As every politician explains earnestly, there are no easy answers, and it’s all about working hard for the people. But did any group of senators ever have a tougher job than the one facing the Judiciary Committee as they tried to figure out how Alberto Gonzales runs the Justice Department?

You can see why so many – of both parties, and in direct defiance of the normal etiquette of congressional hearings – gave up and told him to just stop running it.

Their attempt to find out what Gonzales’ role was in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys drew a wide range of explanations. Most boiled down to his vague feeling that he was somewhere in the building at the time.

“I had knowledge,” he said firmly, “there was a process going on.”

But really, he explained, someone else, his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, was running the process, although Sampson did occasionally tell him what was going on: “During those reviews, I did not make a decision about who should or shouldn’t resign. I don’t recall saying take this person off or add that person.”

The attorney general also made it clear that he had not, at any point in the process, examined the performance files of the U.S. attorneys, which he seemed to feel wouldn’t have been quite fair.

Not, of course, that it wasn’t Gonzales’ decision: “Now certainly after Mr. Sampson brought the recommendations, I accepted those recommendations and made that decision. … I make the decisions.”

And just when did that happen?

“I recall making the decision. I don’t recall when the decision was made.”

At that point, Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., seemed to be literally rendered speechless. He told Gonzales that the committee would come back to that question later, and then added: “Count on it.”

Many of Gonzales’ accounts not only seemed to butt against each other, but to conflict directly with his earlier explanations. He was sorry about that.

“I regret the inconsistent statements,” he said cheerfully. “I made some statements that were, quite frankly, overbroad.”

As a synonym for “having no particular relationship to reality,” you can’t beat “overbroad.”

When one senator asked why Gonzales hadn’t prepared for a March press conference when he made a number of statements he was now disavowing, Gonzales disagreed. He insisted he always prepared for appearances, but he wasn’t always prepared.

At that point, some senators seemed to start talking to themselves.

More than 70 times, by some counts, Gonzales answered a question by saying he couldn’t remember. Eventually, even Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. – whose loyalty to the Bush administration rivals Dick Cheney’s – complained, “It’s not that long ago.”

After the hearing, it seemed longer.

The attorney general did no better on questions about decisions to fire individual attorneys. He insisted that Carol Lam, in San Diego, should have known she had problems, although he didn’t know that anyone from the Justice Department had actually told her. Still, he explained, she kept hearing complaints from congressmen – including, presumably, the one she had convicted and the ones she was investigating.

On the firing of David Iglesias in New Mexico, Gonzales explained that he hadn’t spoken to Iglesias, but he’d heard from Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and White House political czar Karl Rove. Also, “I now understand there was a conversation with myself and the president.”

Which could explain why Thursday afternoon, after Republican senators either told Gonzales to quit or expressed deep doubts about his relationship with the truth, the acting White House press secretary announced happily, “President Bush was pleased with the attorney general’s testimony today.”

Because these days, nobody understands how the White House runs, either.