Memories Of Bushian Obfuscation

by digby interviews Alberto Gonzales. And he's just as thick as I remembered:

TL: My question is loyalty versus being an objective counselor. I think a lot of my readers think, "Which one are you, loyal or an objective counselor to the president?"

Gonzales: You're loyal. Look, someone like an attorney general wears two hats. You're a member of the president's team; you're on his Cabinet. You have an obligation to promote the president's law enforcement policies and priorities. He campaigned on those policies, and you have an obligation as a Cabinet official to make sure they're implemented. But you also wear a different hat. You're the chief law enforcement officer for the country. And if you have to investigate the White House for wrongdoing, you have to investigate the White House for wrongdoing, and I would have done that. And I think anyone who is unable to do that is not qualified to serve in these positions. So, there were times when I disagreed with the president, and I told the president. I think people have this notion that if you're the attorney general, you can't agree with anything, you can't support anything of the president. That's a naive understanding. That's a misunderstanding of the world of the attorney general and our system of government. ... So, my response to your question is I think everyone who works for the president and is appointed by the president should be loyal to the president and the president's policies and priorities. But they take an oath and they've got to, of course, discharge their obligations under that oath, and I tried to do that every day.

Good grief. Talk about a straw man. Has anyone argued, ever, "that if you're the attorney general, you can't agree with anything, you can't support anything of the president?" God, he sounds just like Junior.

With the exception of Rove, Bush's personal lieutenants were all just dumb as dirt.
And this one was far too dumb to be Attorney General, which as he says has a sort of dual function, but one which is also obviously far too complicated for him to properly comprehend. Oy.

But lest we place the full blame for Bushian folly on Bush himself, let's take a look at the latest from Dick Cheney, and his slavish biographer (who you have to give some credit for his willingness to continue to prostitute himself for his subject despite the embarrassment he must feel about this.)

Here's Greg Sargent:

Hayes argues I was wrong to describe torture techniques as Bush/Cheney administration policy because “they were conceived and executed by senior CIA officals.” Is Hayes really arguing higher-ups didn’t sign off on torture techniques? Why on earth is he pointing out that Cheney himself didn’t “execute” the policies?

Breaking: Cheney himself didn’t waterboard! Just wow.

But I'll bet he watched the videos.

h/t to bb