Dream On, al . . . .

From AlterNet today:

How Gonzales Destroyed the American Dream
by Roberto Lovato, New America Media - Posted on September 4, 2007

Alberto Gonzales went down dreaming.

While announcing his resignation earlier this week, Alberto Gonzales deployed one of his most powerful and romantic rhetorical weapons. "I often remind our fellow citizens that we live in the greatest country in the world and that I have lived the American dream," he stated. "Even my worst days as attorney general have been better than my father's best days."

More than any public official in recent memory, the often smiley and sometimes smirking Gonzales -- and his supporters -- consistently framed his story as a brown embodiment of the American dream.

_________________


Viewed from the optic of elite political and corporate interests, who know better than anyone of the death of the American dream (they are, after all, the ones who created and killed it), Alberto Gonzales did his job.

He may have left too much evidence of state-sanctioned torture and lying and malfeasance and corruption (he may also still be put on trial for perjury in the attorney firing scandal).

But he did what he was supposed to. More than anyone, he was responsible for securing the legal systems necessary to better control a citizenry that was increasingly angry and frustrated at big government and big business for destroying the American dream. his saga provides an object lesson in how to hide elite interests behind a dreamy haze of real-life ethnic success stories.

While many of us were debating whether or not the son of migrant workers was or wasn't the embodiment of the dream, he worked loyally -- as fiercely as his farm worker parents -- to lay the legal foundation to make it easier to snoop on, arrest, prosecute and jail a population growing less and less patient with the status quo.

In the time it took most of the country to admit that it no longer believed in the dream -- a July poll by veteran pollster Celinda Lake found that only 18 percent of people in the country believe they are living the American dream -- Gonzales prepared for the fallout by helping fashion the Patriot Act. This made it easier for government to define as "domestic terrorists" those who choose to speak out against the Iraq war and other dream (and budget)-killing policies.

While Hollywood and Washington tried to keep the global dream machine working, Gonzales crafted the legal rationale for the global nightmare exemplified by Abu Ghraib. As more and more people joined the ranks of the uninsured -- 9 million since Bush was elected in 2000 -- Gonzales facilitated the government's ability to access intimate medical, financial and other personal records.

_______________


What the ultimate moral of the Gonzales story becomes depends on whether we are ready to not just to accept the death of the American dream, but to take part in dispelling whatever illusions of it are left.

_______________


Despite the tragedy and comedy of it all, Gonzales' scandalous story offers us an opportunity to dispel obsolete notions, like the dreamy idea that government is looking out for the little guy -- or that ethnic politics can only be played one way -- and other dangerous ideas rooted in the American dream he embodied.

Roberto Lovato former director of CARECEN, representing Central American immigrants and refugees, is a New York based writer and an associate editor at New America Media.

'Ya gotta wonder who the idiot-in-chief will nominate to protect his sorry ass now that "Smiley" is gone . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

The e-mail is in one of those tubes

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is having none of it. He's more computer savvy than the Republicans believe he is.

The White House's claim that e-mails sent on a Republican Party account might have been lost was challenged Thursday by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, who quipped that even his teenage neighbor could find them.

"They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!" Leahy shouted from the Senate floor as the dispute over the firing of federal prosecutors continued at a high pitch.

"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."

But, you know, the White House staff is just trying so hard to find those darned missing e-mails.

White House officials insisted the administration was making a genuine effort to recover any missing e-mails that had been sent on an account sponsored by the Republican National Committee.

"I understand his point, but he's wrong," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

"We're being very honest and forthcoming," she added. "I hope that he would understand the spirit in which we have come forward and tried to explain how we screwed up our policy and how we're working to fix it."

Well, perhaps they're not trying hard enough. Or maybe they're trying too hard. But, you know, if the accounts were through the Republican National Committee there's a really good chance that all those emails went through the RNC file servers which were probably running, oh... say, Microsoft Exchange Server, just as an example. Even on an RNC Blackberry, the traffic is going through a server... somewhere.

And now all that traffic is deleted?

No problem. Go to this place and put in a rush order. Buy all of the recovery programs offered. It will still be cheaper than a Halliburton no-bid contract. Get a warrant. Better yet, don't bother. Just declare that you're looking for terraists and get a warrant later on... after you've got what your looking for.

Done.

And, if that doesn't work, the NSA may be able to help.

Do the Republicans really think everyone is dumb enough to believe the "internet ate my email" story?

Sorry. I didn't mean to ask that.

Let the self-preservation kick in... and pass the popcorn

Why does the line, "If I go down, you go down with me," come to mind?

"I and others made staff recommendations but they were approved and signed off on by the principals," Kyle Sampson said, referring to Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers.

Sampson went on to drag Gonzales a little further into the manure pile.

Earlier, Sampson said that Gonzales had wrongly said he was not involved in discussions about the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.

Asked whether Gonzales' statement was false, Sampson replied, "I don't think it's accurate if the statement implies that I intended to mislead the Congress."

Couldn't he have just said, "I'm not lying, so he must be,"?

Then there are the "contradictions" which are surfacing and now being "clarified".

The Justice Department admitted Wednesday that it gave senators inaccurate information about the firings and presidential political adviser Karl Rove's role in trying to secure a U.S. attorney's post in Arkansas for one of his former aides, Tim Griffin.

Justice officials acknowledged that a Feb. 23 letter to four Democratic senators erred in asserting that the department was not aware of any role Rove played in the decision to appoint Griffin to replace U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins in Little Rock, Ark.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month's letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be "contradicted by department documents included in our production."

