utc | 1

Everybody expects him to announce Gonzales’ stepping down today? Color me stupid, I guess, but that’s not what I expect. Unless they feel like Gonzales is completely cornered on potential perjury charges, I think they’ll try to ride this out. We’ll see.
A related question re this quote via Josh Marshall:

The White House will allow Rove and Miers to testify about the US Attorney Purge. But they can’t be under oath. It has to be behind closed doors and no transcript can be kept.

Can anyone explain – other than with Dem/Rep equivalent snark – why Patrick Leahy would agree to those terms?

Posted by: mats | Mar 20 2007 21:08 utc | 2

Hmm – no firing – just a defense of not letting Rove et al testify under oath – that may not hold up very long …

Posted by: b | Mar 20 2007 22:13 utc | 3

Looks like they’re going to the mattresses.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Mar 21 2007 0:42 utc | 4

How to “Question Authority,” when it’s Authority telling us how to question it? wise words, by Jeff Wells.
Looks like they’re going to the mattresses.
Yeah, right…
Being aloof, and a pushover, is also a control drama mechanism. What ‘they’ mean to gain by it, I’ll never know. However, I do know that often (though not always) victims choose to be a victim.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2007 1:26 utc | 5

for those following this, i recommend reading bigtentdemocrat at talkleft.com. kagro x also posted a convincing diary on the dkos front page with a different take – that it would fall to the u.s. attorney of the district of columbia to represent congress against the executive (happens to be a gonzales crony). btd, who is a lawyer, does not agree and says in this case it would be independent counsel.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 21 2007 1:37 utc | 6

We’ve all read just enough Shakespear to know how Act 3, Part 1 plays out. Brave new century indeed.

Posted by: Allen/Vancouver | Mar 21 2007 1:56 utc | 7

for those who are inclined to a last ditch effort:
from afterdowningstreet.org
CONFIRMED COMMITMENT TO VOTING NO
Rep. Raul Grijalva (only leaning no according to Politico)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Charles Rangel (via comments)
Rep. Maxine Waters
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
Rep. John Lewis (via comments, may vote “Present,” Politico)
VOTING NO but need to be called for confirmation
Rep. Dan Boren (leaning: The Hill)
Rep. Keith Ellison (leaning: The Hill, leaning No Politico)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (The Hill, leaning No Politico)
Rep. Pete Stark (The Hill, Politico)
Rep. Edolphus Towns (The Hill)
Rep. Diane Watson (The Hill, Politico)
Rep. Jim Marshall (Politico)
VOTING YES
Rep. Jerry McNearney (from comments; note: this guy got elected on peace platform)
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (The Hill)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (The Hill)
Rep. Melissa Bean (The Hill)
Rep. Nancy Boyda (The Hill)
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (The Hill)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (The Hill, sold out for pork: Politico)
Rep. Chet Edwards (The Hill)
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (The Hill)
Rep. Phil Hare (The Hill)
Rep. Tim Mahoney (leaning: The Hill)
Rep. Mazie Hirono (leaning: The Hill)
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (The Nation and via comments)
Rep. Steve Kagen (The Hill)
Rep. Tom Lantos (The Hill)
Rep. John Larson (The Hill)
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (The Hill)
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Chris Murphy (The Hill)
Rep. Patrick Murphy (The Hill)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (The Nation)
Rep. John Olver (via comments)
Rep. Donald Payne (The Hill)
Rep. John Salazar (The Hill)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. John Salazar (The Hill)
Rep. Jose Serrano (The Nation)
Rep. Joe Sestak
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (The Hill)
Rep. Tim Walz (The Hill)
Rep. Charlie Wilson (The Hill)
UNDECIDED/UNKNOWN
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Robert Brady
Corrine Brown
Michael Capuano
Julia Carson
Yvette Clarke (undecided but leaning No, Politico)
William “Lacy” Clay
Emanuel Cleaver
Rep. Steve Cohen (The Hill, leaning No Politico)
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Chaka Fattah
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Luis Gutierrez
John Hall
Phil Hare
Maurice Hinchey
Michael Honda
Hank Johnson
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Marcy Kaptur
Carolyn Kilpatrick
David Loebsack
Ed Markey
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Juanita Millender-McDonald (leaning No, Politico)
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Ed Pastor
Bobby Rush
Linda Sanchez
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Bennie Thompson
John Tierney
Tom Udall
Nydia Velazquez
Diane Watson
Mel Watt
Henry Waxman
Peter Welch
Bobby Scott (undecided, Politico)
Danny Davis (undecided but leaning yes, Politico; previously voting No, The Hill)
afterdowningstreet and pda encourage phone calls to the undecideds tomorrow asking them to support lee’s amendment to fund withdrawal and not to vote yes on the supplemental unless it includes lee’s amendment. reach the congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121. phone numbers for progressive caucus here.

