Feingold (D): At least he registered his disapproval of the fact that Gonzales isn’t under oath. Dubya has a “pre-1776 view of the world.” He’s going after G on his testimony in his confirmation hearings (which was under oath). Gonzales is playing word games, of course - Feingold had asked him about behavior “in contravention of the law” and as far as he was concerned it wasn’t in contravention of the law. If he were a Democrat this would be called “Clintonesque.” He’s invoking Lincoln, Wilson and FDR, whose actions, of course, all took place during shooting wars, if not declared ones.
Graham (R): Another apologist, although I’d heard earlier that he had expressed serious concerns. Maybe I was wrong. At least he’s acknowledging the “slippery slope” danger, and says the “inherent authority” argument could neuter the Congress. I guess he didn’t notice that he and the rest of them have pretty much already been neutered. (I’m so sick of this “we are at war” refrain - he’s already admitted that this “war” is pretty much perpetual.)
Schumer (D): Good point - this is not an either-or proposition. We can have both freedom and security. He’s the second one who has brought up that it’s not only D’s who are questioning the legality of this thing. Whether Ashcroft’s #2 disagreed - he’s not going to answer the question. Let’s get Mr. Comey (sp?) in there to speak for himself, if Gonzales “can’t” answer. Tough questioning - yes!
Cornyn (R): Apologist. ‘Nuff said.
No comments:
Post a Comment