F.B.I. Chief Gives Account at Odds With Gonzales's

[Roger]

F.B.I. Chief Gives Account at Odds With Gonzales's
By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE
July 27, 2007


WASHINGTON, July 26 - The director of the F.B.I. offered testimony Thursday
that sharply conflicted with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales's sworn
statements about a 2004 confrontation in which top Justice Department
officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation.

The director, Robert S. Mueller III, told the House Judiciary Committee that
the confrontation was about the National Security Agency's counterterrorist
eavesdropping program, describing it as "an N.S.A. program that has been
much discussed." His testimony was a serious blow to Mr. Gonzales, who
insisted at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that there were no disagreements
inside the Bush administration about the program at the time of those
discussions or at any other time.

The director's remarks were especially significant because Mr. Mueller is
the Justice Department's chief law enforcement official. He also played a
crucial role in the 2004 dispute over the program, intervening with
President Bush to help deal with the threat of mass resignations that grew
out of a day of emergency meetings at the White House and at the hospital
bedside of John Ashcroft, who was then attorney general.

In a separate development, Senate Democrats, who were unaware of Mr. Mueller's
comments, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate
whether Mr. Gonzales committed perjury in his testimony on Tuesday about the
intelligence dispute. The Senate Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, issued a
subpoena to Karl Rove, the White House senior political adviser, and another
presidential aide, J. Scott Jennings, for testimony about the dismissal of
federal prosecutors, another issue that has dogged Mr. Gonzales.

White House officials said the Democrats had engaged in political
gamesmanship.

"What we are witnessing is an out-of-control Congress which spends time
calling for special prosecutors, starting investigations, issuing subpoenas
and generally just trying to settle scores," said Scott M. Stanzel, a White
House spokesman. "All the while they fail to pass appropriations bills and
important issues like immigration reform, energy and other problems go
unanswered."

The conflict underscored how Mr. Gonzales's troubles have expanded beyond
accusations of improper political influence in the dismissal of United
States attorneys to the handling of the eavesdropping program, in which Mr.
Gonzales was significantly involved in his previous post as White House
counsel.

"I had an understanding that the discussion was on a N.S.A. program," Mr.
Mueller said in answer to a question from Representative Sheila Jackson Lee,
Democrat of Texas, in a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.

Asked whether he was referring to the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or
T.S.P., he replied, "The discussion was on a national N.S.A. program that
has been much discussed, yes."

Mr. Mueller said he had taken notes of some of his conversations about the
issue, and after the hearing the committee asked him to produce them.

An F.B.I. spokesman declined Thursday night to elaborate on Mr. Mueller's
testimony.

In a four-hour appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday,
Mr. Gonzales denied that the dispute arose over the Terrorist Surveillance
Program, whose existence was confirmed by President Bush in December 2005
after it had been disclosed by The New York Times. Mr. Gonzales said it
centered on "other intelligence activities."

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said Thursday
night that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully, saying "confusion is
inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public
forum where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive
intelligence operations."

The spokesman said that when Mr. Gonzales had said there had been no
controversy about the eavesdropping operation, he was referring only to the
program to intercept international communications that Mr. Bush publicly
confirmed.

"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for
intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that
remain highly classified," Mr. Roehrkasse said.

The four senators seeking an inquiry into Mr. Gonzales's testimony sent a
letter to the Justice Department saying "it is apparent that the attorney
general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements."

The senators asked for the appointment of a special counsel. While the
Justice Department is not obliged to act on their request, the letter
reflected the chasm of distrust that has opened between lawmakers on the
Judiciary Committee and Mr. Gonzales.

The senators who signed the letter were Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin,
Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Sheldon
Whitehouse of Rhode Island. Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Feingold and Mr. Whitehouse
are members of the Intelligence Committee and have been briefed on the
intelligence programs at issue.

The senators' letter was sent to Paul D. Clement, the solicitor general,
because Mr. Gonzales is recused from investigations of his own conduct. In
addition to his statements to Congress about the intelligence controversy,
the letter raised the possibility that Mr. Gonzales had lied about the
prosecutor firings.

In what amounted to a warning to the attorney general, Senator Patrick J.
Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr.
Gonzales the transcript of Tuesday's hearing, asking him to "mark any
changes you wish to make to correct, clarify or supplement your answers so
that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth."

Similar requests are routinely sent to witnesses after hearings, but Mr.
Leahy's pointed language underscored his view of the seriousness of the
dispute over Mr. Gonzales's veracity.

