M Halperin: On Torture Boy not telling the truth

[understandinglife]

Here I want to focus on the public statement by the President and the testimony by Gonzales because they are classic examples of not telling the truth and because the Attorney General defended both statements at the Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday. Since he steadfastly refused to answer any questions, this was almost the only interesting development during a very long day. (I will discuss the few other interesting issues in another post later this week.)

The Democrats had intended to drive home their belief that both the President and the AG deceived the American people by playing the videos of the episodes at the hearing. Chairman Specter, who deserves commendation for conducting the hearings, refused to permit the videos to be played. I urge you to listen to them since they capture what happened very clearly.

(Video of Bush speech: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/bush-caught-on-tape

and video of Gonzales/Feingold exchange at Gonzales 2005 confirmation hearing:http://www.feingold.senate.gov/feingoldag.rm).

As you listen, ask yourself two questions: Would any fair-minded person believe the explanation offered by the AG? Second - and in my view equally important - would any listener come away believing anything but that warrants were being gotten for all electronic surveillance of the kind included in the NSA program?

<clip>

This same point is highlighted in the exchange between Senator Feingold and Gonzales:

SEN. FEINGOLD: I — Judge Gonzales, let me ask a broader question. I’m asking you whether in general the president has the constitutional authority, does he at least in theory have the authority to authorize violations of the criminal law under duly enacted statutes simply because he’s commander in chief? Does he — does he have that power?

...

MR. GONZALES: Senator, this president is not — I — it is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

This is even worse since there could not be any doubt what Feingold was asking. Even if the AG picked his words very carefully and did not actually lie (judge for yourself) he could not have had any doubt about what the Senator was trying to ascertain and what (wrong) conclusion he must have drawn from the answer.

This exchange constitutes a crime and the Judiciary Committee should refer the matter to the Justice Department and ask for the appointment of a special counsel.

Link:
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2006/02/not_telling_the.html

'nuff said ...


Peace.