Parsing Gonzales

Messrs Johnston and Shane of the NY Times continues to puzzle over Attorney General Gonzales' controversial Senate testimony:

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.

However! 

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.

So, when is a program not a program?  Geez, couldn't you ask me about doors?  Anyway, yesterday we highlighted this cryptic comment from Rep. Jane Harman (D, CA). formerly the ranking member of the House Intel Committee:

“The program had different parts, but there was only one program,” Ms. Harman said, adding that Mr. Gonzales was “selectively declassifying information to defend his own conduct,” which she called improper.

One starts to suspect that Mr. Gonzales has a different view as to whether the different parts constitute one program or not.  As to whether his interpretation is sufficiently plausible to avoid an inquiry, I have no idea.  OK, I have some idea - with all this howling, I bet reasonable minds (if any are left in Washington) will agree that he was being awfully cute, at a minimum, and was lying, at a maximum.

It's still puzzling.  Gonzales is describing an intelligence briefing attended by four Democrats - how could he expect to lie about this and get away with it?

Comments

[kim]

Opinion Journal has a nice article, today.
=========================

[clarice]

Pretty hard to respond in detail in public when you are dealing with perhaps the last unleaked and very important part of our intel operation--something the J Com snakes and Harman know full well. As Terrey noted nothing prevented the committee from taking the evidence in executive session, something Gonzales offered them.
Try it sometime.

[kim]

I swear Gonzales was smirking at Schumer.
============================

[Epphan]

...And Clarice hits on why it works for Gonzales even if he is lying. Schumer, Harmon and Co. can't say much either...not that they would want to. My Lord, is there nothing better these folks could be doing?

[hit and run]

TM:
I bet reasonable minds (if any are left in Washington)

Well, there is Clarice.

[MikeS]

“The program had different parts, but there was only one program,”

Sounds like Jane Harman knows exactly what the disagreement was about. She wants to argue semantics in front of the cameras rather than substance in closed session.

[narciso]

Don't let him reveal Treadstone (Jason Bourne or the nanotech project; now I've
done it. Seriously, is this the biggest
circlejerk ever.

[Ranger]

Hmmm... Perhapse there is an opportunity here. The AG could appoint a Very Special Prosecutor to look into this matter. Then the Very Special Prosecutor could ask for a clearer definition of their mandate which could result in the authority to not only investigate specific statements by one adminitstration official, but any other issues that might also arise from that investigation. Since these statements at issue were about a classified program that was partially leaked, would not the investigator have to determine how that part of the program in question became public?

Suddenly you have a Very Special Prosecutor who is not only investigation statements about the program but also how the program became public in the first place. Such an investigation could lead into all kinds of interesting places such as the offices of the Dem members of the Intel committies, the Justice Department itself, the FISA court. I wonder if the Dems really want to see that investigation (actually, I don't wonder at all).

[Cecil Turner]

OK, I have some idea - with all this howling, I bet reasonable minds (if any are left in Washington) will agree that he was being awfully cute, at a minimum, and was lying, at a maximum.

Sorry, but Gonzo was limited by what the President had declassified, a point he made very clear in the disputed testimony:

SEN. SCHUMER: But you are telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program. Is that right?

ATTY GEN. GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed. And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I believe — I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program. [emphasis added]

The only "program" he's referring to is the one the President admitted to, which, from context, is obviously not the whole enchilada. Harman's "selective declassification" charge is also hooey, since Gonzales is not a declassification authority, and he necessarily is limited in what he can discuss. And it does not appear there was any honest confusion on the part of the Dems . . . only an attempt at playing “gotcha” with an important national security issue.

Perhaps we can have a run-of-the-mill prosecutor (as opposed to a "special" one)investigate their casual handling of classified material . . . oh no, that's right, they're exempt from the law, aren't they?

[tryggth]

I think its a semantic thing. Gonzales is talking about a program that no longer exists after the Comey and DoJ fit (and threatened to quit). The acknowledged program is simply the "old" program with the required operational modifications. Hence to Gonzales its a different program.

[Jodi]

Gonzales was threading through a minefield. His mission was to confuse and to throw into disarray the Committee while officially answering questions but actually giving up very little, and get all the Liberals/Democrats to scream, and scream but in the end there would be nothing to it as usual.

He has only to back up what he said item by item if pushed legally. He doesn't have to say it in a way that can be easily understood. If he had done that, then the Committee would have moved on to the next subjects which might be more difficult to handle.

Now they are bogged down for a period of time.

[hit and run]

Back to the Clinton-Edelman fued...

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that a top Pentagon official did not intend to impugn her patriotism by suggesting her questions about U.S. planning in Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.

At the same time, Gates defended his aide and the author of the letter, Undersecretary for Policy Eric Edelman, calling him "a valued member" who provides "wise counsel and years of experience (that) are critically important to the many pressing policy issues facing the military."