Still, neither Mr. Leahy nor Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the
committee's top Republican and a tough critic of Mr. Gonzales, joined in the
call for a perjury investigation.

"I don't think you rush off precipitously and ask for appointment of special
counsel to run that kind of an investigation," Mr. Specter said.

Doubts about Mr. Gonzales's version of events in March 2004 grew after James
B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, testified in May that he and
other Justice Department officials were prepared to resign over legal
objections to an intelligence program that appeared to be the N.S.A.
program.

Mr. Gonzales's testimony Tuesday was his first since Mr. Comey's account
drew national attention. He stuck to his account, repeatedly saying that the
dispute involved a different intelligence activity.

Mr. Gonzales described an emergency meeting with Congressional leaders at
the White House on March 10, 2004, to discuss the dispute. That evening, he
and the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., went to the hospital
bedside of Mr. Ashcroft in an unsuccessful effort to get his reauthorization
for the secret program.

Lawmakers present at the afternoon meeting have given various accounts, but
several have said that only one program, the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
was discussed.

In addition, in testimony last year, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was the
N.S.A. director when the program started and now heads the Central
Intelligence Agency, said the March 2004 meeting involved the Terrorist
Surveillance Program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/washington/27gonzales.html

 

[Taylor]

<original post snipped>

Perjury Trap

By The Editors

In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be told to
step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the administration and its
policies even when they deserve defense," we wrote. This week we saw just
how much credibility he has lost: He is no longer believed even when he is
telling the truth.

Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before
the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to investigate. In the
disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales was talking about the
Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that "there has not been any serious
disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed."

The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
intra-administration strife about the National Security Administration's
surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example, John Ashcroft (at that
time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that time the White House counsel),
and other officials sparred over the program in Ashcroft's hospital room.
Ashcroft and his aides thought that the NSA was going beyond its
authorization. Only in 2007 did this episode come to light.

The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however, undergone
several modifications over the period since September 11, and some of the
details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was careful, and it was careful
because he was trying to avoid disclosing those details.

As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September 11, the
NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives. The
surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004, however,
Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised legal objections to
the scope of the program. The resulting dispute within the administration
led to the famous hospital scene, after which President Bush sided with the
Justice Department officials and narrowed the program. Many months later,
the New York Times revealed the existence of this now-narrowed program;
President Bush then confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist
Surveillance Program"; and Gonzales defended it.

When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement about
the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was referring to the
later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance, and as far as we know he
was correct. Other disputed Gonzales comments appear to follow the same
basic pattern.

Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up testimony
by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room meeting, testimony
that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all Mueller said was that the
meeting concerned a legal disagreement over the NSA's surveillance. If our
account of the chronology of the program is correct, there is no
contradiction here.

The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play games
with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The controversy about
which he was testifying was the existing surveillance program. He could have
said that an earlier version of it had provoked controversy: But given that
the administration's (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's
existence in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been
impossible to say that without inviting further questions that would have
revealed more details about the program.

It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The country is
at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be able to listen in
on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have played an important role in
disrupting at least two terrorist plots. But our ability to wage this part
of the war has gotten progressively weaker as it has continued. The program
narrowed first because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and
then because of the political fallout from the New York Times's reporting.
We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to
know better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZhMWJhMzlhNmM=

 

[Sid9]

The "National Review" is an
apologist for the administration.

