ABC, CBS still have not reported on Comey's revelation of wiretapping "hospital drama"
ABC and CBS still have not reported -- on either their evening news or morning news broadcasts -- former deputy attorney general James B. Comey's account of what NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams May 15 called a "rare glimpse of a high-level, late-night power struggle" over the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretapping program. As NBC Nightly News justice correspondent Pete Williams reported May 15, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card attempted to pressure then-Attorney General John Ashcroft "at his [hospital] bedside ... to approve an extension of the secret NSA warrantless eavesdropping program over strong Justice Department objections," as Media Matters for America has noted.
By contrast, NBC News has continued to report on the story. The May 17 edition of NBC News' Today led with a report on the aftermath of Comey's testimony and the renewed calls for Gonzales' resignation due to his role in the "hospital drama." Today co-host Meredith Vieira opened the show's May 17 broadcast by stating: "Slippery slope? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under fire again after some bombshell testimony claiming he tried to make an end run to get the government's controversial eavesdropping program renewed. Now, another Republican senator is calling for his resignation." She later reported that "Republican Senator Chuck Hagel [NE] now says that" Gonzales "should resign," making Hagel "the fourth GOP senator to do so."
In his Today report, Pete Williams noted that the controversy "goes back to one March night three years ago," when Justice Department and White House officials met in a "showdown over the NSA's program to intercept the calls of U.S. citizens suspected of talking to terrorists overseas." As Media Matters has noted, Comey, who served as acting attorney general while Ashcroft was ill, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department had concerns about the legality of the NSA domestic wiretapping program, and he and Ashcroft had met prior to the March 11, 2004, deadline for the program's renewal to discuss "concerns as to our ability to certify its legality."
Hagel, a possible Republican presidential candidate, released a statement on March 16 in which he called for Gonzales' resignation:
The American people deserve an Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question. Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead. Comey's testimony yesterday brings to light the latest episode in a series of questionable actions by Attorney General Gonzales. It is another part of a pattern of flawed decision making by the Attorney General.
America is a nation of laws. In the interest of the American people, Alberto Gonzales should resign now.
In August 2006, a federal judge ruled the NSA program to be unconstitutional. The administration is appealing the decision.
Comey's testimony came as part of Congress' ongoing investigation into the controversial dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys. As Media Matters has previously noted (here and here), the network news broadcasts were initially slow in reporting on that scandal.
From the May 17 edition of NBC's Today:
VIEIRA: Good morning. Slippery slope? Attorney General Alberto Gonzales under fire again after some bombshell testimony claiming he tried to make an end run to get the government's controversial eavesdropping program renewed. Now, another Republican senator is calling for his resignation.
[...]
MATT LAUER (co-host): You know, it seemed as though Alberto Gonzales had weathered the storm over the firing of those federal prosecutors. But now he's facing some more pressure. This time, it's coming from his own party.
VIEIRA: In fact, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel now says that he should resign, the fourth GOP senator to do so. And it's all over some testimony on the Hill this week that reads like a Washington mystery novel. It involves a nearly comatose attorney general, an alleged end run, and a high-speed race to the hospital. And Pete Williams will be along in a moment with all the twists and turns of this crazy story.
[...]
LAUER: but first, let's start in Washington, where Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is in hot water once again following some dramatic testimony by a former top Justice Department official. NBC's justice correspondent Pete Williams has more. And Pete, this does sound like a spy novel.
WILLIAMS: It does, Matt, and Washington is fascinated with it. So dramatic that it sounds like something out of a movie. It goes back to one March night three years ago. A showdown over the NSA's program to intercept the calls of U.S. citizens suspected of talking to terrorists overseas.
The riveting account come from James Comey, who was then the number-two man at the Justice Department but temporarily in charge because his boss, Attorney General John Ashcroft, was seriously ill, hospitalized with pancreas trouble. Comey says he was on the way home when he got an urgent call and sped to the hospital.
COMEY [video clip]: That night was probably the most difficult night of my professional life.
WILLIAMS: He ran up the stairs hoping to get there before Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andy Card, White House chief of staff. He says when they arrived, they tried to get Ashcroft's approval for an extension of the eavesdroping program despite strong Justice Department objections.
COMEY [video clip]: I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man.
