During the first morning of Gonzales' testimony to the Congressional hearing on the wiretapping issue, a critical sleight-of-hand has been allowed to occur that has not been challenged.
It is making a nonsense of the whole hearing. It allows Gonzales to deny aspects of the programme that the Democratic Senators believe they are discussing and certainly changes what all of us on DKos believe these hearings are about.
It is all contained in the key words that Gonzales has been careful to repeat continously "the programme that we are discussing today"
Below the fold I give a fuller explanation and suggest what you can do about it.
I noticed the sleight-of-hand first when Dem Senator Kohl asked a question and, by being in too much of a hurry to ask the next question, missed the critical response.
My post at the time was:
Kohl missed an important point
He spoke over Gonzales comment that "this is not done under this particular programme"
What other programme of wiretapping? How does this inter-act with the one under discussion? If it exists, why are the questions limited to the only programme that has been revealed?
I commented a bit later that I was not sure of the objectives of the Dems in this hearing by their questioning why the programme did not include surveillance of internal terrorist to terrorist communications. Was the purpose to question the legality of the Bush administration actions or was it to demonstrate its ineffectiveness? It appeared that they were losing focus by addressing the issue too widely.
Armando commented back
This is a political winner (none / 0)
as well as shocking.
Gonzales said that BushCo does NOT spy on Al Qaida communications with Al Qaida.
Biden and Kohl and every Dem should keep hitting on this.
As my own understanding of what Gonzales was saying developed, I replied to Armando:
Agreed but.. (none / 0)
..the statement was subsequently modified by Gonzales in the the intriguing comment "...under this particular programme".
So what other programmes exist that affect this one and why is the Presidential prerogative not being considered in relation to these at the same time?
As the hearing progressed this qualification on what was being addressed by Gonzales became more frequent. I was later to comment:
Again (4.00 / 5)
"Senator, yes. The programme that I am talking about today is limited to those international calls"
So, all other calls that contravene FISA are under another programme?
This is a deliberate attempt by the White House to derail the whole purpose of this hearing.
In other words, Gonzales is talking about one programme concerned with wiretapping. His assertions that these are legal refers only to the wiretapping under this programme. Somewhere, the White House has other programmes but these are not part of the hearings. No doubt, those wiretaps that are more questionable fall under, or are hurriedly assigned, to these other programmes.
This mechanism, this defining by Gonzales that the hearing is about just one of these programmes which he calls "narrowly tailored", allows him to address only those issues that he chooses to address.
What Gonzales is answering and what the Senators think they are questioning are at 180 degrees misalignment to each other.
Unchallenged, Gonzales is getting away with it. Plaintively, I posted:
Someone MUST ask.. (4.00 / 3)
..what these other programmes are.
This limitation of describing this as being one programme of which there may be many more is an extraodinary widening of the whole issue.
Why is no one picking this up?
Anything that emerges in the future will receive the answer from Gonzales similar to that which he gave Feinstein today on answers that he gave at his nomination hearing: my answers were specific to this programme and did not refer to others.
Please, please telephone the offices of the Democratic Senators and ask them to demand what other programmes exist and why these are not also being addressed at these hearings.
This is not Gonzales answering hypotheticals, using mincing words or obfuscating. Gonzales has been allowed to define what is being discussed and it is a deliberate - and maybe successful - diversion of the subject matter of the hearings.
I believe that the game was almost given away (and would have been if someone had been sharp enough to pick him up on it) when Republican Sessions intriguingly began to ask, before checking himself:
"But when you do domestic...but I won't go into that".
Well Senator Sessions, please do go into it. This is what we thought these hearings were all about.
We must get the Democratic Senators to follow this up.