Comments (212)

Hatshepsut wrote on July 27, 2007 2:49 PM:

I often wondered at the strange branding of the "TSP" when it was leaked and became open.

bryan wrote on July 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

Why do these congresspersons and senators fail to nail the witness down to a simple yes, no or i don't know.

Are you talking about the TSP, Yes or No?

No wiggle room.

Security code: False

paul c wrote on July 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

I really felt bad for the Snow family when I heard about Tony's illness, but now that he's back and continuing to sell the country down the river, I don't feel so badly.

You'd think someone as sick as he is would want to spend his time doing other things than lying to the american people every day.

RW wrote on July 27, 2007 2:52 PM:

Waiting for Snow to parce the definition "there is no smoking gun"

Slim Pickin's wrote on July 27, 2007 2:54 PM:

I wish they'd bring back the pretty one... it was much easier to take when she was blantantly lying her a$$-off.

Steve5117 wrote on July 27, 2007 2:55 PM:

paul c
Someday Bush can claim Tony misspoke because of the drugs he had to take.

M M wrote on July 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

Why doesn't someone ask a better question like:

Was the Bush administration breaking the law in the period before March 10, 2004 through the "other intelligence activities" that Comey and others said had no legal basis?

What's more important to the nation: word parsing by the AG or outright law violations by Bush?

b wrote on July 27, 2007 2:57 PM:

When will you finally understand that there are several programs.

There is the TSP, which the Justice Department agreed on (even though its illegal).

There is another program the Justice department and Mueller did not agree to. Definitly illegal. (best guess: pre-election sniffing on the opposition)

There are several other programs we don't know s... about yet.

To, again, trying to again punch the narrative into ONE program does in no way further the way to getting some to truth.

Mike wrote on July 27, 2007 3:06 PM:

But didn't Mueller's disclosure refute that argument, by conceding that Comey objected to the TSP? Nah, says Snow, because Mueller said "National Security Agency programs" instead of "TSP"

Oh, that's right Tony. Now I remember. It's just like those "weapons of mass destruction program related activities" that were reason 9,458 why we invaded Iraq.

Bryan Nelson wrote on July 27, 2007 3:07 PM:

Between Iraq, and Gonzo-Gate, Bush won't see another initiative of his pass. The Bushies are done as the country has already moved on.

Wonder when Tony will figure that out and stop trying to protect the idiots still holed up in this administration seeking political assylum from the granter of all pardons and comutations?

ScrewBush wrote on July 27, 2007 3:09 PM:

Basically what Snow says everyday is: "There you go again believing your lying eyes and ears"

Can we all admit the idiots are running the show here. Every day this administration is in office, Americans are dying in a war and we are all put at unnecessary risk while they pillage our treasury. Aside from that, they are a continual embarrassment. I'm sure other leaders in other countries simply laugh at us. Future generations will ask us how come we were all so stupid and let America sink to this depth.

Mcboo wrote on July 27, 2007 3:09 PM:

Ok, maybe it's because it's Friday or maybe it's because I'm a little under caffeinated but TSP reminds me of TPS (reports). I don't intend to trivialize what's at stake here but Tony Snow really does seem like a character out of Office Space doesn't he?

"Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon?"

- Bill Lumbergh (working for the NSA now?)

frankly0 wrote on July 27, 2007 3:12 PM:

What amazes me about Tony Snow's response, and the response of the Bush WH in general, is that it can't simply say what can be simply said.

Namely, they merely have to acknowledge that when they use the term "TSP", they are referring to the program ultimately approved by Bush. When others use the term TSP, they seem to be referring to a larger set of activities, some of which may have been bundled in with a previous form of the NSA program from which TSP also derived.

Why is this hard? What are they so unwilling to state the obvious here?

My guess is that doing so would make their new use of the term TSP sound just too much like the worst sort of semantic deception. Why, after all, should they suddenly start calling only the portions of the program approved by Bush the TSP, and refuse to follow common practice of referring to the larger program pre-existing the Ashcroft visit as being TSP as well? It looks too plainly to be a distinction that has only one purpose: to save Gonzales from perjury.