Seems too tepid for me. But at least I am heartened to know this:

Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines said the senator was "disappointed that Secretary Gates does not repudiate Undersecretary Edelman's unacceptable political attack."

May her disappointment grow with time.

[Cecil Turner]

His mission was to confuse and to throw into disarray the Committee . . .

They shouldn't be talking about this stuff at all. They've got a committee for that sort of thing, with jurisdiction and rules specifically designed to mitigate the deleterious effects of oversight hearings into sensitive classified programs. And last time I checked, Sen Schumer ain't on it.

At the very least, they could have closed hearings, if they were actually interested in legitimate oversight issues. The fact that they don't leads one to conclude . . .

[PeterUK]

What is wrong with these Congress Folk.they seem to have the Inverse Lady Macbeth Syndrome,"In damned spot".

[clarice]

I wrote an article on this to be published Monday or Tueday. I suggest Schumer's been exploiting this non-story about Ashcroft's sickbed and the kerfuffle so well he's eligible for the milk producer subsidy. *wink*

[SaveFarris]

Not to give the Dems any ideas, but do any of you Constitutional Scholar types know if the Senate can vote to "revoke" their consent on Gonzales's nomination?

[Pofarmer]

Ya know. It's really too bad they didn't let Comey and the others resign. Sure would have saved a lot of trouble.

[clarice]

It's too bad they appointed that guy in the first place IMO.

[Pofarmer]

Well the administration was obviously way too trusting of folks like Schumer. I certainly hope they've gotten over that, and whoever is waiting in the wings is taking notes.

[topsecretk9]

FYI - De Villepin formerly charged in the Clearstream thing.

[BobS]

Along the same track, another question for the legal mionds here. When reading one of the lawyers take at Powerline a moment ago, I read how the dismissed US Atty's terms had expired. I know that they have four year terms, but if this is the case why has this point not been stressed?

[RichatUF]

TSK9

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

[RichatUF]

Cecil-

At the very least, they could have closed hearings, if they were actually interested in legitimate oversight issues. The fact that they don't leads one to conclude...

They want to get details to cover their tracks, hide their foreign bank accounts better, etc...sacre bleu...

[kim]

Right, Rich, the pond dreg with the ritzy moniker turned the knife on the alliance against Saddam.
====================

[Robin Roberts]

But when you boil down the dispute, whether or not Gonzales did or did not correctly describe a dispute about the legality of the details of an intelligence program ... what is the significance?

Absolutely none. Why is it Congress' business about how the administration internally debated the structure of a program, the details of which Congress was informed of in the usual manner. There is no allegation here that the program was conducted in a manner not disclosed.

This makes a tempest in a teapot look exciting.

[bio mom]

So has Ashcroft died or something? Why doesn't somebody just ask him about this!

Ever notice that the one branch of government with the least checks and balances is the legislative branch? They should investigate themselves.

[clarice]

Heck, they should subpoena Pelosi under oath--she supports Gonzales' version of event.

[pilsener]

Let's face it, Gonzales didn't know whar was going on, has had a great deal of trouble figuring out what went on, stays confused most of the time, and was never intellectually qualified to be Attorney General. That said, the only thing he is guilty of is not being very smart.

[Carol Herman]

Sorry, but two Jews in congress, feinstein and schumer, cannot fire anyone on Bush's staff.

They can grab the spotlight, however,

Those two turkeys are good at doing that. Of course, you could ask "why?" But that's like asking prostitutes "why" they charge money to do deeds others find pleasurable.

It's hard to explain if you don't know the business angle.

Right now, the left is fully invested in defeat. And, failure. They're trying to sell this to the public. So they beat the public about the head with things they threaten to do in congress.

Meanwhile, they threatened to pass the immigration bill. And, Immigration Bill turned up dead.

Sometimes, looking at feinstein and schumer I think of bouncing dead cats.

[Barney Frank]

--Well the administration was obviously way too trusting of folks like Schumer. I certainly hope they've gotten over that, and whoever is waiting in the wings is taking notes.--

Ummm, we are talking about Republicans here. Do they ever learn?

--Sorry, but two Jews in congress, feinstein and schumer, cannot fire anyone on Bush's staff.--

If there is evidence that two Protestants, Catholics or even Zoroastrians in Congress can fire someone on Bush's staff I might find this comment less repugnant. Otherwise.....

[kim]

How about 'Two neocons in Congress can't....'
=========================

[Neo]

I had picked up on the Harman statement yesterday and started to believe that the Democrats were trying to put Gonzales in "a box" over his testimony.

If he said it was the NSA program, then he could in fact be lying, but to go into those other activities would risk a release of classified info, as Ms Harman implied.

Gonzales even offered to answer a question about this "other activities" in closed session, but the Democrats who have none of it.

Thus, it looks like the Democrats were trying to force Gonzales to do the job of the New York TimesPresident and decide what classified information should be made public.

I find this sort of pressure by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to be comtemptable, if, in fact, this is the case.

[glasater]

Can someone please explain to me what all the fuss about the TSP program is when some seven years ago when Clinton was in office he had ECHELON going on?

