NPR is reporting that White House officials are saying Alberto Gonzales'I normally try to keep forty fathoms away from anything that smells like a conspiracy theory, but my reading of the tea leaves of the Gonzalez resignation paints an interesting hypothetical scenario.
resignation is imminent, perhaps as soon as today. Seems Dubya is ready to get rid of the Albertross around his neck.
- My colleague Scott C.
What if the Democratic leadership in Congress traded a lesser evil to get rid of a greater one? What if they agreed to free the membership to vote as they saw fit on the six-month assault that was the FISA bill in exchange for the resignation of the man who has justified the six year assault on those liberties - Alberto Gonzalez?
I think that's a trade I would have made. As a private citizen, Gonzalez may be far more susceptible to a Congressional subpoena. The resignation of Gonzalez keeps the scandals at the Justice department above the fold. And in exchange for the breezes at the back of the Democrats which result from the resignation, the Democrats granted a six-month weakening of a law that Bush would have ignored anyway. And by granting the six-month extension, the issue of privacy and surveillance gets pushed deep into the Presidential campaign, making civil liberties a voting issue in the primaries - which it hasn't been in a long time.
Why would Bush agree to such a deal? Two reasons. First - Rove tells him to. I find it remarkably interesting that Bush's final political "victory" before Rove left was the FISA bill. Rove is just smarmy enough to be able to sell it in the West Wing, politically, and just Machiavellian enough to bet the house that the Democrats wouldn't dare not continue extending it in six months out of fear of being painted "soft on terrorism." (For all his genius, Rove only seems to have one play in his playbook, "paint the Democrats as soft on X.") Rove knew that Gonzalez was a anchor sinking the Administration, and he also knew that increased surveillance was the power sine-qua-non desired by Cheney and the authoritarianists in charge. This deal accomplishes both in one act.
And second, because the next Attorney General is waiting in the wings. He's a man known to be somewhat acceptable to the Democrats, and is also known to hold the Administrations views on civil liberties. Who is such a man, and can such a man exist? Absolutely: John Michael "Mike" McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence. He is the man with the check on the Attorney General's power to issue blanket approval for wiretaps, that was supposedly the "great compromise" in the FISA bill. If he was good enough to balance and check the AG in the FISA bill, goes the argument, he should be good enough for the AG job itself.
Of course, the critique of this analysis may be that Mike McConnell is not a lawyer, but since when has that kind of qualification been a concern to this Administration? They put a horse show manager in charge of FEMA, a corporate hack in charge of mine safety, and the Navy in charge of the largest land war America has fought in generations. When it comes to wayward civilian agencies, this Administration has shown a preference for putting military men in charge. Why not the Justice Department too? It's a standard play for this Administration to get a person approved for a lower position in an effort to shoehorn approval for a higher position later.
Of course my amateur analysis should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt, but the coincidences are enough to make one think.
(Crossposted from Leesburg Tomorrow)
That said, I think the scenario I outlined is only about 35% likely as a formal deal.