GovernmentExecutive.com

President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged he passed along to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "complaints" from lawmakers about U.S. attorneys, but he denied he ordered Gonzales to fire any of them.

"I did say to Al last year ... 'Have you heard complaints about [U.S. attorneys]? I have'" Bush said in answer to a reporter's question during a news conference in Merida, Mexico, with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. "But I never brought up a specific case, nor gave him specific instructions."

Bush said he remembered once being in the Senate when he heard a group of senators discussing the topic, but he said he did not "remember specific names being mentioned." The president added that it was "entirely appropriate and necessary" to pass complaints from lawmakers to members of his administration, though he noted he does not always do so.

Gonzales is under pressure from leading Senate Democrats to resign over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys late last year and the way the matter was presented to Congress. He is facing growing unhappiness with his performance in GOP ranks as well.

Bush said he continued to have confidence in Gonzales, but that he spoke with Gonzales this morning and ordered him to Capitol Hill to "correct" mistakes and explain why the U.S. attorneys were ousted.

"He's right, mistakes were made," Bush said, referring to comments Gonzales made Tuesday. "And I'm frankly not happy about it."

But Bush said he supported the firings, saying his concern rested instead with how the matter was communicated to Congress.

"There is a lot of confusion over what really has been a customary practice by the president -- U.S. attorneys and others serve at the pleasure of the president," Bush said. "The Justice Department recommended a list of U.S. attorneys. I believe the reasons why were entirely appropriate." He denied that political concerns weighed on the decision to remove them.

Bush said it "troubles" him that both Democrats and Republicans believe there was "not straightforward communication."

But the president also seemed to suggest that testimony by Gonzales and his deputies on Capitol Hill, which lawmakers believe mischaracterized the removals, was flawed because administration officials themselves were poorly informed.

D. Kyle Sampson resigned Monday as Gonzales's chief of staff over his failure to communicate with other Justice officials about his contacts with the White House while plotting the firings. Gonzales said Tuesday he was not involved in the discussions.

"I appreciate the fact that [Gonzales has] taken some action," Bush said, an apparent reference to Sampson's departure. "Because anytime anybody goes up to Capitol Hill, they've got to fully understand the facts and how they characterize the issues to members of Congress."

On another issue, Bush said he senses a change of attitude in Congress about changing immigration laws. "I will work with Congress, members of both political parties, to pass immigration law that will enable us to respect the rule of law -- and at the same time, respect humanity," Bush said.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Tuesday said he will not schedule a markup on immigration legislation until Bush publicly commits to sign it.

COMMENTS

• This is just a tempest in a teapot! There are a lot more important things that need to be addressed in this country besides this partisan political vendetta, like the fact that we are at war. Enough of this nonsense already! GovExec.com reader Posted March 29, 2007 12:17 PM
• I agree: Memories fail. But, emails show that Gonzales did discuss the firings in a meeting but he told the Congress he wasn't involved. Why didn't he "refresh" his memory before testifying? Face it, he lied and now the Neo-Conservatives are terrified of being held, finally, accountable for something. GovExec.com reader Posted March 26, 2007 7:18 AM
• Let's all try this. Go before Congress to testify under oath about something you haven't really studied up on, or been adequately briefed on. Make statements that you believe to be true, only to find out later you were mistaken on the facts and/or your recollection. Find yourself accused of lying under oath, and threatened with prosecution. Doesn't sound very fair, does it? I make a distinction in the cases of those who deliberately lie in order to mislead, or avoid responsibility, or act in furtherance of a crime. However, I definitely feel that those kinds of cases are very different from cases in which the participants may merely have a poor memory, or may just be misinformed. Do you remember every word you've ever said? Are you always 100% right in your recollection of events that happened days, weeks, months or years ago? I know I'm not that good, and don't have total recall. Do you? This is looking more and more like another typical Washington political witch hunt! GovExec.com reader Posted March 23, 2007 2:36 PM