At TPM David Kurtz makes an unfair charge against Democratic Senators:

One thing you can say about Washington is that political courage rises in inverse proportion to the political strength of one's opponent. As Alberto Gonzales (a.k.a., the "walking cadaver") hemorrhages politically, everyone on the Hill is suddenly as fearless as a shark. . . . Gonzales is getting what he deserves, to be sure, but among his opponents there were far fewer profiles in courage before he was mortally wounded.

Kurtz references an article where Sens. Schumer and Leahy are quoted confronting Gonzo on the attorney firings. Kurtz acts as if they never confronted Gonzo before. But this is nonsense. Schumer and Leahy and 34 other Dems voted no on Gonzales' confirmation for Attorney General as we urged in January 2005.

This right after a stinging electoral loss. Sorry Mr. Kurtz, but those Dems were plenty brave and when it counted too. Yours is a very unfair charge. Indeed, as I recall, TPM was rather quiet on the issue of Gonzales' confirmation as Attorney General.

The newly released Rove e-mail raises a question of the White House's honesty in its original statement that the idea of possibly replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys originated with Harriet Miers. It also shows that Alberto Gonzales was aware it was being discussed before he was confirmed as Attorney General, while he was still White House counsel.

The White House said Thursday night that the e-mails did not contradict the previous statements about former White House counsel Harriet Miers' role. The e-mail exchange, dated January 6, 2005, is between then-deputy White House counsel David Leitch and Kyle Sampson at the Justice Department. According to a senior White House official who has seen the e-mail exchange, "It's not inconsistent with what we have said."

The email is here.

It certainly is customary for Presidents to replace the previous President's U.S. Attorneys after an election. What's unusual here is that Bush was considering replacing his own appointments, since this was his second term.

So, what's the fuss about? One thing is whether the idea really originated with Harriet Miers. A second is timing...the discussions started earlier than the White House initially said. TPM Muckraker has put together a timeline. A third is whether the Administration told the truth when it said the idea of dismissing all the U.S. Attorneys was rejected out of hand as soon as Miers suggested it.

More...

This is beating the proverbial dead horse I think, Gonzo is toast, but WaPo asked the question:

The conflict between documents released this week and previous administration statements is quickly becoming the central issue for lawmakers who are angry about the way Gonzales and his aides handled the coordinated firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Democrats and Republicans are demanding to know whether Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and other Justice officials misled them in sworn testimony over the past two months.

Ayuuup. That's the question. May I suggest that a review of Mr. Gonzales' testimony from his confirmation hearings and since then the past two years raise many similar questions on issues like torture and rendition. If anyone cares to look.

Sen. Patrick Leahy was on CNN's The Situation Room. Speaking of Karl Rove, he said (no link, received from show by e-mail):

BLITZER: The White House counsel, Fred Fielding, was up on the Hill today. I don't know if you had a chance to meet with him. But he's not necessarily ruling out allowing some White House staffers, maybe even Karl Rove to come and testify. Do you want Karl Rove to testify before your panel?

LEAHY: I've never met Mr. Fielding. Frankly, I don't care whether he says he's going to allow people or not. We'll subpoena the people we want. If they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation I suspect they don't want to have.

BLITZER: Will you subpoena Karl Rove?

LEAHY: Yes. He can appear voluntarily if he wants. If he doesn't, I will subpoena him. The attorney general said, Well, there are some staff people or lower level people -- I'm not sure whether I want to allow them to testify or not. I said, Frankly, Mr. Attorney General, it's not your decision. It's mine and the committee's. We will have subpoenas. I would hope that they wouldn't try to stonewall subpoenas.

More...

Gonzo's fall guy Sampson getting every consideration:

Good eye, or good ear, from TPM Reader JB. Apparently, the White House and Alberto Gonzales are so miffed with Kyle Sampson for doing the whole Attorney Purge on his own that they're letting him stay on the job -- from which he supposedly resigned on Monday -- indefinitely as he "goes job hunting."

Does Gonzo's denial still pass the red face test? Did it ever? For the record, the way to properly label someone a fall guy is to throw him out immediately and then, when things quiet down, take care of him/her in a discreet manner.

I give it a week. Look what Bush said today:

“I do have confidence in Attorney General Al Gonzales,” Mr. Bush said of his old friend from Texas. But he said the dismissals had been bungled, “and frankly I’m not happy about it.” Mr. Bush, speaking at a news conference in Mérida, Mexico, with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, said that he was pleased that Mr. Gonzales had acknowledged mistakes surrounding the dismissals, but that “Al’s got work to do up on the Hill,” a reference to the Capitol, where many Democrats and several Republicans have expressed anger and dismay over the firings. . . . [T]he president’s anger was clear. “This issue was mishandled to the point that you’re asking me about it now in Mexico,” Mr. Bush said. The president, who said he had spoken to Mr. Gonzales this morning, is to arrive later this afternoon in Washington, where lawmakers of both parties continued to criticize Mr. Gonzales.

