Analysis: Gonzales Testimony Part of Broader Effort to Conceal Surveillance Program

[babylonsister]

Analysis: Gonzales Testimony Part of Broader Effort to Conceal Surveillance Program
By Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel - July 26, 2007, 6:54 PM

Alberto Gonzales' testimony that there was "no serious disagreement" within the Bush Administration about the NSA warrantless surveillance program has left senators sputtering and fulminating about the attorney general's apparent prevarications. But a closer examination of Gonzales' testimony and other public statements from the Administration suggest that there may be a method to the madness.

There's a lot of evidence to suggest that Gonzales's careful, repeated phrasing to the Senate that he will only discuss the program that "the president described" was deliberate, part of a concerted administration-wide strategy to conceal from the public the very broad scope of that initial program. When, for the first time, Program X (as we'll call it, for convenience's sake) became known to senior Justice Department officials who were not its original architects, those officials -- James Comey and Jack Goldsmith, principally -- balked at its continuation. They did not back down until the program had undergone as-yet-unspecified but apparently significant revisions. But when President Bush announced what he would call the "Terrorist Surveillance Program' in December 2005, he left the clear impression that the program had always functioned the same way since its 2001 inception.

The administration's consistent refusal to discuss any aspect of the program -- current or former -- aside from what President Bush disclosed in December 2005 appears to be intended, specifically, to gloss over Comey and Goldsmith's objections. If that's the case, it could mean that the public has been presented with an inaccurate picture of the origins and scope of Program X. The Bush administration is currently contesting a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documentation establishing Program X's history -- in essence, trying to ensure that the public never learns more about the program and the internal deliberations over it than what President Bush chooses to reveal.

Alberto Gonzales, on this theory, has found himself enmeshed in the administration's attempt to distinguish the less-troublesome Terrorism Surveillance Program from Program X. And it may mean he perjured himself in doing so. Today, Senate Democrats responded to Gonzales's dubious testimony on Tuesday by calling for a perjury investigation. At issue is whether Gonzales' assertions that there was "no serious disagreement" within the government about the TSP was so misleading as to amount to perjury, or whether his distinction between TSP and Program X was merely a careful parsing -- perhaps misleading but not, to use Sen. Arlen Specter's word, actionable.

more...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003787.php

[Solly Mack]

1. I listen to government with the following always in mind

If they are willing to admit to the theft, it's only to cover up the murder

[LEW]

2. Ah-The webs that we weave

when we practice to deceive.

[Botany]

3. Any doubt that the NSA was used to spy on Kerry and the dems in 2004?

When did bush/Gonzo push so hard to get the NSA program continued?
Even to the point that they tried to get Ashcroft to sign off on it from
his sick bed when he given up the powers of A.G.. March 2004 is when.

In Ohio 2004 phone lines were hacked and blocked by a very sophisticated
operation along with computers at Kerry's state HQ. Those computers had
5 & 6 firewalls. I know I saw "this crap" first hand.

This NSA spying program has resulted in zero people being arrested on
charged with terrorism .... The terror / fear part is just a cover story.

Just like every time we come across some election/voter manipulation
project we now find a U.S. Attorney I am willing to bet that the T.S.P.
(terrorist surveillance program) was really the K.S.P. (Kerry Surveillance Program).

This why bush & company are fighting so hard to keep the cover up going.

[babylonsister]

4. This is on tonight that might address some of that; I hear Palast will

be on it, too.

Was there a White House plot to illegally suppress votes in 2004?

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/25047

Was there a White House plot to illegally suppress votes in 2004?
Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2007-07-25 00:05. Evidence | Video and Audio

NOW on PBS:

Is there a similar plan for the upcoming elections? On Friday July 27 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW examines documents and evidence that points to a Republican Party plan designed to keep Democrats from voting, by targeting people based on their race and ethnicity. Congress is investigating, and so are we. We speak with David Iglesias, one of eight fired U.S. Attorneys, who says he lost his job because he refused to go along with the White House plan to suppress votes. The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will feature an extended interview with David Iglesias and reveal key e-mails and documents covered in our investigation.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

5. nts. Watch NOW on PBS 7:30 tonight. nt

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

7. Iglesias kick for tonight. nt

[niceypoo]

6. I think the real goal is hiding election fraud run from within the whitehouse

This should be a RICO case. Iraq reconstruction should also be charged under RICO laws.