WILLIAMS: He says Ashcroft lifted his head off the pillow and adamately refused to sign. Just minutes after the bedside drama, Comey says an agitated Card demanded he come to the White House.
COMEY [video clip]: I responded that after the conduct I had just witnessed, I would not meet with him without a witness present.
WILLIAMS: Comey says because the surveillance program was allowed to go ahead without Justice Department approval, he and other top officials, including FBI director Robert Mueller, considered resigning. And he revealed they weren't the only ones.
COMEY [video clip]: Mr. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked me something that meant a great deal to him, and that is that I not resign until Mr. Ashcroft was well enough to resign with me.
WILLIAMS: Eventually, the crisis was defused when President Bush ordered changes in the spy program based on Justice Department concerns. Senators said found the story astonishing.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) [video clip]: I basically almost lost my breath because it was so astounding.
WILLIAMS: Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, says this episode shows that Gonzales lacks moral authority and should resign. The White House isn't commenting on the hospital drama but it says Mr. Gonzales has the president's full support. Matt?
LAUER: All right, Pete, thanks very much. Pete Williams in Washington this morning.
THis is getting ridiculous. ABC and CBS won't address the Elephant in the room.
This just keeps getting worse, doesn't it? If the guy is in the hospital, and protocol clearly outlines that Comey is in charge in that circumstance, why the effort to circumvent the process unless it really was to take advantage of Ashcroft's illness? I think Gonzales' days are numbered for sure.
If only Bush and Cheney's days were numbered. In single digits....
i did hear this on the today show. it's an important story when the acting attorney general refuses to come to the white house without a witness along.
i would have recommended a meeting at louie's in the bronx.
"The Today Show" is on NBC.
The Networks are still slow on this story. They would rather report on such important stories as Tony Blair leaving office, American Idol and Rosie O'Donnell.
I saw the clip this morning myself.
It reminded me of the Godfather. I'm surprised Comey didn't move Ashcraft to another room and get cuffed in the jaw by Card. ;-)
Seriously, what I wanted to know is who called Comey and warned him that he had to get to the hospital before Card?
Could it be that Card was trying to obey the law by getting Ashcrofts approval? Were Ashcroft and Comey defending the Constitution or being bureacrats protecting their backside by no granting approval for an extension.
I don't remember Ashcrofts illness and if it rendered him incapable of making decisions, (apparently not.) Comey never explained if Card and Gonzales tried to reach him for his approval?
Besides Comey says this was an extension. Apparently it had been previously approved. Why didn't they object the first time?
They also didn't explain how much later the crisis was "diffused". Apparently after all these hi-jinx they got their point across. So the end result is a non-story.
Nice bit of sensationalistic gossip by Lauer and Williams but not very good insightful reporting.
Typical of the left wing media, they reported on one man's testimony without any other supporting or refuting evidence.
When I heard this story on Hardball last night my first thought was that it sounded like a scene from a chapter in a John Grisham or Tom Clancy novel.
Or maybe an episode of Gilligan's Island.
It's time for "little buddy" to resign.
Another American: "Besides Comey says this was an extension. Apparently it had been previously approved. Why didn't they object the first time?"
Maybe they didn't object the first time because it was shortly after the terrorist attacks, and in the confusion and hysteria that followed, maybe they felt the surveillance was justified for a short period of time. (Even though they knew it was illegal and dangerous.) But perhaps they felt an extension would be a serious error, and a violation of the constitution.
I guess your right. If you're weren't aware of Ashcroft's illness, it couldn't have been that serious.
So everything you said in your post is irrefutable.
If you can't see how shady this whole situation looks, your blind.
"Seriously, what I wanted to know is who called Comey and warned him that he had to get to the hospital before Card?"
It was David Ayers, Ashcroft's chief of staff, who called Comey after Ashcroft's wife, who was in the hospital room, called Ayers.
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500996.html
(don't know how to get link to light up)
What I'm curious about is why Comey got FBI chief Mueller to order his agents to stay even if Gonzales asked them to leave.
What I'm curious about is why Comey got FBI chief Mueller to order his agents to stay even if Gonzales asked them to leave. - Michaelsavageforpresident 4 president / Thursday May 17, 2007 05:09:26 PM EST
That's what you're curious about? Isn't it obvious? Gonzales was openly, admittedly, trying to persuade Ashcroft to sign off on the wiretappping program. Ashcroft was extremely unwell. Do you think maybe there was concern that Gonzales would try to take advantage of that situation by claiming Ashcroft agreed to it when he really didn't?
I had heard some speculation on the radio which made me wonder if there was something I might have missed or not quite understood.
BTW, if you can, tune in to Savage. I never heard him attack Bush like this. (Not where I heard aforementioned speculation.)
Golly, I'd love to, but I'm washing my hair that day...
Yeah, and I have scheduled a vascectomy by a street vendor with a rusty razor.
I don't know if you mistyped, or if this is the source of your confusion, but Comey didn't ask Mueller to make sure the agents stayed, Mueller ordered the agents to allow Comey to stay even if Gonzalez asked him to leave. And it was so he could be a witness to the event.
I just reread that part of the transcript and I see that you're correct. I did misread that bit. But what made me curious is the fact that acting AG Comey (or Mueller) were concerned about either Card or Gonzales being able to order the FBI agents to order Comey out as the attorney general is over the FBI. Gonales had no legal authority to do so as the presidents lawyer, and I don't think Card had the authority either as chief of staff. I didn't consider the possibility that they would have Bush make another call and and order the agents out.
In the last sentence in the above post I meant "...Bush make another call and order Comey out."
Another correction---- In the last sentence I meant to say "...Bush make another call and order the agents to order Comey out."
when you copy a link from a source that has the link already showing up across 2 or more lines it usually does this. The best way to avoid it is to click on the link and then copy straight from the http bar.
Thanks. I'll remember that. But in this case, I did that. I think it's probably my computer, my browser or whatever.
try the preview, it should show up correctly as an http link there. If it doesn't it probably means you have a hidden character in the middle of your paste. You can try going to the 1st line, go to the end of the printable text and do a delete to see if it removes the next printable character. If it don't, that was your hidden character and it will now show up correctly.
...or you could just type "link", highlight it, click on the link button on the toolbar at the top of the comment box (if it's there - or use html tags if you're using a browser that doesn't show it, like on my linux box) and paste the link address in the appropriate box. That way your link doesn't take up the full width of the page.
Thank you.
yahoo.com www.yahoo.com http://www.yahoo.com
[link to yahoo.com<] yahoo.com www.yahoo.com [link to www.yahoo.com] [link to yahoo.com]
Sounds like a good tip. But in case you're curious, I tried to put up a link to a much shorter address, Yahoo. But it wouldn't light up in the preview page either. I did it these 3 ways:
www.yahoo.com
http://yahoo.com
http://www.yahoo.com
Also, I tried to put up a link on the latest MMFA's Boehlert column. I used "'[link to "] and it just disappeared, didn't post. I later tested on the same column by putting in both "http:://www.yahoo.com" and "www.yahoo.com". The former disappeared again when posted and the second appeared like this: "www.yahoo.com [link to yahoo.com]" with only the second part, "[link to yahoo.com]" acvtivated as a link.
Sorry American, you got the story wrong and it is important.
Mrs. Ashcroft called Comey and told her that Card and Gonzalez were coming to see her husband. She knew her husband was not only very ill (intensive care for 6 days) but he was not attorney general. Card and Gonzalez had asked Comey to approve the wiretapping and he said no. They decided to go over his head and ask Ashcroft who informed them that even if he could sign on he wouldn't because he was not attorney general, Comey was. Comey also called Muller (FBI director) and ask that he ask Ashcroft's FBI security detail to keep him in the room when Card and Gonzalez appeared so that they could not have Ashcroft sign anything while so very ill. Comey also informed Card later that evening that he would not appear (he was summoned to the WH) without a witness appearing with him. He then had the Solicitor General (Ted Olsen) to appear at the WH with him during his meeting with Card. When Comey was informed that the junior had overruled the Justice Dept regarding the wiretapping he along with others in the Justice department along with FBI director Muller threaten to resign. Junior called Comey on March 12th for a 15 minute private meeting which he later changed the same wiretapping law that he had just overruled back to the way the Justice department wanted in the first place.
Non story my A** if the attorney general had been Janet Reno and the President had been Bill Clinton you republicans and conservatives would have been screaming from the roof tops of FOX from coast to coast.
The Justice Department is suppose to represent the law for ALL American citizens. It has and should always be separate from WH influence.
Seriously, what I wanted to know is who called Comey and warned him that he had to get to the hospital before Card?
David Ayers, Ashcroft's Chief of Staff.
Could it be that Card was trying to obey the law by getting Ashcrofts approval?
No, for two reasons. First, there was apparently no law or regulation actually requiring the White House to obtain the Atty Gen's approval to certify the program. Second, Ashcroft, due to his medical condition, did not have power as Atty Gen.; Comey did.
Were Ashcroft and Comey defending the Constitution or being bureacrats protecting their backside by no granting approval for an extension.
Actually, if you'll note my first reason in response to the prior question, more likely the White House was using Justice to protect their backside. Comey was asked to certify the program was legal, but refused; his position was supported by numerous others in Justice.
I don't remember Ashcrofts illness and if it rendered him incapable of making decisions, (apparently not.)
Actually, Comey was acting Atty Gen at the time. Ashcroft was in intensive care.
Comey never explained if Card and Gonzales tried to reach him for his approval?
Justice had communicated Comey's refusal to certify the program the day before Card and Gonzales attempted to get Ashcroft to sign the order.
Besides Comey says this was an extension. Apparently it had been previously approved. Why didn't they object the first time?
As the specifics are confidential, I doubt you'll be able to find an answer as to why Comey, based on research by The Office of Legal Counsel, reached the conclusion he did.
They also didn't explain how much later the crisis was "diffused".
Early the following week; i.e., about 4 days later.
Apparently after all these hi-jinx they got their point across. So the end result is a non-story.
Despite its resolution, the issue raises concerns about Gonzales fitness as Atty Gen. He attempted to obtain a signature from a "sick man" who didn't even have legal authority at the time. When they couldn't obtain a signature, the White House re-certified without it' i.e., the program despite Justice's concerns about its legality. This does not provide reassurance as to Gonzales' belief in the rule of law.
Nice bit of sensationalistic gossip by Lauer and Williams but not very good insightful reporting. Typical of the left wing media, they reported on one man's testimony without any other supporting or refuting evidence.
Since you apparently made no attempt to answer some of your own questions and implied doubts, I doubt you're even interested in the truth. Your criticism just highlights your willful ignorance.
CD,
I appreciate your psychic ability to understand my nefarious motivations however contrary to what you'd like to believe I had no ulterior motives. If you read my statement I said I saw the Today show and simply had some questions. There is no need to get testy. :-)
I appreciate everyone, including yourself, who have taken the time to answer those questions.
Hey maybe Gonzales and Card are Keystone Cops if Comey's version is accurate. My only point was, (in my mind,) the rather disturbingly incomplete and one sided reporting by Lauer and Williams.
Since I am answering this a day later, maybe a bit more of the story has come to light. I must admit, to me it is past history. Gonzales is now AG (for the short term anyway,) so this all seems to me to be a bit ironic.
You say you're disturbed by the "one-sided" nature of the reporting. Since when is there more than one side to the truth?
One of the biggest failures of modern journalism is the idiotic need to present "both sides" of every issue (ostensibly to avoid a partisan label, such as "liberal media"). This just results in he said/she said reporting, and allows the side that represents dishonesty to be give equal weight with the truth. It basically reduces "journalists" to the position of stenographer, simply "reporting" the claims of each side, without actually informing the public of the FACTS surrounding the issue.
That is the description of the Mainstream Media (MSM), not to be confused with advocacy journalism, such as partisan blogs, or Fox News. They simply make things up and do all they can do marginalize, or even destroy the opposition. This type of "journalism" is rampant on the right, and has no real comparison on the left.
I remember the illness and that he ceded his authority as AG for a time while he was recovering. So whatever YOU think they definitly thought it impeded him. It is a crime to lie to Congress so reporting what he testfied to is legitimate. Are you really claiming he is making it up? Do you hear anyone denying this happened?
No, Dumbya just refuses to discuss it. He doesn't even have the heart to lie about it.
"Seriously, what I wanted to know is who called Comey and warned him that he had to get to the hospital before Card?"
It was John Ashcroft's wife who called Comey. I saw an interview with Comey (it wasn't on FOX so you might not have seen it) in which Comey said he recalled the moment vividly when he was being driven home after work at 8:00 PM and being on Constitution Ave. when he recived the call from John Ashcroft's wife who told him that Card and Gonzalez were on their way to the hospital. (Oh, well, at least they had the courtesy to call in advance.) Comey said he ordered his driver to immediately turn around and get to George Washington Universsity Hospital pronto. He said they literally ran to Ashcroft's room and Card and Gonzalez had just arrived. Card initially claimed they were just paying a visit to Ashcroft... but the true purpose of their visit soon came out.
"Typical of the left wing media, they reported on one man's testimony without any other supporting or refuting evidence."
Gimme a break... For a while I was angry enough to think that conservative Republicans were all a bunch of dishonest slugs. I was wrong... it's George W. Bush and his inner circle who are the dishonest slugs and people like you emulate them. James Comey is a conservative Republican who served under John Ashcroft! You think he's a liar? You think the liberal media created his testimony? You think Patrick Fitzgerald is a creation of the liberal media? You think those US Attorneys who lost their jobs are liberals? People like you will attack anyone or anything that reveals the mendacity of George W. Bush and his White House.
Irony,
Again, I appreciate the psychic ability of you to know the real me. I find it fascinating how many contributors here have that uncanny ability.
I hope you feel better by getting that off your chest.
Some of your questions about the story are actually answered in Comey’s testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxHjWYA50Ds
Seriously, what I wanted to know is who called Comey and warned him that he had to get to the hospital before Card?Ashcroft’s Chief of Staff at the time, David Ayres was the person who called Comey to quickly come to the hospital. John Ashcroft’s wife was the one who told Ayres.Could it be that Card was trying to obey the law by getting Ashcrofts approval? Were Ashcroft and Comey defending the Constitution or being bureacrats protecting their backside by no granting approval for an extension.Also, Comey communicated the day before the confrontation that he would not certify the program to its legality. Card, Gonzales, or the person who sent them to see Ashcroft can say that they had no idea that day that Comey was the acting AG and had no idea that Comey intended to not authorize the program, but I find it very unlikely because clearly Card at least knew else he wouldn’t have angrily demanded that Comey have a meeting at the White House afterward.I don't remember Ashcrofts illness and if it rendered him incapable of making decisions, (apparently not.)As for Ashcroft’s illness, Comey said that it took much effort for him to talk to Card and Gonzalez. Comey had already been the acting AG for about a week the day of the confrontation. If Ashcroft is capable of making decisions for a few minutes a day or even a couple of hours a day, Comey is still the acting AG on a 24/7 basis. Ashcroft does not have to be in a coma to have someone else be acting AG.
Comey never explained if Card and Gonzales tried to reach him for his approval?Card and Gonzales did not attempt to contact Comey before the incident but, again, Comey DID contact the relevant parties about his intentions not to reauthorize.
Besides Comey says this was an extension. Apparently it had been previously approved. Why didn't they object the first time?Good question. But even if Ashcroft did authorize in the past, he is not obligated to reauthorize if subsequent analysis of the program or changes in the program make him change his mind by the time the periodical reauthorization comes around. Being legal in the past does not automatically make the program legal in the future.
They also didn't explain how much later the crisis was "diffused". Apparently after all these hi-jinx they got their point across. So the end result is a non-story.Do you think that it might be possible that the intention of Card and Gonzales was to get a signature(s) from Ashcroft and backdate it(them)? Or that they knew Comey was the acting AG and were going to attempt to convince Ashcroft in his state to circumvent Comey? Did that possibility occur to you? Do you buy Card’s explanation that they were just there to wish Ashcroft well on the day before the authorization was to expire when it Ashcroft’s wife has made it clear that all visitors are banned? If Card was telling the truth to Comey, then why was he angry? If they were just visiting, WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY DOING TALKING TO ASHCROFT ABOUT AUTHORIZATION OF A SECRET PROGRAM ON THEIR “VISIT??!! “
Great questions! I'd like to see them answered.
Thank you for your compliment.