Taylor wrote:
> <original post snipped>
>
> Perjury Trap
>
> By The Editors
>
> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be
> told to step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the
> administration and its policies even when they deserve defense," we
> wrote. This week we saw just how much credibility he has lost: He is
> no longer believed even when he is telling the truth.
>
> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony
> before the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to
> investigate. In the disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales
> was talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that
> "there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that
> the president has confirmed."
> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
> intra-administration strife about the National Security
> Administration's surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example,
> John Ashcroft (at that time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that
> time the White House counsel), and other officials sparred over the
> program in Ashcroft's hospital room. Ashcroft and his aides thought
> that the NSA was going beyond its authorization. Only in 2007 did
> this episode come to light.
> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however,
> undergone several modifications over the period since September 11,
> and some of the details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was
> careful, and it was careful because he was trying to avoid disclosing
> those details.
> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September
> 11, the NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives.
> The surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004,
> however, Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised
> legal objections to the scope of the program. The resulting dispute
> within the administration led to the famous hospital scene, after
> which President Bush sided with the Justice Department officials and
> narrowed the program. Many months later, the New York Times revealed
> the existence of this now-narrowed program; President Bush then
> confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist Surveillance
> Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement
> about the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was
> referring to the later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance,
> and as far as we know he was correct. Other disputed Gonzales
> comments appear to follow the same basic pattern.
>
> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up
> testimony by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room
> meeting, testimony that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all
> Mueller said was that the meeting concerned a legal disagreement over
> the NSA's surveillance. If our account of the chronology of the
> program is correct, there is no contradiction here.
>
> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play
> games with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The
> controversy about which he was testifying was the existing
> surveillance program. He could have said that an earlier version of
> it had provoked controversy: But given that the administration's
> (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's existence in
> the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been impossible to
> say that without inviting further questions that would have revealed
> more details about the program.
> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The
> country is at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be
> able to listen in on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have
> played an important role in disrupting at least two terrorist plots.
> But our ability to wage this part of the war has gotten progressively
> weaker as it has continued. The program narrowed first because of
> legal objections by the Justice Department, and then because of the
> political fallout from the New York Times's reporting. We fear that
> it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to know
> better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZhMWJhMzlhNmM=

 

[mordacpreventor@hotmail.com]

On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote:
> <original post snipped>
>
> Perjury Trap
>
> By The Editors
>
> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be told to
> step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the administration and its
> policies even when they deserve defense," we wrote. This week we saw just
> how much credibility he has lost: He is no longer believed even when he is
> telling the truth.
>
> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before
> the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to investigate. In the
> disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales was talking about the
> Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that "there has not been any serious
> disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed."
>
> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
> intra-administration strife about the National Security Administration's
> surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example, John Ashcroft (at that
> time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that time the White House counsel),
> and other officials sparred over the program in Ashcroft's hospital room.
> Ashcroft and his aides thought that the NSA was going beyond its
> authorization. Only in 2007 did this episode come to light.
>
> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however, undergone
> several modifications over the period since September 11, and some of the
> details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was careful, and it was careful
> because he was trying to avoid disclosing those details.
>
> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September 11, the
> NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives. The
> surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004, however,
> Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised legal objections to
> the scope of the program. The resulting dispute within the administration
> led to the famous hospital scene, after which President Bush sided with the
> Justice Department officials and narrowed the program. Many months later,
> the New York Times revealed the existence of this now-narrowed program;
> President Bush then confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist
> Surveillance Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
>
> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement about
> the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was referring to the
> later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance, and as far as we know he
> was correct. Other disputed Gonzales comments appear to follow the same
> basic pattern.
>
> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up testimony
> by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room meeting, testimony
> that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all Mueller said was that the
> meeting concerned a legal disagreement over the NSA's surveillance. If our
> account of the chronology of the program is correct, there is no
> contradiction here.
>
> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play games
> with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The controversy about
> which he was testifying was the existing surveillance program. He could have
> said that an earlier version of it had provoked controversy: But given that
> the administration's (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's
> existence in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been
> impossible to say that without inviting further questions that would have
> revealed more details about the program.
>
> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The country is
> at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be able to listen in
> on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have played an important role in
> disrupting at least two terrorist plots. But our ability to wage this part
> of the war has gotten progressively weaker as it has continued. The program
> narrowed first because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and
> then because of the political fallout from the New York Times's reporting.
> We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to
> know better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.
>
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZh...


Gonzales said the TSP wasn't discussed.

Mueller and Comer said it was and documentation was provided that
showed it was.

Gonzales lied to Congress.

 

[Lamont Cranston]

"Taylor" <Taylor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46a9f66a$0$8060$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> <original post snipped>
>
> Perjury Trap
>
> By The Editors
>
> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be
> told to step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the
> administration and its policies even when they deserve defense," we
> wrote. This week we saw just how much credibility he has lost: He is
> no longer believed even when he is telling the truth.
>
> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony
> before the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to
> investigate. In the disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales
> was talking about the Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that
> "there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that
> the president has confirmed."
>
> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
> intra-administration strife about the National Security
> Administration's surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example,
> John Ashcroft (at that time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that
> time the White House counsel), and other officials sparred over the
> program in Ashcroft's hospital room. Ashcroft and his aides thought
> that the NSA was going beyond its authorization. Only in 2007 did
> this episode come to light.
>
> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however,
> undergone several modifications over the period since September 11,
> and some of the details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was
> careful, and it was careful because he was trying to avoid
> disclosing those details.


lol

This sounds like it came right from the mouth of Tony Snow. It's
spinning at its best.