Posted by: conchita | Mar 21 2007 4:02 utc | 8

Read you link, UncleSam #5, and if Dailykos is a bellweather, the Dems will prove to have all the firmness of a slinky.
Seemingly, Americans do not believe they have the right NOT to be lied to by their OWN public officials.
Should have been the Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution, but our forefathers never imagined we’d need it. Too late now . . .

Posted by: Gaianne | Mar 21 2007 5:28 utc | 9

We shall see (if we live so long) Uncle&Co.
Certainly a compromise is possible, maybe likely. Gonzo thrown to the sharks would probably appease the Dems for the time being.
But that would increase the pressure on the ongoing Bush disaster, which is looking shaky, to say the least.
But without the satisfaction of seeing Gonzo floating face down, surrounded by fins, the Dems can just issue the subpoenas and the story becomes a continuous media stream.
Bush cannot let Rove testify, so he has to make a deal or get the water torture treatment.

Posted by: Dick Durata | Mar 21 2007 5:59 utc | 10

I’ve already fully resigned myself to a Pelosi-Reid ~~Smackdown~~ Backdown
Remember, Bush and Cheney are still illegally wiretapping and surveilling anyone who crosses them. Nancy’s college nudie photos and Reid’s endorsements from Mistress Leatherchaps and the girls at the Nevada Ho Ranch are still on file, just waiting to be “leaked.” At best, we’ll get an “interview” in a secret bunker with no legal standing — in the name of “bipartisanship.” Sorry. That’s just the confidence Nancy and Harry have instilled in me so far.
Speaking of wiretaps…
AT&T and Verizon obey FBI emergency requests, even if they’re of dubious legality, and they get paid for it. But AT&T can’t be sued, they say, because that would endanger national security.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2007 6:03 utc | 11

grrr make that… and they get paid for it.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Mar 21 2007 6:07 utc | 12

A good editorial in today’s New York Times:
A HREF=” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21wed1.html“>What People Really Need
[snip]
The White House also put an unacceptable condition on the documents it would make available, by excluding e-mail messages within the White House. Mr. Bush’s overall strategy seems clear: to stop Congress from learning what went on within the White House, which may well be where the key decisions to fire the attorneys were made.
[snip]
Without the truth, there can be no democracy. The U.S. population has lived under a dictatorship for far too long.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 21 2007 12:21 utc | 13

Oops lost a character there…
What People Really Need

Posted by: Rick | Mar 21 2007 12:27 utc | 14

Bush fights back on behalf of his embattled attorney general

WASHINGTON – President Bush fought back Tuesday in the controversy over eight fired federal prosecutors, defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, refusing to let his aides testify publicly and demanding that Democrats “drop the partisanship.”

From Gonzales approved FBI spying on Americans (they don’t even do ANY paperwork now, just have the criminal telecoms deliver the records and tap dance), to Gonzales sanctioned torture in the Gonzales gulag, to Gonzales’ political hatchet jobs amongst US Attorneys, Alberto Gonzales has been a one-man constitutional crime wave.
He needs to be impeached. He needs to be impeached to get him out of politics once and for all, and to nullify the presidential pardon.
Most of the criminals in the present, George XLIII administration were criminals in the George XLI and/or Ronald I administrations. Elliot Abrams comes to mind as the poster boy for convicted criminals now at the very top of this regime.
The present sorry state of these United States would never have come about, not to mention the War Crimes that have taken more than a half-million, perhaps a million innocent Iraqi lives, had it not been for the “undead” in the present regime.
Impeach Alberto Gonzales. Save us from future attacks of the “undead”. Stake the hearts of these vampires or they will return to suck or blood again and again, just as surely as night follows day.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Mar 21 2007 14:02 utc | 15

I thought Jeffrey Feldman’s take in HuffPo was pretty good:

In a scripted moment of imperial bravado, President Bush held a press conference yesterday to address the scandal over his Attorney General having lied to Congress. Why this sudden move? In a word: framing.

Old (i.e. reality) framing: firings, Bush loyalty, deceit, lying, Congressional oversight.
New (Bush friendly) framing: resignations, leadership, explanation, incomplete, Democrat fishing expedition.
Goal: get the MSM using the “new” keywords.

Posted by: Hamburger | Mar 21 2007 16:44 utc | 16

Back to Main