Omission and Confusion

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded on Wednesday that he used confusing language in describing national security efforts in recent Senate testimony.

His letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders stopped short of an apology as the Bush administration pushed to expand eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

Gee, it’s too bad there aren’t graduate schools where people could go to get training in precise use of language, and spend hours and hours learning exactly how important exact words can be, particularly in a legal context.

Imagine if, say, Gonzo had graduated from such a school, a really good one, like the Harvard one, so that he would have such knowledge and skill with words.

That sure would be a wonderful thing for the Attorney General of the United States to be able to do, to speak clearly when he wanted to and not in a way that confused his listeners.

What? He did? Harvard, even? Oh. Hmm.

What does the letter say?

First, shortly after 9/11, the President authorized the NSA to undertake a number of highly classified intelligence activities. Second, although the legal bases for these activities varied, all of them were authorized in one presidential order, which was reauthorized approximately every 45 days. Third, before December 2005, the term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was not used to refer to these activities, collectively or otherwise. It was only in early 2006, as part of the public debate that followed the unauthorized disclosure and the President's acknowledgment of one aspect of the NSA activities, that the term Terrorist Surveillance Program was first used.

At my July 24th public hearing, the Committee asked questions about sensitive intelligence matters. In my public testimony, including on July 24th, I have tried to provide frank answers without disclosing classified information. I was discussing only that particular aspect of the NSA activities that the President has publicly acknowledged, and we have called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as defined in the DNI's letter. I recognize that the use of the term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" and my shorthand reference to the "program" publicly "described by the President" may have created confusion, particularly for those knowledgeable about the NSA activities authorized in the presidential orders described by the DNI and who may be accustomed to thinking of them or referring them together as a single NSA "program."

Golly, what a funny mix-up! Poor Alberto. You can see it must just have been an innocent thing, how inadvertent that confusion must have been.

I mean, just because all these NSA activities were authorized by the same order, and reauthorized together at the same time, and those who'd been briefed about them were accustomed to think of them as one "program", and Dick Cheney still seems to have a problem separating them, how was Alberto possibly to have guessed that the Committee might not understand that he was actually talking not about that program, but about a "program" that was just one aspect of "the activities"? I mean, really.

Because I'm sure that Mr. Gonzales, had he realized that the Committee might have been asking about the "program" that everyone else meant and not the "program" that he meant, would have, in his effort to provide "frank answers" and mindful of his oath to provide the whole truth, told them all about the fact that most of the top people at the DOJ including Ashcroft had threatened to resign over that other aspect of the NSA activities, which was authorized in the same presidential order and reauthorized at the same time as what he was talking about, and considered by those "knowledgeable about the NSA activities" as part of one program. Wouldn't he?

Well, no.

February 6, 2006:

SCHUMER: But it's not just Republican senators who seriously question the NSA program, but very high-ranking officials within the administration itself.

Now, you've already acknowledged that there were lawyers in the administration who expressed reservations about the NSA program.

SCHUMER: There was dissent; is that right?

GONZALES: Of course, Senator. As I indicated, this program implicates some very difficult issues. The war on terror has generated several issues that are very, very complicated.

SCHUMER: Understood.

GONZALES: Lawyers disagree.

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It's been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey, expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent speculation or stories about disagreements.

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.

I will also say...

SCHUMER: But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES: The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today. They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER: It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School, expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES: Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this program.

What he said appears to be true. The lie was in what he didn't say, and his refusal to actually answer Schumer.

Did any of the people Schumer named have any reservations about the ultimate program? You bet they did. Did Gonzales tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in the way we should expect of our highest officials? You bet he didn't.