Prosecuting torture: 'Hard to believe'

by Mark Silva

Eric Holder, President Barack Obama's nominee for attorney general, made plenty of people uncomfortable when he asserted, flatly, in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, that water-boarding is torture.

During the opening round of questions, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy asked Holder if he thought water-boarding - that simulation of drowning which the U.S. has used in some interrogations of captive "enemy combatants'' - is torture, noting that Alberto Gonzalez, Bush's final attorney general, and Gonzalez's replacement, Michael Mukasey, would never answer that question directly. "Yes," Holder said. "Water-boarding is torture."

Gonzales, in an interview airing on National Public Radio's Tell Me More today, voiced his concern about "Making a blanket pronouncement like that.'' He noted "the effect it may have... on the morale and the dedication of intelligence officials and lawyers throughout the administration."

Not to mention to fear of possible prosecutions that it raises.

"My reaction was very similar to General Mukasey's reaction, which was concern about making a pronouncement like that,'' Gonzales said, pointing to the "concern that would arise in the minds of intelligence officials and lawyers at the department, who all acted in good faith, working as hard as they can under very difficult circumstances, to give advice and make decisions to protect our country...

"I don't know whether or not, in making that statement, Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions, all of the underlying documentation supporting the opinions'' that the Justice Department had issued on the question, he said - noting also "the threat that existed at the time these opinions were offered, and the opinions of the intelligence officials about their belief in a particular detainee having very important, valuable intelligence information that might save American lives.''

On the question of prosecuting officers who employed any of the "extreme tactics'' that the Bush administration has acknowledged, without admitting to any "torture'' of detainees: "I don't think that there's going to be a prosecution, quite frankly.'' Gonzales said. "Because again, these activities.... They were authorized, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice.''

When Holder is confirmed - with a vote expected Wednesday - he "will have to make a decision as to whether or not move forward with an investigation or a prosecution,'' Gonzales said. "But under those circumstances, I find it hard to believe...

"Nonetheless, the very discussion about it is extremely discouraging,'' the former attorney general said. "And I have talked to officials, senior officials at the CIA for example, who tell me that agents at the CIA no longer have any interest at doing anything remotely controversial, for fear that they are going to be investigated, and they're going to have to go out and hire lawyers in order to do their job.

"And so it has a very discouraging effect. And the net result of all of that is that people will not be doing what they need to be doing to gain intelligence that will help us connect the dots and protect our country from another attack."

Here, courtesy of National Public Radio, is the interview that Tell Me More host Michel Martin conducted with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales airing today:

MICHEL MARTIN: He's given few interviews since he's resigned as Attorney General in September 2007, but now he's speaking out, he's here with us in our Washington D.C. studios for much of the hour, so we hope. Mr. Gonzales, welcome. Thank you so much for joining us.

FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO MR. GONZALES: I'm happy to be here.

MS. MARTIN: You were on the plane with President George W. Bush when he flew back home to Texas last Tuesday after Barack Obama took the oath of office, what was that like?

MR. GONZALES: It was bittersweet as you might imagine -I think there was a great deal of joy, joyous celebration in terms of the end of a tenure and an experience that we will all shared. A little sadness that we would no longer be working together on very important issues that affected the citizens of this country. For me, it was a really great experience to be with the President, to say goodbye to the President, to thank the President for his service, thank him for the opportunities that he has given me, so I really very much enjoyed the experience.

MS. MARTIN: What was it like watching Barack Obama take the oath? I assume you were probably at Andrews air force base, given the timing and probably watching there, what was that like?

MR. GONZALES: Well most of the Texans and the senior staff flying down to Texas, we were all huddled together in the visitors lounge at Andrews as President Obama took the oath. We all applauded afterwards. You know, it's a proud moment for America quite frankly for a number of reasons, also another example of the wonderful transition of the peaceful transfer of power that occurs in our country ever four or eight years, so very very proud moment, very historic moment of course.

MS. MARTIN: None of my business, but do you mind telling me who you voted for?

MR. GONZALES: Who did I? I voted for John McCain. I believe that John McCain, I believe in his policies and his visions of America, and that's why I support him and that's why I think people should vote for someone.

MS. MARTIN: Can you just take me back to the beginning? It is my understanding that when President George H. W. Bush, Bush 41 first asked you to come to Washington you said no?

