the new york times declares war on gonzales' lies

the times broke a story last
evening which -- while printing an
administration-endorsed explanation
for alberto gonzales' dissembling
before congress, last tuesday -- had the
salutory effect, to the discerning eye,
at least, of making plain[er] what many
of us have already come to accept
as true. alberto gonzales is a liar.

and not about his golf handicap, or
whether he two-, or three-putted, on
the fourth green. . .

i quote the opinion page, which relies
on the reporting mentioned above. . .
[as ever, click the wordmark to read
the full opinion]:

Mr. Gonzales has now told Congress twice that there was no dissent in the government about Mr. Bush’s decision to authorize the National Security Agency to spy on Americans’ international calls and e-mails without obtaining the legally required warrant. Mr. Mueller and James Comey, a former deputy attorney general, say that is not true. Not only was there disagreement, but they also say that they almost resigned over the dispute.

Both men say that in March 2004 — when Mr. Gonzales was still the White House counsel — the Justice Department refused to endorse a continuation of the wiretapping program because it was illegal. (Mr. Comey was running the department temporarily because Attorney General John Ashcroft had emergency surgery.) Unwilling to accept that conclusion, Vice President Dick Cheney sent Mr. Gonzales and another official to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room to get him to approve the wiretapping.

Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller intercepted the White House team, and they say they watched as a groggy Mr. Ashcroft refused to sign off on the wiretapping and told the White House officials to leave. . .

Last week, Mr. Gonzales denied that account. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee the dispute was not about the wiretapping operation but was over “other intelligence activities.” He declined to say what those were.

Lawmakers who have been briefed on the administration’s activities said the dispute was about the one eavesdropping program that has been disclosed. So did Mr. Comey. And so did Mr. Mueller, most recently on Thursday in a House hearing. He said he had kept notes. . .

As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales’s talk about a dispute over other — unspecified — intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it “different” from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up.

Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales’s words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~

[SEMI-NEW! -- please take poll, at
right -- dick cheney: indict, impeach,
or wait 'til 2009? -- you decide!]

~~~~~~~~~~~

so -- he hasn't told a tall-tale about the
huge fish "that got away" -- no, he has
lied about spying on americans with-
out a warrant. it does not matter
which "program" he meant -- sen. leahy and sen.
whitehouse asked simple, direct questions; he
should have answered with the whole, and complete
truth, not half-truths, characterized by material
omissions of extremely-relevant facts. he owed
them an SEC disclosure -- he gave them a "stayed
out late, bowling, honey. . ." story. . .

he has lied about cheney's (and bush's)
efforts to snoop on americans in violation
of their constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

rights he -- and his office -- had sworn to
protect. the times called for his impeach-
ment, at the end of the above editorial.

personally -- as with cheney -- i am calling
for his indictment. that is what the special
prosecutor ought to do.

alberto gonzales lied, under oath, repeatedly,
about his part in trampling ordinary americans'
constitutional right to be free from unreason-
able, warrantless government eavesdropping. . .

i n d i c t.

he did so knowingly, and with deft
calculation -- his repeatedly-parsing
answers, in response to simple, direct
questions, now twice, under oath, makes this
clear. he lied. and senator leahy's latest
letter (enclosing transcripts, at the end
of this linked post) will force him
to say so. the word "program" will be
his stumbling block -- he cannot correct the
transcript without covering what the word
"program" means to him. and, it will
then be plain that he was not honest in
his answers, for he well-knew that his
parsing half-answers had caused the very
confusion the senators were trying to
clear up. . .

he has perjured himself.

stay tuned -- and, stay focused on the goal:
if gonzales can be indicted, so too can cheney.

cut off the brain, and the chimperor soon perishes.