1970cs wrote on July 27, 2007 3:13 PM:

Snow's beliveability is now the same as Gonzales'. I didn't think that was possible.

db wrote on July 27, 2007 3:17 PM:

Muller was well aware of the linguistic BS the WH is deploying at the time of his testimony. That's why he would never use the loaded designation, "TsP." He knew it was limited in definition by its creators to the 'program the president disclosed to the American people.' Too bad the congress persons were not yet there and did not understand what the game was wehile they had Muller on the stand.

From today's NYT:

"In insisting that there was no real contradiction between the officials’ accounts, Mr. Snow said Mr. Gonzales was just not able to explain further 'because to do so would compromise American security.'”

It would compromise the ability of the bush admin to cover up its illegal deployment of the Total Information Awareness program despite telling the gop congress it had killed it in the face of their objections.

Tony did not look so arrogant today, unlike on Wed., pre-Muller.

EH wrote on July 27, 2007 3:20 PM:

M M: That's the angle I'm thinking as well, but I don't think it'll pin them down enough to answer the way you think they should. I think the simple fact is that "TSA" encompasses all of the legal and/or uncontroversial techniques and technologies. Anything that did not make it into "the program the president described" goes into the "other intelligence activities I can't talk about" bucket. It's sophistry and semantic hair-splitting, but I think that's the contortions the administration has to go through to appear that they're following the law. Any time they weren't following the law is secret.

MN dem wrote on July 27, 2007 3:22 PM:

So lying with straight face; Mr Snow has done it so long I feel it must be satisfying to the hardcore 30% crowd. Does this resonant with the average voter? I can't imagine it can--have the Republicans just figured how to steal the next election too?

Daye Ni wrote on July 27, 2007 3:26 PM:

Sometimes one has to wonder, does a person like Snow lack any sense of human decency at all? How can he put himself through defending these indefensible absurdities? As a human being, there's got to be basic rights or wrongs everybody but the most extreme people can agree upon?

pocket wrote on July 27, 2007 3:27 PM:

That's why Snow is so careful to_not_say "TSP" as, say, "the activity of providing surveillance of people, talking with people in the United States or communicating by other means, having the federal government go after them."

Because by saying it this way would not allow the mouth of Sauron to mention terrorists 20 times in 5 minutes at a press conference. Which, by the way, is really the only way they know how to govern....through fear.

Anna S. wrote on July 27, 2007 3:28 PM:

Snow is the WH's Newspeak translator; the person facts visit to be stripped of their meaning:

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

Snow might add Lies are Truth to Orwell's 1984 Ministry of Truth slogans, but I think that's all he'd need to add to pretty much wrap up his politics neatly.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:37 PM:

I think there was no TSP until December 2005; Admin had to coverup NSA leak so split the all-encompassing NSA programs into TSP and all else, then backdated the distinction.

Comey et al were objecting to the "NSA programs" (Read Mueller's testimony) that were obviously previously bundled together into a single authorization package, whereas Gonzales is adhering to the TSP and totally stonewalling on the other (controversial) aspects of the NSA warrantless wiretap programs.

The obvious disambiguation question to ask Comey or Mueller or Ashcroft, or a Gang of 8 member, is this:

Before March 2004, were the programs we now know as the "TSP" a part of a larger set of intelligence measures grouped together and being authorized every 45 days? Did Comey object to a specific subset of this intelligence package?

If you wanted to get real nasty, ask this one: Did the program Comey et al objected to concern purely domestic surveillance done without a warrant?

Hey, by the way, where is Jake D? Kinda miss the bugger.

Woodhall Hollow wrote on July 27, 2007 3:38 PM:

This is how the exchange REALLY went at the WH Presser:

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he SAID was, `Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'

`Come, we shall have some fun now!' thought Alice. `I'm glad they've begun asking riddles.--I believe I can guess that,' she added aloud.

`Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?' said the March Hare.

`Exactly so,' said Alice.

`Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on.

`I do,' Alice hastily replied; `at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know.'

`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the March Hare, `that "I like what I get" is the same thing as "I get what I like"!'

`You might just as well say,' added the Dormouse, who seemed to be talking in his sleep, `that "I breathe when I sleep" is the same thing as "I sleep when I breathe"!'

`It IS the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:40 PM:

By the way, Mueller didn't use the TSP terminology because he knows the "TSP" did not exist in 2004- it was a made up term to dissemble the Dec 05 leak.
Mueller was being honest and covering his ass, knowing full well that this TSP bullshit is gonna sing Gonzales, and whoever came up with it.

