NYT Editorial: Mr. Gonzales’s Incredible Adventure

[maddezmom]

Mr. Gonzales’s Incredible Adventure
E-MailPrint Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

Published: May 17, 2007
There were many fascinating threads to the testimony on Tuesday by the former deputy attorney general, James Comey, who described the night in March 2004 when two top White House officials tried to pressure an ailing and hospitalized Attorney General John Ashcroft into endorsing President Bush’s illegal wiretapping operation.

But the really big question, an urgent avenue for investigation, is what exactly the National Security Agency was doing before that night, under Mr. Bush’s personal orders. Did Mr. Bush start by authorizing the agency to intercept domestic e-mails and telephone calls without first getting a warrant?

Mr. Bush has acknowledged authorizing surveillance without a court order of communications between people abroad and people in the United States. That alone violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Domestic spying without a warrant would be an even more grievous offense.

The question cannot be answered because Mr. Bush is hiding so much about the program. But whatever was going on, it so alarmed Mr. Comey and F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller that they sped to the hospital, roused the barely conscious Mr. Ashcroft and got him ready to fend off the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, and Mr. Bush’s counsel, Alberto Gonzales. There are clues in Mr. Comey’s testimony and in earlier testimony by Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Ashcroft’s successor, that suggest that Mr. Bush initially ordered broader surveillance than he and his aides have acknowledged.

more:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/opinion/17thu1.html

[vickitulsa]

1. I knew it! Okay, I suspected it -- but it's only logical, given

what we do know, that there is sooo much more to this story that "they" don't want coming out and that the "rest of the iceberg" of hidden information includes direct WH involvement -- meaning direct orders being given by the dim son himself -- in how far the NSA was told to go.

Also, the writer of this op-ed piece brings up the all-important timeline consideration. The second half of that crucial question we learned like a popular joke during the Watergate hearings: "What did he know, and when did he know it?"

As with that case, it gets even worse when the full truth is told (I suspect, and this article postulates), because not only is "what he knew" important, "what he did" puts the responsibility for illegal actions squarely on the order-giver ... you know, "The Decider"!

Looking back on it now, I am actually glad that Chimpy made that idiotic statement in one of his moments of disgusting braggadocio. What he did in saying he was "the decider" was, in effect, to take full credit for ALL major, final decisions made and authorizations given during his presidency!

In trying to make us all see "how like a god he is," Dumbya really just convicted himself of high crimes and misdemeanors right out of his own mouth when he threw that comment out there....

Ultimately, then, when he is required to testify about the level of his involvement in the domestic spying matter, he'll find it pretty hard to claim that anything so important was done without his authorization.

Certainly seems that would be a good line of questioning, at least, since "everybody knows" he IS The Decider!

Then once the timeline is nailed down, he's toast. I do think the timelines involved in ALL the crimes Bu$hCo has committed will be key to allocating blame. Otherwise known as GUILT.

[Boo Boo]

2. "Mr. Bush"

Heh. I like the tone. That's guaranteed to piss Chimpy off bigtime.