Go to Josh Marshal's TPM site where Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel have posted a pretty thorough analysis of this question. They don't have the ultimate answer but they set the scene pretty exhaustively.

Fetishization of the unitary executive.

I wonder if Gonzo is trying to make the one program into 2 separate programs, the one with the contentious laws, and the one without them that was later approved. I would guess that he has a presidential pardon in his back pocket so is not at all worried about the consequences. If I was the Judiciary Committee, I would say to him that we are going to refer the entire matter to the next Congress and see how smug he looks after that.

If you look at everyone's statements on the matter - Abu, Comey, Mueller - they are clearly parsing words in a way that suggests multiple 'TSP'-like operations they are trying to hide.

What is frustrating is that the gang of 8 clearly has the inside scoop, and yet allow all this obfuscating to continue.

He lied the first time ("there was no dissent") because it was good politics and he thought he would never get caught. He's lying now because he got caught and he knows that Congress is looking for any excuse to lynch him. Also, he's utterly shameless, so he doesn't care how stupid he looks.

Seems pretty simple to me.

He is playing out the clock.

> About two minutes ago I got an email from a
> reader asking a question that's been on my mind
> too: Why is Alberto Gonzales lying?

Didn't we go through this during the Irving Libby case? In Dick Cheney's mind no citizen has the right to know what is going on inside the Executive Branch at any time for any reason. Therefore the members of said branch lie all the time about everything and nothing. For good reason, bad reason, or for no reason at all. Unless they think that telling the truth would better deceive the audience; then they do that.

I had hoped that Kevin had figured this out by now. Guess not.

Cranky

Like everyone else in the Administration, he's under a curse, the underside of the dark bargain that gave them the White House.

The truth burns their mouths.

I'm one of the very few who doesn't think Gonzo is lying (about the NSA program anyway).

There was an old program, which was the subject of the dispute with Comey.

There was the new (cleaned up) program, which Comey accepted.

About the new program, there was no significant dispute.

Gonzalez is lying because he lied the first time when he thought he would get away with it.

He lied the first time round because the alternative would be to admit that administration knows that the program is likely to be illegal. if they do that they lose the 'good faith' defense against prosecution.

Gonzalez is lying because he lied the first time when he thought he would get away with it.

He lied the first time round because the alternative would be to admit that administration knows that the program is likely to be illegal. if they do that they lose the 'good faith' defense against prosecution.

There may be some nefarious scheme behind all this, who knows. My guess is that they're just not very bright people. Gonzo in particular has been lying for so long, to so many people, that he's lost track, and then lies some more to try to make up for it.

Serial liars do that.

Maybe you should read National Review Online where there is an explanation. The program was changed after DOJ objected to some of the early provisions. Gonzales (Who I think should resign for other reasons) is referring to the "confirmed" program that emerged after the Ashworth interview in the hospital room. I know you don't want to hear this or accept it and it will be ignored but the left is making fools of its members by pursuing a story that doesn't exist.

Like Cranky notes, lying is simply the default position of everyone in the Bush administration. Or as W calls it, "MY government."

Those of us who want to know what Bush's government is really doing obviously hate America.

Fetishization of the unitary executive.

Posted by: skimble

Yeah, that and what others have said about Cheney's contempt for everyone who isn't him, but more precisely the fetishization of the Bush administration. This isn't just partisanship (though it's propped up by the cowardly partisanship of people like Specter the Spineless and other assorted useless bags of bones with Sen. before their names and an (R) after), it's a cult of personality infused by primitive protestantism. Abu G. would still be handling strip mall and McMansion closings in Houston if he hadn't told Bush a simpering story about how Jeebus got him from a tar-paper shack and drunk father (think that rang some bells?) to Harvard Law.

On some level, these people, from Bush to Gonzo, know that the delusions they have about this administration are a house of cards, even disturbing one card will bring the whole thing falling down. Hence the pitbull defense of even minor points.

none: "If you look at everyone's statements on the matter - Abu, Comey, Mueller - they are clearly parsing words in a way that suggests multiple 'TSP'-like operations they are trying to hide.

What is frustrating is that the gang of 8 clearly has the inside scoop, and yet allow all this obfuscating to continue."

I suspect the parsing and the allowance for the obfuscating to continue is because portions of the NSA program are SAP. Any and all parties would be hauled off to jail immediately if they discuss or admit to knowing of it.

