Buck Naked Politics

Quotes: A "Sane Conservative" Lambastes Cheney.

posted by Damozel | Greg Djerejian of The Belgravia Dispatch "excerpt[s] generously" from a subscription-only article by Bruce Fein ("a real conservative") at FT.com   The following is Djerejian quoting Fein:

Mr Cheney’s imperial vice-presidency has trampled the conservative constitutional philosophy of the Founding Fathers. He has used the law to evade checks and balances...

The constitution entrusts the vice-president with a single puny chore: to preside over the Senate, without a vote except to break ties. Occupants of the vice-presidency have bewailed its insignificance. Their typical tasks have been handing out blankets after earthquakes and attending state funerals. Presidents have been characteristically jealous of their constitutional turf.

Mr Bush is a monumental exception. He entered politics not because of philosophical conviction or even a raw desire for power, but for a lack of anything better to do. His policies fluctuate like a human weather vane. Mr Bush eagerly agreed to Mr Cheney’s tacit demand that the lion’s share of the presidency be outsourced to the vice-president’s office. Unlike Mr Bush, Mr Cheney craves unchecked power....(Djerejian Sane Conservatives:  They Still Exist (quoting Bruce Fein, How the judges are checking emperor Cheney (FT.com)

MORE.....

updated: [Formerly] Secret Operations in Turkey! Progress or "Progress" in Iraq!

posted by Damozel | A SECRET STRATEGY!  Like most bloggers who comment on the war, I've really very little---as in "no"--- knowledge of military matters.  But here is one thing I do know:  I don't know what the US (the president or the Congress) should do about Iraq.  With the issue so politicized, I trust neither the Administration nor Congress (whether Republican or Democrat) and therefore am inclined to defer to the Brits, who at least have recently studied the question.

My kneejerk reaction to this revelation by Robert Novak in The Washington Post is: "....oh christ; a covert operation?"

The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq.

While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure. (Washington Post; links in original).

My second reaction was "...which "select members of Congress"?"  My third was "Does Gordon Brown know?"  My fourth was "...risks major exposure?"  But since I know I don't know anything about the ramifications, I'm in the (for a blogger) invidious position of having to wait to hear what people who at least seem to know have to say.

Joe Biden Takes on Giuliani....

posted by Damozel |      ...as.quoted here at The Politicker by Jason Horowitz (statement released by the Biden campaign):

"Rudy Giuliani just doesn't get it. Tough talk and cheap shots won't make America any safer or get mine resistant vehicles to our troops any faster. It is absurd for Rudy Giuliani to call Democrats ‘losers' after five years of failed Republican policies in Iraq.

"It is outrageous that three years after the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations virtually nothing has been funded by this White House and yet Giuliani continues to make the pathetic case that his party has provided leadership fighting terrorism. As everyone knows, until we end the war in Iraq, we are distracted from the main agenda of combating terrorism in Afghanistan and strengthening our homeland security. Giuliani and the rest of the Republican candidates continue to cling to this Administration's failed policy that a strong central government can be propped up in Iraq. If these are the positions he wants to defend, I invite him to debate me on these important topics."  (Press release)

Gonzales' Questionable Candor and Character (Updated))

I knew that four senators called for a perjury investigation after FBI Director Robert Mueller (and others) flatly contradicted attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn testimony re: the NSA's wiretapping. I knew that Gonzales has given "shifting explanations" about the U.S. Attorney firings.

I did not know about the following (from Washington Post):

"When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."

"But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes."

As we recently learned, that wasn't true either: 10 months earlier Gonzales (as White House Counsel) went to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room to argue about the NSA's legally questionable wiretapping program.

If not for Congress' investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings, we likely wouldn't know this, which makes me wonder why anyone who cares about justice and how tax dollars are spent would oppose the investigation.

