Attorney General Gonzales owes his career to
President Bush.  He is just another “Cronie”.  His
future is in the hands of the Republican party.
Therefore he is going to approve of warrentless
eavesdropping because it provides the Republican
party with a great “blackmail” tool to use against
opposition candidates, parties and dissenters.
As long as the Republicans control all three
branches of government, Mr. Gonzales will have
job security and the “good life.”
President Bush lies.  He did it last night in
the State of the Union address.  He did it to take
us to war with Iraq, to condone torture, to
convince us that the economy is great etc. 
Naturally he picks team players who will also
lie. Players who will not lie, have left. Former
members of his cabinet and the many civil servants
who have left our agencies represent this group.
Those who stay, play the game Mr. Bush’s way.

Albertooooo...you got smome splaining to do....

Senator Feingold’s U.S. Senate website now contains a link to the full text of the letter referred to above.  It’s at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/Gonzales_NSA_13006.pdf
The second portion of the letter itself is a partial transcript of the confirmation hearing.  At the outset it is possible to read between the lines and detect that Feingold knows (already) about the telecom interceptions (although his explicit language is sloppy).  And at the end, it’s pretty clear that the Senator is deliberately letting Gonzalez off the ropes.

The original Washington Post story title reads, ‘Feingold says...’, but you changed that to read, ‘Feingold claims’. Why dilute the impact?

How can justice be served when the cheif US law enforcement officer cannot even tell the truth.  I think Torture Boy has some explaining to do.  A contempt of Congress or perjury charge should be leveled.  I think the Democrats ought to rebut any Repuglican objection with “He lied!” I would ask for his resignation, too.  Why not shoot for the moon.

Its not whether the AG was ‘deceptive’, evasive or lied when answering Feingold’s question, it’s the way the question is asked.

These learned men have been in Washington long enough to know how to let a witness of the hook by asking questions in such a manner as to avoid a concise, direct answer.

Example:  Mr. AG, does the President obey the FISA law?

Mr. AG, discounting hypotheticals, has the President ever disobeyed the spirit of the FISA law?

ETC.

C’mon, guys, all this is preordained.  These folks are never going to do a “Butterfield” for you!

Was the now-AG under oath when this exchange occurred?