>
> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September
> 11, the NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives.
> The surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004,
> however, Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised
> legal objections to the scope of the program. The resulting dispute
> within the administration led to the famous hospital scene, after
> which President Bush sided with the Justice Department officials and
> narrowed the program. Many months later, the New York Times revealed
> the existence of this now-narrowed program; President Bush then
> confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist Surveillance
> Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
>
> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement
> about the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was
> referring to the later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance,
> and as far as we know he was correct. Other disputed Gonzales
> comments appear to follow the same basic pattern.
>
> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up
> testimony by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room
> meeting, testimony that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all
> Mueller said was that the meeting concerned a legal disagreement
> over the NSA's surveillance. If our account of the chronology of the
> program is correct, there is no contradiction here.
>
> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play
> games with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The
> controversy about which he was testifying was the existing
> surveillance program. He could have said that an earlier version of
> it had provoked controversy: But given that the administration's
> (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's existence
> in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been impossible
> to say that without inviting further questions that would have
> revealed more details about the program.
>
> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The
> country is at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be
> able to listen in on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have
> played an important role in disrupting at least two terrorist plots.
> But our ability to wage this part of the war has gotten
> progressively weaker as it has continued. The program narrowed first
> because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and then
> because of the political fallout from the New York Times's
> reporting. We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because
> Democrats who ought to know better insist on playing "gotcha" with
> the attorney general.
>
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZhMWJhMzlhNmM=
>

 

[GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut]

mordacpreventor@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> <original post snipped>
>>
>> Perjury Trap
>>
>> By The Editors
>>
>> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be told to
>> step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the administration and its
>> policies even when they deserve defense," we wrote. This week we saw just
>> how much credibility he has lost: He is no longer believed even when he is
>> telling the truth.
>>
>> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before
>> the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to investigate. In the
>> disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales was talking about the
>> Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that "there has not been any serious
>> disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed."
>>
>> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
>> intra-administration strife about the National Security Administration's
>> surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example, John Ashcroft (at that
>> time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that time the White House counsel),
>> and other officials sparred over the program in Ashcroft's hospital room.
>> Ashcroft and his aides thought that the NSA was going beyond its
>> authorization. Only in 2007 did this episode come to light.
>>
>> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however, undergone
>> several modifications over the period since September 11, and some of the
>> details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was careful, and it was careful
>> because he was trying to avoid disclosing those details.
>>
>> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September 11, the
>> NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives. The
>> surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004, however,
>> Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised legal objections to
>> the scope of the program. The resulting dispute within the administration
>> led to the famous hospital scene, after which President Bush sided with the
>> Justice Department officials and narrowed the program. Many months later,
>> the New York Times revealed the existence of this now-narrowed program;
>> President Bush then confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist
>> Surveillance Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
>>
>> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement about
>> the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was referring to the
>> later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance, and as far as we know he
>> was correct. Other disputed Gonzales comments appear to follow the same
>> basic pattern.
>>
>> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up testimony
>> by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room meeting, testimony
>> that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all Mueller said was that the
>> meeting concerned a legal disagreement over the NSA's surveillance. If our
>> account of the chronology of the program is correct, there is no
>> contradiction here.
>>
>> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play games
>> with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The controversy about
>> which he was testifying was the existing surveillance program. He could have
>> said that an earlier version of it had provoked controversy: But given that
>> the administration's (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's
>> existence in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been
>> impossible to say that without inviting further questions that would have
>> revealed more details about the program.
>>
>> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The country is
>> at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be able to listen in
>> on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have played an important role in
>> disrupting at least two terrorist plots. But our ability to wage this part
>> of the war has gotten progressively weaker as it has continued. The program
>> narrowed first because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and
>> then because of the political fallout from the New York Times's reporting.
>> We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to
>> know better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.
>>
>> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZh...
>
>
> Gonzales said the TSP wasn't discussed.
>
> Mueller and Comer said it was and documentation was provided that
> showed it was.
>
> Gonzales lied to Congress.