Every Stem Cell's Sacred....

posted by Damozel |  Meanwhile, while some of us are fretting over the politicization of health care, scientists who have actually succeeded in deriving stem cells by "creating embryonic stem cells without having to destroy human embryos" have run up against a potential policy hurdle:  performing research without doing more than minimal harm to the derived embryos (Washington Post).  In a June 2007 Executive Order, President Bush required the Secretary of Health and Human Services to:

...conduct and support research on the isolation, derivation, production, and testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all of the cell types of the developing body and may result in improved understanding of or treatments for diseases and other adverse health conditions, but are derived without creating a human embryo for research purposes or destroying, discarding, or subjecting to harm a human embryo or fetus. (Order)

Done and done!   

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's current policy prevents the National Institute of Health from funding research on stem cell lines that didn't exist prior to August 9, 2001 or that might do minimal harm to embryos (Washington Post). I don't know about you, but I blame the scientists. Didn't they know back when they started that the embryos from which stem cells are derived are considered "living members of the human species"? (Order).

Hoping for More Careful Analysis of Polling Data

Posted by D. Cupples |  Today's Washington Post said that Congress' recent 37% approval rating is "rivaling the president's low ratings."  Is it valid to compare the approval ratings of Congress to those of a President?  Consider ABC/WaPo's poll numbers back when Congress supported Bush and most Americans were unified by fear of terrorism and war:

                                                       Approval (Dec. 2001)

                          Congress                        59%

                          President                         86%

WaPo's own poll-number history shows two things: 1) it's rare for Congress to maintain even 50% approval ratings for extended periods (more data  here ); and 2) Congress' ratings are often lower than the President's.

Why? I'm not sure. Perhaps it's because Congress has 535 members, while the President is one person. Even when Congress passes an unpopular bill by a slim margin, people may give the entire body negative credit.

The big question: Can Congress stay out of the doghouse to the extent that a president can?

Another troubling aspect of today's WaPo article was a quote from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

"The approval rating of this Congress is now down to what we believe is the lowest recorded point in polling history, having apparently squandered whatever political capital they may have achieved with the American people last November the 7th in a record short period of time."

The wording is unclear, but the implication seems to be that the new Dem-controlled Congress has hit an all-time low: an implication that other Republicans have repeated. Depending on the error margins, this new Congress (which started at 41%-43% approval in ABC/WaPo's January 2007 poll) probably has hit a low over the past seven months. 

However, prior Congresses -- including when McConnell's party was in control -- had hit lower lows.

Contractors Offering Bribes & Kickbacks to Army Personnel?

It's not just contractors who are pocketing mega-money from U.S. war spending -- even some military personnel and their families are allegedly sharing in the loot through kickbacks or bribery schemes.  Friday's Washington Post said

"Maj. John L. Cockerham, a contracting officer, took up to $9.6 million in bribes from at least eight military contractors, according to court documents, and he expected to get at least another $5.4 million for giving them favorable contracts.

"'This is the largest bribery case that has come out of Iraq to date,'" said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general.

A couple things surprise me, here.  First, the mid-level officer's name (along with that of his wife and sister, who were allegedly involved) have been plastered all over the media -- yet the Special Inspector General and the Justice Department have not publicly named the companies involved.  Last time I checked, offering a bribe is as much a crime as taking one.

Yes, the investigation is ongoing, but chances are that the contractor-employees allegedly involved in the alleged bribery schemes know that the "feds" have their eye on them, precisely because the Army officer's name is out there.

Second, I'm surprised that a $15 million scheme is "the largest bribery case" to come out of Iraq to date....

Can this Coalition be Saved? Brown and Bush "Seek to Establish Rapport."

Posted by Cockney Robin |  After a visit by President Putin during which--judging by the aftermath---a jolly time was apparently had by none, it's heartening to see Britain's new Prime Minister having a jolly time being driven about by President Bush in what looks like a golf cart [picture here]. With so much on the line, I hope that the President at least offered to let the PM drive for a bit; wouldn't you think it would be an important symbolic gesture?  I would.  But none of the articles I've read so far say.

