Gonzales, Taking Responsibility?

The Bush administration has experienced several failures during the past six years (which is to be expected running a government as large as ours). In every case a pattern has emerged, from Bush himself down to the present firing flap in the Department of Justice. The responsible leader has said he "takes full responsibility" for the failure. He then continues in his office. The "responsibility" is dumped on an under servant who resigns or is fired. And the top man continues under the phrase "I serve at the pleasure of the President..."

What has happened to the meaning of responsibility? If I take responsibility for a crime, don't I go to jail? If I take responsibility for failure of my business, don't I have to close it? Taking responsibility should not be just a platitude. The honorable thing would be a result under which one suffers negative consequences.

Americans have always had a lower level of consequence than some cultures. In certain oriental cultures taking responsibility once meant literal suicide. When I was young failure in any public or private enterprise in Japan led the person taking responsibility to resign in disgrace.

What is happening at the top echelons of American culture? If a corporate CEO resigns because of failure he gets a golden parachute of 9 figures that gives him bigger wings than a truckload of Red Bull. At least, though, the blunderer is gone. In the Bush administration major failures, however, keep the blunderer in his high office probably to repeat the failed oversight in other areas with equally disastrous consequences.

Gonzales stood up yesterday and said he got where he was by persevering and fighting for his success. What that meant in the present crisis over federal attorneys being forced to resign was that there is no way he would ever do the same. Does anyone see the irony in this? Those "fired" attorneys lost their positions ostensibly for performance shortcomings, even though shortly before they had been given laudatory performance reviews. There were no specifics tied to their changed evaluations. Now the head honcho has obvious failure in his performance. He admits it and even takes "responsibility." Why doesn't his responsibility force him to step down as he required from these lesser attorneys driven out without even citing a specific failing that led to their forced resignation.

Don't get me wrong, the Attorney General has a right to fire whomsoever he will, under the supervision of Congress. It is done that way to insure the firings are for legitimate cause and the replacements are without political agenda. In these cases that process was bypassed by a neat little loophole in the Patriot Act. In emergency situations an attorney could be replaced with a "temporary" substitute without oversight by the legislature. This underhanded technique was used, according to emails that have surfaced, to avoid political scandal or maybe just inconvenient highlighting.

Gonzales needs to do what he required his subordinates to do. He needs to resign. He needs to be gone.