Graham takes on Gonzales

I’m listening to the warrantless-search program hearings — I’d live-blog if I could figure out how to listen, analyze, write, and publish at the same time — and there haven’t been too many surprises. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has been particularly strong following up on some of Gonzales’ previous comments, while Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) was particularly hackish reciting every GOP talking point imaginable and calling the Valerie Plame leak a “two-bit nuthin’.”

The interesting exchange, however, came from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Looking back over the last several weeks, Graham has been one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to publicly criticize the domestic spying program, telling CBS shortly after this controversy came to public light that he doesn’t know of “any legal basis” for the administration to circumvent FISA.

Today, Graham was relatively conciliatory to Gonzales, but was more pointed than any other Republican on the Judiciary Committee in his questioning, noting, for example, that the administration’s interpretation of Congress’ 9/11 resolution is, as he put it, “dangerous,” because it might make it less likely for future presidents to get similar resolutions in the future.

For that matter, Gonzales’ principal talking point of the day — that Bush has “inherent authority” under Article II to do almost anything — also came under fire from Graham, who noted that Gonzales’ interpretation of the Constitution reflects a president with “no boundaries” in executing a war.

Specter talked tough before the hearing, but predictably watered-down his inquiry once the hearing got underway. But Graham seemed genuinely troubled. Good for him.

Update: Digby points out, accuately, that Graham’s “concerns” aren’t worth getting too excited about. “This is his schtick. Going all the way back to the impeachment hearings, he has done this. He hems and haws in his cornpone way how he’s ‘troubled’ by one thing or another until he finally ‘decides’ after much ‘deliberation’ that the Republican line is correct after all and he has no choice but to endorse it.” That’s a good point.

Oh, the futility of it all… nothing can come of this but lukewarm air.

And on another note, odd how this resembles the oil executives avoiding testimony under oath. Anyone remember how THAT turned out? Ya, I thought so…

  • seemed troubled. bfg.

    when does halliburton get the contract to start building gas chambers? when does dupont get the contract for zyklon-b?

  • Has any of the democrats gotten around the soft on security issue by just saying “We want you to undertake all the surveillance you are taking now, but just go to the FISA court and get a warrant”. ? If you cant get a warrant, then there is a problem. Why exactly does Gonzalez think that the lawyers who are reviewing the NSA program so much better at analyzing the legality than the FISA court? It’s really not that hard to poke holes in the crap bag arguments Gonzalez is making and at the same time, not look like you dont want to listen to Al Qaeda conversations.

  • Digby’s comments about Graham’s M.O. might just as well be the definition of what it takes to be a Republican “moderate” in this day and age.

  • The Rethuglican senators are just going through the motions with their part in the hearings. Twice, Attorney Criminal Gonzales testi-lied under oath, but he and Specter didn’t feel he needed to be sworn this time. (Reminiscent of oil execs.) He lied under oath before, what difference would it make now? The Rethugs know they still have control of things until the end of the year and are still willing to “cover” for the Shrub. I think most of their loyalty to Shrub now comes from the fear of further embarassment to the Rethuglican Party. If they can keep a lid(s) on Bush’s scandals and crimes until the end of the year, maybe they’ll survive the coming elections. I will really be concerned about some type of fabricated national incident or attack prior to the elections as a pretense for Shrub and his underlings to implement martial law. Impeach Bush (IQ 81), a better number to remember than 43.

  • Gonzo and rest of the White House goons are bullies.

    Until someone among the Democrats works up the courage to challenge those bullies, they’ll continue to act as they please.

    It’s as simple as that.

  • Well if someone had told me back in the sixty`s that this bunch of rat bastards would be running things in the 21st century I would have gone to a couple more Allman Bros. concerts,and consumed large amounts of cheap wine.

  • Hey CB…

    Thanks for the Digby quote re: Graham and “his cornpone way”…lol. I really grew to actively dislike Graham during the Clinton impeachment hearings…Digby just provided the necessary catharsis…

    And if Don Rumsfeld says “My goodness” one more time, I’m gonna send him a $25 gift certificate redeemable at any Ann Taylor store – along with my compliments for restoring genteel discourse in a time of generational warfare..

  • Comments are closed.