The Guardian rather snidely remarks:

A very different British prime minister arrived at Camp David for his first summit with George Bush last night. Unlike Tony Blair, Mr Brown will not swagger around in tight jeans; nor will he be interested in discovering his host's favourite brand of toothpaste. There is little to be gained from bonding with a lame-duck president, especially one about to get lamer as the campaign for his successor gets under way in earnest in September. The guest may want to charm the host, but he will not want to fall under his shadow. The Colgate moment has passed. (Guardian)

Of course, Mr. Brown has continued all along to describe himself as an "Atlanticist" and to emphasise the specialness of the relationship between the US and UK (Independent); The Washington Post says that the two "seek to establish rapport."  After all, "the special relationship" line is a standard gambit for anyone in a relationship on the brink of becoming somewhat less of one.  Many or most of the sources I've consulted seem to be betting that there's a perhaps still unspoken qualifier to all this reassurance: "....even though we're going to be withdrawing British troops from Iraq sooner than you had perhaps been counting on."

"It's All About the Price of Oil."

Posted by Cockney Robin | I was messing about on YouTube and stumbled across this.  According to the accompanying note, Billy Bragg performed it "in the lobby of the AFL-CIO during a Get Out the Vote rally." circa 2002.  Watch and listen on You Tube...  One commenter said, "Best capsule-history of the Iraq War. Historians will write books. Bloggers will blather on for thousands of pages and never get it as right as this song."  Others, naturally, disagreed.  We don't all agree about this even here at BN-Politics.  You can decide for yourself.

Bush-Appropriate Health News; or What's Good for the Bush Administration is Good for the World [Updated].

posted by Damozel | Hurray!  Tired of hints and names unnamed, I rejoice to see right here in WaPo the smiling face of the official who (allegedly!)  blocked Dr. Richard Carmona's  2006 report that "called on Americans to help tackle global health problems"(Washington Post).  I am glad to put a face to some of Dr. Carmona's allegations. ( Ex-Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona: "Muzzled." (Updated!))   And  a very nice face it is, bearing an apparent resemblance to Jude Law's.

My colleague, Crux, has already provided the necessary backstory on young William Steiger (Attacking Healthcare Experts). Dr. Carmona has said that the report he commissioned, "Call to Action on Global Health" did not have the requisite "political twist" and was for this reason suppressed.  Carmona didn't name names, but he did say that "as he fought to release the document, he was "called in and again admonished . . . via a senior official who said, 'You don't get it.' " He said a senior official told him that "this will be a political document, or it will not be released." (Washington Post).

Dr. Steiger---a specialist in Latin American studies and education (worthy!)---- told The Washington Post that political considerations did not delay the report. (Washington Post).  He simply didn't think it was sufficiently well written or well-analyzed and he feared that the data wasn't up to date. (Washington Post)   In other words, he didn't want it to go out till it met his (rightly, I'm sure) exacting standards of clarity, accuracy and coherence; it was "often inaccurate or out-of-date and it lacked analysis and focus."  (Washington Post)  Not on his watch!

Attacking Healthcare Experts: When will Bush's Spokespeople Learn?

The U.S. Attorney firings erupted into a scandal, I suspect, because Bush Administration spokespeople mishandled questions. If they'd simply said, "They were fired for no reason but presidential prerogative," the issue likely would have died.  Instead, they said the firings were "performance" based, which understandably compelled some of those attorneys to defend their reputations. Talk about worms bursting out of a can.

Now, we have former Surgeon General Richard Carmona and other health experts saying that Bush appointee William Steiger blocked release of a 2006 Surgeon General report because the report was not helpful to the Administration's political agenda (Washington Post). [BNPolitics' Damozel already posted on the muzzling of ex-Surgeon General Carmona.]

How did Steiger respond to questions about the blocked report? Via Health Department spokesperson, Steiger said Carmona's report was "often inaccurate or out-of-date and it lacked analysis and focus" and that it contained "sloppy work, poor analysis, and lack of scientific rigor did."

Them's fighting words!  Here's Steiger -- with no healthcare expertise -- yet he's accusing actual experts of doing junk science?

Like the fired U.S. Attorneys, those doctors and scientists that Steiger accused of incompetence may want to defend their reputations -- meaning interesting issues will come under the spotlight, including the now familiar twin-concepts cronyism and nepotism....

