If you will indulge me, please read the following statement from Rep. Steve Chabot during the Clinton impeachment trial:

In this instance, and in many others that have been presented to you over the last two days, the facts and the law speak plainly. The President’s actions and demeanor make the case that President Clinton knowingly and willfully lied under oath in a grand jury proceeding and in a civil deposition. The compelling evidence in this case satisfies the intent element required under both sections 1621 and 1623 of the Federal Criminal Code. You will probably hear opposing counsel argue that the President did not technically commit perjury, and appeal to the case of Bronston v. United States. This is a legal smoke screen. In the Bronston case, the Supreme Court held statements that are literally truthful and non-responsive cannot by themselves form the basis for a perjury conviction. This is the cornerstone of the President’s defense. However, the Court also held that the unresponsive statements must be technically true in order to prevent a perjury conviction; such statements must not be capable of being conclusively proven false. As we have seen, none of the President’s perjurious statements before the grand jury, covered in the first impeachment article, are technically true. So, when the President’s counsel cites the Bronston case, remember the facts. And ask yourselves, are the President’s answers literally true? And, remember, to be literally true they must actually be true. It is also important to note that, consistent with the Bronston case, the response, “I don’t recall,” is not technically true if the President actually could recall. The factual record in the case, consisting of multiple sworn statements contradicting the President’s testimony and highly specific corroborating evidence, demonstrates that the President’s statements were not literally true or legally accurate. On the contrary, the record establishes that the President repeatedly lied, he repeatedly deceived, he repeatedly feigned forgetfulness. (Emphasis mine)

Now go watch this selectively-edited video.

I see only two conclusions to draw from the Gonzalez fiasco:
1. The Attorney General is lying through his teeth to Congress and the American people and should be fired or impeached; or
2. The Attorney General is too incompetent to know what his subordinates are doing, to remember important conversations, or to remeber much of anything about the duties of his job as the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the land, and should be fired or impeached.

Bush ain’t gonna fire him. That leaves one option. The Dems have shown they have balls, but can they use them?