Why believe me when I said I loved you when you know I've been a liar all my life?

[SacTown Chronic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001318_pf.html

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) charged yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing a year ago when he appeared to try to avoid answering a question about whether the president could authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

In a letter to the attorney general yesterday, Feingold demanded to know why Gonzales dismissed the senator's question about warrantless eavesdropping as a "hypothetical situation" during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January 2005. At the hearing, Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was "not the policy or the agenda of this president" to authorize actions that conflict with existing law.

In fact, the president did secretly authorize the National Security Agency to begin warrantless monitoring of calls and e-mails between the United States and other nations soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The program, publicly revealed in media reports last month, was unknown to Feingold and his staff at the time Feingold questioned Gonzales, according to a staff member. Feingold's aides developed the 2005 questions based on privacy advocates' concerns about broad interpretations of executive power.

Gonzales was White House counsel at the time the program began and has since acknowledged his role in affirming the president's authority to launch the surveillance effort.

Sigh, I miss the good old days of stained blue dresses and lies that had no impact on my life.

[scaeagles]

Don't kid yourself - warrantless wiretaps and echelon and illegal access to FBI files and....well, you get the idea....were going on before this administration in just about every administration I can think of. Please understand this is not intended as any justification or approval or condemnation of the practice based on past events - only refuting the implication that lies and secrets from the administration immediately prior had no impact on privacy or personal freedoms.

I am not so naive as to think Gonzales didn't lie or dodge questions. I am also not so naive as to believe this is new and unique. However, it is possible to say the Gonzales was walking a fine line. There is disagreement within the legal community - and I completely admit I do not know well all of the legal points - as to whether or not the taps are illegal. Both sides spin in the way they believe is politically beneficial. Based on the public response - or rather lack thereof - it's a pretty much dead issue politically (IMO).

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I am not so naive as to think Gonzales didn't lie or dodge questions. I am also not so naive as to believe this is new and unique.

Did you also shrug when Clinton lied under oath? Or did you call for his impeachment?

However, it is possible to say the Gonzales was walking a fine line. There is disagreement within the legal community - and I completely admit I do not know well all of the legal points - as to whether or not the taps are illegal

Could you provide a link to a nonpartisan source who says Bush isn't breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants? I'd love to read it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I dislike Gonzalez for many reasons, this isn't one of them. He had knowledge of a classified program, he had no choice but to evade the question. And, as legal council, he did and does believe the actions to be legal (remains to be seen if that will hold up), so his statement about the "policy of this President" was true from that perspective.

[Gemini Cricket]

Waitaminute. Gonzales lied under oath. Shouldn't that be a big deal to the GOP? They're not supposed to stand for that sort of thing. They proved that with the Clinton impeachment...
???

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I dislike Gonzalez for many reasons, this isn't one of them. He had knowledge of a classified program, he had no choice but to evade the question.

He didn't evade the question. He lied under oath.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

He didn't evade the question. He lied under oath.

1) It's a lie because you deam it a lie. He didn't say, "Bush isn't authorizing wire taps." He's said, "Bush isn't doing anything illegal." To the best of his knowledge, that was true. You may disagree (as do I), but I don't consider that a lie.

2) What else could he have said? The knowledge he had was classified, he could not give anything other than what he said.

[wendybeth]

Scaeagles, I don't know who you hang out with or where you get your news, but the idea that people don't care that the President is breaking the law and laying waste to the Constitution is a bit of a stretch. Remind me again what the supposed definition of a Republican is?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Scaeagles, I don't know who you hang out with or where you get your news, but the idea that people don't care that the President is breaking the law and laying waste to the Constitution is a bit of a stretch. Remind me again what the supposed definition of a Republican is?

If I thought he were breaking the law, I would be upset.

If I thought he were laying waste to the Constitution, I would be upset.

I disagree with the premise of your statements. Kind of like the anecdote of the lawyer saying "have you stopped beating your wife yet?".

I base my opinion on polls I've read. It all depends on how the question is asked. Some have asked questions something like "should the President be permitted to authorize spying on American citizens without a warrant?" and the response is that only 35-40% agree. If the question is phrased somehting like "In matters of national security, should the Presaident be permitted to authorize wiretaps without judicial warrants?", the response is around 60-65% agree.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

He didn't say, "Bush isn't authorizing wire taps." He's said, "Bush isn't doing anything illegal." To the best of his knowledge, that was true.

He said, "I can't answer such a hypothetical question". Calling the situation "hypothetical" when you know it's not is a lie.

Feingold asked Gonzales where the president's authority ends and whether Gonzales believed the president could, for example, act in contravention of existing criminal laws and spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Gonzales says he believes the president is well within his right to spy without warrants. It seems to me he could have answered Sen. Feingold's question without lying under oath or discussing a classified program.