The GOP loudly derided then President Clinton's testimony surrounding his Monicagate sexcapade when he famously parsed.... "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."
What was at stake with this crafty argument?.... no laws had been broken, no rights had been impinged, no monies or lives had been squandered. He was trying to avoid an inflamed GOP impeachment posse trying to run down a president they hated.... because he was a straying husband.
Let's compare that voyeuristic clash with the current, to be kind, "parsing" of Attorney General Gonzales in testimony revolving around the Bush administration's invasion of our basic rights under the Constitution.
According to Ruth Marcus in "Short of Perjury," Gonzo in Senate testimony "dissembled," and "misled" with "linguistic evasion" about a Justice Department and White House dispute over the DOJ's denial for the continuation of a surveillance program.
But she doesn't think he actually "lied."
Quoting from the New York Times regarding Gonzo's testimony in February 2006 about his nighttime visit to Ashcroft, in pain and on medication, compared to his testimony of last week.... "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales' defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."
Actually, it all boils down to a Clintonian "what "program" the program is."
The Democratic-led Congress, rather than gathering their own posse to run Gonzo to ground over this parsing, should perhaps "concentrate on determining what the administration did - and under what claimed legal authority - that produced the hospital room showdown."
Marcus makes a good point.... Gonzo is just the decoy, the lawbreaking gang leaders hang out in the White House.
No comments:
Post a Comment