Almost all politicians have ambitions, from passing a measure they believe will help the public to winning a higher office.   Some of their ambitions are honorable, and most of them are at least understandable.   So, why I am I stuck with a congressman, Jay Inslee, whose ambition is to move from being a local nuisance to being a national nuisance?

Rep. Jay Inslee will introduce a resolution today directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached.

Five co-sponsors have joined Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, in backing the resolution.

At issue, said Inslee, is whether Gonzales lied to Congress in testimony about secret government wiretapping and about the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, including John McKay, the former federal prosecutor in Seattle.

Those interested in the facts of the case may want to read this Washington Post column by leftist Ruth Marcus.

I find myself in an unaccustomed and unexpected position: defending Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Gonzales fans, if there are Gonzales fans left, except for the only fan who counts: Don't take any comfort from my assessment.

In his Senate testimony last week, Gonzales once again dissembled and misled.  He was too clever by seven-eighths.  He employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed.  The brutalizing he received from senators of both parties was abundantly deserved.

But I don't think he actually lied about his March 2004 hospital encounter with then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.  I certainly don't think he could be charged with -- much less convicted of -- perjury.

And don't miss what Marcus says about the motives of those attacking Gonzalez:

Consequently, the calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage.  What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?

That's you she's talking about, Congressman Inslee.

As a leftist, Marcus does not go as far as she should in her argument.  We are engaged in a war with terrorists, a war in which intelligence is crucial.  Those facts are indisputable.  But most Democrats and most "mainstream" journalists act as if their main enemy is the Bush administration and do all they can to disrupt our intelligence operations — if that will hurt Bush.   Congressman Inslee's proposal to start an investigation of Gonzalez may not be the most irresponsible thing these leftist allies have done (that dishonor probably goes to the New York Times for some of its leaks), but it is one of the most irresponsible.

If Inslee succeeds, we will be, in effect, without an Attorney General for the next eighteen months.  And, since so many of the threats come from within, the Attorney General is a key figure in the war on terror.  But that doesn't matter to Congressman Inslee, a local nuisance aspiring to be a national nuisance.  And, as far as I can tell, a local nuisance completely indifferent to the effects of his actions on our national security.

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(Incidentally, I learned from the article that Inslee had been a (part time?) prosecutor early in his career.  Given his weak relationship with the facts, I think an investigation into his actions as a prosecutor is warranted.  A man who will believe, for example, Joseph Wilson, IV, will believe anyone and may well have been a Nifong in that part of his political career.

Since Inslee is interested investigations, let me suggest that he might want to begin with Congressman Conyers.  If, that is, Inslee is interested in crimes, rather than "maneuvering for political advantage".)