It's his job. It's what he does.

Because he can. Simple answers to simple questions. The "explanation" of two programs--pre and post Comey's objections does not really hold water, particularly a) in view of his February testimony and b) when descibing the dash to Ashcroft's hospital bed, but it will be enough to keep most of the GOP in line. Dumbya can not run the risk of Gonzales talking anymore than Libby.

According to most legal analysts, if Gonzo admits that there was significant disagreement over legality among DOJ officials of TSP program, then this would make them ALL liable to criminal prosecutions.

As long as they can couch it as "..no significant disagreements" then they can skate.

Otherwise, it is bed time for Gonzo!

Not being privy (thank God!) to the "program" or the dispute, I don't know what you're missing, but I can guess: There are components of "the program," perhaps defined as other programs, that are even more offensive and illegal than the one(s) about which Gonzales wants us to believe he's testifying. That's convoluted because the story is convoluted. Straightening out the kinks: The administration--which includes Gonzales under a couple of titles--has done some very bad things, and Gonzales will not admit to them.

Oh. And nyah nyah nyah.

When the revolution comes...

Gonzales seems to think it's important to persuade the public that there was no internal dissension over the wiretapping program, but why?

I think it is mistake to assume that because Gonzales says something, he thinks it is important to persuade people of the truth of what he is saying.

The more issues are out there, the less attention is paid to any one of them. That may be reason enough to Gonzales to keep throwing stuff like this up, because it distracts from the issues that were already the focus of attention.

The utility of a statement for a speaker is not always derived from a listener believing the statement is true.

In reply to Mike K: So by carefully parsing words with regard to a variety of "programs" that are almost entirely kept secret (and therefore conveniently, to Gonzales, unverifiable by us), Gonzales managed to avoid perjury, technically. Maybe, or maybe not. But he did not avoid badly misleading Congress and the American public, and it seems clear that Gonzales and the Bush administration intended to mislead us. Just as Clinton intentionally misled the public with his famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ("sexual relations"=coitus, by my old-fashioned dictionary). I thought such clever dishonesty with the public was unacceptable in Clinton's case and it is unacceptable in Gonzales' case, even more so because of the greater public seriousness of the matters involved. I also find the deliberate, selfish exploitation of the powers of government secrecy especially angering.

Gonzales is lying because he doesn't care and probably doesn't know what the truth is. His job was (and is) to do Bush's bidding-- and having done that, the details of his 'internal states', e.g., his memory, are a negligible detail.

Why does a fish swim? It is part of who he is. It is part of his essence. Criminals lie because their essential nature is contrary to the truth. The same is true of Bush. Honest people don't lie for no reason. Criminals do.

Just dropping turds in the water to "muddy" it. Playing out the clock hoping to keep Congress busy with little investigations till January 20, 2009, and then hoping everything will become moot and Congress and the public will lose interest in the truth.

Simple really.

Even if Gonzalez isn't lying, it's his fault that nobody can conclude otherwise. If there was some reasonably explanation, I'd like to hear it. Since he won't offer one, I'm forced to judge him a liar.

Admiral Akbar says: "It's a trap!"

Gonzalez is purposely provoking perjury and contempt charges. The logic:

- Flagrant perjury about something not important will enrage the Democrats, who will look like they're overreacting to a minor issue when they take the "drastic" step of charging him.
- Hannity, O'Reily, and the like can make hay from the shrill, foaming at the mouth "Democrat party's" apparent overreaction, and make it seem like ALL of the Democrats' rage against Bush is crazy.
- Bush will pardon/commute at the end anyway.

The result: there is a great distraction away from issues that actually matter while Washington implodes with rage. Gozalez walks. The decider wins.

"The program was changed after DOJ objected to some of the early provisions. Gonzales (Who I think should resign for other reasons) is referring to the "confirmed" program that emerged after the Ashworth interview in the hospital room."

Yes, this pretty much sums it up. They were knowingly committing crimes. When the existence of the program became public, they attempted to retroactively cover themselves by having the DOJ bless their crimes. They were then confronted with outrage and threats of mass resignations. Bush/Cheney, cowards that they are, simply decided to change the document describing what the program was.