Dan wrote on July 27, 2007 3:47 PM:

Snow seemed to be drifting back and forth between two basic rationalizations for Gonzales' testimony: 1) that there are myriad aspects of the TSP, and Gonzales was referring, in his testimony, only to one aspect; and 2) that, though there had been controversy regarding the TSP, it had been resolved, and Gonzales was only testifying that there remained no unresolved controversy, as of the time of his testimony.

Sully18 wrote on July 27, 2007 3:48 PM:

All this Newspeak,Double speak,linguistic terrorism,or just good old out and out lying is rapidly getting old.
I`m becoming anti-semantic.
I saw some great bumper sticker material on Kos the other day: PELOSI `07.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 3:52 PM:

And here is another tidbit. Look at Gonzo's 2/6/06 SJC testimony and notice that he refers over and over again to the "program that the President Authorized" as necessarily including foreign contact.

This means the purely domestic portion of the NSA-driven programs may have approval outside the President's purview.
My guess:
1. The Dark Side NSA programs originated in the VP domain.
2. Comey objection ratcheted up the President's need to know. 3. Gonzo and Card enlisted to keep the shite from blowing up.
4. No Go.
5. Next day pres gets Comey and gives assurances to make it right. They may have ended the purely domestic business at that point (or not).
6. 12/05 leak time. Pres rebriefed, and TSP born.
7. Pres has no problem "Authorizing" that part. But the pre-2004 domestic is probably hanging out there in history with no authorization......

Pure speculation.

pocket wrote on July 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

Hey, by the way, where is Jake D? Kinda miss the bugger.

Posted by: drational

I think he might have taken a sick or vacation day. And no, I don't miss him.

Lars Thorwald wrote on July 27, 2007 3:54 PM:

So what he is saying is that the part which wasn't controversial is what the White House and Gonzo oare referring to. the part which Meuller notes is the contoversial part, which he can't discuss? Okay, so which part did they take up at the meeting and what was discussed in Ashcroft's hospital room? Call the programs "Duck Soup" and "Crown Royale" but answer the question.

Code: Attack, as in assault (on reason)

Austin Cooper wrote on July 27, 2007 4:01 PM:

I've been using TSP for years with no issue.

(Just make sure you're wearing gloves before
washing down paintable surfaces.)

Sorry for the stupid joke, but I need scrap of
humor I can get, these days.

Code = good

Austin Cooper wrote on July 27, 2007 4:02 PM:

pocket: No, you don't.

Official A wrote on July 27, 2007 4:06 PM:

"`Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. `You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!'" Posted by: Woodhall Hollow

Snow might say "I lie through my teeth," is the same as "I smile while I lie," and, for once, he'd be telling the truth.

James wrote on July 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

"Tony did not look so arrogant today, unlike on Wed., pre-Muller."

That's the part that bothers me the most. They lie about their illegal activities, and they have to put on a big attitude in the process.

The Bush administration's patented way of being doubly offensive.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 4:12 PM:

This makes Clinton's "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" sound positively straightforward.

drational wrote on July 27, 2007 4:14 PM:

Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination?
Comey Testimony.
Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation.

Comey dropped that name for a reason....

Scott L wrote on July 27, 2007 4:17 PM:

Looks like Bagdad Bob changed his name to Tony Snow.

random error wrote on July 27, 2007 4:19 PM:

Gonzales has perjured himself, because no matter how many programs there are , no matter how many secrets Bush has stashed away- the problem is that Gonzales said that the TSP- or whatever- was the program referred to in the meeting with the Intelligence Committees just preceding. It has to be, because he is claiming the imprimatur of the Intelligence Committees- who, according to him, AUTHORIZED him to get this program signed off.
The name or names of the program do not matter. What matters is that the IC- according to the AG- instructed him to get this issue with Ashcroft resolved. The TSP, therefore, means what the IC understood it to mean. The referent of the term Gonzales used in the IC meeting is the legally operative one, and so it must be the same- exactly the same- as the one Gonzales argued with Ashcroft about.

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

If this briefing doesn't point to the need of transcripts, nothing will.

Jack Hughes wrote on July 27, 2007 4:28 PM:

The point of distinction in Snow's defense may be the difference between:

a) The warrantless wiretap program (aka TSP) as we (think we) know it now.

b) The warrantless wiretap program which was so unconstitutional and criminally egregious that it was going to spark mass resignations from the DoJ and FBI if it were to continue.