MR. GONZALES: That's right. When Bush 41 was President of the United States, they were looking for minorities to come into the administration and I was asked to be a special assistant at HUD and a special assistant, I believe at the VA, but I said no because I wanted to stay and hopefully make partner at the law firm that I was at in Houston. When Governor Bush became Governor in 1995 in my first conversation with him, I asked him why me, why did you ask me to come be your general council of your staff? We didn't know each other very well at all and I was somewhat surprised at the offer. He told me then that when I said no to his dad, you said no to my old man and that's when I first got on his radar screen.

MS. MARTIN: Did you want to come to Washington with President George W. Bush, Bush 43?

MR. GONZALES: I did, I just want to state one election in 2000 I was on the ballot with the President in Texas. I was on the ballot for a six year term to remain on the Texas Supreme Court; I was a sitting justice on the Supreme Court of Texas, but when he was elected President, and I was asked to come to Washington to be the White House counsel - I said yes, because it is such a unique opportunity to work in the White House, particularly to serve someone that you know, that you know fairly well. It seemed to me that the next logical step in the progression of my profession.

MS. MARTIN: Did you have your sights set on Attorney General when you first came to Washington, was that your dream job?

MR. GONZALES: Absolutely not. I really was just focused on working in the White House, it is, both jobs are extremely unique. Working in the White House is such a privilege, to wake up every day, and to go to the White House to work, particularly at a senior level position and particularly for someone that you have a relationship with. It was quite an experience, but at the end of the day, it is only a staff position if you think about it. Working as Attorney General, you are a counted official; you have responsibility for 110,000 employees at the Department of Justice. You are the point person for the administration on policy managed in the Congress and before the media. You have a lot responsibility to really make a difference in the lives of Americans and so both jobs are tremendous and they are wonderful opportunities for different reasons

MS. MARTIN: I was just wondering, when you came to Washington id you say to yourself, you are obviously an ambitious guy and did you say to yourself, "Gee, that's the job I want to have, at some point"?

MR. GONZALES: I don't think so. Quite frankly, during the first term, most of the attention on me was whether I was going to go onto the Supreme Court, but I stayed focus on my job. I liked, loved working in the White House, I loved seeing the President every day, and so that was, again, there was a lot to do just in charge of my responsibilities of the White House counsel. No, I didn't think about becoming Attorney General.

MS. MARTIN: If you are just joining us, you are listening to Tell Me More, from NPR News, our guest today is former Attorney General, former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Did you, in his last appearance before the White House press corp, President Bush said he never felt the burdens of the office, what about you, did you?

MR. GONZALES: Yes. It's a, the decisions that we have to make at this level are tremendous, and they are very, very controversial at times. You have to make tough, controversial decisions in these kind of positions, and you're going to make mistakes. If you think that people don't make mistakes at this level, then you just have no understanding of the responsibilities that exist with this kind of job. So yes, you feel the responsibility, you feel the burden, because there is just so much at stake. Not just domestically, but sometimes there are international consequences to the decisions you make, and you want to get it right, and you work as hard as you can to get it right. Fortunately, you are often surrounded by the best and the brightest in our country and we work together to try to reach the right conclusion, to reach the right decisions on behalf of the American people.

MS. MARTIN: As I mentioned your tenure, and this no secret to you, that your tenure as White House Counsel and later Attorney General has been very much criticized by people on both side of the aisle. Why do you think that is?

MR. GONZALES: I think, again, because we had to make some very, very touch decisions in probably one of the most unique periods in our nation's history. Decisions that have never been confronted or had to be dealt with in our nations history, or not since, probably since World War II, because being a nation at war against terrorism and we have to make tough decisions, sometimes you are going to make people unhappy and that just comes with this type of position you can't be afraid of controversy. You have to decide what is right and make those decisions, if you are afraid of controversy, you become paralyzed and you don't make decisions. So, it just comes with the job as far as I am concerned.

MS. MARTIN: One of the things that didn't come out until after you'd left that job. One of the things that people talk about and criticize you is something that didn't come out until later. When they talk about the time back in March 2004 when you and then Chief of Staff Andy Card went to the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, to get him to reauthorize the domestic surveillance program, which he refused to do. He said that Deputy Attorney General James Comey was in charge, but many people looked at that incident and being just in poor taste, arrogant, abusive. The only thing you have publicly said about this subsequently was that you were disappointed that Deputy Chief Attorney General James Comey gave this testimony about that without talking to you first. What is your side about that? Why did you go to his hospital room?