But, I don't think these people ever stopped doing the illegal parts of the program. That's not how these people think. They break the law with pride. (See Iran-Contra)

Clearly there were two separate programs. There is one when Gonzales is thinking in English, and another when he is thinking in Spanish.

Two very different programs. Diametrics.

What am I missing?

I think that a couple of posters above pretty much caught the gist of the answer.

Gonzales started out with a politically convenient lie, which he thought would pass unchallenged and mostly unnoticed. When people seized upon it, in the interests of avoiding ultimate conviction on perjury, he started a more careful kind of deception, namely making a brand spanking new, pulled-out-of-his-convenient-ass distinction in how the term "TSP" got applied. The ruse required sufficient precision in how it was utilized that sometimes his smallish brain fucked it up and he had to retract some statements.

In short, Gonzales started out lying and ended up parsing and dissembling. But his perjury problem is that he never made a sincere attempt to explain how he was suddenly using his terms, despite the utterly obvious misunderstanding that it was inducing in everyone else, and which he was clearly intending.

You don't really get to assert under oath that "the sky is red", and then declare afterwards that of course what you meant all along by "red" was blue, even though you knew perfectly well that everyone understood "red" to mean red.

I see 2 possible reasons:

1. To confuse the issue in an effort to run out the clock before elections.

2. Gonzo isn't smart enough to keep all his made up plot lines straight and ultimately he feels he can just hide behind the President when push comes to shove.

If I was the Judiciary Committee, I would say to him that we are going to refer the entire matter to the next Congress and see how smug he looks after that.

Posted by: Shivas

Is that a realistic option? If so, why not put him on the back burner and let him molt while running out the clock on a presidential pardon?

Why does a dog lick his balls?

Because he can.

They're doing this solely to defy congress - it's just more Rove-a-Dope. They think that if they can get the Dems to over-react (and bang their heads ineffectively against a stone wall), they can make the Dems look stupid. (with the help of FauxNews).

Concerning the "old program"/"new program" split, I would like to point out this out: Everyday I drive a completely different car -- a car that is exactly a day old than my last car... This new car has a different molecular structure in some places, and less gasoline.

Does Gonzo know he's lying
To be a brilliant lawyer, or a brilliant mind requires parsing nuances in an intricate web of logic, sort of like a chess player seeing several moves ahead.
I frankly don't think Gonzo has this kind of mind.
Also, if he ever did have abundant perspicacity, imagine the effect of spending years around the W' who eschews acutely competent aides and reduces complex planet consequential events to aw shucks and ayups.
Also, like Scooter, Gonzo has spent years now around the likes of W', Rove and Cheney where truth has been reduced to a discussion point anathematical by its nature to their causes. If these guys had consciences and knew when they were lying, they would all probably have developed spastic tics by now.
I'd say "God help them, they know not what they do" but then children would stare and shun me to see my ears twirl and hear low exorcistial moaning erupting from my ethics' core.

This is one of the few times when they are NOT lying- just "parsing the language" carefully.
There were TWO illegal spying programs: 1. the first one, where there WAS internal dissent. and; 2. the one that the Prez. discussed, (still illegal, mind you) where there WAS NO dissent.

You need to listen carefully to these people; they challenge the meaning of "is" all the time.

WHY IS HE LYING?....About two minutes ago I got an email from a reader asking a question that's been on my mind too: Why is Alberto Gonzales lying?

Is the answer that he, like everyone else who has or is now working for the Bush administration, has sold his or her soul to the Devil and/or is just plain stupid?

The real issue is, why are Senate Republicans tolerating his lying?

They're doing this solely to defy congress - it's just more Rove-a-Dope. They think that if they can get the Dems to over-react (and bang their heads ineffectively against a stone wall), they can make the Dems look stupid. (with the help of FauxNews).

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM

Correctomundo OBF!! And given the 150+ comments on Kevin's Impeachment post of yesterday, you guys may prove Rove right again.

Can't wait for either Leahy or Connors to use the "inherent contempt" powers of Congress and try to "arrest" and/or "imprison" Rove, Gonzales et al. for failing to respond to their subpoenas. LOL

"Definitional shell game" is the Administration's next fallback defense.

Who defines the scope of the words "the program"? What are the legal boundaries of the vague "Terrorist Surveillance Program"? Is the White House obligated to make sure its opponents adhere to that same definition? What confusion was deliberately invited?

