Monday wasn't a good day for democracy.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did anything but, revealing the proceedings to be as big a sham as the government he was protecting. When he wasn't avoiding tough questions, Gonzales spent the day giving Senators - and America - a glimpse into this administration's reckless, above-the-law attitude.
One of the main contentions against Gonzales prior to the hearing was his dishonesty - he
lied under oath about warrantless wiretapping during his confirmation. Taking that into account, it stands to reason that he would have been sworn in Monday.
He wasn't, and that fact gave Gonzales an out in the face of tough questioning. It also allowed Judiciary Committee Republicans to give the hearings a veneer of bipartisan inquiry without ceding an inch of
actual West Wing culpability to the left.
And while it appeared Monday that some committee Republicans weren't toeing the same administration line as Gonzales, don't be fooled into thinking they'll step out of line when their vote is really on the line. Why? Because a party guided by Karl Rove isn't about good governance, it's about maintaining power at all costs*. And if that weren't the case, none of us would have ever heard about Valerie Plame, would we?
How else could you explain the revelation that Rove - a walking national security threat - is conducting back-office strong-arm sessions with committee Republicans, warning them that a vote against the president is a vote against any and all support from the party apparatus come election time? Take this logic further: Can you honestly tell me that a party willing to blackmail its own during one of the nation's worst Constitutional crises would also be unwilling to spy on its detractors? Or journalists?
Representing that bankruptcy of character Monday before the committee was Gonzales himself, whose entire testimony could be condensed into one word: No. Or, better yet, two words: Fuck you. Because how else, other than "Fuck you, that's why," could you explain Gonzales's stunning lack of candor and forthrightness? All day, Gonzales dodged and evaded, unable to even answer simple questions. When Sen. Joe Biden asked Gonzales whether or not innocent Americans are being spied upon, the Attorney General responded, "Sir, I can't give you absolute assurance." I find that frightening.
Senators grilled Gonzales, saying, among other things, "The inherent authority argument ... seems to have no boundaries" and that one of his answers "just defies logic and plain English." And those condemnations came from the committee's Republicans. Summing up the day's proceedings, Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy said, "Of course, I'm sorry, Mr. Attorney General, I forgot you can't answer any questions that might be relevant to this."
It bears repeating that this administration has no regard to the rule of law. To them, laws aren't laws so much as they're tools, a notion best illustrated yesterday by Gonzales's characterization of FISA - the law this White House has repeatedly, admittedly broken - as a "useful tool." Said Sen. Dick Durbin:
Referring to FISA as a useful tool in wiretapping is like referring to speed limits and troopers with radar guns as useful tools on a motoring trip.
I think FISA is not there as a useful tool to the administration. It is there as a limitation on the power of a president when it comes to wiretapping.
And I think your use of that phrase, "useful tool," captures the attitude of this administration toward this law: We'll use it when it doesn't cause a problem; we'll ignore it when we have to."
No truer words have ever been spoken about the Bush administration. The only laws that count are the ones they're within. And, when they're not within the law, they play by their own rules. In the final analysis, historians will note that the Bush administration could have obeyed the law. They just didn't. Nor did they want to. And
that's un-American.
* If you think about this for a moment, that's not entirely the case. Sure, Rove seems to be focused - at least on paper - in preserving Republican hegemony. That said, crippling unruly Republican Senators to protect the lame-duck president can only hurt the party long-term.