MR. GONZALES: Well let me just say that neither Andy or I, and obviously I can't really speak for Andy, but I feel comfortable saying that neither Andy nor I would have gone there to take advantage of someone who was sick. Andy and I both in fact talked about the importance of satisfying ourselves, as we talked with General Ashcroft that he was in fact competent. We talked about it over at the White House and we talked about it in the Sedan over to the hospital. We were concerned about that. We were sent there on behalf of the President of the United States. We had just had a very, left a very important meeting with the Congressional leadership about a very important intelligence program that the Congressional leadership agreed with the President should continue because it was a particularly heightened period of threats against the United States and against our allies. And I might remind your listeners, that the very next morning you had the Madrid train bombings and so it was a very serious period of time. We had a very important program that the Congressional leadership and the executive branch leadership seemed to feel that this was something that should continue.

MS. MARTIN: Are you saying that the President told you to go?

MR. GONZALES: What I'm saying is I was sent there on behalf of the President of the United States, the Chief of Staff and the Council of the President, we went to the hospital on behalf of the President, we went to the hospital to make sure that General Ashcroft had this information. That's why we went to the hospital.

MS. MARTIN: You mean had the information about the Madrid bombing or had the information that this was of importance to the President and the Congressional leadership?

MR. GONZALES: The Madrid bombings had not happened yet, that would happen the next morning. We went to the hospital to make sure that the Attorney General had information about the approval of the congressional leadership. We felt that as a former member of Congress that that would make a difference for him and as someone who'd been involved in the reauthorization of this program for three years; we thought that would make a difference.

And I'll just say that if I were the Attorney General at the time, and the President was about to make a decision over the objection of my deputy, a decision that was consistent with the advice that I've given him for three years and a decision that was consistent with the approval of the Congressional leadership, I'd like to know about it.

MS. MARTIN: How did you feel though when you found out that Attorney General Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General James Comey, FBI Director Mueller, all their aides were preparing to resign en mass over this. Did you know that at the time that they felt so strongly about this?

MR. GONZALES: What I will just say as a general manner, is that sometimes people feel strongly about positions and about decisions that are made within the executive branch. Sometimes people say things in the heat of the moment. At the end of the day what's important is that we all came together and came to a resolution that ensured the continued safety of our country.

MS. MARTIN: I still want to, you work closely with these people you worked closely with John Ashcroft you worked closely with FBI director Mueller, within obviously the appropriate boundaries by your respective jobs, but did it not give you pause at all when they all said, we'll quit, we'll all leave?

MR. GONZALES: I don't know who, again, I can't confirm that all these people were saying we're all going to leave, again. Lawyers disagree, they often disagree about very controversial issues, they often disagree about tough legal analysis and legal questions. That's what lawyers do, and I think we need to invite that kind of debate that kind of discourse between lawyers on very, very tough issues. And so the fact that someone may have been unhappy, may have disagreed with a particular decision or legal analysis that should not surprise anyone.

MS. MARTIN: How did you react when this came out, sometime later when this, that whole visit came out sometime later in about 2006, about two years later. What was your reaction, you were out of town at the time that the testimony, that James Comey testified. Do you remember how you felt?

MR. GONZALES: I was disappointed that Mr. Comey had not have the courtesy to at least inform the Department of Justice or the White House that this testimony was coming.

MS. MARTIN: We need to pause here for just a moment, and we're going to continue our conversation with former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales after the break.

BREAK

MS. MARTIN: We've been talking about some of the more controversial episodes in your tenure, both as White House counsel and as Attorney General. And I think the second thing that people think about when they think about you is your role in formulating the White House's policies on interrogation techniques. Now the man designated as the Attorney General for the Obama administration in his testimony before congress, in his confirmation hearings, has explicitly said that he thinks that water boarding is torture. I'm going to play a short clip.

AUDIO CLIP

MS. MARTIN: When you heard that, what was your reaction?

MR. GONZALES: My reaction was very similar to General Mukasey's reaction, which was concern about making a pronouncement like that - concern that would arise in the minds of intelligence officials and lawyers at the department, who are all acting in good faith, working as hard as they can under very difficult circumstances, to give advice and make decisions to protect country. And when you have that kind of pronouncement, it concerned me as it did Gen. Mukasey.

