Langston Hughes once asked, “What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up… Or does it explode?” In the case of Alberto Gonzales, his dream didn’t dry up nor explode; it simply “stunk like rotten meat,” forcing us to spurn our faith in the devout, hard-working servant of the People, and his allies who have claimed the same.
Born to a poor Mexican-American laborer family of eight children, Alberto Gonzales was an anomaly within his family: whereas he graduated with honors from high school, his mother had dropped out in sixth grade, his father in second. So poor that the word “college” seldom came up in family discussions, Gonzales enlisted in the Air Force after graduation, where he served for four years. After earning his Juris Doctor from Harvard in 1982, Gonzales began practicing law. Seventeen years later, he would become a part of the Texas Supreme Court by Governor Bush’s nomination. In 2005, upon the resignation of John Ashcroft, the President rewarded Gonzales for his loyalty with the seat of Attorney General, making Gonzales only the second Latino to ever hold a Cabinet position. He would later describe his rise to the seat of Attorney General as “The American Dream.” Little did anyone know, or even think, however, that Gonzales’ dream would rapidly turn into the American Nightmare.
When Alberto Gonzales took the helm as Attorney General, everyone saw the refreshing story, the Catholic man, and the quiet genius in Gonzales; however, no one saw that a spying program would prove more important to Gonzales than Christian values. According to a 2007 testimony by James Comey, Gonzales tried to gain authorization for a clandestine surveillance program blocked by Comey by forcing authorization from a hospitalized John Ashcroft. At the time, Comey was serving as the acting Attorney General for the sick Ashcroft. Many hold that Gonzales tried to take advantage of the “disoriented” Ashcroft, though Gonzales denied doing so in his own testimony. According to Comey, Gonzales was doing just that--manipulating. “In walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly, and then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek his approval for a matter. I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.” If Gonzales claims to have instilled within him Catholic morals, then where did they go that night? What happened to the good man whom we charged with upholding the Constitution and law of the United States? What happened to the face of the honest, hard-working man?
The sad reality is that we will never know what exactly happened that night at the hospital, or what happened throughout much of Gonzales’ tumultuous administration. Gonzales has incessantly used the need for keeping secrets from terrorists, as well as his lack of memory, as his rationale for not revealing many of his deeds. In his defense, Gonzales’ national security argument is a valid one—at least when dealing with the Patriot Act and related issues. Gonzales’ “faulty memory” arguments are less so: claiming to not remember what transpired seventy-one times in congressional testimony is just sketchy. When questioned about his involvement in the apparently politically charged firing of nine US Attorneys, Gonzales claimed to not have remembered any involvement in any meetings orchestrating the aforementioned firings; however, independent testimony in Senate suggests that Gonzales took part in a meeting that set up the plan for the firing of the nine attorneys. Nevertheless, Gonzales held that he didn’t “remember” any such meetings, announcing to the Senate that his schedule that week was filled with important events that may have caused him to forget the meeting. Likewise, Gonzales claimed to only have cursory knowledge of the qualifications of the soon-to-be-fired attorneys (most of whom had high recommendations from the Department of Justice), and said that he had limited knowledge about the motivation for firing the attorneys. This, in effect, suggests that Gonzales was either frighteningly disorganized in his administration or perjuring himself. Either scenario casts an ominous shadow on Gonzales’ rule, the Department of Justice, the Republican Party, and the US government—a shadow that brings into question the character and effectiveness of those leading our country.
Gonzales has, in effect, been a combination of Michael Vick and Rafael Palmiero: a lawless leader, and a blatant liar—a traitor to his team and all of his supporters.
We thus stand, after accusations of Gonzales’ perjury, subjectivity, sycophancy, and immorality, wondering. We wonder why honest men turn to political monsters, why good Christians turn into manipulative bullies, why a man in an office that requires objectivity filled the same with bias and partisanship. On the eve of President Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey as Gonzales’ replacement, we question whether Mukasey, if confirmed by the Senate, will do the same. Though we all pray that Mukasey will uphold his reputation as a fair judge and a good Republican, we can only hope, for even the staunchest Bush supporter has had his faith in government shattered by the murky cloud that Gonzales has cast over our nation.
