I argued with myself over whether to break Gonzalesgate out as a separate topic. I don't think much of Gonzales but, on the other hand, I've yet to see anything that convinces me any crime took place. Some political appointees got unappointed. Life goes on. Still, with the hearings coming up Tuesday the situation's going to be getting a lot of press and I guess anyone who wants to be allowed to sit at the cool-kids table needs to be prepared to talk about it.

Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit.

• Practice Run
• Gonzales Defends Himself

***

Practice Run
Ed Morrissey

With his Congressional testimony just two days away, Alberto Gonzales has opted for a practice run in today's Washington Post. The beleaguered Attorney General pleads his case directly to the American public. He categorically states that he would never ask for a resignation of federal prosecutors for malign purposes, but afterwards the case gets somewhat weaker:

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle.

What began as a well-intentioned management effort to identify where, among the 93 U.S. attorneys, changes in leadership might benefit the department, and therefore the American people, has become an unintended public controversy.

While I accept responsibility for my role in commissioning this management review process, I want to make some fundamental points abundantly clear. ...

Gonzales has been ridiculed of late for holing himself up in his office and doing almost nothing but preparation for his Congressional testimony. Critics claim that if he tells the truth, he has no reason to rehearse his testimony. I disagree. First, no one expects that Gonzales will be met with professionalism and a detached objectivity when he heads up the Hill. He's going to take a beating, and deservedly so, for the rinky-dink manner in which his office handled the firings, and perhaps less deservedly for the firings themselves. Second, if Gonzales and his crew had done this kind of preparation from the start - like, say, reviewing the documents in their own possession before making contradictory public statements and testimony -- we wouldn't be here now.

That said, we can see the defenses that Gonzales will use. ...

Gonzales says he looks forward to getting the facts straight in front of Congress on Tuesday. If he can do that, he may save his job -- but his credibility may be another matter entirely. The Bush administration should consider that after Tuesday's testimony.

***

Gonzales Defends Himself 
John Hinderaker

As a tuneup to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Alberto Gonzales has an op-ed in today's Washington Post. It isn't particularly noteworthy, but Gonzales does make some basic points:

My decision some months ago to privately seek the resignations of a small number of U.S. attorneys has erupted into a public firestorm. First and foremost, I appreciate the public service of these fine lawyers and dedicated professionals, each of whom served his or her full four-year term as U.S. attorney. I apologize to them, their families and the thousands of dedicated professionals at the Justice Department for my role in allowing this matter to spin into an undignified Washington spectacle. ...

I suppose it's possible that somewhere in this story someone did something wrong, but evidence of that certainly hasn't emerged so far. The only obvious potential wrongdoing would be if the administration removed a U.S. Attorney in order to stop an investigation that would reflect badly on it, as Bill Clinton did. But, again, there is no evidence of that, and U.S. Attorneys, as Gonzales notes, have prosecuted corruption cases against both Republicans and Democrats.