Rove's propagandists are trying desperately to use the difference to provide some shred of cover for Gonzales' serial perjuries.

Flip Wilson wrote on July 27, 2007 4:30 PM:

Clearly Mueller was referring to a teaspoon -- using an abbreviation and not an acronym.

Joe wrote on July 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

Impeach 'em all and let Tim Russert sort 'em out. Snow is grasping for hairs now, since he's all out of straw.

I love the smell of impeachments in the morning. Smells like a toilet that was just flushed and sprayed with Lysol.

OCPatriot wrote on July 27, 2007 4:32 PM:

Amazing how Snow suddenly is in the midst of this. Snow is only a spokesman, but he acts like a player. Either the President or Gonzales needs to speak about this, not Snow. Snow, I must remind everybody, is just a hand- or mouth-puppet. He also sometimes doesn't tell the truth, obfuscates and prevaricates. He needs to go and the President needs to be chastised by the MSM and reporters for allowing this charade of half-truths and "spin" - all meaningless - to go on.

OCPatriot wrote on July 27, 2007 4:35 PM:

TPM needs to re-examine their own covert support of Snow, by giving him the space and credibility he doesn't deserve and by enabling him. Taking Snow seriously is a bad mistake, as the MSM has done for too long.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 4:45 PM:

STUDY MUELLER'S HESITATION

I would encourage a "fresh look" at not just the transcript, but the _audio_:

["Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes."]

It appears he _almost_ mentioned "national security council" program. . . NSC is not the same as NSA. Another way to read between the lines . . ."National security program": Something that is _outside_ FISA; and _outside_ what the FISA current covers. . .although it was intended to cover _all_ things.

Listen closely to the pauses, spacing, and hemming and hawing. Mueller is dancing around something that -- it appears -- President and AG have said falls "outside" the FISA-coverage: This might be a Canadian-Australian-NZ-UK data transfer program: Whereby non-US interception methods are used, but the data is forwarded to the NSA through non-direct US means.

. . . .

Also, if the Senate's Leahy/Specter do not trust Gonzalez, why would they trust him on this AG-certifications under FISA? If he's been lying to the Senate, then his AG-certifications on "OK to do this without a warrant" are also in doubt. He could define anything -- rightly or wrongly -- as being under that umbrella.
Question becomes: What certification has the AG made on things that not even the Gang of 8 was told about; and how was the NSC (not NSA) involved with the oversight of this, outside FISA-Gang of 8 review?
"National security" could mean: "Maintaining morale" or "maintaining confidence": That could mean providing false information to the public; or, based on data mining, issuing public news releases to justify public support for illegal activity; or maintain confidence in something that was an illegal contract. This would involve capture through NSA of meta-language; then stripping out identifying information;; then transferring that data to a firm like Flieshman Hilliard which would examine it, and issue public news releases on various government "public oversight" and "media messaging issues": Smith Act issues in re domestic propaganda: Possibly a "public service" announcement to maintain loyalty in non-sense. Something for AT&T to discuss.

PW wrote on July 27, 2007 4:48 PM:

As credible as snow in Washington in July, maybe.

I guess I mostly agree with OCPatriot: take Snow off the quotable list.

I also guess we'll be looking back at this time not too long from now wondering how we didn't spot all the other warrantless activities -- including outrageous surveillance programs -- which are yet to be revealed.

Londonreader wrote on July 27, 2007 5:08 PM:

Menwith Hill in Yorkshire England is the largest electonic listening base in the world. Nominally belonging to the RAF it is apparently operated by US personnel

details here.

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/mhs/

Interestingly it was in the news yesterday.

Britain has agreed to a US request for the RAF Menwith Hill monitoring station in North Yorkshire to be used as part of its missile defence system.
Defence Secretary Des Browne said the system was "a building block to enhance our national and collective security".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6916262.stm

sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:13 PM:

Where is the shame?

Sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:19 PM:

... and I weep for what were the ideals of the United States of America.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 5:19 PM:

I think I have figured out why Mueller is parsing his words and what the White House is protecting:

The illegal Project X wiretaps had captured information on Zacarious Moussaoui that could have prevented the 9-11-2001 attacks from occurring at all.