I don't know whether or not, in making that statement, Mr. Holder had access to all of the opinions, all of the underlying documentations supporting the opinions. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. The other thing I don't know is how much of the intelligence decisions Mr. Holder had with respect to the threat that existed at the time these opinions were offered, and the opinions of the intelligence officials about their belief in a particular detainee having very important, valuable intelligence information that might save American lives. And so, I don't know what Mr. Holder did or didn't know in making that statement. And I think that one needs to be careful in making a blanket pronouncement like that, if you don't have all the information, because of the affect it may have, again, on the moral and the dedication of intelligence officials and lawyers throughout the administration.

MS. MARTIN: Are you worried that officers, persons who participated in these practices, may be now prosecuted?

MR. GONZALES: I don't think that there's going to be prosecution, quite frankly. Because again, these activities for the most part, based on what I know, and obviously there are going to be some actions and activities that I'm not aware of. But in terms of what people really focused on: they were authorized, they were known at the highest levels, they were supported by legal opinions at the Department of Justice. And so, based upon those facts, I think it would be difficult, again I can't pre-judge it and Mr. Holder if he is confirmed will have to make a decision whether to move forward with a prosecution. But under those circumstances, I find it hard to believe.

None the less, the very discussion about it is extremely discouraging. And I have talked to officials, senior officials at the CIA for example, who tell me that agents at the CIA no longer have any interest at doing anything remotely controversial, for fear that they are going to be investigated, and they're going to have to go out and hire lawyers in order to do their job. And so it has a very discouraging effect. And the net result of all of that is that people will not be doing what they need to be doing to gain intelligence that will help us connect the dots and protect our country from another attack.

MS. MARTIN: I think what Mr. Holder and those who agree with his position are saying, though, is that it wasn't worth it - that these practices did not yield important information and that, in fact, even if they did, that they damaged America's standing abroad to such a degree that it wasn't worth it. What do you say to that?

MR. GONZALES: Well, I think as a lawyer, we need to be careful in saying that it didn't produce valuable intelligence, because my recollection is that the intelligence officials gave a contradictory testimony - or have made contradictory statements. They come to the lawyers - intelligence officials come to lawyers - and say we lack this information. In order to get this information, this is what we believe we need to do. As lawyers, we don't say, at that point, well, no, we disagree with you; you can get that information a different way. That's not our job.

Our job as lawyers is to say, okay, we will tell you whether or not this can be done lawfully. And so if the intelligence officials are saying that the information gathered helped protect America, I think we need to take - we need to believe them as opposed to believing the lawyers who say, oh, I don't think that's going to be as effective.

MS. MARTIN: Well, but civilian control of both the military and these questions, as I said, a well-established core value of the United States, and one of our - one of the arguments of the critics - is that this - that civilians such as yourself, officers of the government, have a duty to set a bright line, and this is so violative (sic) of the values of the American people that on that basis, it's not worth it. What do you say to that?

MR. GONZALES: Well, you know, when people talk about values, I don't know whether or not we're talking about my values or your values - whose values are we talking about? The values of the American people are typically incorporated and reflected in the laws passed by Congress and in our Constitution. And that's where our values are easily - can be easily seen and can be easily interpreted and understood and so, so long as the actions are consistent with our laws and consistent with our Constitution, I think you can make a very strong argument that the actions taken are consistent with our values.

MS. MARTIN: Are you at all concerned that you will be prosecuted for your role in defending setting policies around these techniques?

MR. GONZALES: No. I'm not - listen, I think only a fool wouldn't be worried about a prosecution motivated for political reasons, or - I mean, Washington can be a very difficult town and a mean-spirited town. But I think if you look at the evidence, if people tell the truth, I don't see a criminal prosecution for me, nor for anyone that I'm aware of, because again, based on what I have observed, people acted in good faith. They didn't act for political considerations; they didn't act for personal considerations; they acted in the best interests of the United States as they saw it.

MS. MARTIN: Final question on this point, though, that your successors and the Obama administration are saying that they don't believe that these techniques are necessary to keep America safe. Any regrets on your part?

MR. GONZALES: Again, I question whether or not it's their role to make that kind of judgment. I think that the intelligence officials are professionals; it's their judgment to decide whether or not these kinds of - any technique, any technique in the war on terror, whether it be Guantanamo, whether it be interrogation, whether it be in surveillance - it's the role, the responsibility, of the intelligence officials to say this is something we need to protect America and for the lawyers to say, well, that can lawfully be done - that cannot lawfully be done.

Now, as a Cabinet official, clearly the attorney general also has a role of providing his own policy advice to the president of the United States. And we do that. And it's my responsibility to tell the president, Mr. President, I think this is lawful but nonetheless, Mr. President, you need to consider the political ramifications, the ramifications overseas with our allies - so these are things that are perfectly legitimate for a cabinet official to tell the president of the United States.