The moment our GOP spokesbots began wielding precision and speaking about "the specific activities disclosed by the President" (see www.talkingpointsmemo.com ), it was clear a mile away that semantic hair-splitting was on their agenda. ("Enhanced interrogation", anyone?) What wasn't clear was that flat-footed Dems would, yet again, permit a predictable dustcloud to be raised well ahead of their attempts to discern the truth. All future questioning should be done by competent lawyers and/or English Lit majors to dismantle the "Who's on first?" routine in store for our civil liberties.

"There's dissent about a lot of stuff. "

Not in George W. Cheney's White House, there isn't. You walk the line or you walk the plank.

Abu is being told to lie, if for no other reason than that no "outsider" (meaning all of us) is allowed to know anything about anything. Rove can always come up with specific reasons later.

Correctomundo OBF!! And given the 150+ comments on Kevin's Impeachment post of yesterday, you guys may prove Rove right again.. . .
Posted by: Chicounsel on July 27, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, I'm correct - and may I point out, that this is the same tactic that is at the root of all TERRORISM:

1. Commit an over-the-top atrocious act for which you know you can not really be held accountable.
2. Wait for your enemy to over-react.
3. Strike at your enemy's exposed backside (or, simply watch your enemy topple over from his own imbalance - which is what bin Laden has done).

Interesting that bin Laden's instincts and Rove's instincts are similar.

But then again, I suspect they had the same teacher.

He is lying because his lips are moving. It is far more than a disagreement, it involved highly illegal and unconstitutional unauthorized invasion of privacy by the Administration.

Thanks to Chicounsel at 1:39 PM for one of the more nakedly enthusiastic approvals of Bush's overreach we've yet seen.

LOL, indeed.

Chicounsil, I'm glad you find abrogation of the Constutition, and attempts to restore it, so LOL funny.

I know you don't want to hear this or accept it and it will be ignored but the left is making fools of its members by pursuing a story that doesn't exist

Oh yes indeedy! After watching snippets of Gonzales' testimony, it is the left that's making fools of themselves. That's rich.

Interesting that bin Laden's instincts and Rove's instincts are similar.

But then again, I suspect they had the same teacher.

Voldemort?

or Cheney?

Oh come on! Rove is just a low level thug. Don't overestimate his ability to strategize.

If he was that smart, Bush would not have to have the help of the judges nominated by his father in 2000.

Kevin,

It is simple - Gonzo is simple telling noble lies in the battle against those who would commit EVIL deeds against this country...go read your Leo Strauss.

That is why Gonzo is a general and you are not...now doesn't that make you sleep easier>

Chicounsil, I'm glad you find abrogation of the Constutition, and attempts to restore it, so LOL funny.

One would really be hard pressed to find a more disgusting group of anti-democracy, anti-American trollies than the putzes that post here to "defend" the indefensible.

It seems clear to me that the reason he is lying is that they have not indeed stopped doing whatever they were doing. Just because they say they have stopped -- why should we believe that?

It doesn't matter if there were one, two, or twenty wiretapping programs going on. What has Gonzo in trouble is that he testified that the Ashcroft DOJ had no trouble with the TSP program that Congressional leaders had been briefed on and which Bush eventually admitted existed. Then Comey and others come forward and say that they did and Gonzo tries to weasel out of it by suggesting that they were talking about two different programs. The problem is, Comey and Mueller both asserted rather clearly, under oath, that no, they were talking about the same TSP. Gonzales is not carefully parsing his language because there's some highly classified other program that Comey and Mueller can't remember straight -- he's just making shit up to cover for the fact that he lied earlier. Remember -- Mueller stated unambiguously that the controversy was over the TSP. There's no confusion here -- just the Bush administration's attempt to throw up enough bullshit that everyone gets confused enough to change the subject.

We have been subjected to a sophisticated psy op campaign, enabled by the media. This campaign has employed even a force of counter bloggers which you see here. The deceptions and misdirection all have the purpose of protecting Cheney' and Rove's selfish priorities. A few other people will take the fall.
Gonzo and Bush are laughingstocks. Cheney and Rove are the authors of the tragi-comedy. These are not public servants. Bad company.
The Pat Tillman case is looking pretty sinister now too. Executive privilege has befome obstructing justice on every front.