Still More Evidence of Vote "Caging" and Suppression

Below are a few paragraphs from an investigative piece by Jason Leopold and Matt Renner (which has links to documents):

"One email, dated September 30, 2004, and sent to a dozen or so staffers on the Bush-Cheney campaign and the RNC, under the subject line "voter reg fraud strategy conference call," describes how campaign staffers planned to challenge the veracity of votes in a handful of battleground states in the event of a Democratic victory.

"Furthermore, the emails show the Bush-Cheney campaign and RNC staffers compiled voter-challenge lists that targeted probable Democratic voters in at least five states: New Mexico, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Voting rights lawyers have made allegations of so called "vote caging," against Republicans previously. These emails provide more evidence...."

.

"Vote caging is an illegal tactic to suppress minorities from voting by having their names purged from voter rolls when they fail to respond to registered mail sent to their homes. The Republican National Committee signed a consent decree in 1986 stating they would not engage in the practice after they were caught suppressing votes in 1981 and 1986." (Truthout)

In one email, GOP operative Christopher McInerney said: "I can't speak to other states, but if they don't have flagged voter rolls, we run the risk of having GOP fingerprints." Why was McInerney so concerned about GOP involvement becoming public knowledge?

Two senators have called upon the Justice Department to investigate. Give me a minute to stop laughing.

Krugman on Bush's Enablers

Here's an excerpt from Paul Krugman's July 20th column:

"Remember, Mr. Bush was confident six years ago when he promised to bring in Osama, dead or alive. He was confident four years ago, when he told the insurgents to bring it on. He was confident two years ago, when he told Brownie that he was doing a heckuva job.

.

"Now Iraq is a bloody quagmire, Afghanistan is deteriorating and the Bush administration's own National Intelligence Estimate admits, in effect, that thanks to Mr. Bush's poor leadership America is losing the struggle with Al Qaeda. Yet Mr. Bush remains confident.

.

"Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality." (Truthout)

Krugman gave two "enablers" honorable mention: Sen. Richard Lugar and Gen. David Petraeus.  Krugman's take on Petraeus unnerved me, as we await Petraeus' September report on Iraq, which is perceived as the key to determining our nation's course in the questionable war.

.

Petraeus has reached oracle status, with most of us expecting his report to be accurate and non-politically-motivated.  Krugman raises doubts about Petraeus' objectivity, citing a September 2004 op-ed by Petraeus, in which:

Approval Ratings: What Do the Numbers Mean? (Updated)

A recent Washington Post/ABC poll gives President Bush a 65% disapproval rating, with 52% strongly disapproving, and 28% feeling angry at him. Those are some of the highest disapproval ratings of any president in modern history (Washington Post). How survey participants labeled themselves: 32% conservative, 25% liberal, and 39% moderate.

That WaPo article states that Congress is "deeply unpopular," with a 37% approval rating. Some people fear that Congress is "unpopular" because Dems are pursuing the fired U.S. Attorney investigation (for recent background, see Washington Post).

I'm not sure that's true, given the approval ratings' partisan breakdown: 46% approve of Democrats in Congress, 34% approve of Republicans (Washington Post/ABC poll, Question #5).  This same poll that gives Congress a 37% approval rating also indicates that 55% of survey participants trust Congressional Democrats to handle the Iraq war. Talk about mixed feelings.

Wondering what Congress's ratings typically look like, I checked results of other polls (e.g., Gallup, and AP) listed at Polling Report from September 2005 - July 2007. During that time, Congress' approval rating has not even reached 50%. The highest I saw (unless my eyes played tricks) is 44%.

Might the 100-point scale have a different meaning when applied to the President than to Congress? Consider WaPo's early-post-9/11 poll, when Congress largely supported Bush and most Americans had terrorism/war on their minds:

                                                                 Approval (Dec. 2001)

                          Congress                                   59%

                          President                                   86%

I imagine it's easy for Congress' 535 members to simultaneously please and displease the same people. If Congress passes unpopular legislation -- even by a slim majority -- some people may give the whole entity negative credit.

