"An NSA program" and "The program the president approved" -- Why are they being so cagey?

[Sparkly]

I seriously don't understand this. Why were Gonzales and Mueller not willing to say "the TSP" or "warrantless wire-tapping?" Why are they leaving open the possibility that there is a different program, when they also testify there is not another program?

Are they just trying to smokescreen the process so they can keep saying they can't reveal any classified info blah blah blah? (And if that were the case, why not say "We can have this discussion in closed session?")

I'm confused about that.

[flyarm]

1. because they used it to tap into Kerry's campaign in 2004 and

they are blackmailing congress people!

fly

[Sparkly]

2. I can completely believe that, but they've already admitted the program existed

Why are they afraid to say "yes, that program" now?

On edit: One thing I've wondered is whether they're implying there's a "sub-program" or something, although I think that was asked, too. Specifically, Gonzo has never answered whether or not they've intercepted domestic US mail. They could be trying to say that's not the same program or something, although that's a stretch... And, no question that would have met with dissent.

I just don't get it.

[rzemanfl]

3. You aren't supposed to get it, we are supposed to scratch our

heads, be confused and go back to watching sports on TV.

[Sparkly]

4. That could be it, too -- just trying to confuse in the public sphere

Like Snowjob today, using that same line -- "I'd love to tell you if I could, but I can't... National security, you understand..."

[global1]

8. Does Tony Have National Security Clearance?.......nt

[rooney]

5. I just don't get it either! I don't think there was any mention

of another ''program'' until Gonzalez brought it up yesterday. Had any of the mentioned another program before yesterday?

[Sparkly]

7. Good question... I'm not sure.

Anybody else know?

(I think it was the day before yesterday, btw.)

[SharonAnn]

18. Gonzo refused to answer the "Yes" or "No" question to this that Schumer asked.

[Kagemusha]

6. Because it was called TSP after the fact as a propaganda tool?

And its real name is classified perhaps?

Well anyway, Mueller followed protocol by the book. Gonzales burned the book. Snow's trying to drag things back to the book and saying that both followed the book completely.

[Sparkly]

9. Ooh, there's an idea...

Hmm....

Mueller did the same hedging Gonzales did whenever it was referred to. Anyway, this is an interesting notion... especially if something other than "terrorist" was in the name. (I always thought the word "program" was euphemistic.)

[Kagemusha]

11. That Gonzales did whenever it was referred to UNTIL THIS WEEK.

When for the first time he went wildly off the script to cover his own butt.

And another possibility is very simply that Bush lied, that the "terrorist surveillance program" is not the real program in full, that the real program does not do what Bush said the TSP does, or goes much further than Bush claimed, and the entirety of the executive branch is engaged in a cover-(the President's)-ass effort to maintain public cover for a program authorized by the President which the President personally lied about to the American People.

But since that's a lie to protect us from thinking too much about national security matters, and not a blow job, that's okay. :sarcasm:

[Sparkly]

12. So let's say...

I'm making this up -- just want to make sure I understand you. Let's say it was actually called "Federal Surveillance Initiative" or something, and it involved wiretapping calls within the US, intercepting mail, computer hacking, and bugging people's conversations, all without warrants. These were a whole range of people the president conveniently called "suspects."

Let's say what they now call the "TSP" was only about domestic-international phone calls...

The only way it could make sense is if they're using these two "programs" interchangeably when answering questions. For example, "Was there dissent?" "No, not about that particular NSA program," referring to a broader program they never actually told anybody about, hence no dissent.

Is that the idea?

[Sparkly]

13. Oh oh oh wait....

So maybe they just now made up a new name for it -- well, for SOMEthing -- in order to obfuscate in their answers without technically committing perjury??

[Kagemusha]

15. Something like that, yes. Obviously if they weren't obfuscating, we'd know.

We can only guess. But, why would they go through all the trouble otherwise?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

10. CNN is spinning this story big time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1454309&mesg_id=1454309

Snow is just being difficult.

[Sparkly]

14. An exchange with Feinstein from Feb. 6, 2006

FEINSTEIN: Senator Kennedy asked you about first-class mail, has it been opened, and you declined answering.

Let me ask this way: Has any other secret order or directive been issued by the president or any other senior administration official which authorizes conduct which would otherwise be prohibited by law? Yes or no will do.

GONZALES: Senator, the president has not authorized any conduct that I'm aware of that is in contravention of law.

FEINSTEIN: Has the president ever invoked this authority with respect to any activity other than NSA surveillance?

GONZALES: Again, Senator, I'm not sure how to answer that question.

The president has exercised his authority to authorize this very targeted surveillance of international communication of the enemy. So I'm sorry, your question is?

FEINSTEIN: Has the president ever invoked this authority with respect to any activity other than the program we're discussing, the NSA surveillance program?

GONZALES: Senator, I am not comfortable going down the road of saying yes or no as to what the president has or has not authorized. I'm here to...

FEINSTEIN: OK. That's fine.

GONZALES: OK.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601001.html

[Sparkly]

16. An exhange with Schumer, also Feb. 6, 2006

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say...

SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.

[gulliver]

17. Slimy, but effective (enough?) word parsing argument.

The program evolved after the dissent by Justice. The president discussed the program after the dissent. Ergo, when Gonzales said that there was no dissent on the program discussed by the president (or even were he to use Mueller's "an NSA program"), he was (by Bush Administration and GOP standards) arguably not lying. There was no dissent at the time the president was discussing the program. The dissent was before that.

They are talking about the same TSP program. They are slimily differentiating between two time spans of the program. If Gonzales had said there was no dissent on the TSP, then that would be a lie. Instead, he basically lied in a way that might avoid a perjury charge.

At least that is my understanding. It should be illegal if it is not. Our Attorney General, some guy.