Just a follow-up -- as Paul Kiel explains over at TPM, what the administration is trying to do is devise a word game whereby they can claim that the TSP was in fact two different programs -- one that spied on overseas Al Qaeda operatives and another than monitored their interlocuters over here, as if listening in on one conversation is actually two different things. So when DOJ objected to the idea of eavesdropping on US citizens without a warrant, they were objecting to "that program," as opposed to the eavesdropping on terrorists, which was supposedly fine.

The mind reels.

Concerning the "old program"/"new program" split, I would like to point out this out: Everyday I drive a completely different car -- a car that is exactly a day old than my last car... This new car has a different molecular structure in some places, and less gasoline.

Indeed. By the same token, it was a completely different Attorney General who testified last time.

If you'd read your comments section on this very topic yesterday, you'd have discovered that what you're missing has been covered extensively by other bloggers, including Greenwald and Kiel.

Again, try this and this.

Just a follow-up -- as Paul Kiel explains over at TPM, what the administration is trying to do is devise a word game whereby they can claim that the TSP was in fact two different programs -- one that spied on overseas Al Qaeda operatives and another than monitored their interlocuters over here, as if listening in on one conversation is actually two different things.

This actually misses the point, I think.

The Bush WH in general has started to use the term "TSP" to refer exclusively to those activities approved by Bush for one, and only one basic reason: to keep Gonzales away from perjury charges.

There's a video of Snow answering a reporter's inquiry regarding Mueller's testimony, and the reporter simply asks, isn't the issue here that the term "TSP" is being used differently by Gonzales and others (including Mueller)?

Notice that Snow simply refuses to give a straight answer to that very simple question. And yet nothing could be more obvious than that the term is indeed being used differently.

Now the question is, why won't Snow answer that question yes or no? My conclusion is that he refuses to do so because he doesn't want to answer the next question: why has the Bush WH without warning or explanation decided to use the term "TSP" differently from everyone else?

Why would that be a very, very awkward question? Because the only plausible answer is that the new use of the term serves only one purpose: to save Gonzales from perjury, because he had effectively said under oath that there was no controversy about TSP.

I think the policy the Bush WH is following with regard to Gonzales perjury is the general one it has employed with all damaging information: obfuscation, but of a very particular sort.

It doesn't take many steps in an argument to show that Gonzales perjured himself. But it does require a few. The method here is to obfuscate at every step, even the very most obvious. In this case, they don't admit that they are using "TSP" differently from everyone else. This prevents the next question from arising, namely, why have they chosen out of the blue to use the term "TSP" differently from everyone else? Since the only good answer is that it would enable Gonzales to claim that he wasn't lying under oath, it's very important that that question be scotched before it can come up. It's better by far to create confusion at the earliest possible stage, so that direct questions at later stages of the argument can be avoided altogether.

One thing that might be a factor is that the dissent was about the legality of what they were doing. Gonzales wants to pretend that the program was plainly legal, which means he needs to pretend there were no significant disagreements over the matter. Dissent over whether the president is a felon is different from dissent over, say, the best energy policy.

The scary thing, as always, is not how much wanton criminality we know about in the Bush administration, but how much their obsessive secrecy and constant falsehoods has managed to keep from view.

A Democratic victory for the Presidency in 2008 will set off a panic in the White House in December and January the likes of which this country has never seen. Buy shredder stock.

What are you missing. The guy that was on Hardball last night, Bruce Fein(?) that worked for Regan answered that. If you go back and look at it, he needs there to be no dissagreement on the program. Because if there was, then what they had been doing for awhile, was CRIMINAL. And CRIMINAL charges would be able to be brought on Gonzo, and everyone else that had signed off on this years ago, but now it turns out, is highly illegal. It hit me like a lightning bolt also, as I have been trying to figure out why he was lying also...I mean come on, he is an idiot and all but he did graduate from Harvard. I have linked this to the MSNBC Harball page and if you go to the video of "Gonzalez in trouble" I had to go back and watch it 3 times...it makes perfect sense...his theory. This is the guy that was on Keith's show the other night talking about impeaching Bush/Cheney. Seems like the Reganites are abandoning ship.

Here is the link....why isn't anyone else picking up on this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Mike K: The program was changed after DOJ objected to some of the early provisions.

The program was modified.

It was still the same program.

Your interpretation (and Gonzo's) is like saying the Baltimore Ravens are not the Baltimore Ravens because they don't have the same players as last year . . .