[TerryeL]

Oh Puhleaze, why does this have to mean AG is lying or being cute. The latest allegation to get the Democrats frothing at the mouth is a supposed conversation that Mueller had with Ashcroft four years ago.

Isn't that hearsay anyway? I mean in the real world with real people with real problems would anyone even consider charging a man with perjury on the basis of such a statement? Especially when none of it means a damn thing anyway.

I think they are talking about different things and they all know this is silly.

And I don't think AG is dumb. Good Lord the man does not have the background of a dumb person. The problem is he is swimming with sharks now and he is not a predator.

[dmh]

Carol Herman wrote:

"Sorry, but two Jews in congress, feinstein and schumer, cannot fire anyone on Bush's staff."

I can barely believe I am reading this. What place does anti-semetism have on this blog? Is this the level to which the discourse has fallen. I have come to expect more from this blog but maybe I need to reconsider.

[TMF]

Good to see the Democrats have finally accomplished something substantive during their tenure "running the country"

They got Gonzalez on record, possibly (but not definitely) lying about a program that was instituted to protect the American people from mass murdering psychopaths.

Bravo, PelosiReid. Bravo. Whats next, getting the head of the OMB to admit he took an extra long lunch break once?

[topsecretk9]

DMH
I have for a long time commented that a certain someone is a paid stooge whose goal is to fit in just enough to plant rotten crap on Right Wing sites - the theory really makes sense when you think about how heavily moderated the lefty sites are -- are they in on this variation of the google bomb they so adore?

[MikeS]

The problem is he is swimming with sharks now...

Yes Terrye, and the sharks aren't really performing oversight, but political theater.

Gonzales may not be adept at this game but ... Well I just love him 'cause his pisses them off!

[dmh]

topsecretk9:

Not sure what your point is. I don't know about anyone else who visits this site, and I do every day, but I find this sort of rank anti-semitism abhorrent. There is no place for this sort of thing--left, right, or center. It will discredit this very valuable blog unless something is done. I am also distressed to see that there have not been others condemning this post. I thought mine would be but one of many expressing outrage and it simply has not happened.

[PeterUK]

duh,
"anti-semetism" = anti-semitism.

[MayBee]

dmh- we've tried, and there's nothing we can do about it except fill threads with condemnations. Don't assume that lack of commentary is approval.

[PeterUK]

"It will discredit this very valuable blog unless something is done. I am also distressed to see that there have not been others condemning this post. I thought mine would be but one of many expressing outrage and it simply has not happened."

Barney Frank the reason there aren't many comments is because they don't read Carol's posts.If you were a regular,you would know that.

[PeterUK]

Sorry Barney Tripepad ate my comment,that was to duh.

[PeterUK]

Sorry Barney Tripepad ate my comment,that was to duh.

[dmh]

PeterUK--

I'm sorry but I don't get your point. I read this blog every day but rarely go to the comments. I did during the Libby trial because I found it very interesting. I happened to look today, again because this is a topic I find interesting. So because I don't read comments regularly I am not allowed to be outraged?

I find it all very distressing and will find other blogs to read. When Tom M. decides to police the comments I will come back but this is just unacceptable.

[MayBee]

You could email Tom and point out the offensive post,
You could go back to doing what you said you did before, reading only Tom's posts and not the comments.
If you read this blog regularly, you would perhaps have noticed that Tom often leaves for extended periods of time, so is unable to police every comment.
You are allowed to be as outraged as you'd like, but you also tried to take other commenters here to task for not being outraged. My point and PeterUK's point is that we don't all read the comments, or we've realized asking the commenter to stop doesn't work.

[PeterUK]

Far be it from me to call you a phony duh,you obviously missed the recent scum attack,amazing you just managed to catch this.
All this talk of "policing" sounds terribly liberal.

[TerryeL]

dmh:

I stopped reading Carol Herman a long time ago.

Ask her about Bush being a realtor for the House of Saud, that'll get her goin.

[hit and run]

dmh:
So because I don't read comments regularly I am not allowed to be outraged?

Be outraged.

When Tom M. decides to police the comments I will come back but this is just unacceptable.

Well, don't let the door.

I read this blog every day but rarely go to the comments.

Wait, you won't come back to read Tom, or you won't come back to the comments.

I have come to expect more from this blog but maybe I need to reconsider.

How so? Because Tom used to "police" the comments and didn't this time? Oh wait. Tom has NEVER "policed" the comments. Every once in a while, after much weeping and gnashing of teeth from beleaguered commenters, he will do a periodic flushing, otherwise, you get what you get in the comments -- and if your tender sensibilities have been violated, well, yes, best for all parties involved to see your departure.

I am also distressed to see that there have not been others condemning this post.

I hope you didn't faint.

Seriously, why would a comment cause such distress? I mean, really?

[TerryeL]

Mike S:

Yes, I know what you mean. Passive resistance. Drives em nuts.