Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has a lot of explaining to do. The problem for him is it really doesn’t matter what the explanation is. He will end up either looking like a White House political lackey, disengaged leader, or an incompetent leader. Whether he actually did anything wrong depends on what you expect from the Attorney General.

If his explanation ends up being that his office didn’t compile the list of U.S. Attorneys to be fired but the White House did, then it’ll appear that the White House dictates his actions and requires him to remove attorneys who don’t meet the administration’s political litmus test. If the administration makes those kinds of decisions in the Justice Department, what do we need Mr. Gonzales for?

If his explanation is that his office did put together the list but he wasn’t really involved in that, then it appears he’s asleep at the helm of the Justice Department and it is actually being led by one of his subordinates. If his subordinates are making those kinds of decisions, what do we need Mr. Gonzales for?

If his explanation is that he was involved in making the list, then he appears incompetent for firing attorneys who reportedly were given glowing performance reviews by their immediate superiors. If he selectively fires some of his best performing attorneys for no apparent reason, then what do we need Mr. Gonzales for?

If they weren’t fired for poor performance, then what was it for? Yes, they serve at will for the administration. Yes, it is common to fire most, if not all of the attorneys when a new administration comes into power. But this is not a new administration nor did they do a blanket firing. It was very selective and involved only ten percent of the U.S. Attorneys. So what criteria were used and who decided to use it? It almost doesn’t matter, as far as Mr. Gonzales is concerned.

His testimony, regardless of what it is, will make him appear to be out of control of either his department or himself. If he’s out of control of his department, then ultimately he’s nothing more than a figurehead. If he’s out of control of himself, as demonstrated by firing some of his best performers, he’s not the kind of leader that would inspire his staff to excel.

He may not have done anything more malevolent than just being a very poor leader. Isn’t that alone reason enough to fire an Attorney General? It certainly took a lot less than that for him to fire a number of attorneys.