Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Wednesday Night Ambush II

Posted by Richard Blair at 1:23 PM on May 22, 2007.


Richard Blair: A critical question hasn't been asked regarding Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales' bed side ambush of John Ashcroft.
mnsenategonzalesd
alberto

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

In online discussions of the Wednesday Night Ambush, one question goes unanswered that I have yet to see anyone ask: why didn't the subject of the ambush come up during Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearing in January, 2005?

White House Counsel Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card accosted an ailing John Ashcroft on March 11, 2004, two days after major surgery to relieve his pancreaitis, in an effort to get him to sign off on the Bush regime's domestic wiretap program. As previously noted, Ashcroft refused, and the subsequent mutiny almost cost the regime its entire senior leadership at the DOJ (Ashcroft, Comey, and others threatened to resign before Bush pulled back).

The actions of Gonzales and Card didn't happen in a vacuum or under a cloak of extreme secrecy. Even if it did, secrets are hard to keep in Washington, DC. Someone (or multiple someones) knew of the Wednesday Night Ambush. On November 11, 2004, George Bush nominated Gonzales to replace Ashcroft as Attorney General. The subsequent confirmation hearings were contentious, but seemed to focus on a narrow set of issues (primarily, Gonzales' role in establishing the regime's torture doctrine). Illegal wiretapping was secondary, at best.

Following an unsatisfactory set of answers at Gonzales' rubber stamp confirmation hearing, Sen. Russ Feingold wrote a letter to Gonzales...

Feingold asked:

I am particularly interested in asking about your misleading testimony at your confirmation hearing on January 6,2005, when I specifically asked you if the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps in violation of statutory prohibitions.

As the attached transcript shows, you initially tried to dismiss my question as "hypothetical." After further questioning, you said the following:

Judge Gonzales: Senator,this President is not- it's not the policy or the agenda of this President to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

Senator Feingold: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the President makes this type of decision and not wait 2 years until a memo is leaked about it?

Judge Gonzales: I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, Sir.

In light of recent revelations that the President specifically authorized wiretapping of Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and did so years prior to your confirmation hearing at a time when you were White House Counsel, I find this testimony misleading, and deeply troubling. I will expect a full explanation at the hearing....

The Washington Post characterized this exchange as:

Gonzales said that it was impossible to answer such a hypothetical question but that it was “not the policy or the agenda of this president” to authorize actions that conflict with existing law. He added that he would hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance, according to a transcript of the hearing.

So, even during his confirmation hearing, Gonzales was apparently intentionally misleading the Senate Judiciary Committee - because he knew damn well, at the time, that not only had he visited Ashcroft's hospital bed in the dead of night, but that Bush continued the illegal domestic wiretap program for weeks, in contravention to the DOJ's opinion.

But what's somewhat maddening is that (again), Gonzales' attempted strong-arming of Ashcroft had to be known, but it didn't come up in the confirmation hearing. Did no Democrat know? Or did Feingold know something at the time, but considered it hearsay, and therefore didn't bring it out at Gonzales' confirmation hearing?

More and more it's clear: Attorney General Gonzales isn't going anywhere - because if the Bush regime cut him loose, and he was no longer serving as a buffer between the White House and the Department of Justice, a lot of people would be potentially be on a fast track to prosecution.

Digg!

Tagged as: gonzales, ashcroft, attorneygate

Richard Blair is a Philadelphia area freelance writer, and the blogmaster of All Spin Zone.


Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
TVA Responsible for Yet Another Toxic Coal-Related Spill
So, now is it time for clean energy?
Post by Tara Lohan. January 9, 2009.
Obama Rolls Out Blair, Panetta; Vows 'No Exceptions' to US Values
"We must adhere to our values diligently and with no exceptions." --Barack Obama
Post by Spencer Ackerman. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
They all knew then, that he was a criminal yet Democrats voted for him
Posted by: Universal on May 22, 2007 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems the Democrats are using the same old excuse, "If I had known now, what I did not know then", itself a lie, when the information was out there and they ignored the left and anti war movement, on the lies to get us into an illegal war, are now being repeated with Gonzales, and his confirmation by the Democrats.

The recent revelations by Senator Durbin who sat in intelligence agencies, along with many other democrats, and republicans, that they knew about the lies, to get us into an illegal war, yet said nothing and did nothing, because secrecy required it, when in fact they should have been prosecuting these criminals, even before the war began. Similarly, I cannot believe that no one was aware of Gonzales criminality, documents which already revealed that he ruled in favor of illegal torture, yet the Democrats confirmed him, even then. Now this additional information, reveals that most class elites, are willing enablers of criminality, and worse cover up for these thugs, which places democrats, right alongside republicans, as war criminals, and appeasing class whores.
When Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler, the history books corrupted its meaning. Neville Chamberlain is, and was a lot like these liberal appeasing class whores, capitulating to the class thugs, of corporate fascism. We have a whole class of Neville Chamberlains appeasing the Corporae fascism of Amerika.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pennsylvania bunker
Posted by: eddie torres on May 22, 2007 11:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Someone (or multiple someones) knew of the Wednesday Night Ambush."

Yes. And someone (or multiple someones) ran a blackmail operation using the "DC madame" to force GOP Senators to support Patriot, NSL, TIA, APIS / ATS, DHS, Etc.

Democrat Senators have their own pimp service, and it is much more secure than the GOP scam.

There IS a Pennsylvania bunker connection with The Office of the VP. Like Alexander Butterfield in 1973, everything will be exposed in July.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pennsylvania bunker Posted by: JNagarya
Another critical question...
Posted by: sethmo on May 23, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that Ashcroft is being lionized now for standing up to the Bush junta, but we need to remember that this occasion was a RE-authorization of an illegal program that had been going on for some time already. What changes were made to the program by the administration that caused Ashcroft to balk at this particular timepoint when he had been rubber-stamping the program every 45 days up to then?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]