The Worst of Bushworld Is Yet To Come

With Alberto's ouster, why things could get even worse (if you can imagine that)

What made the news coverage of Alberto's departure worth reading, and finally commenting on, was less his departure than the far-ranging observations offered on the lessons to be drawn from his squalid tenure. We've had controversial attorneys general resign in disgrace before, but none quite like Alberto.

From the 20th century's Harry Daugherty to John Mitchell, the injudicious sort seemed to flock to Justice. From their tenures we learned valuable lessons, of course -- so naturally quite early in the 21st century we suffered capo-regime Fredo.

But I don't really blame Alberto Gonzales. He was a small man with narrow aims -- the aggrandizement and protection of his patron -- too innately small not to be overwhelmed. One telling observation was this: "Former colleagues say that what they originally took for discretion, when Mr. Gonzales would say little in major policy meetings, they later concluded was disengagement."

I wouldn't be surprised to learn from historians years from now that Alberto really didn't know, for instance, who slated various U.S. Attorneys for removal, or why. Like a good little crime-family captain, he just took orders, and he was delighted he ever made it that far.

As Daniel Marcus, a Clinton-administration Justice official and now a constitutional law professor, said, "He was not the intellectual father of those positions [of unitary-executive supremacy], but he shaped and articulated them at the White House, and he continued to take a very strong position on executive power as attorney general."

From this Mr. Marcus concluded "What this whole episode illustrates": that of the "problem of having a close confidant, a close friend of the president -- particularly someone who worked first in the White House -- going over to the Justice Department to serve as attorney general in the first place."

I disagree profoundly. Other presidents have had close confidants serve as their attorneys general (hell, one was the president's brother), yet those personal connections were not the responsible agent or catalyst for the launching of lawlessness. That starts at the top, and you-know-what runs downhill.

For my money, Stanley Brand, the "ethics lawyer" (no oxymoronic jokes here), summed things up the best: "You can’t just change government through strong-willed policy. People who ride into Washington on a high horse of ideology or ignorance" -- or, in Mr. Bush's case, ignorant ideology -- "are inevitably headed toward a blow-up."

Call it overconfidence, call it karma, call it whatever you like, but Alberto's downfall was as inexorable as Bush's collapse. Given the man at the top's willful ignorance, ideological hubris and inner corruption, Al's days were numbered from the start.

I have a hunch, however, that we haven't yet seen the worst of Mr. Bush & Co., even as the White House empties itself of some very bad boys. And it was Mr. Bush's bizarre, otherworldly reaction to Alberto's departure that leads one to this frightful suspicion.

Political scientist Calvin Jillson set the scene: Newer and less personal White House advisors could now lead Bush to "more of a middle ground ... but whether he has the mental and ideological flexibility to take advantage of that chance, I’m quite skeptical of that." Said the professor: "If you just listen to what he said ... in defense of Gonzales [the day of the resignation], his back is so up and his heels are so dug in, I’m not sure he can do it."

Well, professor, I'm sure he can't. I'd bet money on it. The president is a mental infant with a child's emotions. He won't let this go, he won't let it drop. He'll throw a monstrous temper tantrum in the form of ... something monstrous ... just to show Congress and the press that no one can kick George W. Bush around.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.