While I have never sought to deceive Congress or the American people, I also know that I created confusion with some of my recent statements about my role in this matter. To be clear: I directed my then-deputy chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, to initiate this process; fully knew that it was occurring; and approved the final recommendations. Sampson periodically updated me on the review. As I recall, his updates were brief, relatively few in number and focused primarily on the review process.
During those conversations, to my knowledge, I did not make decisions about who should or should not be asked to resign. -Alberto Gonzales, on the eve of his testimony
Assuming that it is likely that some of the prosecutors were fired because they didn't investigate Democrats with vigor while others were retained because they did (it's BOTH that are alleged, so it is not just the fired to be considered), the only way for the AG's testimony be close to the truth is that the WH reached down into the DOJ, via links to Sampson or others (Goodling?), and the AG simply went along, either reluctantly or completely unknowingly (highly unlikely).
People don't know how to resign rather than do the wrong thing, any longer. That's a real problem when all branches and political fortunes are so wrapped up in one political party's machine. Still, I just wrote below about how one general knows the difference between loyalty and fealty, as General Eaton put it, once.
And who can blame Sampson and others their moral confusion, when Senator Lindsey Graham sets about bashing the private who brought to light the wrong-doing at Abu Ghraib, creating a culture of go-along? Look at how Wolfowitz is digging in, further trashing the pretenses of meritocracy at the World Bank, that his own appointment called into question. After Rumsfeld's repeatedly refused resignation letters, with the effect of suggesting a blame-free-zone for those "high enough" to be in it (pun intended), it's looking endemic.