MS. MARTIN: And final point on this, and you may or may not agree with this assessment, but some who've written about this have suggested that there's no daylight, really, between you, Attorney General Ashcroft, your successor Michael Mukasey on this question, and yet, you are the one who seems to be singled out for particular criticism around these techniques. I wonder if you agree with that assessment, and if so, why do you think that is?

MR. GONZALES: Well, based on my observation - and again, I don't know what - you never know what you don't know - but it appears to me that the policies that I supported and the opinions that I stood behind are very consistent with General Ashcroft and General Mukasey. I think critics have singled me out above the others, probably because of my -

MS. MARTIN: You do think so.

MR. GONZALES: - probably because of my relationship with the president. And I think that that's the reason why that people choose to single me out as opposed to focusing on General Ashcroft and General Mukasey.

MS. MARTIN: And you think that's unfair?

MR. GONZALES: Listen, there are lots of things that are unfair about life - lots of things unfair about what happens here in Washington. And we all know that when we come into these positions. Things are going to be unfair. And you have to accept that. I just hope that people, over the passage of time, look at this thing dispassionately and see that, in fact, the positions taken by me and embraced by me were very consistent overall, throughout the term of the Bush administration, beginning with General Ashcroft and now ending with General Mukasey.

MS. MARTIN: If you're just joining us, you're listening to "Tell Me More" from NPR news. I'm Michel Martin and I'm speaking with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It strikes me that the other thing at the heart of the criticism of you is that, as attorney general - I think the harshest criticism of you is that you undermined confidence in the rule of law by causing or allowing the department to become politicized by the way you managed the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys and by the way you managed the hiring of career prosecutors. What do you say to that?

MR. GONZALES: I categorically reject that. I think people that know me - they laugh when they hear the fact that I have somehow politicized anything. I'm not, by nature, a very political animal, quite frankly. I care about the reputation of the Department of Justice to dispense justice equally, fairly, even-handedly. I care very much about the work the career employees at the Department of Justice - the department is great not because of the 400 political appointees, but because of the over 100,000 career employees who go to work every day to serve our country. And so I care very much about those individuals.

I deeply regret some of the decisions made by my staff in making hiring decisions. Those decisions were made without my knowledge - certain questions asked - political questions asked of employees should not have been asked. I condemn it. I wish I - I wish someone had told me that this was going on, because I would have done something to stop it and people would have lost their jobs if I had known about it. And so it's very, very unfortunate. I think I regret anything that would, in any way, diminish the reputation of the Department of Justice in the minds of the American people.

The good thing that I will say about what happened - I want to - should be reassuring the American people - is that, while there may have been personnel decisions that were politicized, I'm not aware of any evidence that the substantive work of the department was in any way politicized. We have these rules against politicization in hiring decision in place so that we don't have political considerations creep into substantive decisions at the Department of Justice. So the good news is that, from what I can tell, from what I know, the work of the department continued as the American people deserved to have it continued.

MS. MARTIN: You said you didn't know that this was going on; this was precisely the thing that the inspector general criticized you for in a report about this. There are four inspector generals' reports that have been issued around your tenure, and some are more critical of you than others. But the one that was released in September of 2008, which was about the firing of the U.S. attorneys says, quote:

"We concluded that the process the department used to select the U.S. attorneys for removal was fundamentally flawed and the oversight and the removal process by the department's most senior leaders was seriously lacking. In particular, we found that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and deputy attorney general Paul McNulty failed to adequately supervise the U.S. attorney selection and removal process. They were remarkably unengaged."

And the report goes on to say that the statements that you and he provided about the reasons for the removal were inconsistent, misleading and inaccurate in many ways. What do you say to that?

MR. GONZALES: I think the report was very disappointing to me for a number of reasons. You had an investigation that took over a year to complete. Now the report was hundreds of pages long and there really was nothing new in the report. In fact, a year before the report came out, in testimony before Congress, I testified yes, that the review process had been severely lacking and that I wished I could have done things differently and I outlined a series of steps that, in hindsight, I wish I had done differently. And so no question about it; I should have been more engaged in that process.

MS. MARTIN: Why weren't you?

