Who in their right mind would want a South Side Chicago hack politician as president, it's awful enough that he's in the senate, yeah Hussein Obama.

to support his claim that Gonzales didn't lie. If it says on the front page of the NYT that this was all just a simple misunderstanding, who are the Democrats to disagree? Another win for the administration in their strategy to use the so-called Liberal Media to further their political ends. I suppose it would have been too much to ask for the correspondents reporting this administration ploy to discern that the motives behind this revelation are suspicious in the extreme.

The Republicans can continue to be confident that when they need to spin a story their way, the MSM will gladly comply. And the dog and pony show continues, with the administration playing the media for the absolute fools that they appear to be.

Well that number really stands out doesn't it? Just who is going to translate all those international calls? Even 1/10 of 1% of 200 billion is more than the government can realistically process. After all, aren't we the same people that only have three Arab translators in the Iraqi Embassy? This appears to me, at least, to be about financial transactions more than anything else. Money, thats what Republicans really understand and its what motivates them time after time, to break the law. Even if this angle is discounted, that doesn't excuse the fact that Alberto Gonzalez still lied, and the White House is still up to something that the American public will eventually come to understand as a grandiose plan to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Don't ever stop digging.

You have to wonder what Mueller privately thinks of Gonzales. The FBI Director made no attempt whatsoever to pull Gonzo from the train tracks. The General must be just disgusted.

I wonder if this issue will be busted open not by anything to do with Contempt of Congregess, but instead by Contempt of Gonzales by official witnesses who are ready for a little payback for something.

Could you be just a little more racist?

And here I was about to offer the suggestion that perhaps some of those persons involved in the leak to save Alberto Gonzales were acting more out of a sense of misplaced civic duty, (like the civil servants you might find in Terry Gilliam's movie "Brazil"). Your comment serves to remind me that a significant portion of the conservative electorate is bigoted, racist and just plain-old filled with hate for anyone who different from themselves.

And here I was about to offer the suggestion that perhaps some of those persons involved in the leak to save Alberto Gonzales were acting more out of a sense of misplaced civic duty, (like the civil servants you might find in Terry Gilliam's movie "Brazil"). Your comment serves to remind me that a significant portion of the conservative electorate is bigoted, racist and just plain-old filled with hate for anyone who different from themselves.

I tried to delete that comment -- which would have been my first deleted comment in probably two months -- but was unable to log into the admin section to do it for some reason. I'm working on that.

Let's just consider that stupid, disgusting and irrelevant comment deleted.

I haven't read the NYT story, so sorry if this doesn't make sense. Is it plausible that the original terrorist surveillance program included large scale data mining of American citizens' communications, and that's what prompted the DOJ officials to threaten to resign?

Has Andy Card testified about the hospital meeting yet? Is he willing to perjur himself for his boss?

... is what I had when I saw the NYT post that story online late last night - my immediate reaction was exactly how you laid it out: Nothing more the start of the Rovian spin cycle, so that the Sunday talking heads would repeat the administration-via-Times line all day. I understand the need for a "scoop" and the breathless reporting of "insider" info - nature of the business. But after seven years of being used and abused like this and never getting at least a little kiss thanks from its callous GOP boyfriend, you'd think they start respecting themselves (and us) a little bit more and show some journalistic maturity and integrity. Guess not. Thanks for diffusing some of my anger today with your breakdown, Glenn.

of Gonzales is not only questionable, but predicated on the notion that there were objections not only to the warrantless wiretapping program, but also to its data mining program. It's a sad day when conservatives are crowing endlessly about how wonderful it is that people in the intelligence community were forcefully protesting the administration's activities. Their blind loyalty to any high-ranking Bush official has been extremely damaging to this country.

CarolynC correctly noted the last step in Glenn's snapshot to complete the circularity of the message: The administration and its allies then quote as gospel the media reports the administration officials anonymously supplied, a la Cheney and WMD.

Just when are these congressional committees going to get around to asking -- and demanding a specific, detailed answer -- to the question:

What the hell was it about the so called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" that caused a near-mutiny at the Department of Justice and the FBI?

Unlike the courtiers at the NYT and WaPo, we can be sure the answer isn't to be found in any self-serving "leaks" from the Bush regime.

I'm sure it will come to me if I keep thinking about it, but so far I can't fully understand why the White House source would want to remain anonymous. If he/she is revealing information about Program X/TSP with WH approval, then it would carry a greater level of credibility if the info had a face to it. If the WH goal is to help Fredo then whispering in the dark is not exactly jumping to his aid.

Aside from an unhealthy fetish for secrecy and manipulation, the best argument I can think of is that the "source" wants to put out a story without risk of being questioned about it. If the NYT says Stephen Hadley reported that the program meant data mining, his phone would be ringing off the hook from other reporters asking follow up questions or discovering problems in his story. No face to the story, no questions. If this is the case it requires collusion from the NYT reporter. He or she must take the story and run with it and forego any follow up or threat of exposing the source. It would be like Judith Miller never asking the hard questions of Scooter Libby due to her close friendship with him...

Ok, maybe I've just answered my own question. Other ideas welcomed.

Ok