They Won't Follow Us Home

"Recently, a trio of senators--Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy; Arlen Specter, the senior Republican on the committee, and Democrat Charles Schumer--sat down with Gonzales in his wood-paneled conference room to discuss the firings of the U.S. attorneys. Gonzales was initially combative and defensive. 'Why do I have to prove anything to you?' he demanded at one point, according to a source who was in the room but does not wish to be identified revealing a private conversation. He insisted that only poor performers had been fired. 'Everyone was in the bottom tier,' he said. 'Everyone?' asked Schumer. What about David Iglesias of New Mexico? (The department's internal evaluations had given Iglesias glowing marks.) Gonzales hesitated. 'I believe so,' he said, but he seemed uncertain. As the meeting was breaking up, Gonzales suddenly switched tacks and seemed to want to be cooperative. 'How can we make this better?' he asked. 'What can we do?' According to this source, the attorney general seemed to some in the room to be genuinely befuddled."

The Fall Guy Bites Back?

NPR reports: "Despite the resignation of Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's chief of staff, on Monday, the Justice Department initially took steps to establish him as a lawyer elsewhere in the department. On Tuesday, he left Justice Department entirely."

And on Friday, via his attorney Bradford Berenson, Sampson fired back: "Kyle did not resign because he had misled anyone at the Justice Department or withheld information concerning the replacement of the U.S. Attorneys. He resigned because, as Chief of Staff, he felt he had let the Attorney General down in failing to appreciate the need for and organize a more effective political response to the unfounded accusations of impropriety in the replacement process. The fact that the White House and Justice Department had been discussing this subject for several years was well-known to a number of other senior officials at the Department, including others who were involved in preparing the Department's testimony to Congress."

No Longer Operative

The conflicts in the administration narrative have really reached epic proportions.

John D. McKinnon blogged for the Wall Street Journal on Friday: "The original idea for sacking all 93 U.S. attorneys might not have come from White House Counsel Harriet Miers after all, White House spokesman Tony Snow said today. And it's possible the idea was first broached either by President Bush or now-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, he said.

"'Anything's possible,' Snow said, after being asked by a reporter at the morning briefing whether it's possible Bush or Gonzales came up with the idea. 'But I don't think so.'

"Snow said Bush 'certainly has no recollection' of coming up with the idea. But 'at this juncture people have hazy memories,' he added at another point."

An Apology of Sorts

Marisa Taylor and Margaret Talev wrote for McClatchy Newspapers on Saturday: "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales apologized to the nation's 93 U.S. attorneys in a conference call Friday as he tried to hold on to his job amid the scandal over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.

"Gonzales apologized to the prosecutors not for the firings but for their execution, including for inaccurate public statements about poor job performance, said people familiar with the afternoon conference call."

The Principle of the Thing

Ron Hutcheson and Marisa Taylor write for McClatchy Newspapers: "Former Attorney General John Ashcroft had a standard spiel for new U.S. attorneys: 'You have to leave politics at the door to do this job properly.'

"Maintaining that independence, without fear of repercussions, is the bedrock principle at stake in the controversy over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. As the top law enforcement official in each of their jurisdictions, these federal prosecutors have the power to destroy reputations, careers and even lives.

"They're political appointees, but they're supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without fear or favor. While presidents have the power to remove them for any reason, tradition holds that prosecutors should stay on the job unless they're corrupt or incompetent."

And Adam Cohen writes in a New York Times opinion piece "that White House and Justice Department officials, and members of Congress, may have violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1520, the federal obstruction of justice statute."

Incompetent, Insular, or Something Else?

A Los Angeles Times editorial argues that the firings "fit into a larger pattern of incompetence on the part of this administration. Any confidence the American people or Congress once had in the administration's capabilities has long since been depleted."

Gloria Borger writes in her U.S. News opinion column: "The White House that was once seen as muscular -- even invincible -- is being tagged as something else: incompetent."

Edwin Chen and Holly Rosenkrantz write for Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush's insular management system, which values loyalty and old Texas ties while discouraging dissent, may be at the root of the political misfortunes undermining his presidency."

Shankar Vedantam, writing about human behavior in The Washington Post sees some parallels between Bush and a certain mad king: "In Shakespeare's 'King Lear,' a powerful man comes to a tragic end because he surrounds himself with flatterers and banishes the friends who will not varnish the truth to please him. . . .

"By the end of the play, with death and disaster all around, Shakespeare makes sure you understand that King Lear's tragedy was not just his own."

