Sherlock Holmes in the short story "Silver Blaze" solves the mystery by observing that the dog didn't bark, deducing from the lack of evidence that the intruder was not a stranger.
And in this strange affair, what has troubled me is the extreme lengths and odd sentence constructions that Gonzales and even FBI Director Robert S. Mueller have taken to avoid saying "Terrorist Surveillance Program" (TSP) in their sworn testimony before Congress.
GONZALES: There has not been any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations which I cannot get into. ... Feb. 6, 2006
As for Mueller, in today's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee's, when questioned by
Representative Lee on the hospital room visit to AG Ashcroft:
Lee: Did you have an understanding that the discussion was on TSP?
Mueller: I had an understanding that the discussion was on a, uh, a, uh -- an NSA program, yes. ... Jul 26, 2007
Why all of the hemming and hawing?
Contrast Mueller's testimony and 'style' when answering this question by Rep Watt:
Watt: Can you confirm that you had some serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program that kind of led up to this?
Mueller: Yes. ... Jul 26, 2007
Simple, declarative, Yes.
If we simply take both Gonzales and Mueller at face value it leads to these conclusions:
- There is, or was, a "warrantless wiretapping program" that troubled members of the Justice department and the FBI, to the point of near mutiny by upper members of the Justice Department.
- The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a separate distinct program.
If we assume the existence of another wiretapping program, and observe the extraordinary lengths the Bush administration has gone to to avoid discussing ANY of the operational aspects of this "other intelligence activity" then it begs the question:
Why? The answer can't be good.
And if that is the case, we may be disappointed in any attempt to prosecute Gonzales for perjury, in that Gonzalez need simply assert that:
- His testimony was technically accurate.
- The principle of "State Secrets" would prevent him from producing any direct evidence on his own behalf.
But what this may imply is that the "other intelligence activities" referenced by Gonzales must represent an even greater attack on the civil liberties of US citizens or were blatantly illegal, or both.
The dog didn't bark!
UPDATE: TPMmuckraker has posted an analysis that addresses these points in greater detail. Link. But draws the conclusion, incorrectly I think, similar to Glen and the A.L., that its ONE program that has evolved, and that therefore Gonzales and Mueller are talking about the pre- and post- versions of TSP. I think that's unnecessarily complicated when assuming TWO programs reconciles the testimony AND explains the strained language construction by Gonzales throughout this saga.