Breaking: White House releases letter on NSA program.

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/31/breaking-white-house-releases-letter-on-nsa-program/

Breaking: White House releases letter on NSA program.

After missing the noon deadline imposed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the White House has released a statement seeking to resolve the discrepancies in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ contradictory statements about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. According to CNN’s Suzanne Malveau, the letter from Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell says that “a number of these intelligence activities were authorized in order.”

UPDATE: More from the letter: It states, “One particular aspect of these activities and nothing more, was publicly acknowledged by the President and described in December 2005.” Malveax reported:

The key line in this letter says one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more, was publicly acknowledged by the President and described in December of 2005. That is what Gonzales says was the Terrorist Surveillance Program. So what other program are they talking about? Again, they say it’s classified. It’s top secret. The third line in the letter is key: This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly. So what they’re saying is everything else is secret but what he was talking about specifically was the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

UPDATE II: Here’s the video - at link~

[nolabels]

1. Well of course it's secret, anything against the law and constitution probably needs to be.........

Like the fox with egg all over his face standing outside the hen house trying to give the idea that nothing is going on, yea that's the ticket :crazy:

[AntiFascist]

15. If anyone questioning the war is a security risk, then extrapolate from there n/t

[Kagemusha]

2. This only confirms what everyone could tell from the tap-dancing.

If they stopped and thought about it, that is. I did.

The better question is why Gonzales went far, far off the reservation in speaking of these activities authorized by the President to be DONE, but not authorized by the President to be TALKED ABOUT. If Gonzales had no authority to talk about them, then uh... why isn't Bush very, very cross with him?

Because Gonzales is too convenient an attorney general to apply the actual law to him that Bush would persecute others with, not even thinking twice about it?

[nolabels]

3. That it also proves another thing that no matter how stupid the lie............

the * and company will do anything to protect a lie and the authority they think they have in keeping with the narrative. They also seem to be making it all up whole cloth which is good indication they are running out of bullets :shrug:

[wicket]

4. K&R

:kick:

[blogslut]

5. Now I'm super confused

Dude...wait what?

[pberq]

6. So this means impeachment hearings start tomorrow, right??

Wishful thinking, I know.

[AndyA]

7. This just proves that anything and everything Congress may want in an attempt

to obtain answers will be top secret. Even if it isn't, it will be before Congress would ever have the chance to get their hands on it.

More spying, more lying, more troops dying: it's the Bush White House agenda.

[snappyturtle]

9. Yep. Stonewalling.....but it is for our best interest.

:sarcasm:

[bdamomma]

12. there is so much lying and covering up going around it's disgusting

I don't know what to say but to get them out.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. "Dear Congress and American Sheeple, we can tell you, but then we'd have to kill you"

In other words ..... "none of your fucking business."

Subtext: "Who cares what you think?"

[creeksneakers2]

10. There is too much focus on this one Gonzales lie

The Bushies are trying to divert attention from all the other lies Gonzales told by contesting just one. Its time to impeach Gonzales.

[wiggs]

11. Exactly right....too many eggs in one basket. The focus should be on

overall performance and a whole list of misdeeds and deceptions. No one thinks he's doing a good job; he's clearly unfit. Start with that.

This should be easy to frame for the dems, right? "The republican congress and the administration made nothing but mistakes over the last six years; installing the president's personal attorney (who worked closely with Enron and Halliburton) as Attorney General and then allowing him to politicize and demoralize the entire Dept of Justice is one of them. We're going to try to correct these disasters, starting with firing Gonzales and confirming someone qualified and with integrity."

[wiggs]

13. I will also say this is a persistent pattern by pundits, journalists, and our

congress...to focus on the trees instead of the forest...to focus on the misdeed of the week until the next one comes along. Looking back, we have 6 years to outrages we've burrowed through like gophers, digging up dirt ahead of us and pushing it behind. We've done all this digging and we're still buried.

[librechik]

14. Anonymous Liberal has this move nailed

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/07/state-of-play-on-gonzales-perjury.html


snip

As I laid out in this post on Saturday, Gonzales conceded several times in his testimony that the "terrorist surveillance program" he was discussing began in 2001, not 2004. Moreover, by repeatedly referring to the "program the President has confirmed," Gonzales was incorporating by reference the President's December 17, 2005 statement confirming the existence of the program, a program that by the President's own admission began "within weeks" of 9/11 and had been reauthorized 30 times over 4 years.

and

Furthermore, if any of the features of "the program the president confirmed" exist solely because of Comey and Goldsmith's objections, then Gonzales is lying. For instance, we have been repeatedly told that the "terrorist surveillance program" only intercepts communications where 1) one party is out of the country and 2) there is probable cause to believe one or both of the parties is affiliated with al Qaeda. We've also been told that there are extensive internal safeguards and minimization requirements in place and that evidence obtained is used solely for prevention of terrorist attacks and not as evidence to apply for FISA warrants. If any or all of these features were implemented in 2004 as a result of Comey and Goldsmith's objections, then it cannot be true that their disagreements did not relate to this program.

In other words, there are a whole lot of facts which, if true, would sink Gonzales' defense. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that Gonzales' defense would not withstand any real scrutiny.

Finally, as Big Tent Democrat astutely points out, the President himself seems to have indirectly contradicted Gonzales in his own official statement on the matter. The New York Times story that first revealed the existence of the NSA program noted that:

In mid-2004, concerns about the program expressed by national security officials, government lawyers and a judge prompted the Bush administration to suspend elements of the program and revamp it."

snip

As well as all of this "The Case against Gonzales"
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/07/case-against-gonzales.html

AL has much of interest at his site.