MR. GONZALES: Well, let me just say that I felt that I had identified an individual - my chief of staff - to sort of shepherd the review process. And I made it clear to him that I expected him to consult with the senior leadership of the department - people like Paul McNulty who had been a former United States attorney who knew well these individuals - the work of these individuals. And if Paul McNulty makes a recommendation to me - if a recommendation includes his views - I would feel quite comfortable that, in fact, those would be good recommendations coming to me about the qualifications or the work of a particular United States attorney.

But in hindsight, yes, I should have been more engaged and more involved. I will say, however, in terms of - in response to charges that this process was politicized, if you read carefully the report, I think you will see that the report does identify that there were other - there were reasons why, I think, at least six of the eight were removed - performance-related reasons. And the report was inconclusive with respect to the U.S. attorney from New Mexico. But at the end of the day, I think if you look at the report, it does confirm that these individuals were removed for performance-related reasons and not for political reasons.

MS. MARTIN: Well, the law is clear; I mean, you have the authority to remove any of these people. People will recall that Web Hubbell, when he became, I think, interim attorney general in the Clinton administration, removed all 93 U.S. attorneys at once. However, there are those who say that your goal here was abusive, that it was - that it maligned these individuals unfairly. In fact, I want to play you a short clip of David Iglesias, who was the U.S. attorney in New Mexico who was speaking to my colleague Terry Gross about this. And here's what he said:

(Begin audio clip.)

DAVID IGLESIAS: Well, Karl Rove had this idea that it'd be possible to actually create a permanent Republican majority in Congress on both sides of the House and I guess even into the White House - to have a monopoly over two of the three branches of government. And I think Rove is the first person who was able to figure out that you could use the Justice Department in a partisan way to affect the outcome of elections using the awesome power of federal indictment.

And what he failed to understand - or refused to understand, is the Justice Department is one agency that had a long history of staying above partisan matters, that it was the watchdog, it was the agency that provided legal advice to the president about what he could or could not do. And there was the attempt, which began, but I'm glad to say I don't think was successful, but there was the attempt to politicize the Justice Department at the highest levels and throughout the country, because most of the Justice Department is comprised of United States attorneys out in the districts. We have a lot more federal prosecutors out in the 50 states than work in Washington, D.C.

(End audio clip.)

MS. MARTIN: Now, I'm sure you're going to want to respond to this. We only have about a minute left before we need to take a break, but how do you respond to that? Had you ever heard that before from him?

MR. GONZALES: I've seen no evidence that Karl Rove or anyone at the White House intended to use the United States attorneys to politicize the work of the Department of Justice. I wouldn't have accepted it.

MS. MARTIN: Did Senator Domenici's criticisms of David Iglesias play any role in his being removed?

MR. GONZALES: Yes, but we get criticism all the time from senators on both sides of the aisle - from members of Congress from both sides of the aisle about the work of U.S. attorneys. They're involved in making recommendations about who we hire; they're also involved in giving their input about who should be fired as U.S. attorneys.

MS. MARTIN: We need to take a short break but when we come back we will have a few more minutes with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Please stay with us, I'm Michel Martin and you're listening to "Tell Me More" with NPR News.

MICHEL MARTIN: I'm Michel Martin and this "Tell Me More" from NPR News. We have more of our exclusive newsmaker-interview with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales plus a final word from me; it's my "Can I Just Tell You" commentary and we'll have that in just a few minutes. But first we're continuing with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, here with me in this studio.

One of the things that I'm curious about is that you have been criticized from both the left and the right: There are people who complained about your policies - those policies you participated in as White House counsel - we just talked about your tenure as attorney general - but when your name was floated as a potential Supreme Court nominee - you would have been the first person of Hispanic heritage to hold that post, as you were the first person of Hispanic heritage to have a top-level cabinet post - you were very much - there was a lot of consternation on the part of conservatives. Why was that?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Why was there consternation by conservatives?

MS. MARTIN: Yeah, on the part of conservatives.

MR. GONZALES: Well, you'd probably be better served by asking them, but I think that there was concerns about my views on abortion; I think there were concerns about my views on affirmative action. I think some conservatives believe that I was instrumental in steering President Bush to take a more middle-of-the-road approach in the Michigan affirmative action cases, which angered, I think, some conservatives.

MS. MARTIN: Is that true?

MR. GONZALES: Well, at the appropriate time I'll talk a little bit more about that. I supported where the president came out at the end of the day on those cases. But I think for those reasons, it's my understanding that conservatives were very, very - they were concerned about me and I think they felt that this was important enough that President Bush should focus on someone who they felt was reliably conservative.

