Thursday, July 26, 2007

In Defense of Alberto Gonzales

Yesterday I went on an extensive safari of the right-wing blogosphere seeking out defenders of Alberto Gonzales. It was a difficult journey made more so by my need for frequent breaks to wash my hands, shower, and gargle with antiseptic mouthwash. I also took one bath in antiseptic mouthwash (for a while I smelled minty fresh) because I felt so yucky wading through their crap. Still, there are a few defenders out there.
  • He makes a great punching bag. By far this is the most frequent defense. Gonzales may be a liar, incompetent, and a craven idiot, but as long as Democrats are attacking him they can't attack Bush. (This is based on the false assumption that Democrats are not capable of multi-tasking.)
  • He is no worse than Janet Reno. Given that Reno is the Republican's most hated AG that is hardly praise. Usually this defense is tied to the type of fond remembrance of the Waco Wackos (the Branch Davidians who murdered government agents in 1993) that inspired Tim McVeigh to blow up a government building in Oklahoma City.
  • He didn't "lie" so much as he was just deliberately "misleading." Based on the belief that there a difference between the two. Legally, there isn't.
  • At least he didn't lie about sex. For a Constitutional Officer to lie under oath to Congress about his acts in office is a forgivable sin compared to blow jobs.
  • Clinton did it; whatever 'it' is at the moment. Apparently, Republicans now believe that Bill Clinton had the model presidency against which all others ought to be judged.
  • Gonzales is the victim of a "perjury trap." This defense contents that wily Senators trapped Gonzales into committing perjury by the unfair tactic of asking him questions when they knew he was going to lie.
Conclusion - This was a hard slog because most Republicans are trying desperately to believe that Alberto Gonzales does not exist. I had to wade through a disgusting swamp of over 50 websites to find a handful of defenders. Even his most rabid (defined as "affected with or pertaining to rabies; mad") defenders believe he is a liar (although in a good way), incompetent, and/or an ignorant twit (again, they mean that in a good way). One defender even wrote that "there is nothing criminal about being a buffoon."

No comments: