Sentient people following the Gonzales tempest have reached one of the following conclusions.

A) Gonzales is incompetent, inattentive, and ineffective as a leader. He may not have lied, but he is a world class idgit. There is nothing to see here. Move along.

B) Gonzales doesn’t clearly remember the political machinations behind the prosecutor firings, but it is no big deal because the executive branch has the power to fire and hire. Democrats can scream about the possibility of the firings being used to encourage/discourage investigations a la Domenici, but they can’t prove nothin’ and we should take the administration’s word that the firings were innocent, even if Gonzales can’t remember the actual reasons - he just knows that obstruction of justice was not a motivation.

C) Gonzales used his office to obstruct justice, politicize the judicial system, and lied under oath. Misstatements and faulty recollections my liberal ass.

None of these interpretations of Gonzales is particularly confidence building.

What then are we to make of President Bush’s statement that Gonzales’ testimony had increased his confidence in the Attorney General?

What conclusions are we to draw about Bush’s judgment?