MS. MARTIN: How big of a disappointment was it for you when the president eventually nominated Harriet Meyers and not you?

MR. GONZALES: Well, it wasn't a question about me versus her, it was a question of choosing the best person, I think, for the president. He, I think - and again, I'm just speculating here - I think it was important for him to try to find a woman to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court and Harriet Meyers - the president had someone that he had known for many, many years, felt comfortable with and knew that she was a very talented lawyer. And so I'm disappointed at the way that she was treated, quite frankly - the lack of support that existed with respect to her nomination, but that's the way things are in Washington sometimes, I guess.

MS. MARTIN: Speaking of your status of the first person of Latino heritage to hold some of these roles: Was that important to you when you became White House counsel, when you became Attorney General? Were you conscious of being the first?

MR. GONZALES: I knew that for some portion of the American population it would be very significant, that there would be a great deal of pride that someone named Gonzales was walking the halls of the West Wing and that someone named Gonzales was the attorney general of the United States - the chief law enforcement officer of the country. And so, whether you like it or not, in these kinds of positions you are viewed as a role model and I take that very seriously, quite frankly.

I think it is important for children in the minority community - African-Americans and the Hispanic community - to that it is possible in this great country of ours to do remarkable things, that if you prepare yourself and you're ready when the opportunity comes along to take advantage of that opportunity, then anything's possible.

MS. MARTIN: Forgive me though, that is one reason why it is particularly disappointing for those who believe you did allow the department's hiring practices to be infected by political considerations, because they say that minorities have looked to the Justice Department as the backstop to that kind of behavior - as the place that stands with the people who have the least power in upholding the rule of law.

MR. GONZALES: And I agree that it is important for the Department of Justice to exercise that role and to continue to exercising that role; it's important for the American people to have confidence that the department stands for that proposition. And so the notion that I would permit or allow this kind of activity knowingly is ridiculous. If I'd known about it, it wouldn't have happened.

MS. MARTIN: Do you have advice for Eric Holder, who will also be a first should he be confirmed as attorney general in the Obama administration? Do you have any advice for him?

MR. GONZALES: I'm a little reluctant to give Mr. Holder advice, given the fact that he's been a United States attorney - he's been the deputy attorney general. The deputy attorney general - people don't understand - really is the chief operating officer of the department. He is there meeting with the assistant attorney generals of the civil division, criminal division, anti-trust and tax - meets with them regularly.

And so he knows better than most with respect to what goes on in the department and how the department operates. I think that Eric will have the benefit of having seen what's happened in the past eight years. He'll have the luxury of hindsight and, listen, mistakes get made in every administration during the tenure of every attorney general because you have to deal with some very controversial issues. And hopefully you evaluate those experiences and you learn from those experiences and you make good - better decisions going forward.

MS. MARTIN: Where do you think things went wrong for you when you came to Washington in terms of your tenure in Washington. I get the impression that there is - "bittersweetness" is the word that you used at the beginning of our conversation - about your tenure here?

MR. GONZALES: Well, listen, I'm not sure how productive it is to lament about where things went wrong, quite frankly. Maybe it was inevitable that when you have controversial decisions made during a historic period of time in our nation's history, some people are not going to be happy with some of those decisions. People will not be happy or appreciate your role in how those decisions get made. And so, sometimes people identify someone to target and I think that's what's happened here with respect to me. And I'm not complaining. Listen, I'm not whining about it. It comes with the job. It is a privilege to serve as counsel to the president and to serve as the attorney general of the United States. Those are big jobs and, you know what? Sometimes with big jobs come big hits. And you accept that.

I take comfort from knowing that I did the very best that I could and played a small part in helping the president protect our country in these past eight years. At the end of the day, sure, I would have done some things differently.

MS. MARTIN: Like what?

MR. GONZALES: But I take a great deal of pride in the work that we did. And, you know, you asked me what. Listen, it would be great - wouldn't it be great if we could all be perfect, if we all, in hindsight, could reduce mistakes that we've made. But life doesn't work that way. And so I focus on moving forward, what lies ahead and trying to be helpful to make our country even better than before.

MS. MARTIN: One more thing, though. You did - in a conversation with the Wall Street Journal, which is one of the few conversations, one of the few conversations with reporters that you've had since you left the post, that you said you thought you were one of the casualties of 9/11. How so?

MR. GONZALES: Well, when I said that, I meant that, again, in these kinds of positions, you're going to be involved in decisions that sometimes get politicized. And, to the extent that I got caught in the crossfire of those kinds of political disagreements over national security issues, law-enforcement issues, I think that that's a little bit unfair.