. . . or that NBA basketball is not NBA basketball because they changed some of the rules for this year's and upcoming seasons . . .

. . . or that the Constitution is not the Constitution because some amendments have been added.

Your argument is based on a dishonest semantic disassembly of Gonzo's words.

If I was to say to a group of unknowledgeable foreign students that "the US Constitution does not reference a right to bear arms," everybody would be of the opinion I was lying and they would be right, even though I could later claim that I was talking about the ORIGINAL Constitution, but just conveniently left out that qualifier.

Lying includes the intent to deceive, even if one's words are literally true, if one knows that the audience will accept the words in a context that will make them false.

You are simply being intellectually dishonest (gee, we've never seen that from you before).

You are a piece of work when it comes to apologizing for Bush and his servants.

But we see your false semantic argument for what it is: B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.

Gonzo lied.

Live with it.

osama_been_forgotten: "Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can."

egbert, a.k.a. forsythe, wishes he could do that, too. But whenever he tries, the dog bites him.

"What is frustrating is that the gang of 8 clearly has the inside scoop, and yet allow all this obfuscating to continue."

I think at least SOME members of the Gang of Eight have disputed Gonzales' version of events. I saw Jane Harmon and Jay Rockefeller doing so on TV. Don't hold your breath waiting for ANY of the RePublican'ts to dispute Gonzales. Who were the other Democrats among the gang. If Lieberman was one, forget him disputing Gonzo either. But NONE of the Gang, as far as I know, have come out and said Gonzo was RIGHT.

"Gonzales (Who I think should resign for other reasons) is referring to the 'confirmed' program that emerged after the Ashworth interview in the hospital room."

If he was asked about the program at issue in the discussion in the hospital room, how can he be talking about the program that emerged AFTER the interview in the hospital room?

There are multiple statements about this program that are being disputed, not just the one about how every in the DoJ agreed with "the program"

Here is an alternative idea.

He is lying because no one in the administration cares. It is in their ideology that government works. When Bush appointed incompetents at FEMA and then FEMA failed to help California or Louisiana they simply agreed that government was incompetent. If the Justice Dept. appears to be all screwed up that suits them fine.

Also, there are no consequences to the lies. Bush and Cheney et al feel that they have packed the courts well enough that if this gets to the courts (especially the Supreme Court) they'll win and that will put them in an even stronger position.

Finally, if Gonzales is removed from office and an even moderately competent and independent AG is installed that could mean big trouble for Bush et al.

See, they don't call it the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in the administration of Bush the Lesser.

They call it "jello." And they call cherry jello "the Terrorist Surveillance Program." So when he said there was no disagreement among senior DoJ people about the legality of "the Terrorist Surveillance Program," he really was saying that they all agreed that it was perfectly legal to eat red, artificially flavored gelatin dessert.

I watched the hearings on Gonzales a couple of times and was amazed at his poor memory/zero recollection/does he need brain stimulating medication due to his dementia...what a gig he thinks he has going... totally disingenuous.
and knew the jig was finally up when the FBI director contradicted Gonzales' testimony.
Oh--just realized Gonzales=FIB (lie, mislead)
Mueller=FBI

Sorry, I meant to type that it is in their ideology that government _doesn't_ work. Therefore when an agency doesn't prove helpful it is just what they expected all along. They staff the various agencies with cronies and when people complain they just say "See, we told you government doesn't work."

Other examples of Gonzo-like logic:

. . . the Sallie Mae loan program is not the Sallie Mae loan program I was referring to because they changed the eligibility rules and interest rates in [insert date] . . .

. . . NASCAR is not the NASCAR I was talking about because they changed the safety rules recently . . .

. . . the US space program is not the US space program I was talking about because NASA changed the focus of its efforts from planetary exploration to near-earth activities . . .

. . . the War in Iraq is not the war I was talking about because the president has implemented a new policy called the "surge" and that makes it a different war . . .

. . . the Iraqi WMDs I was talking about are not the same Iraqi WMDs I was talking about before the war because we didn't find any of those and that fact is inconvenient . . .

. . . the NCAA baseball program is not the NCAA baseball program because they added the designated hitter to the rules in [insert date] . . .

. . . Pamela Anderson is not the Pamela Anderson I was talking about because she had cosmetic surgery after I spoke . . .