The National Review lied to defend Gonzales, too.
--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

 

[A Veteran]

In article <Jkqqi.42141$Fc.23960@attbi_s21>,
GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia <gw@hotmail.com> wrote:

> mordacpreventor@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> <original post snipped>
> >>
> >> Perjury Trap
> >>
> >> By The Editors
> >>
> >> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be told to
> >> step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the administration and
> >> its
> >> policies even when they deserve defense," we wrote. This week we saw just
> >> how much credibility he has lost: He is no longer believed even when he is
> >> telling the truth.
> >>
> >> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before
> >> the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to investigate. In the
> >> disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales was talking about the
> >> Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that "there has not been any
> >> serious
> >> disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed."
> >>
> >> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
> >> intra-administration strife about the National Security Administration's
> >> surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example, John Ashcroft (at that
> >> time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that time the White House
> >> counsel),
> >> and other officials sparred over the program in Ashcroft's hospital room.
> >> Ashcroft and his aides thought that the NSA was going beyond its
> >> authorization. Only in 2007 did this episode come to light.
> >>
> >> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however, undergone
> >> several modifications over the period since September 11, and some of the
> >> details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was careful, and it was careful
> >> because he was trying to avoid disclosing those details.
> >>
> >> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September 11,
> >> the
> >> NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives. The
> >> surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004, however,
> >> Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised legal objections
> >> to
> >> the scope of the program. The resulting dispute within the administration
> >> led to the famous hospital scene, after which President Bush sided with
> >> the
> >> Justice Department officials and narrowed the program. Many months later,
> >> the New York Times revealed the existence of this now-narrowed program;
> >> President Bush then confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist
> >> Surveillance Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
> >>
> >> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement about
> >> the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was referring to
> >> the
> >> later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance, and as far as we know
> >> he
> >> was correct. Other disputed Gonzales comments appear to follow the same
> >> basic pattern.
> >>
> >> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up
> >> testimony
> >> by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room meeting, testimony
> >> that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all Mueller said was that the
> >> meeting concerned a legal disagreement over the NSA's surveillance. If our
> >> account of the chronology of the program is correct, there is no
> >> contradiction here.
> >>
> >> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play games
> >> with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The controversy about
> >> which he was testifying was the existing surveillance program. He could
> >> have
> >> said that an earlier version of it had provoked controversy: But given
> >> that
> >> the administration's (defensible) position was that publicizing the
> >> program's
> >> existence in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been
> >> impossible to say that without inviting further questions that would have
> >> revealed more details about the program.
> >>
> >> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The country
> >> is
> >> at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be able to listen in
> >> on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have played an important role in
> >> disrupting at least two terrorist plots. But our ability to wage this part
> >> of the war has gotten progressively weaker as it has continued. The
> >> program
> >> narrowed first because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and
> >> then because of the political fallout from the New York Times's reporting.
> >> We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to
> >> know better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.
> >>
> >> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZh...
> >
> >
> > Gonzales said the TSP wasn't discussed.
> >
> > Mueller and Comer said it was and documentation was provided that
> > showed it was.
> >
> > Gonzales lied to Congress.
>
> The National Review lied to defend Gonzales, too.

more?


Gonzales' Tough Week
Posted by Andrew Cohen

(CBS)
Lawyer Andrew Cohen analyzes legal affairs for CBS News and CBSNews.com.
I was going to write this morning about Atlanta Falcons' quarterback
Michael Vick and the Kobe-like arraignment he endured Thursday--news
flash: his lawyer says he's innocent--but when I trawled through the
papers online this morning it became clear that the most profound legal
story around still involves the drama surrounding the increasingly
embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

It's been a tough week for President George W. Bush's old pal; a tough
week that is part of his self-made annus horribilus. First, he dubiously
declared that he was part of the solution, not the problem, at Justice,
where morale has plummeted as a result of the U.S. Attorney scandal and
its aftermath. Then, Gonzales once again appeared before Congress and
once again offered a pathetic performance that actually would have been
funny if it weren't so sad.

Gonzales' appearance "was devastating," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa),
the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But so was
the hearing before that, and so was the hearing before that." You can
easily imagine what the Democrats on the Committee had to say. Actually
you don't have to imagine. Four of them are so convinced that the
Attorney General is a lying hack that they have asked Solicitor General
Paul D. Clement to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Gonzales'
statements before Congress.