You seem to draw no conclusion when faced with the facts that I pointed out. You seem not know why Card and Gonzales went to the hospital to see Ashcroft. But you seem to know for sure it is all a "non-story." You are sure that they are both innocent.
Do you realize that you are using the same type of logic Gonzales commonly uses throughout his testimony to Congress? Gonzales commonly says that he doesn't remember at all some of the most important events in his career as AG. But he is absolutely SURE that it was all innocent even though he doesn't know what happened.
Fine. Put Card and Gonzales under oath and ask for their version. Let's see, it would probably be something like "I don't recall, I don't remember that, I have no recollection....."
Comey is right about not going into a room with the likes of Gonzales Bush Cheney without a camera a tape recorder and a witness of 300 million people.
Another American said: "Typical of the left wing media, they reported on one man's testimony without any other supporting or refuting evidence."
AA, I find your comment odd. They are just reporting the guy's testimony. How are they supposed to support it or refute it?
Pssst, don't tell anybody, but it's all Soros' fault!
Stop that Snop, you'll wake baby Wes again. Remember
Soros = MMFA = Hate
I'll give Bill a call in a few minutes, just as a reminder :)
Don't worry, Kevin1007 will be along momentarily to blame it all on Bill Clinton.
Ozz,
Fair question. It seems to me that responsible journalism would include their effort to corroborate the story in the segment or interview Gonzales and/or Card to get their view. I'm not saying they shouldn't report it, just that it was incomplete and because it made the AG and Card look so bad, there should be some effort to see if there is a different point of view.
Again for everyone who is invoking their psychic powers to refute me, I am not arguing that Gonzales and Card are innocent of any mischief, I'm just saying good reporting would go beyond one person's testimony. I felt it was deliberately sensationalist and deliberate in its attempt to only show Gonzales and Card poorly.
AA,
I might be able to consider your point if we were talking about one person's opinion, maybe from a book or article they just wrote, but we are talking about sworn testimony. There has to be some assumption that they didn't perjure themselves. You don't need to prove that someone told the truth in testimony, you need to have proof if you are accusing someone of perjury. That's the whole point of testimony and why it is considered hard evidence. It is assumed to be true unless shown otherwise. If they were interviewing a witness to a murder that testified in the trial, should they have the accused murderer on to give his side of the story?
Maybe if Ashcroft was having sex with an intern, the networks would have reported it.
Wait a minute...Ashcroft having sex?!?!
Eeeeewwwwww!
Ashcroft is a hero in this story? Well I'll be....
True... I just told my wife a little while ago I never thought I'd see the day when I had symapthy and admiration for John Ashcroft. Next to Bush and the White House inner circle even O.J. Simpson would look like a damn humanitarian.
I'm surprised by that or maybe dissapointed is more it. You've had a lot to say about Savage. I would have thought you'd love to hear him in full voice, if you were able to. If for no other reason than to be better able to critique him. I think it's obvious you're one of the best posters around here, but if you listened you would blow the doors off.
This is a reply to SOLON's vasectomy comment.
I appreciate the compliment. The truth is when I started being very political I spent a lot of time checking what both sides had to say and ended up with a duodenal ulcer. I took two years off not even reading a newspaper. Now I check middle of the road and left sources that have proven reliable but I can no longer afford to subject myself to the aggravation of the far right.
AnotherAmerican,
You seriously need to read the supporting documentation and story here. You obviously haven't many of the questions you seem outraged about are answered and you're plain wrong. There was plenty going on wrong. They DID try to go to Comey first. HE had the power at the time, not Ashcroft. Really, you're so off base here you look like an idiot. I won't even go into the rest.
Amazing! ABC and CBS choose to stay away from such a hugely important story, while NBC takes the sole responsibility of keeping the public informed of this outrageous attempt to pervert American justice. How can two of the major U.S. network news organizations explain their irresponsible lack of reportage? What the hell is happening to journalism and news gathering in the United States? Has it really become so politically controlled that we are going to have to scrape and search for the truth of what is happening in our country?
Shame on ABC and CBC and major kudos to NBC.
They can't explain; won't even try. They want us to keep drinking the Bush koolaid - that's why ABC tried to blame 9/11 on Clinton - remember? The MSM have become unabashed propagandists. The surprise to me is that NBC did. I watched CBS news for 30 years. As it got worse and worse, I timeshifted the other broadcasts. Not much difference. KC was the last straw tho - I now watch NBC but get most of my news from the net.
