Should he stay or should he go

Alberto Gonzales takes a double hit today as both the National Review and The Examiner call for his resignation. Both stipulate that there’s been no showing of wrongdoing in connection with the underlying decisions to remove the eight U.S. Attorneys. The argument against Gonzales is that he was either too detached from the process or that he lied in saying how detached he was.
If Gonzales lied, he should go. However, I still don’t think that case has been made (you can find Gonzales’ side of the story here). The testimony of his top aide, Kyle Sampson, may well shed additional light on this matter.
Gonzales’ management style is not what I want to see from the Attorney General. But Gonzales reports to President Bush, not conservative writers. If Gonzales has told the truth and if he still has Bush’s confidence, then, in the absence of evidence that stepping down would assist the president politically, I see no reason why he should resign.
UPDATE: Ed Whelan argues that Gonzales should go. Ed explains that the Attorney General’s inability to defend the Justice Department is now fully apparent and will invite further irresponsible attacks. But a firing or resignation on this ground will invite irresponsible attacks on other officials to see how well they defend themselves and their organizations with respect to all manner of ginned up charges.
To comment on this post, go here.

Responses