I hate to say this, but I agreed with Charles Krauthammer the other day.
He made the very salient point that all Gonzales had to say was "Yes, we knew about this, the White House knew about it, we have the power to do it and nothing illegal happened." (Not that I agree with that stance, but it's what he should have done/said, which was Krauthammer's main thesis.)
However, he decided lying to Congress (a body already relatively pissed-off at him) was the way to go. Hence Krauthammer's conclusion that he needs to get booted on the basis of incompetence (not going with the party line and telling the "truth") as opposed to corruption.
The problem is that it *is* blatantly illegal to do what they did, as well as unethical *and* prejudicial to the rule of law in the USA. They can't get away with just saying it isn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-26 11:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-26 11:13 pm (UTC)He made the very salient point that all Gonzales had to say was "Yes, we knew about this, the White House knew about it, we have the power to do it and nothing illegal happened." (Not that I agree with that stance, but it's what he should have done/said, which was Krauthammer's main thesis.)
However, he decided lying to Congress (a body already relatively pissed-off at him) was the way to go. Hence Krauthammer's conclusion that he needs to get booted on the basis of incompetence (not going with the party line and telling the "truth") as opposed to corruption.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-27 01:47 pm (UTC)