They don't see (or don't care) that the reason viewership continues to sink like a stone is that people who watch the news, want actual news.
You mean Katie Couric is NOT the answer?
i feel that we are not seeing the whole picture here. The democratic
leadership are hemming and hawing about the wrong issues, they should be discussing the impeachment of both George w. bush and
TRICKY DICKY CHANEY !! There is plenty of evidence to impeach so why haven't they? My thoughts on the subject are as follows, One they are as much in the pockets of the defense contractors as the republicans. The only way to correct this problem would to ask them strait forward why impeachment is off the table.
JR.
Here are some reasons impeachment is off the table.
1) There isn't time. By the time the judiciary committee investigated, debated and voted out articles (remember that the WH will stonewall and evidence gathering will be time consuming - quite likely ending up in the Supreme Court) sent it into the Senate for trial and then conducted a trial, it would be well into 2008 - at best.
2) It is very unlikely that with only a 1 vote majority in the Senate that 67 votes could be managed to be gained to convict - no matter what Bush has done. Remember that all the Rs were in the rubber stamp congress that preceeded this one.
3) Bush would have the power to appoint his replacement - most likely McCain, who would then be the incumbant. If you think the Senate would refuse to confirm this sitting Senator, you don't know much about politics in the real world.
4) Instead of running against the despised legacy of a historically unpopular President, we would have to defeat an incumbant using the power of the presidency - much harder.
Republican Talking Points
David Brooks of the New York Times has a weekly gig on <em>The Newshour with Jim Lehrer</em>, with Mark Shields. Here’s Brooks discussing the hospital visit by then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to ailing John Ashcroft:<blockquote>There was nothing illegal that happened. There was a disagreement over this FISA statute. Nonetheless, the way it went about was so disrespectful of the institution: that’s what leaves a bad taste.</blockquote>Give me a break.
A review of the facts is in order. Shortly after 9/11, the administration ordered up a vast program of domestic spying that was in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The White House had obtained assent of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, led by John Yoo, to proceed with this program of illegal wiretapping. In October of 2003, Jack Goldsmith was confirmed as the head of the OLC. Goldsmith undertook a review of some of the more controversial opinions of Mr. Yoo.
It became obvious that the legal and factual underpinnings of the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program did not pass constitutional muster. In March of 2004, Attorney General Ashcroft and Deputy Attorney General Comey discussed the matter and decided that the program was illegal, and that therefore, they could not sign off on it. Shortly thereafter, Ashcroft became ill, and was hospitalized. DAG Comey became the acting Attorney General.
The details of the hospital visit are well-known. On March 10, 2004, Ashcroft and Comey informed Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that the program –which had been in effect for over two years -- was illegal.
The White House went ahead with it anyway, though two days later the President gave Comey authority to suggest changes to address his concerns. For the next two or three weeks the program went forward, without any changes even though Ashcroft, Comey, FBI Director Mueller, and others (Goldsmith?) had threatened to resign over it.
Later, Alberto Gonzales testified that there was no serious disagreement about the program. Several senators have suggested that this testimony may have been false, and they gave the Attorney General a chance to revise it. He declined to do so.
Get out your score sheets. There was a two year period when the government was engaged in an illegal program of spying on Americans without a warrant in direct violation of the FISA law. In their defense, they had found a partisan lawyer to give them his okay, but reliance on mistaken legal advice is not generally a defense. Then there was a period of two or three weeks, where the Justice Department had explicitly told the White House that the program was illegal, but they went forward with it anyway. And then there is “Fredo” Gonzales’ crime of perjury.
The Republicans have managed to lower the standard of conduct for this White House to “as long as no crimes were committed.” We saw this in the Scoter Libby affair, too. (In that case, it is urged by Republicans that since no crime was committed, it was okay for him to lie to a Federal Grand Jury.)
“There was nothing illegal that happened.” That’s a pretty low bar. But it is a break with reality to suggest that the White House cleared it.
Please visit the Schapira blog, "What we know so far ..." at http://schapira.blogspot.com“… and tell ’em Big Mitch sent ya!”