"A senior FBI official attending the White House meeting on July 5th (2001) committed the bureau to redouble contacts with its foreign counterparts and to speed up transcription and analysis of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), among other steps.

But when the field agent in Phoenix, Arizona, reported the suspicions of a hijacking plot just five days later, the FBI did not share the report with any other agency. One must ask, why?
...
On August 15,2001, an alert civilian instructor at a Minnesota flight school called the FBI" ...
The FBI office in Minnesota attempted to get a FISA warrant, but they were rebuffed. A crucial mistake, because Zacarias Moussaoui’s possessions contained evidence that would have exposed key elements of the September 11th plot.

But, why was this request denied? Again, the historical facts must be analyzed.

In March 2001, an internal debate ignited at the Justice Department and the FBI over wiretap surveillance of certain terrorist groups. Prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the Chief Judge of the FISA Court, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into Michael Resnick an FBI official who coordinated the Act’s applications. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller (then deputy Attorney General), ordered a full review of all foreign surveillance authorizations.
...
The article goes on to state, “the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning.”

How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks?"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/senatecommittee091802b.html

Sandor wrote on July 27, 2007 5:21 PM:

Rise again. Truth. And justice. The American Way.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 5:37 PM:

NSC-RUN PROGRAM, LIKE IRAN-CONTRA, OUTSIDE CONGRESSIONAL-LEGAL OVERSIGHT

An "NSA/NSC" supporting function/unit does not necessarily mean intelligence gathering or intercepts. NSA-NSC-related units can be assigned anywhere; and their intelligence gathering is not isolated to electronic methods. It could involve civilian contractors assigned to commercial entities not obviously connected with the US government; and not obviously involved with verification of Signals intelligence. The personnel may or may not have any idea that they are assigned to a group that relies on NSA-collect information or that they are involved with verifying information the NSA/NSC has an interest.

. . . . .
"Why I suspect Darth Cheney involved in program origination? Comey Testimony. Philbin objected to legality of NSA program, and Addington had the biggest hand in ending Philbin's career. Payback for ruining Addington's pretty NSA operation. Comey dropped that name for a reason...."

Posted by: drational
Date: July 27, 2007 4:14 PM
- - - -

Recall, it's CIA that was sharing info with the EU on the rendition; and Plame was retaliated against by OVP: and the OVP blocking the archivist audit. Addington knew about the European Detention centers.Not getting info on the naval-based detention centers.

Recall, Iran-Contra was an NSC-run operation: Cheney was involved. Could be the same kid of thing -- something run out of NSC, not the DoJ or NSA. Not clear that the "NSA" vs "NSC" is a typo: Suspect its different: NSC, not NSA, appears to be running these things.

Recall DoJ met with the intelligence personnel at various sports facilitates in DC. Keep thinking Plame and Cheney were about sending a message to Cheney' private intelligence network -- likely linked through Halliburton -- to send a message: "Plame outing" is what will happen if you crosss the VP. Seems to simplistic to say this is only about oil, and retaliating against others who spill the beans. Libby's name was mentioned in the context of "basketball," another program -- that came up during the Grand Jury reviews; his counsel was worried Fitzgerald had access to NSA-GCHQ-intercepted information of legal counsel.
. . .

Philbin was former OLC, meaning he probably clashed with Addington on the legal aspects of Rendition/prisoner abuse as well. Philbin documented his concerns, which the Congress can ask for since those memoranda and their existence on this subject have been disclosed. Mentioning Philbin may have been merely a suggestion of which people/memoranda to specifically ask for.
Philbin was aware of the "security" issues of GTMO; and likely would have been involved with discussions in detaining prisoners in Eastern Europe.

1. Support Aspect: NSA resources supporting, or outsourced
"NSA" or "NSC" program doesn't necessarily have to mean just data interception, but _use_ and _support_ of other activities: Combat, intelligence analysis, interrogation, or direct support for the CIA. Problem NSA and DOJ have is when CIA -- possibly connected with this "other program" -- have talked to the EU. EU may have more information about this "other program" than the Congress has been directly told or understands.

2. Direct reporting to NSC, outside Congressional oversight
IF this is an NSA "program" it could be a support function for the NSC, or one of the combatant commanders; or made to _look_ that way to hide the real objective of the activity. They may have classified it as an "NSA Program" to bury its real objective as a domestic-CIA-cover action program, which is illegal, an "open secret" but explained away as a "training program" like Operation Falcon: Use of Federal resources at the local level for training, manning support, and domestic intelligence gathering in conjunction with CIFA.