Given that scenario, is it even possible for Congress to leave the doghouse for a significant period?  Below are some other interesting numbers:

Senators Call for Perjury Investigation as More Officials Contradict Gonzales

Yesterday, four Senate Democrats from the Judiciary Committee called for an investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had perjured himself before Congress during testimony re: the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and the fired U.S. Attorney scandal. (see their letter to the Solicitor General).  Note: Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy offered Gonzales a week to alter his apparently false testimony, so this should be interesting. 

I don't understand the conspicuous absence of Republican support for the perjury investigation.  Investigations aren't the same as throwing someone in jail, and they can actually exonerate people (as well as giving us taxpayers a clearer picture of how our money has been spent).

On Tuesday, Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that when he visited former Attorney General John Ashcroft's post-surgery hospital room on March 10, 2004 he was not trying to pressure Ashcroft to re-authorize the NSA's legally questionable, warrantless wiretapping program. (Background at BN-Politics) 

Gonzales also testified that the NSA wiretapping program was not a focus of that hospital-room meeting and that there had been no serious dispute between the Justice Department and the White House over the program's legality (Washington Post 1).

Yesterday, FBI Director Robert Mueller joined the list of officials who've cast doubts on Gonzales' testimony, telling Congress that the wiretapping program was the subject of a the hospital-room meeting and was the topic of "dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration" (Washington Post 2). 

Mueller is contradicting his boss, making me wonder what emboldened Mueller to do such a risky deed. Snaking the Drain pointed out: "It's one thing to be a liar, but to be called a liar by the director of the FBI is really something."

Oddly, Gonzales seemed to contradict himself last month at a news conference, indicating that the hospital visit was about the NSA wiretapping program. Days later, Gonzales' spokesman told the Washington Post that Gonzales had misspoken (WaPo).

Below are other officials whose testimony seems at odds with Gonzales' statements:

Senate Panel Subpoenas Karl Rove & Other White House Staffer

Yesterday, four Senate Democrats called for an investigation into whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has perjured himself during congressional testimony re: the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and the U.S. Attorney firings (see Washington Post and letter from senators to Solicitor General).

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was not one of the four senators, because he was busy issuing subpoenas to White House Political Director Karl Rove and Deputy Director of Political Affairs J. Scott Jennings for information relating to the Justice Department's apparent politicization (see Leahy's statements, letters and subpoena text here).

Leahy subpoenaed Rove and Jennings because documents, testimony and interviews evince that Rove and Jennings were involved in the U.S. Attorney firings -- and because they blew of Leahy's requests that they cooperate. Leahy stated:

"What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence of who made the decisions to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the President. Everyone who has testified said that he was not involved.  None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced.  Indeed, the evidence we have been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House" (Leahy's statement)

Keep in mind that President Bush (based on an executive-privilege claim) already prohibited former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and current Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten from complying with congressional subpoenas (BN-Politics). He may do likewise re: Rove and Jennings.

Gun Toting Liberal's take on Rove: "a man of questionable moral and legal character; and that’s an attempt on my behalf to paint him in the most positive light possible considering the mountains of evidence against him to date, combined with the fact he is still TECHNICALLY considered to be “innocent until proven guilty.”

Check out Jon Stewart's commentary (Comedy Central's The Daily Show), including Gonzales' apparent admission that some U.S. Attorneys were fired for illegitimate reasons (as Leahy also pointed out in his statement):

Constitutional Shoot-Out Seems Imminent

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted 22-17 (along party lines) to hold White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas seeking information re: the fired U.S. Attorneys. (The Hill)

This is the first step toward an O.K.-Corral-style constitutional shoot out between Congress and the President. The next step is a full vote of the House of Representatives: if it votes to hold Bolten and Miers in contempt, then Congress could forward the contempt citations for prosecution by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (Washington Post).

President Bush has already said he will stop said U.S. Attorney from prosecuting the cases, because Bush claimed the information that Congress sought was protected by executive privilege. (BN-Politics)  Bush's logic has not yet been tested in court, though the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and Clinton each used the argument once (WaPo).

On C-SPAN, I heard Rep. Chris Cannon (R-UT) say that if Congress loses this battle in court, then Bush would become a "more imperial" president.  This was a strange comment for Cannon, given that he has been protecting the president and Justice Department, claiming that the investigation into the fired U.S. Attorneys is essentially base-less.