But even that development was a prelude to Thursday's big news on this
front. FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, in sworn testimony before the
House Judiciary Committee, directly contradicted the Attorney General's
sworn account of a major conflict within the Justice Department a few
years ago over the White House's controversial warrantless domestic spy
program. Although I am sure they will try, it will be quite hard
Gonzales' tribunes and their masters at the White House to spin Mueller
as a liberal, partisan kook.

Mueller's testimony supports the testimony offered a few months ago by
former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Both men say that there was
a big dispute inside the executive branch over whether the Justice
Department should sign off on a renewal of the President's spy program,
so much so that then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was forced to
go to the hospital to try to cajole an ailing John Ashcroft, then
Attorney General, into signing off on the plan. It is that visit- what
preceded it, why and how it occurred, and what role Gonzales played in
it--that has become the focal point of the Congressional inquiry.

for the "rest of the story" visit

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/07/27/couricandco/entry3104387.shtml

--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
All problems look like nails.

 

[mordacpreventor@hotmail.com]

On Jul 27, 10:55 am, GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia
<g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mordacpreven...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> <original post snipped>
>
> >> Perjury Trap
>
> >> By The Editors
>
> >> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be told to
> >> step down, as attorney general. "He cannot defend the administration and its
> >> policies even when they deserve defense," we wrote. This week we saw just
> >> how much credibility he has lost: He is no longer believed even when he is
> >> telling the truth.
>
> >> Democrats are claiming that Gonzales perjured himself in testimony before
> >> the Senate, and are calling for a special counsel to investigate. In the
> >> disputed testimony, from February 2006, Gonzales was talking about the
> >> Terrorist Surveillance Program. He said that "there has not been any serious
> >> disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed."
>
> >> The Democrats say that this was untrue, because there was a lot of
> >> intra-administration strife about the National Security Administration's
> >> surveillance of terrorists. In 2004, for example, John Ashcroft (at that
> >> time the attorney general), Gonzales (at that time the White House counsel),
> >> and other officials sparred over the program in Ashcroft's hospital room.
> >> Ashcroft and his aides thought that the NSA was going beyond its
> >> authorization. Only in 2007 did this episode come to light.
>
> >> The administration's surveillance of terrorists has, however, undergone
> >> several modifications over the period since September 11, and some of the
> >> details remain secret. Gonzales's phrasing was careful, and it was careful
> >> because he was trying to avoid disclosing those details.
>
> >> As best as we can tell, here is how events unfolded. After September 11, the
> >> NSA began running wiretaps on suspected al Qaeda operatives. The
> >> surveillance program was reauthorized every 45 days. In 2004, however,
> >> Justice Department officials, for the first time, raised legal objections to
> >> the scope of the program. The resulting dispute within the administration
> >> led to the famous hospital scene, after which President Bush sided with the
> >> Justice Department officials and narrowed the program. Many months later,
> >> the New York Times revealed the existence of this now-narrowed program;
> >> President Bush then confirmed its existence and named it the "Terrorist
> >> Surveillance Program"; and Gonzales defended it.
>
> >> When Gonzales said that "there has not been any serious disagreement about
> >> the program that the president has confirmed," then, he was referring to the
> >> later, narrowed version of terrorist surveillance, and as far as we know he
> >> was correct. Other disputed Gonzales comments appear to follow the same
> >> basic pattern.
>
> >> Thursday afternoon, the press and the Democrats started to play up testimony
> >> by FBI director Robert Mueller about the hospital-room meeting, testimony
> >> that supposedly contradicts Gonzales. But all Mueller said was that the
> >> meeting concerned a legal disagreement over the NSA's surveillance. If our
> >> account of the chronology of the program is correct, there is no
> >> contradiction here.
>
> >> The Democrats say that to defend Gonzales on these terms is to play games
> >> with words. But what was Gonzales supposed to say? The controversy about
> >> which he was testifying was the existing surveillance program. He could have
> >> said that an earlier version of it had provoked controversy: But given that
> >> the administration's (defensible) position was that publicizing the program's
> >> existence in the first place had jeopardized it, it would have been
> >> impossible to say that without inviting further questions that would have
> >> revealed more details about the program.
>
> >> It is a convoluted story; and much of it is beside the point. The country is
> >> at war. The commander-in-chief and his agents have to be able to listen in
> >> on the enemy. Our surveillance appears to have played an important role in
> >> disrupting at least two terrorist plots. But our ability to wage this part
> >> of the war has gotten progressively weaker as it has continued. The program
> >> narrowed first because of legal objections by the Justice Department, and
> >> then because of the political fallout from the New York Times's reporting.
> >> We fear that it will grow weaker still now, because Democrats who ought to
> >> know better insist on playing "gotcha" with the attorney general.
>
> >>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y5NzMzNGQxNTVmNzFmMDFiOTVkYjZh...
>
> > Gonzales said the TSP wasn't discussed.
>
> > Mueller and Comer said it was and documentation was provided that
> > showed it was.
>
> > Gonzales lied to Congress.
>
> The National Review lied to defend Gonzales, too.

