It is driving me nuts each time I hear Gonzales say "I was not surprised" some U.S. Attorney was dismissed--and this meme reeks of Luntz, if not of outright Rovian drive-by smear-ege.
Repeatedly, Gonzales says, he was not involved, he didn’t see the facts, he doesn’t know who fingered them, he can’t remember exactly when the tooth fairy left the list under his pillow...BUT when it comes to the alledged incompetence of dismissed U.S. Attorney X, Y or Z, "I was not surprised."
Implication: Well, I may not know why, but EVERYONE knows why. He/she was so bad, it was general knowledge. (Nudge nudge wink wink.)
Really, Fredo? Then please explain the following (I yell at the radio--hoping some Senator can hear me):
- ON WHAT DO YOU BASE YOUR LACK OF SURPRISE?
- On substantiated evidence? No of course not. You weren’t involved. You knew nothing. (And surely, if you HAD real evidence, you could hardly have NOT gotten involved. Right?)
- So that leaves UNSUBSTANTIATED rumor--also known as GOSSIP.
- So why did you NOT follow up on the gossip? If it was serious enough to "not surprise" you, why did you not get involved?
- AND WHERE DID YOU HEAR THIS GOSSIP?
- Did you hear it from your staff? If so, were you really too incurious to ask "Can you back that up?" (Or did you just pull the sheet over your head, giggle, and ask for another s’more, and crack on Edward’s haircut, and swoon over how dreamy the Prez looks in his latest satin-and-leather embroidered Presidentail/cowboy/soldier outfit? Sorry. I’m imagining the slumber parties where policy gets formed at the AG’s office.")
- Did you hear it from the White House? So who in the White House was dis’ing these attorneys? Could it be ROVE. Could it be BUSH? To paraphrase Gomer: "Surprise, surprise, surprise--NOT!"
End of rant...EXCEPT I can think of only one VALID reason Gonzales would "not be surprised." Simply put (to be carved on stone):
Yet more Bush appointees being incompetent? It is surprising only when they are NOT.