Gonzo has work to do up on the Hill. We all know he can't turn that tide:

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told Bloomberg his confidence in the attorney general had been “shaken” and was “waning,” while Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon said, “I think I share the feeling of many Republican senators of profound disappointment.” And Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, declined to say whether Mr. Gonzales should stay. “That’s the president’s decision,” he said in an interview with Bloomberg News.

He can't fix it. It only gets worse. See you later Al.

Update (TL): Crooks and Liars has the video and transcript of Bush's comments.

The NYTimes articulates what we have all known for years - Alberto Gonzales is a corrupt, inept, mendacious lackey. WE said so back in January 2005, when we opposed his confirmation as Attorney General. In any event, the NYTimes has good words on the subject:

We wish we’d been surprised to learn that the White House was deeply involved in the politically motivated firing of eight United States attorneys, but the news had the unmistakable whiff of inevitability. This disaster is just part of the Bush administration’s sordid history of waving the bloody bullhorn of 9/11 for the basest of motives: the perpetuation of power for power’s sake.

Time and again, President Bush and his team have assured Americans that they needed new powers to prevent another attack by an implacable enemy. Time and again, Americans have discovered that these powers were not being used to make them safer, but in the service of Vice President Dick Cheney’s vision of a presidency so powerful that Congress and the courts are irrelevant, or Karl Rove’s fantasy of a permanent Republican majority.

. . . Gonzales, who has shown why he was such an awful choice for this job in the first place, should be called under oath to resolve the contradictions and inconsistencies in his story. Mr. Gonzales is willing to peddle almost any nonsense to the public (witness his astonishingly maladroit use of the Nixonian “mistakes were made” dodge yesterday). But lying to Congress under oath is another matter. . . .

I don't think it quite that different. Indeed what he has done before, enabling torture particularly, seems worse to me. But begone with him. He never should have been in the government in the first place.

The BUCKet (of crap) stops on my assistant said Alberto Gonzales:

Gonzales also accepted the resignation of his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. The aide, along with then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, had begun discussing possible firings of U.S. attorneys in early 2005, according to e-mails released Tuesday. . . . "He's a standup guy," [Dan] Bartlett said of Gonzales.

What a remarkable thing to say as Gonzo not only did not stand up, he just dumped it on his former assistant. What a piece of work.

Gonzo should not only resign, he really needs some lessons on being a decent human being. What a lying weasel.

PFAW:

People For the American Way, which two years ago helped lead opposition to the confirmation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, today called for his resignation or removal as the first step toward holding the White House and Department of Justice accountable to the rule of law, and urged Congress to expand its oversight of the administration.

“Each scandal sheds new light on the Bush administration’s abuse of power, violation of Americans’ civil liberties, and contempt for the Constitution,” said People For the American Way President Ralph G. Neas. “Our nation’s top law enforcement official is in the middle of it, showing greater fidelity to the political interests of President Bush than to the public interest and the rule of law.”

. . . Neas said these are just the most recent in a series of developments that demonstrate Alberto Gonzales has failed to live up to his oath of office and act as the people’s lawyer, not the President’s. “The Attorney General has demonstrated time and again that Americans can’t trust him—or this administration—to follow the law, or to uphold the Constitution,” said Neas. . . . It is in the nation’s best interest for the Attorney General to resign, and if he fails to do so, President Bush should remove him from office.”

And if not that, then the Congress should impeach him. Sign the petition.

Just my opinion, not that of Talk Left.

The Congress wants to hear from Rove:

Congressional committees are now demanding the testimony of President Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, in the burgeoning investigation into the reasons behind the unusual firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has helped lead the Senate Judiciary Committee's examination of the dismissals of the federal prosecutors, cited new reports connecting Rove to those who wanted to oust at least one of the U.S. attorneys. "There's an emerging pattern that is extremely disturbing and everyday the sanctity of U.S. Attorneys as neutral enforcers of law without fear or favor is diminished," Schumer said. "We will get to bottom of this."

We'll see if they subpoena Rove. I'm not that confident in our Leadership these days.

Speaking for me only, and now also speaking for Paul Krugman:

The good news is that for the first time in six years, it’s possible to hope that all the facts about a Bush administration scandal will come out in Congressional hearings — or, if necessary, in the impeachment trial of Alberto Gonzales.

Come on Jeralyn, join the Shrill! The water is just fine . . .

(Again, just speaking for me, not Talk Left.)

The New York Times Editorial Page:

During the hearing on his nomination as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said he understood the difference between the job he held — President Bush’s in-house lawyer — and the job he wanted, which was to represent all Americans as their chief law enforcement officer and a key defender of the Constitution. Two years later, it is obvious Mr. Gonzales does not have a clue about the difference.

He has never stopped being consigliere to Mr. Bush’s imperial presidency. If anyone, outside Mr. Bush’s rapidly shrinking circle of enablers, still had doubts about that, the events of last week should have erased them.

. . . It was Mr. Gonzales, after all, who repeatedly defended Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans’ international calls and e-mail. He was an eager public champion of the absurd notion that as commander in chief during a time of war, Mr. Bush can ignore laws that he thinks get in his way. Mr. Gonzales was disdainful of any attempt by Congress to examine the spying program, let alone control it.

More...