The editors and journalists at the National Review would lie to their
mothers if it suited their purposes.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar II]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cLmqi.5936$WN1.4502@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> The "National Review" is an
> apologist for the administration.

It wasn't so bad when old man Buckley ran it. It was certainly one
sided as it always has been, but it least there was some measure of
journalistic integrity and intelligence. Now it's just another wingnut
rag like all the rest.

 

[GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Ut]

Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:cLmqi.5936$WN1.4502@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> The "National Review" is an
>> apologist for the administration.
>
> It wasn't so bad when old man Buckley ran it. It was certainly one
> sided as it always has been, but it least there was some measure of
> journalistic integrity and intelligence. Now it's just another wingnut
> rag like all the rest.

I think the conservative philosophy is quickly following the fate of the
communist philosophy. The commies would wax elequently about Marx, but were
never able to manifest any society remotely close to his utopianism. Comminusm
died because it simply didn't work as advertised.

Same thing with the conservative utopianism. They never manifest small
government. They say they want liberty, but pile on authoritarianism and
religious fealty instead. They tout individualism, but in reality are
handmaidens of corporatism. They involve our country into world affairs to the
point of making wars of aggression and corporate-sponsored trade deals which
work against our national self-interest.

Conservatism doesn't work. It is bullshit born out of wishful thinking. I think
the Republican party will fall badly and won't be coming back in its present
form.

--
There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

 

[Roger]

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cLmqi.5936$WN1.4502@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> The "National Review" is an
> apologist for the administration.

Obviously ***** ones, as they can't even put their names on it.


>
> Taylor wrote:
>> <original post snipped>
>>
>> Perjury Trap
>>
>> By The Editors
>>
>> In March, we argued that Alberto Gonzales should step down, or be

<snip>

 

[Taylor]

"GW Chimpzilla's Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia" <gw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A0uqi.42271$Fc.14887@attbi_s21...
> Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:cLmqi.5936$WN1.4502@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>> The "National Review" is an
>>> apologist for the administration.
>>
>> It wasn't so bad when old man Buckley ran it. It was certainly one
>> sided as it always has been, but it least there was some measure of
>> journalistic integrity and intelligence. Now it's just another wingnut
>> rag like all the rest.
>
> I think the conservative philosophy is quickly following the fate of the
> communist philosophy. The commies would wax elequently about Marx, but
> were
> never able to manifest any society remotely close to his utopianism.
> Comminusm
> died because it simply didn't work as advertised.
>
> Same thing with the conservative utopianism. They never manifest small
> government. They say they want liberty, but pile on authoritarianism and
> religious fealty instead. They tout individualism, but in reality are
> handmaidens of corporatism. They involve our country into world affairs to
> the
> point of making wars of aggression and corporate-sponsored trade deals
> which
> work against our national self-interest.
>
> Conservatism doesn't work. It is bullshit born out of wishful thinking. I
> think
> the Republican party will fall badly and won't be coming back in its
> present
> form.
>
> --
> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.

It's a good thing I fall into the first group.

 

[James McGill]

Taylor wrote:
>> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
>
> It's a good thing I fall into the first group.

The "merely rich?"

 

[Sid9]

James McGill wrote:
> Taylor wrote:
>>> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
>>
>> It's a good thing I fall into the first group.
>
> The "merely rich?"

bush,jr's best friends...."The haves" and the "Have mores"

(A minority of Americans)

 

[Harold Burton]

In article <EmRri.5541$ij7.1515@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> James McGill wrote:
> > Taylor wrote:
> >>> There are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and fools.
> >>
> >> It's a good thing I fall into the first group.
> >
> > The "merely rich?"
>
> bush,jr's best friends...."The haves" and the "Have mores"


You make that sound like it's a bad thing.


"I've been rich, I've been poor. Rich is better."