Gonzales is running out of spin options

January 17, 2006

I don’t know if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was scheduled to hit the prime-time talk shows last night before Al Gore’s speech, but the former Vice President seems to have pushed the administration into a defensive posture with his sweeping condemnation of Bush’s disregard for the rule of law.

Gonzales apparently hasn’t thought of any new defenses for warrantless searches, so he stuck to the old, discredited ones.

“I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

“I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.”

True? No. As Think Progress noted, “The issue with the Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is that it violates a federal criminal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite what Gonzales is implying, the Clinton administration never violated FISA and never claimed they could violate FISA.” Strike one.

Gonzales, appearing on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes, added:

“The Department of Justice has carefully reviewed this program from its inception, and a determination has been made that the program is lawful.”

True? Hardly. First of all, the checks were supposed to come from the judiciary, not the administration approving of its own efforts. Second, the Department of Justice hasn’t exactly been supporting of “this program from its inception” — DoJ officials including John Ashcroft, James Comey, and Robert Mueller have all balked at the programs legal foundations. Strike two.

On CNN, Gonzales also referenced the importance of speed.

“[W]henever you involve another branch of government in an activity regarding electronic surveillance, inherently it’s going to result in some cases in delay.”

True? Not really; Gonzales failed to mention that FISA courts can grant warrants retroactively, up to 72 hours later. Strike three.

As Judd Legum noted, “The fact that the Attorney General of the United States is resorting to such obvious deception shows that they have no real answers. The administration is getting desperate and grasping at straws.”

The questions Gonzales heard from Larry King and Sean Hannity will be different from the ones he hears from the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will he have better answers by then? I kind of doubt it.

Heh. Unlike Larry King, the Committee’s questions will be under oath.

  • Typo: It’s James Comey

    Good catch. It’s fixed.

    Unlike Larry King, the Committee’s questions will be under oath.

    I have a hunch these hearings will be more interesting than the Alito hearings, don’t you?

  • Speaking of catches: “Gonzales is running of spin options”?

    Does this heading need a “out” between “running” and “of”?

    If I had the luxury of a proofreader, I know that I would drive them insane.

    PS – These human errors prove that the rumors that The Carpetbagger is a robot are false.

    PSS – Oh, nevermind.

  • Speaking of catches: “Gonzales is running of spin options”?

    OK, so I’m off to a shaky start this morning. At least the substance is half-way interesting, right?

  • Yes good post regardless of editorial errors. Unfortunately I have a problem. Rove Co. has a plan that works (and we have seen what they do when they find a winner); they repeat it and repeat it and repeat it and then have Hannity and O’Reilly and Rush repeat it. They managed to convince 80% (?) of the country that Saddam was linked to 9/11 eventhough it was false. They pick a convincing line and stik to it. They also make sure it hits on an emotional nerve of the people. “We did it to protect America. That is our job.” They argue that 1) it is legal, 2) everybody (Clinton) does it, and 3) Americans will die if they are stopped.

    Maybe a Senate hearing will change this but I am inclined to think Rove Co. will choose to play chicken with the committee and see if their machine can scare off a troubled and shakey Legislative branch.

  • CB, we read you everyday. And we love you–typos and all. Now don’t blush on us–even if your color is orange.

  • I can only hope that some enterprising congressman or congresswoman will present each of these comments to Gonzales when he gives his testimony and force him to come clean and then after each instance ask him: “so, were you deliberately misleading the public or just stupid?”

  • Yep that the main theme of the pushback is “Well, Clinton did it!” is a pretty fair indication they’re running on fumes.

    Just wait ’til the subpoenas start flying!!

    As to what folks believe about Saddam and 9/11, Harris has some recent numbers:

    — Forty-one percent (41%) of U.S. adults believe that Saddam Hussein had “strong links to Al Qaeda.”

    — Twenty-two percent (22%) of adults believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11.”

    — Twenty-six percent (26%) of adults believe that Iraq “had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded.”

    — Twenty-four percent (24%) of all adults believe that “several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis.”

    • Comments are closed.