- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 4
***ducks***
J/K
Isn't the polling data upon which Brooks bases his column the overwhelming lead that Clinton has in the POLLS for the Democratic primary?
I don't think we know enough to say what they were objecting to. Could it be that they were perfectly happy with the programs they had repeatedly authororized before and only became alarmed at a new direction and set of proposed programs in 2004?
But if that is the case then Comey's objection only about a hypothetical program and the inference that Bush had been breaking the law for the prior two years because "even the extremist Ashcroft objected" does not stand up.
If we assume that the program was essentially the same between the time it began and the time it was changed in response to the threats of mass resignations (a reasonable assumption, I think), what caused Ashcroft to switch from signing the previous certifications of legality and then all of the sudden not signing? If jackakroyd is right, that Comey convinced Ashcroft of the illegality, it kind of undermines the arguement that the program was so beyond the pale "even Ashcroft refused to sign off" - because he did sign off repeatedly.
What were all the high level DOJ officials that threatened to resign saying for the 2 years the wider program was operational?
The program had to be signed off on every 45 days. That means Ashcroft had already repeatedly signed off on the program. What changed that made him change his mind, along with other top DOJ brass?
