Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Pujo, May 15, 2007.
Wow, this one's bizarre.
The high tide of scum.....
The facisti eating their own.
Bush is a nightmare.....
Dont expect many board righties to respond to this. This would require a thoughtful and objective analysis of what this testimony says about their unconstitutional agenda.
The modern conservative movement is being exposed as a group far worse for traditional american values than any previous movement and that includes the hippies and the "socialists". The cons have virtually destroyed the greatest experiment in democracy this world has ever witnessed.
Well done Bush shills, you ignorant dolts.
yeah, i saw this earlier today... this could actually turn out to be quite damaging for Gonzo and the WH... righties have been squawking like crows for weeks about "what has he done illegal?"... well, this may be it, if they consider nothing else...
Gonzo also tried to downplay the sudden resignations today of his No. 2 man, and some other top aide...
Comey testified that he believed President Bush had phoned Ashcroft's hospital room directly, and he was sure that the call "came from the White House." Mrs. Ashcroft was not allowing any calls to be taken by her ill husband. She then called Ashcroft's chief of staff to inform him that the White House was sending Gonzales and Card to the hospital to meet with the debilitated attorney general face to face.
At Ashcroft's bedside, Gonzales did most of the talking, Comey said, adding that Gonzales and Card pressed the attorney general to reauthorize the program in spite of reservations about its legality. Comey said Ashcroft reiterated his concerns and refused to sign the order reauthorizing the program.
Ashcroft "lifted his head off the pillow, and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me - drawn from the hour-long meeting we'd had a week earlier - and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, 'I'm not the attorney general,'" Comey said, adding that Gonzales and Card left the hospital that evening without a signature from the Justice Department allowing the surveillance program to continue.
"I was very upset. I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.... I was concerned that this was an effort to do an end run around the acting attorney general and to get a very sick man to approve something that the Department of Justice had already concluded - the department as a whole - was unable to be certified as to its legality. And that was my concern."
The next day, March 10, 2004 the White House sidestepped the judicial process and signed off on the program anyway, and continued to monitor American citizens' communications in what appeared to be a violation of the law.
"The program was reauthorized without us and without a signature from the Department of Justice attesting as to its legality," Comey said.
David Iglesias was asked point blank whether there was anything illegal about what Gonzo did. His answer "possibly....obstruction of justice". He went on to say that the evidence is building for a case against him.
Ahh, the righties have such a good chance to say "while we support most of what the administration does, this is wrong, and I'm not afraid to call them out when they do something wrong."
But instead we have silence. I think people sometimes tie their fate into someone else's and forget what they're actually about. Some conservatives have invested so much into defending the administration at any cost, they're afraid it'll expose them if the administration becomes exposed. Like "I can't admit I was so stupid as to support them." Instead they do dumber and dumber things like continue to defend them no matter how indefensible they are.
It sounds as though the intent was to 'REAUTHORIZE' a program that was already in existence. What was the original program? How was it authorized? Why was the AG in a position to reauthorize it? Why would it be illegal for the AG to reauthorize it? How did the program operate?
None of these questions are addressed in the article excerpts. So it is hard to comment on this.
They were for conservative principles before they were against them.
Maybe you can't comment on those questions you raised, but the article gives a lot of information that is deserving of comment.
Listening to the Radio this AM and a segment came on with Comey speaking about this, pretty freaking bizarre.. the whole scene with Ashcroft in the hospital and all. Ashcroft apparently knew it was unconstitutional and refused to sign it.. Gonsalves just blew by Comey, who was acting AG, and then the White House enacted it anyways. So much for collective decision making and the constitution, this process and consensus thing gets way too cumbersome.
It is speculation and POV of the author.Without the background it is meaningless. The vast majority of surveillance covered by these programs required court warrants,
correct, which of course is why we have FISA, and whats your point?
The point is still that the acting AG refused to authorize it, and they tried going over his head to Ashcroft, who had to tell them that he was not the AG at the moment. The point is also that the White House authorized the program without a Justice Department signature. I'm assuming there's no legal requirement for one, under the theory of a unified executive branch, but the controversy is real. It's funny how we comment on all sorts of things based on news articles, blogs, or even rumors, yet when something unfavorable comes up all of a sudden you don't want to comment without having 100% of the information? You're certainly free to remain silent, but I'm not fooled by why.
Gee a bureaucratic disagreement and the bureaucrat trying to cya, wow who woulda thunk it.
What law what program???
No law, and according this this article (http://cbs11tv.com/national/topstories_story_136091530.html) it was the no-warrant wiretapping program (the one the NYT disclosed).
And you're right that it's a bureaucratic disagreement, but what they're disagreeing about - and how vehemicly - is very pertinent. That Bush still approved a program - any program - despite the attorney general's assertion that it's illegal is also noteworthy.
What constitution?? after all it is just a goddamned piece of paper.. always thought the AG was the interpreter of the law of the land, guess not here though.
pah....thats so pre-911...
I can't believe Gonzalez survived in his post to the end of today.
Honestly, John Ashcroft being the pillar of freedom and civil liberties and facing down the neanderthal Gonzalez from his hospital bed.
I've heard it all now.
That's what's so crazy about this, it got to be too much for even Ashcroft!
Separate names with a comma.