It depends on the meaning of the word "abuse".

The hits just keep coming!

Why is anyone given anonymity for this nonsense? If they won't put their name on the line, why are they getting any ink? Cowards on both ends of the conversation.

This provides a nice bookend of the past two decades of governmental leadership.

One president arguing that it's not a lie because of the definition of "is" and "sex", and the next one arguing that it's not a lie because of the definition of "abuse" and "torture".

God bless America.

"Clintonian Hairsplitting". This administation has taken it to a whole new level.

gen. apathy, If we had one president who obfuscated about his sexual practices and another who obfuscated about his torture practices, does this mean the next president will obfuscate about his/her BDSM practices?

Alberto Gonzales didn't get involved in the evaluation and firing of his senior DOJ staff...he delegated a large chunk of his responsibilities to inexperienced junior staffers...he appears to know nothing of how the Justice Department is being run, or by whom....he probably didn't read FBI reports suggesting "abuse" (by any definition) of domestic spying....

...maybe he just needs to keep his calendar free for when GW needs him to run an errand, or to take greetings from the President to desperately ill friends in the hospital.

My question is this: what the hell does Alberto Gonzales DO? And why are we still paying him not to do it?

Well, it does look like Giuliani has a chance to win next year....

OK, folks, let's all recall when Alberto Gonzalez called the Geneva protocol protections afforded to prisoners of war "quaint" -- that sure was a knee-slapper too!

This Bush crowd is awfully adept at word games -- maybe someone in the White House can come up with a New York Times crossword puzzle, just like Bill Clinton did recently. The only problem would be, nobody outside this White House could decipher the clues that were provided, since no one else uses the same dictionary they do.

Short of eating a live infant on the Senate floor, in front of C-Span cameras, this administration can do anything it wants and Congress will not do one damn thing about it. There is zero leadership in Congress.

This is another demonstration as to how politically inept the Democrats are. As the White House pushes the envelope, lying regularly and refusing to testify (hell, claiming not to be part of the exec branch!) it makes Congress look terrible. Then liberals, rightly so, start to think that the Democrats aren't so hot either and voters become less likely to turn out.

No matter how clear the lesson shown by the GOP, the Dems won't take it: feed your base, win over and over; ignore your base and lose (or squeak by if the nation HATES your opponent).

---------

No doubt, some will claim without 60 votes the Senate is powerless, but that's not true. They could shut down everything, issue subpoenas left and right, find officials in criminal contempt, etc.

At the least.

Across:

1. Terror

2. Iraq

3. Nineeleven

6. Patriot

10. Freedom

Down:

3: Islamofascism

4: Surge

7: America

8: Flag

10: Osama

that rather than hinging on the parsing of "verified" as many here speculated yesterday, the "off the hook" fine-line is that the reported abuses were "accidental" and thus somehow don't count.

The WP goes inside with two Justice Department officials saying that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales didn't lie to Congress when he affirmed there hadn't been "one verified case of civil liberties abuse." Even though he knew of the reports that detailed how FBI officials had frequently overstepped their bounds, it turns out they weren't abuses because they weren't intentional.

Like the Libby pardon, if this is upheld as a "legitimate mediating factor", the insanity and other "impairment" defense (not to mention all those "kiddy killers") will get a big boost and all sorts of folks are going to be petitioning for appeals.

"quaint" -- just like the Geneva Conventions.

Why should the FBI be any different than the rest of Bush's Department of Republican Justice?

I'm speechless...

iokiyar .... it's okay if you are a republican

The OED defines abuse as:

-Wrong or improper use, misuse, misapplication, perversion.

-A bad or improper usage (i.e. a use which has become chronic), a corrupt practice.

-Injurious speech, reviling, execration; abusive language.

-Improper use of words (Chiefly rhet.)

or as a synonym for violation. Nowhere in the entire entry does the dictionary even mention intention. Abuse comes from the Latin word to either use up, or mis-use. Again, no mention of intention. It's pervertedly amusing how abuse can refer to catachresis, when that's the precise tool the Bush administration has used to keep its stranglehold on absolute power.

"Obsolete" - adj. What most people think of Alberto Gonzales.

Seriously, either the guy knew and lied = Jail him

or he received reports he didn't read or wasn't briefed on = incompetent = Fire Him

I thought they'd pin their defense of Abu on the parsing of the definition of "verified."

The reason why the Democrats do not grind government to a halt and issue subpoenas et al is that the shrill and vocal group who wishes this to pass is NOT the base of the Democratic Party, they are but one of several groups making up the party. More and more the "Liberal Wing" of the party takes on the shrill idealogical behavior of the evangelicals and they are too consumed with bile to see it. Just like the evangelical group, the liberals are fed just enough of what they want to hear to keep them voting but the reality is that the center dislikes the far left as much as the far right. You are seen as an equal threat to the status quo in America as are the Rush Limbaughs of the political spectrum. When the center wishes it, it will happen. In the mean time, rage ineffectually on web-sites, but don't forget to vote.

"There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse"

Right - there hasn't been one case, there have been many, so that's another reason he wasn't really lying.