My, my, my…how shameful. I seem to have found the answer to the issue that I posted last night. It appears that the captain of the U.S.S. Justice Department will try to stay on the ship but plans to do so by throwing his staff to the sharks.

Gonzalez is saying that, while he approved the firings of the 8 U.S. Attorneys and says that the decision to do so was above board, he is not aware of the criteria for the firings or how the decision-making process was done.

Sound like double-talk? Well, let’s clarify. This is just a lame attempt by Gonzalez to deflect responsibility away from himself and blame his staff for a major decision that, most likely, could not have been made without his input.

For example, see this excerpt from an interview he did with NBC’s Pete Williams.

PETE WILLIAMS: Can you answer some of the questions that have come up over the weekend? As you know, there was an email that came out Friday night that showed that ten days before the firings there was a meeting in your office, which you attended to discuss the firings. And yet when you talked to us here at the Justice Department two weeks ago, you said you were not involved in any discussions about the firings. Can you explain what seems like a contradiction?

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Let me just say, a wise senator recently told me that when you say something that is either being misunderstood or can be misunderstood, you need to try to correct the record and make the record clear. Let me try to be more precise about my involvement. When I said on March 13th that I wasn’t involved, what I meant was that I had not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States Attorneys should resign.

After I became Attorney General, I had Kyle Sampson coordinate a department review of the performance of United States Attorneys. And I expected him to consult with appropriate Department of Justice officials who had information and knowledge about the performance of United States Attorneys. From time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell me something that would confirm in my mind that that process was ongoing.

For example, I recall him mentioning to me that inquiry from the White House about where were we in identifying underperformers? And there are other similar type reminders that occurred during this process that I’m going to discuss specifically with the Congress.

I was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign. I was more focused on identify– or making sure that the White House was appropriately advised of the progress of our review. And I was also concerned to ensure that the appropriate Department of Justice officials, people who knew about the performance of United States Attorneys, that they were involved in the process.

Now, of course, ultimately at the end of the process or near the end of the process, the recommendations were presented to me. There had been a lot of work done to review the performance of these United States Attorneys. And recommendations were presented to me that reflected the recommendations of Kyle Sampson and of others in the department. And so there was obviously a discussion with respect to that recommendation.

And, of course having decided there will be changes, there was a discussion about how do we implement this change? And so that is, in essence, the context of my involvement and the substance of my comments on March 13th.

So, in other words, don’t blame me. If anything, blame my lack of intellectual curiosity and poor judgment about who I let advise me on decisions but, really, it’s not my fault.

Gonzalez is set to testify in front the of the Congress on April 17th. He’d better get this story straight by then.

Popularity: 13% [?]