Long ago, in a world far, far away, the pre-9/11 era of 1996, Donald Rumsfeld turned up late in Bob Dole's failing presidential campaign as a spokesman. Rumsfeld appeared on ''Meet the Press'' and showed himself to be a man of no opinions. As I wrote at the time, it is always interesting to watch the spectacle of power brokers claiming they know nothing about a number of subjects, or have no opinion on controversial issues. Such people, of course, are near the center of power only because they have knowledge and opinions, but they are often called on to publicly claim the opposite.

Alberto Gonzales was the latest example of this enduring tradition of the well-placed not knowing anything. In his drive-by confirmation hearing, one day long and less probing than ''Meet the Press,'' brief enough for his young sons sitting behind him -- employed as a shield against any impolite questioning -- not to tire, the soon-to-be-confirmed-as-attorney-general Gonzales often claimed absent knowledge, faulty memory, no opinion.

Back in '96, Rumsfeld's lack of opinions seemed harmless enough, though history has since demonstrated he has a lot of opinions, and the ones he has recently put into action have had tragic consequences. And, doubtless, Gonzales has a lot of opinions, and he will put those into action and they, too, will have serious and lingering consequences.

Gonzales, who owes his meteoric career to George W. Bush, has long played the role of Bush's Minister of Death. In Texas, where then-Gov. Bush made his reputation as being hard on crime by executing more people than all the other death-penalty states combined, it was Gonzales who prepared many briefings on whether executive clemency would be warranted for the condemned. And it never seemed to be warranted: Gonzales demonstrated a Shakespearean character's instinct for divining his master's wishes.

When Gonzales accompanied Bush to the White House as his chief counsel, Gonzales went from executions to torture. He became famous for the leaked memo that fulfilled his boss' desire to redefine torture, raising the bar for what would be permitted in interrogations. Torture, thanks to Gonzales, allowed physical coercion short of death or organ failure. That policy, and the abandonment of Geneva Conventions standards, created the atmosphere than led to Abu Ghraib and other abuses.

Yet, during the confirmation hearing, Gonzales did everything he could to distance himself from that supposedly recently "rescinded" policy. "There was a discussion between the White House and the Department of Justice, as well as other agencies, about what does the statute [a 1994 anti-torture law] mean," Gonzales said, picturing a cartoon world where buildings and agencies talk to one another. He added, "I don't recall today whether I was in agreement will all the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions." But, he claimed, it wasn't for him to decide: ''Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the department [of Justice] to tell us what the law means.'' He was passing the torture buck.

Soon, though, Gonzales will have to tell himself what the law means, because he will head the Department of Justice. And, apparently, the law will mean what the president wants it to mean, because Gonzales has never demonstrated any independence from the thinking of George W. Bush.

The Senate Democrats questioning Gonzales were thoroughly ineffectual; indeed, the toughest questions came from a Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina: ''I think you weaken yourself as a nation,'' Graham said, ''when you try to play cute and become more like your enemy."

Gonzales seldom showed passion in his testimony (he was never eloquent); but, in his response to Graham, he said, ''We are nothing like the enemy,'' pointing out the beheadings that have occurred. And his defense of President Bush was always heated: Gonzales claimed over and over Bush would never allow torture to be used (given the fluidity of its definition). Our Islamic enemies behead people, as Gonzales said -- whereas Texans use lethal injection -- but no one pointed out that beheading captives isn't torture, but murder, whereas the subject under very limited discussion was torture (aka ''unrestricted extreme interrogation techniques''), which, of course, Bush would never, never, in any case, allow -- however much those evildoers deserve it.

Copyright 2005, Digital Chicago Inc.

###