That admission, only hours before Sampson's testimony, took some of the sting out of Democrats' key pieces of evidence that the administration had misled Congress.

Still, Sampson provided plenty of fodder. He acknowledged planning the firings as much as two years ago with the considered, collective judgment of a number of senior Justice Department officials.

The Feb. 23 letter, which was written by Sampson but signed by Hertling, emphatically stated that "the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." It also said that "the Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin's appointment."

Shouldn't there be popcorn? Really. We need popcorn. This is better than a mob take-down.

It's about the cover up, stupid

UPDATED
Who is Monica Goodling? McClatchy News Service provides a good description.

Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."

She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."

E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.

She was involved? Apparently, she has a lot of the picture. In fact, she may have the big picture. Yesterday she announced that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights under the US Constitution and refuse to answer questions to a Senate hearing.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' liaison with the White House will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"I have decided to follow my lawyer's advice and respectfully invoke my constitutional right," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' counsel and White House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It's funny how that Constitution, which was so much in the way of the Bush administration program of protecting the American people against Terra™, suddenly appears with Republican operators clutching it to their bosoms. Mind you, they were so determined to tell everyone what isn't in the Constitution that they should be intimately familiar with what is in it.

Alberto Gonzales, on the other hand, is clinging to his chair, not because of the power or the perks or the fact that he's an insider. Nope. He has more holistic reasons.

In an interview with NBC News, Gonzales said Monday he was "really pained" by Republicans and Democrats alike who widely say the attorney general has lost his credibility.

Asked why he would want to remain as attorney general amid so many calls for his ouster, Gonzales said he's been asking himself lately whether it's appropriate for him to stay in his job.

But, he said, "at the end of the day, it's not about Alberto Gonzales. It's about this great Department of Justice that does so many wonderful things for the American people."

*Choke*

Anyway, back to Goodling.

John Dowd, Goodling's lawyer, suggested in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that the Democrat-led panel has laid what amounts to a perjury trap for his client.

[...]

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," Dowd said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

Ummm. That was because he lied. Is Dowd saying the only way Goodling can answer any questions is if she lies?

Leahy swiftly cast doubt about Goodling's motives.

"The American people are left to wonder what conduct is at the base of Ms. Goodling's concern that she may incriminate herself in connection with criminal charges if she appears before the committee under oath," said Leahy.

Uh huh. Although, she has the right, even if she herself becomes the subject of an investigation.

Dowd shot back in a second letter that Leahy's comments were a good illustration of why testifying was "perilous" for his client.

"It is the politically charged environment created by the members of the committee ... that has created the ambiguous and perilous environment in which even innocent witnesses would be well advised not to testify," Dowd wrote.

Right. Because the question, "What did Gonzales know and when did he know it?" could bring down a whole house of cards.

Update: From TPM

Monica Goodling does have a good faith basis for pleading the Fifth Amendment - just not the ones in her lawyer's letter that are getting all the attention.

Under the federal False Statements statute, 18 USC 1001, it is a felony to cause another person to make a false statement to Congress. Since McNulty has allegedly told Senator Schumer that he made a false statement to Congress based on information provided to him by Monica Goodling, Goodling could very well be prosecuted for a Section 1001 violation.

All the rest of the crap in her lawyer's letter is intended to sooth as much as possible WH anger at her for invoking the Fifth.

(Hat tip Echidne of the Snakes)

Oh please! Tell me we're in for another 18.5 minute gap in the tapes.

Karl Rove got a little testy when a reporter asked him about the possibility of a replacement for Alberto Gonzales. Accompanying George Bush on a tour of auto assembly plants in Kansas City, Rove fended off the reporter with his usual diplomatic flair:

Besides his considerable security contingent, the chief executive was accompanied by Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Press Secretary Tony Snow.

A reporter approached Rove to ask him what he thought of rumors that former Missouri Sen. Jack Danforth could replace embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. “How about you go over there and do your job,” Rove replied, pointed back to the media pool.

Now, Rove has never been known for his lack of arrogance, but he seemed a tad over the top in that exchange.

Perhaps, this is giving him a migraine.

Conyers, Sànchez to Issue Subpoenas for White House Officials

(Washington, DC)- Today, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. and Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda Sànchez called a meeting to authorize subpoenas for five current and former White House and Justice Department officials. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law (CAL) will meet TOMORROW, March 21st at 10:15 am in 2141 Rayburn House Office Building to consider subpoenas for Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, William Kelley, and Scott Jennings, as well as White House and Justice Department documents, which have not been provided to date.

It looks like there may be a battle brewing.

A defiant President Bush vowed Tuesday to fight any effort by Congress to compel the testimony of top White House advisors about the firing of federal prosecutors, setting up a potential constitutional showdown and the first major direct confrontation with the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill.

When they start claiming Executive Priviledge and "separation of powers", you know they're dirty.

Incredible coincidence: Update: CC in comments pointed out this. It seems Josh Marshall posted his information about a gap in the released emails concurrently with the post I did above. Man, the Republic Party really needs to get a new script for events like this.

Another blast from the past! Skdadl in comments pointed out another link to the Nixon era. This time it's Fred Fielding who is now the White House counsel, having replaced Harriet Miers. Fielding was associate counsel to Richard Nixon and deputy to John Dean during the Watergate hearings.
Not only is it starting sound like the same old script, but now it's looking like the same old actors.