Hey, I can go on all day, Mike K!

How about you?

Got anything to say, Mr. Apologist for Liars?

The administration has already acknowledge that changes were made to the program in response to Comey's (and others') objections.

Note:

"Changes in the program," not "the program was abandoned and a new program was instituted" or "the program was replaced by a new program."

This has always been the administration's defense, that they "changed the program to address concerns," not that they started a new program in response to those concerns.

Gonzo knew exactly what program was being discussed, knew it was the same program, and knew he was lying.

Gonzo lied.

Live with it, Mike K, and quit dissembling with your mendacious semantic arguments.

"....quit dissembling with your mendacious semantic arguments...."
Posted by: anonymous

Well said by anonymous. Great phrasing.

Like it or not, apologists for the administration, this dispute HAS surged, Rove is subpoenaed, and--onward now with the appointment of a special counsel to look into the perjury attempts by the chief law person in the country, Alberto Gonzales... ridiculous inconsistent testimony and how absolutely crazy that he would refer to Monica Goodling as "an emotionally distraught woman."

A mysogynist on top of everything else.

Bush's personal lawyer, who doubles as the US Attorney General, blew it.

Gonzo is the perfect representative of Bush, who is a liar of necessity. Were the truth widely known and understood, Bush would poll at about 8%.

In other words, if Bush polls at 28%, that's a 20% spread attributable to the miracle of modern lying.

It's not just AG's character flaw. Watch Tony Snow and he's right even Mueller jitter-bugged a bit in his answer to the question: "much discussed" indeed.

They're trying to split hairs at the nano level.

"TSP" = an elastic category for any aspect of the NSA program(s) the WH believes won't get them impeached and/or thrown in jail if disclosed.

"Other NSA activities" = Any program aspect, current or former, which might conceivably land senior admin officials in very hot water if known.

Bits and pieces of the program(s) are uncoupled from the fleet and shuttled back and forth between these twin semantic havens as political expedience dictates.

Outside the Executive and Richard B. Cheney{tm} branches of gov't, the only officials who know enough about this ongoing shell-game of conflations and parsings and dissemblings to cut thru the BS and effectively dispel it are certain FISA judges and "gang-of-eight" type Intel Cmte. members in both chambers on the Hill.

Conveniently, all of those people are sworn to secrecy and are therefore barred from speaking the truths that would expose the internal mendacity of BushCo to legal action or Constitutional checks.

Hence Gonzales' perpetual SMIRK...

The reason he be lying is cuz they eavesdropped on political "enemies." I would be willing to bet a thousand bucks on this. Ofcourse this won't come out for about 25 years and a thousand bucks will probably be worth, oh, about 100 euros.

Ah, it's late in the game here and there are probably few still watching this thread, but I call what Gonzales is doing "The Cecil Syndrome".

Several years ago I worked for a guy named Cecil andhe was a decent human being. I liked working for him (he and his wife co-owned the business) and he was far to everyone, but he had an enormous problem. Cecil could not tell the truth! It didn't matter how inconsequential the topic Cecil just blatantly lied. I never figured it out, but I did come away from the work experience with some good tales to pass down to later generations.

I think that this is Gonzales' problem. He is inherently unable to tell the truth no matte how stupid the lie. Cecil never got called on it and I'm beginning to wonder if Gonzales will.

It looks as if the original scam was to have Gonzales assert that there had been a previous "TSP" that had been the cause of dissent. To silence that dissent, the program was changed and was then referred to as if it was a brand new "TSP".
The geniuses in charge, however, didn't, at first, realize that if there had been two separate "TSP"s then they were open to criminal prosecutions. And I'm certain that any statute of limitations would extend well past the present administration departing office (and being able to hand out pardons).
What has followed has been Gonzales' attempts to square the circle; unfortunately for him, he has left too much on video tape and in transcripts to get away with it.
So now the AG is stuck.

Cecil Syndrome? I wonder. That seems to be Cheney's bag--AG just seems like a bootlicking loyaliste extraordinaire.

I gave my thoughts above but didn't explicitly tie it into the "reason for lying?" question. It's obvious, perhaps, but I believe the goal is to maintain a dynamically adjustable semantic firewall against public disclosure of past or ongoing criminal acts.

To wit: We'll only talk to you about "the program as described by the President"--about which there was never any contention, and which we're pretty sure will stand up to legal review, should your committee ever manage to pry the details from us.

