... so, I didn't pay attention to former Deputy AG Comey's testimony until just now. This is a hell of a story, somehow managing to make what we already knew about the crazily illegal domestic surveillance initiative even more crazy. It's really bizarre that this gang is so awful that John Ashcroft manages to emerge as one of the major good guys, but I said we'd miss him when he resigned.
« 90s Nostalgia Blogging | Main | Rudy's Appeal »
Um...
15 May 2007 11:48 pm
Comments (16)
Odd that Hero Comey signed off on that "crazily illegal domestic surveillance initiative", huh? If it were so crazily illegal, why would Hero Comey sign off on it?
Matt: I've posted the transcript at balkinization -- it has to be read to be believed. Right out of a Hollywood movie (and I propose a famous parallel) -- see
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/did-comey-just-testify-that-president.html
and
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/05/who-will-play-gonzales-and-card-and.html
That's some scary shit.
Shockingly, I don't see the big deal. They went to Comey's boss to see if he would overrule Comey. That's, um, the nature of the boss - he can overrule the deputies.
But Ashcroft wasn't the boss at that time, as Ashcroft helpfully explained to them.
And so... what's the big deal then? That they went to someone who had no power to overrule Comey? Why did Comey rush there if Ashcroft had no power to overrule him?
al, stop sniffing your sister's panties, dinner is ready
so who here thinks Comey probably got rolled?
I mean--the steps are
1) Bush wants to do something illegal
2) Justice says it's illegal
3) Bush says "I'm doing it anyway"
4) Justice threatens to quit en masse
5) Bush has a face to face, plays nice, says he'll make changes
6) Justice says okay, we won't quit
7) everyone lives happily ever after.
And....did Bush ever actually stop the illegal behavior, or make any changes to the program? Or did he just send a letter to NSA saying "Justice no longer has any say in the matter"?
I don't think we know. I don't think Comey knows.
whoa, it's a good thing the RNC dispatched one of its Al-bots straight here.
If they hadn't given the Als orders to push back so hard, we wouldn't be able to tell just how scared of this story they are.
Yes, why WOULD Gonzalez and Card rush over to the hospital if Ashcroft had "no power to overrule Comey"? Might Ashcroft's "no power" miraculously transform into "full power" had Ashcroft agreed to sign off?
Sometimes I wonder if Al could possibly believe his own bullshit.
Hmmm Al... It couldn't have had something to do with the fact that Ashcroft was seriously ill and on mass amounts of medication? "Here you go John, just sign this now... it says you want the chicken dinner tonight instead of the fish. There you go...."
Odd that Hero Comey signed off on that "crazily illegal domestic surveillance initiative", huh? If it were so crazily illegal, why would Hero Comey sign off on it?
Odd that Comey didn't sign off on the program until after changes had been made to bring the program into compliance with the law.
Odd how all those assurances we received about the program being innocuous and perfectly legal only seem to apply to the later version of the program.
Odd how all those crazy conspiracy-theorist Bush-haters who suspected something illegal was going on seem to have been correct, at least according to the noted non-liberal John Ashcroft.
Odd how that paragon of integrity, Gonzales, would be sneaking off to a hospital in the middle of the night to pressure a sick, highly medicated man to sign off on a program he had already said he wouldn't support.
Odd, indeed.
Why do people say Al is not a troll? Does the Atlantic Monthly mandate some MDR of his bullshit?
Today his "argument" is "So what?", and few of his arguments are ever much better than that. All he ever brings is knee-jerk contradiction. He has to say something every time, and he does, whether there's anything to say or not. He's taken over this thread.
They don't go away if you ignore them, and they don't go away if you argue with them. They only go away of you send them away. Without Al, the discussion could have been much more interesting.
pace john emerson, while ignoring al's complete fatuousness on this matter, we could instead be looking at glen greenwald's (as usual) incisive comments:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/index.html
and then we could ask the delicate flowers of matthew's acquaintance why they've largely ignored this matter, and whether they understand that their ignoring of this matter is part of why we criticize them.
Comments closed May 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It roused the Washington Post's editorial page from its usual torpor about Gonzales, too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501945.html
Posted by Bruce Moomaw | May 16, 2007 1:35 AM