Yesterday’s ‘Gonzo-meter’ was pointing squarely at a 82.5435% chance of departure, up 2.5% from Tuesday, and yet Gonzales is still hanging on. The ultra-conservative National Review says “Alberto Gonzales should resign”, and yet he plods on resolutely, head stuck firmly in the sand, convinced that one day he’ll wake up and discover the country’s finally moved on. Except that isn’t going to happen. And what Gonzales seems to have forgotten is that every extra day he clings to his job like a comfort blanket brings him closer to a public execution, the inevitable outcome of this debacle.

For those who haven’t been following this bizarrely-unfolding scandal, Gonzales is effectively accused of dismissing eight federal prosecutors for purely political reasons (mostly relating to election fraud). It is still unclear how much of the decision actually rests with him, but his constant denial of involvement and the evidence released blatantly contradict each other. Gonzales seems convinced that, with the resignation of his Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, the media and Congress have their fall guy. What he seems to have forgotten is that nobody wants to be the next Scooter Libby. Even Scooter Libby didn’t at the end.

Sampson is due to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee today, and is expected to remain loyal to Gonzales as far as possible. But Sampson isn’t stupid, either – if he’s going down, he’s bringing as many people down with him as possible, and if it gets bad enough, that will include Gonzales. In another move which doesn’t look promising for Gonzales, his senior counsellor is refusing to testify, pleading the Fifth Amendment and taking an open-ended leave of absence. Congress also plans to hold hearings on whether the Bush Administration can legitimately claim executive privilege and refuse to allow Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify in the investigation. In short – nobody is coming out of this looking good. So why hasn’t Bush fired Gonzales yet?

What makes this interesting in a comparison with the UK, is that the dispute isn’t really about the Attorney General’s political role. Some areas of the media and select politicians may be coating it as such, but no-one seriously believes that Alberto Gonzales is the first Presidentially-appointed Attorney General to have done something questionable in the name of politics. Kyle Sampson even said that “the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘performance-related’ reasons for removing a United States attorney is…largely artificial.” The reason Gonzales has not been fired straight-off is because he represents a key Bush ally in a government that is haemorrhaging supporters…and the office of Attorney General is a Senate-confirmable position, so it is likely the next one will not be so malleable.

What is far more significant in this case is that it is yet another example of a situation revealing the incompetencies and manoeuverings within the Administration, all the more so since they clearly should have seen it coming. The longer Gonzales holds on, the more painful it becomes, and the more the White House is implicated. Today Daily Kos offered readers a chance to see $25 donated to the candidate of their choice by guessing the date of Gonzales’ eventual departure, further adding to the ridiculous nature of the situation.

While the Attorney General for England and Wales has a different remit from the US one, the position is also being questioned over here – but thankfully from the perspective that mixing politics and the law is dangerous. What is worrying, however, is how little discussion Harriet Harman’s suggestion generated. Do we really want to end up in a situation ourselves where a top official becomes the laughing-stock of the country because of his determination to hang on to a blatantly partisan position in the face of obvious incompetency?

U.S. Attorneys criticize Gonzales; Democrats and Bush gear up for fight [Slate]
On the Firing Line [Washington Post]
Prosecutors Assail Gonzales During Meeting [NYT]
When the Woodshed Isn’t Enough [Washington Post]

Filed under: iraq, uspolitics on March 29th, 2007