The Daily Background
| Does this mean the Attorney General reads blogs?
by Arlen Parsa
Ugh. From hearings this past week:
Feingold: Do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?â€
Gonzales: Sure, if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don’t want us eavesdropping at all.
Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?
Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.
Naturally, Gonzales is lying through his teeth, and the White House has time and time again suggested that Democratic politicians were somehow against wiretapping terrorists. It’s a language thing. Nobody’s been against just ‘wiretapping terrorists,’ but the problem is, the Administration hasn’t been just ‘wiretapping terrorists,’ as their rhetoric suggests.
You can watch a video of this moment here (YouTube). I really reccomend doing so, because there are a lot of other good points made by Feingold regarding the Administration’s “just-now” decision to get court oversight of their illegal domestic spying program.
Timing is certainly suspect for one (Democrats take over Congress and all of a sudden the Administration bends and gets court oversight?), although according to Attorney General Gonzales and the Administration, they’ve been working on trying to get court oversight for ages and ages and ages and ages, it’s just been sooooo harrrrrd to craft the legal theory and get it to a place where judges felt “comfortable” with it, in Gonzales’ own words…. Which you’d think they would have already done when they came up with the program in the first place: because they’ve maintained it was legal all along.
