Gonzales' critics are wrong; he was the right man for the job

As a defender of Alberto Gonzales, I was sorry to see him go. And I told him so when I spoke with him Monday after he announced his resignation. Gonzales sounded relieved, relaxed and reflective. But what he told me didn't fit the media template I had heard from television reporters and network legal analysts. According to the chatter, Gonzales resigned because critics were hot on his tail over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys. Sure. The New York Times called for Gonzales to leave in March. This is the end of August. How hot could the pursuit be?

Pundits kept referring to it as a "fall from grace." Dan Balz of The Washington Post wrote that "(Gonzales') image, once the inspirational story of a young man who rose from poverty to become one of the most powerful Hispanic officials in the country, has been badly tarnished by his troubled tenure at the Justice Department."

What hooey. I don't recall such "tarnished image" rhetoric when Karl Rove resigned. Why does the media insist on framing Gonzales' stint as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general as a social experiment that went bad? President Bush's reaction was kinder and less condescending. He called Gonzales a talented and honorable person who was "impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud."

I asked Gonzales if he thought his name had been muddied. He answered this way, "Washington is a very difficult town, and many of the things that happen ... are very political. And that's the nature of it. And all of us who come to work in these positions, we understand that."

Gonzales is not the sort to jab at critics, but he came close when he said it's the way of Washington that "sometimes people pursue agendas that are based on politics."

"Some people might say it's not fair," he said. "Some people might say it's not right. But, for all of us who serve in these positions, we have to acknowledge that's the way this town operates. ... I wish it weren't so."

Gonzales acknowledged some disillusionment.

"Probably the most disappointing thing I've observed," he said, "(is that Washington is) so different in terms of what I observed in Texas government. Maybe I was naive in terms of how government should work. What I saw in Texas was what I thought was productive and good for the citizens of Texas. But there is a lot of what I see in Washington that is concerning to me as a citizen."

Still, Gonzales admitted that he made mistakes concerning the U.S. attorneys.

"I could have been more involved and should have been more involved," he said.

Even now, he stands by the firings. He insisted that "the process for evaluating U.S. attorneys is a good one" and that "those of us who serve in government ... should be evaluated based on our performance."

His instinct was to be accessible so as not to be accused of stonewalling, but that instinct failed him.

"I did those early press conferences," he said, "and there were things that were said that, going over the documents, turned out not to be true, like ... the Nov. 27 meeting (on the firings) which I had no recollection of. So, when you ask if there is anything that I would have done differently, yes, I would have told the press: 'Guys, I'm sorry. I'm not going to answer any questions about what happened because I don't recall and I don't know.'"

Lastly, I asked the man who made history how he wanted history to remember him.

"As someone who did the best he could based on what was right and what was just," he said. "I think that's the most that anyone can hope for."

Fall from grace? Hardly. Just a graceful exit.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group