Financial Times Editorial Comment: Gonzales was unfit from the outset

Financial Times Editorial Comment: Gonzales was unfit from the outset
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
Published: August 28 2007 19:32 | Last updated: August 28 2007 19:32


To call the resignation of Alberto Gonzales as US attorney-general overdue seems barely adequate. From the outset, he was the most delinquent and incompetent holder of that vital office in living memory. Yet to the end, President George W. Bush seemed blithely unaware of Mr Gonzales’ limitations, calling him “a man of integrity, decency and principle” who was “impeded from doing important work as his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons”. One can only hope Mr Bush was insincere, wishing to show kindness to a humiliated friend. If those remarks really do express the president’s understanding of the matter, his incapacity to learn from mistakes is indeed boundless.

The main criticism to make of Mr Gonzales is not that he put loyalty to the president above his obligations to the constitution. The office of attorney-general calls for a difficult balancing act: the problem of divided loyalties goes with the job. Mr Gonzales’ great failure was in offering his political master not loyalty but blind, sycophantic obedience. He offered no challenge or effective counsel, as the interests of the president and the country both required. As Mr Gonzales reduced his office to that of legal echo-chamber, the administration advanced indefensible claims of unchecked authority over the treatment of detainees, secret domestic surveillance and broader civil liberties. Far from strengthening the presidency and supporting national security, these failed initiatives have undermined both. Mr Gonzales let his beloved president down, as well as the country.

The book is not yet closed: investigations into Mr Gonzales’ conduct will continue despite his resignation. Yet the departing attorney- general does not appear to be an evil man, so much as one who was utterly out of his depth. This was apparent even before his appointment. As White House counsel, he helped draft a 2002 opinion that, among other things, authorised use of torture. Challenged on this during confirmation hearings for his new post in 2005, his testimony was a self-contradictory shambles. His subsequent attempts to explain the sacking of US attorneys – dismissals seemingly motivated by the White House’s desire to prosecute Democrats and build electoral support for Republicans – were even worse.

As Mr Gonzales dug himself ever deeper into a hole of his own making, affront at his conduct gave way to incredulity and even to a measure of sympathy. The man was entirely unfitted to the office. For what happened on his watch, blame the president who appointed him.