Incidentally, the 52-page memo summarizing evidence of wrongdoing is here.  Still, Cannon is right about the "more imperial" thing....

"Kristol's War" Redux: Cockney Robin Explains it All.

posted by Damozel | At The Washington Post, Howard Kurz muses about William Kristol and Kristol's recent WaPo piece,"Why Bush will be a Winner". W liked it, which is nice for Mr. Kristol (The Washington Post).  And which probably made up for the fact that many other people didn't:

Arianna Huffington called it "the single most deceptive piece of the entire war" and said Kristol had "officially surpassed Dick Cheney as the most intellectually dishonest member of the neocon establishment." David Corn of the Nation dismissed Kristol's "Bush boosterism." And 260 pages of comments on The Post's Web site called him everything from an "uninformed, partisan fool" to a "Bush sycophant" to a "menace to America" (The Washington Post). 

Mr. Kristol agitated for years for a war in Iraq and "no pundit is more closely identified with the war."  Naturally he feels invested in the outcome. 

"What has driven his detractors crazy is that he has never acknowledged error in a serious way, instead brushing aside his botched predictions to lecture the country on the right course of action. Even as other conservative columnists have broken with the president, Kristol has stood his ground....""Obviously I wish the war had gone better," he allows, but "I'm not going to say something I don't believe to make my critics happier"" (The Washington Post). 

Here at Buck Naked Politics, we don't pretend to know what the president or anyone else should do about Iraq, and we avoid name-calling as much as possible---but we do know a magnificent piece of ratiocination when we see it.  Our guest author Cockney Robin was much struck by Mr Kristol's reasoning and we commend his piece to your attention:  Cockney Robin Deconstructs William Kristol's "Why Bush Will be a Success.

President Unwisely Plays bin Laden Card Again

In the face plummeting approval of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Bush's focus yesterday was on Osama bin Laden:

"Some will tell you al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't really al-Qaeda -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check. We are fighting bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Iraq" (Washington Post)

Why do White House speechwriters think this tactic still works? Just after September 11th, the mere mention of bin Laden terrified us and sent Bush's approval ratings up, but that was almost six years ago.

Given all we've learned about the White House's tactics -- starting with the massively flawed intelligence on which it persuaded the public to support the Iraq war -- even if Bush is right this time, will most Americans believe him?

As well as ineffective, the bring-up-bin-Laden tactic seems counter-productive, as it only reminds us taxpayers that Bush failed to capture our archenemy -- despite considerable time and resources at his disposal.

The Christian Science Monitor stated: "scant intelligence, poorly chosen allies, and dubious military tactics fumbled a golden opportunity to capture bin Laden as well as many senior Al Qaeda commanders."  I don't know if that assessment is accurate, but the article is worth a read.

Did Gonzales Tell the Truth? Republican Senator Thinks Not

At yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) flat out told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:

"I do not find your testimony credible.... The committee's going to review your testimony very carefully to see if your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable" (Washington Post).

That was about as bluntly as my late great-aunt would be after she had too much Grand Marnier. Specter is the Committee's ranking Republican.

In May, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified that in 2004, after he refused to re-authorize a warrantless wiretapping program due to possible illegality, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales went to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's post-surgery hospital room to pressure Ashcroft to "to overrule Comey's decision" (The Hill). Comey felt the Gonzales was trying "to take advantage of a very sick man" ( video of Comey's testimony).

At yesterday's hearing, Gonzales did admit to going to the hospital but denied having sought to pressure the groggy, pain-stricken patient (see testimony transcript). My mind reading skills are still up north for the summer, so I don't know whether he told the truth.

Gonzales also claimed yesterday that he'd gone to the hospital because during an emergency meeting earlier that 2004 day, he had received the go-ahead from Congressional leaders to re-authorize the wiretapping program.

Senator Jay Rockefeller said of Gonzales' claim yesterday: "He once again is making something up to protect himself" (WaPo).

Blogger Rebecca Hartong colorfully expressed frustration with Gonzales's repeated failure to paint clear pictures of Justice Department issues (below):