I didn't mean to say that, by that, that I was a casualty in terms of like someone who fought overseas and died for our country. All I meant was that in these difficult times, when you're having to make difficult decisions, sometimes those can be controversial.

MS. MARTIN: What are you up to now? It's been reported that you're at loose ends somewhat professionally, which is very surprising to many people given that you were a graduate of Harvard Law School, you're a veteran of the United States Air Force, you were on the Texas Supreme Court, you were White House counsel, you were attorney general of the United States, you were on the short list for the Supreme Court, you were a partner at Vinson & Elkins, a major Texas law firm.

It seems customary for somebody with that resume to have your choice of jobs in the legal world. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

MR. GONZALES: I think that, listen, there have been investigations, as we've talked about earlier, that have proceeded and most are now complete. I think that's made a difference, quite frankly, in the eyes of some. They want to make sure that those come out the way that I believe they should come out, which is that - nothing wrong here and there will be no prosecution.

These are tough economic times.

MS. MARTIN: But the U.S. attorney did - the inspector general did recommend that there be a further investigation and the case involving U.S. attorneys has been referred to the U.S. attorney in Connecticut.

MR. GONZALES: Yes, the reason for that is - my understanding is - is because the inspector general could not investigate the White House and could not investigate Senator Domenici. But there was no finding of wrongdoing by me, and there will be no finding of wrongdoing by me at the White House or as Senator Domenici's office; I'm quite confident of that. But at the end of the day, listen, these things have to play themselves out and I think with the passage of time, I think the opportunities that should be afforded to someone with my experiences and my successes, I think, will present themselves. I'm confident of that.

MS. MARTIN: What do you make of your experience? I'd like to know if you were in a position to offer advice to someone who's just starting out who's interested in public service, perhaps a younger you, what would you say? Is there a cautionary tale? Is there a story around your story?

MR. GONZALES: I would say, first of all, stepping into the arena of public service, it's extremely important. Our country is great because during extraordinary times, ordinary people have stepped into the arena of public service to serve, and we need that to continue. I think it's important that you step into the arena with your eyes open, otherwise you're going to get battered. And I think it can be tough. And sometimes, it can be unfair. But that should not discourage good people from stepping into the arena. People are going to try to define you in a way - the media and critics will try to define you in a way that serves their purposes, but I would remind people that they can't make it so - they can't make and untruth truthful - even if they repeat it over and over and over again.

And then finally, you need to understand that mistakes are going to happen. And the thing you need to do is to identify when those mistakes happen. Hopefully, you have the opportunity to correct them. You learn from them, and it makes you a better decision maker in the future. Those are the lessons that I would say - I think particularly in the minority community, we need leadership desperately. In the Hispanic community and the African-American community, we desperately need leadership, and one of the best ways to develop those skills is in the arena of public service.

MS. MARTIN: If I could press you again once more in just the minute or so we have left on what are you doing now? You only deferred one question I asked you, and that was about your feelings about Harriet Myers, and you said you'll talk about that at some later time. Are you writing a book? Are you planning to tell more of your story?

MR. GONZALES: I am in the process of writing a book. I think it's important to tell the story. I have a perspective of what happened here, and others do as well, of course. But if I don't tell the story, then who will? And so it's important for me that people understand what happened in the White House, my experiences, what I saw in the White House and in the Department of Justice. I'm also currently giving speeches; I'm doing some mediation and arbitration. And that's what I'm focused on right now. We hope, in the near future, to get back to Texas - my family and I - that is our home, and we hope to get back home soon.

MS. MARTIN: And finally, if there's one thing you would like people to draw from our conversation today, is there one thing you would like people to know about you that, perhaps, they did not? What might that be?

MR. GONZALES: Well, I don't know what they do or don't know about me, but I can - I want to reassure the American people that I came into these positions with one intent, which was to serve our country, to work as hard as I could, which I did work as I hard as I could, to serve our country, to make our country better, to make our country safer, to make our communities better and provide more opportunities for our children.

MS. MARTIN: Alberto Gonzales is the former attorney general of the United States. He served in that post from 2005 to 2007. Before he went to the Justice Department, Mr. Gonzales was also White House counsel to George W. Bush beginning in 2001. He was kind enough to join us here in our Washington, D.C., studios. Mr. Gonzales, thank you so much for your time.

MR. GONZALES: Pleasure to be here.