Anything else you are concerned we might (or might not) be doing (or have done) would undoubtedly be part of some 'other NSA activity' whose existence we will neither confirm nor deny. In fact, we won't tell you a goddamned thing about it, so you can just forget trying to figure out whether it was/is legal.

I really do think it's about more than just ego or pathological lying at this point.

Live with it, Mike K, and quit dissembling with your mendacious semantic arguments.

But then Mike K couldn't post here at all!

Oh, wait...

Fuck you , Kevin. I love Hugo!

Everyone who knows of this/these programs are terrified to even allude to its/their existence.

I listened to James Comey's testimony again after Schumer's go-round with Gonzales the other day, and I was reminded of what Jay Rockefeller did after being briefed by Cheney about the program - Rockefeller hand-wrote a letter to Cheney (same fear over being accused of leaking classified information so he wrote it out longhand) and put it in his own safe. These people are all terrified about just knowing about this program.

It sounds like one hell of a catch 22; a program so invasive that just the mere suggestion that it exists runs the risk of leaking classified information and being charged with felonies and sent to prison forever. Obviously, Bush and Cheney are threatening them, and I have to ask, "Is this too much 'program' for any democracy to be running?"

Something is very wrong here.

I just want to point out, whatever these programs are, they were operational four years ago and according to the latest NIE, the risks to Americans of attack at home and abroad by terrorist attacks is greater today than it was then. So much for Bush's war on terror, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, and his 'double secret,' super-invasive spying program on the American people and all others here and abroad.

Somebody has to rescue the 'Gang of 8,' and all others in government and afraid to speak, who are being held hostage by Bush, Cheney and their band of neo-Cons.

I listened to James Comey's testimony again, and the man is clearly terrified. He reminded me of what Jay Rockefeller did when Cheney briefed him about whatever the hell these programs are - Rockefeller hand-wrote a letter to Cheney documenting his objections to them, and put it in his own safe. Handwrote, for Christ's sake, so that there could be no possible way he could be accused of being careless with classified information and sent to prison for the rest of his life.

What the hell are these programs? And shouldn't somebody be saying, "Maybe they're just too much of an invasive 'program' for any democracy to be playing around with?"

This is one hell of a catch 22 that the neocons have set up - an invasive surveillance program on American citizens that is capable of being abused for political purposes, and should those who have been clued in about it talk about it, they risk going to prison (Guantanamo at this rate) for the rest of their lives.

When is somebody going to stand up to these thugs in the Bush administration and get America back for the people?

I know you don't want to hear this or accept it and it will be ignored but the left is making fools of its members by pursuing a story that doesn't exist.

Even if the underlying facts of the case turn out to support your position, at this point it still merits looking into, Nostradamus.

Situational Ethics
There is a disconnect involved here between the American people and the Bush administration. From the public perspective, Gonzales and the Bush gang are telling lies. From the Bush administration perspective these aren't necessarily lies. The difference in perspective arises from the philosophical difference between Bush administration situational ethics and the public's insistence that reality exists.
To the Bush people, reality exists only in the fleeting moment of the now. The future isn't reality because it doesn't exist yet. The past is already gone by and is subject to interpretation and perceptual disagreement. Not only that but the past is history and history can be rewritten at any moment. History is a book and in America, the President can edit the book any time he wants.
For the rest of us, the book is written by God. The past belongs to the concept of truth, but not just any truth, truth as it exists in the eyes of God, truth that is never edited, truth that unifies the reality of today with the reality of yesterday and the reality of tomorrow.
Bush and his legions don't live in that philosophical framework. Gonzales makes the perfect defender for Bush because he has the capacity to argue situational ethics in a courtroom where in a legal sense reality is judged.
Deny God and embrace situational ethics and this whole Bush thing begins to make sense.

Per Mr. Hutz above:
I totally agree. There is a second level of domestic spying that is so intrusive and illegal that it can not even be revealed to Congress.
When this program finally is revealed (they always are) the American public will not elect a Republican for fifty years.

Why is Gonzo lying?

Because he's a smug gangster who's mocking the process.

I want to know who these Justice Department people were who were threatening to resign, and where they are now, and why they haven't come forward to clarify the situation. Too many so-called principled Republicans have failed to act on their beliefs.