Powertools makes a long stretch.

The kids with the ice-cream cones stuck to their foreheads are at it again:

Gonzales gave incorrect testimony to Congress about matters relating the replacement of the eight U.S. Attorneys. If he knew the information was incorrect, then he lied. If he lied to Congress, he should be removed and prosecuted. But at this juncture, there appears to be no evidence that he lied. Instead, the evidence goes no further than establishing that he failed to inform himself well enough to answer some of the questions he was asked during his appearance on the Hill and made the mistake of answering the questions anyway.

There's a new twist!

Alberto Gonzales is one of the Bush administration's artful dodgers. It doesn't matter which committee he appears before, he's more than willing to dodge a question with the reply, "I don't know," or words to that effect.

On February 6th, 2006 before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority, in response to direct questions from Senator Patrick Leahy:

LEAHY: The president has said publicly that he gave about 30 of these authorizations, having held off for a period of time, I think when the administration heard the New York Times was looking into it.

But you were White House counsel: Did the president give his first authorization before or after Attorney General Ashcroft met with us and gave us the proposals from the administration which ultimately went into the USA Patriot Act?

GONZALES: Sir, I don't know. I don't know when he gave you those proposals.

LEAHY: Well, we enacted the USA Patriot Act in October 2001. And you were there at the signing ceremony. We tried to encompass those things that the administration said they needed.

Was the first one of the president's authorizations done before he signed the USA Patriot Act?

GONZALES: I'd have to go back and check. I don't know.

On January 17, 2007 when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Maher Arar case, again in an exchange with Senator Patrick Leahy:

LEAHY:Why is he on a government watch list if he's been found completely innocent by this Canadian commission, which actually had the information from us?

GONZALES: Senator, I've got some very definite views about this particular case, as you know...

LEAHY: Well, go ahead.

GONZALES: ... beyond litigation. What I want to do is, hopefully, in the next few days – I'm happy to sit down with you and Senator (Arlen) Specter and give you more information.

In fact, we may be able to publicly say more about this shortly. I'm just not at liberty, at this time, to...

LEAHY: Let me ask you this: Why aren't you at liberty?

I don't understand that. It's not a matter of executive privilege.

GONZALES: No, sir, again, and I'm not ...

LEAHY: It's only the president that can ...

GONZALES: No, I'm not suggesting that I will not be able to answer your questions. I'm just suggesting I can't do it today.

LEAHY: Why?

GONZALES: I just – sir, I'm not – there is not a position – I can't represent the position of the executive branch on this particular issue.

But I think, in a relatively short period of time, there's more information that I should be able to share with you, and hopefully, that we can share publicly.

LEAHY: But why was he sent to Syria instead of Canada?

GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, I'd be happy to answer these questions I think we can say a lot more about it, if you just simply give me some additional time.

This is a guy who doesn't answer questions to which he does have the information. Now, Mirengoff is going so far as to suggest that Gonzales, lacking information to provide a truthful, complete answer, instead of his trademark, "I don't know" or "I'll have to get back to you", made something up!

That would make him incompetent. Short of that, he's lying. Both good reasons to send him back to Texas with a pink slip in his hands.