But Fred Barnes writes in the Weekly Standard that Bush's only problem is that he's been too meek in defending himself: "By not instantly and unflinchingly denouncing the Democratic offensive for what it is, an entirely bogus attack on his administration, he has allowed a mere flap to get out of hand."

Poll Watch

Richard Wolffe writes for Newsweek: "A clear majority of the public believes the Bush administration's firing of eight U.S. attorneys was politically motivated, according to a new Newswee poll. And the survey showed only weak support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. . . .

"At 30 percent, President Bush's approval ratings remain stuck where they have been since the GOP lost control of Congress in November."

Here are the poll results.

Valerie Plame Watch

Amy Goldstein writes in The Washington Post: "Valerie Plame, the former CIA officer at the heart of a four-year political furor over the Bush administration's leak of her identity, lashed out at the White House yesterday, testifying in Congress that the president's aides destroyed a career she loved and slipped her name to reporters for 'purely political motives.' . . .

"Plame calmly but firmly knocked down longstanding claims by administration allies that the disclosure was not criminal because she had not worked in a covert capacity."

Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times that committee chairman Henry Waxman announced that "CIA Director Michael V. Hayden had informed the committee that at the time Plame's identity was exposed, she was an undercover officer and that any disclosure of her agency employment status was prohibited by executive order."

David Corn writes in The Nation: "From the start of this scandal, confederates of the Bush White House (and backers of the war) have tried to diminish the significance of the administration leak that outed her as a CIA officer (as both legal and national security matters). Conservatives insisted she was not a clandestine officer doing anything important and that her employment at the CIA was either no big secret or no secret at all."

Here is the transcript of Plame's testimony: "Karl Rove clearly was involved in the leaking of my name," she said, "and he still carries a security clearance to this day, despite the president's words to the contrary that he would immediately dismiss anyone who had anything to do with it."

Editor and Publisher reports: "James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame."

Greg Mitchell writes in his Editor and Publisher column: "In their rush to cover the long-awaited testimony of Valerie Plame, few reporters apparently bothered to stick around the Capitol Hill hearing room yesterday to witness the equally shocking testimony of a much less heralded (and not so attractive) insider named James Knodell."

Here's a letter from Waxman to the White House, with a summary of Knodell's testimony and some follow up questions.

"*The Office of Security for the White House never conducted any investigation of the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity;

"*Under the applicable executive order and regulations, your senior political advisor, Karl Rove, and other senior White House officials were required to report what they knew about the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's identity, but they did not make any such report to the White House Office of Security; and

"*There has been no suspension of security clearances or any other administrative sanction for Mr. Rove and other White House officials involved in the disclosure.

"According to Mr. Knodell, the explanation for the lack of action by the White House Security Office was a White House decision not to conduct a security investigation while a criminal investigation was pending. Mr. Knodell could not explain, however, why the White House did not initiate an investigation after the security breach. It took months before a criminal investigation was initiated, yet according to Mr. Knodell, there was no White House investigation initiated during this period.

"Mr. Knodell also testified that it would be inappropriate to allow an individual who was a security risk to retain his or her security clearance while a criminal investigation is pending. . . .

"The testimony of Mr. Knodell appears to describe White House decisions that were inconsistent with the directives of Executive Order 12958, which you signed in March 2003. "

Twins Watch

Kitty Kelley writes in a Los Angeles Times op-ed that Bush's family should set a good example.

"My suggestion comes after the White House announcement earlier this month that Jenna Bush, one of the president's twin daughters, is writing a book on her all-expenses-paid trip to Panama, where she worked for a few weeks as an intern for UNICEF. Jenna Bush is quoted as saying she will donate her earnings from her book to UNICEF, a commendable gesture, considering her father's net worth of $20 million. But while the 25-year-old makes the rounds of TV talk shows this fall in a White House limousine, dozens of her contemporaries will be arriving home from Iraq in wooden boxes. In Britain, Prince Harry is insisting on going off to Iraq -- even as his country is reducing its troop commitment. . . .

"The president tells us Iraq is a 'noble' war, but his wife, his children and his nieces and nephews are not listening. None has enlisted in the armed services, and none seems to be paying attention to the sacrifices of military families."

Helen Thomas Stays

Patrick Gavin reports for Fishbowl DC that Hearst columnist Helen Thomas is keeping her front-row seat in the newly-refurbished briefing room. Fox News wanted her chair, but didn't get it -- they'll be in the second row.

Cartoon Watch

Tom Toles on Bush's change of direction; Justin Bilicki on Bush and Gonzales; Walt Handelsman on March Madness; Dwane Powell on Bush's brains; Jeff Danziger on the prisoner.