3. Posse Comitatus
This could be a special access program within DoD that is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, hidden as an "NSA program" but a domestic security force backed by combat forces/special forces units which have the power to issue arrest warrants, detain people, and target those who oppose the illegal activities.

4. Individual Cells, untraceable, multi-agency
I haven't seen anything to suggest that the President could not, through DoD and CIFA, establish a Gestapo-like "NSA program" within the DoD community, and then outsource this to local law enforcement -- JTTF. They've got people that cross flow between the guard units, local law enforcement, FBI, and to civilian jobs all day. They could be creating individual cells within JTTF units that are comprised of NSC contractors, data analysis, and law enforcement whose sole goal is to act as a direct reporting entity to the NSC. They could very well be reporting directly to people working for Cheney, and Congress and JCS might never realize who or what was actually assigned, or relying on DoD assets.

5. DoD Entities With Personnel Assigned Stateside
DoD could ery well have created "foreign entities" in other countries, who then are in charge of these personnel stationed in the US. DoD was given this power to establish foreign intelligence and combat support entities overseas; however, if that's mutated, the NSC may have subcontracted to these DoD entities US-based personnel who directly support NSC: In effect, creating an NSC-NSA support function under DoD foreign entities, but basing their contractors in the US..

SUMMARY
Mueller appears to be referring to a sub-contracted effort which indirectly supports the NSC with a special domestic security unit. These units engage in direct engagement with state-side personnel and civilians. Contractors, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel are assigned under non-direct-NSC-NSA units, but are hidden inside commercial entities. The groups appear capable of moving quickly, with no direct supervision, but act as internal security forces, completely outside FISA oversight. They appear to be entities unrelated to FISA, but are front line units which verify information, gather intelligence domestically, and help NSC pinpoint targets which NSC contractors are assigned.

RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Congress examine the Operation Falcon; determine which NSA/NSC personnel were assigned to oversee.
B. Examine the budget lines inside the DOD foreign entities support accounts; and determine which banks are used to challenge those funds. Determine how the DOD funds are funnelled overseas through the NSC entities, then back to the US to these individual groups.
C. Review the "investigative leads" and ground rules JTTF and local law enforcement use to dissuade detection of the domestic intelligence gathering efforts.
D. Review the destruction logs of the CIFA; and determine who was supposed to keep the logs related to these classified documents.
Determine which signalling systems, monitoring, and other intelligence gathering the JTTF are using; and where this information is sent. Ultimately, it winds up somewhere: Which contractors, NSC staffers have access to these reports.
E. Examine with Congressional Counsel whether it is the intent that these domestic security services operate this way; and whether, as FISA is written, this type of activity would fall outside what the FISA Court can engage.
F. Review the DHS domestic interrogation facilities. Look at the gas mileage for the DHS pick up teams. Review the files they've had access to; and the basis for detaining someone. Review the complaints of citizens being forcibly removed from their cars, engines running, or being taken from their homes while school children are present in the early morning. Evidence includes car impound fees.
G. Discuss with POST and local LE efforts used to dissuade public awareness of intelligence gathering: Excuses given to hide pre-textual stops; and examine whether local officials do or do not keep adequate records related to officer complaints and requests for civilian oversight to examine officer misconduct.
H. Examine problems during audits: To what extent officers in LE, FBI, and DHS are concerned when reports of officer misconduct arise; and what methods auditors are aware to segregate complaints about officer misconduct from auditors:

1. Have they been asked to leave the room; were concerns explained away; were officers complaining they were "short manned" an unable to supervise; and how do these explanations square with the officer conduct.
2. How often are these units employed to provoke innocent civilians to respond to abuse?
3. To what extent are these domestic units used to harass civilians based on a "hunch"?
4. Would these units put the children of minors at risk to entrap a suspected target?
5. Is there no report of any of these personnel ever exposing a minor to a potentially unsafe situation to engage a target?
6. Has the FISA court, Congress, and Judiciary been fully apprised of how these units operate; their procedures; and oversight requirement to ensure 42 USC 1983 claims are minimized?
7. What insurance do these units have if they are engaged in liable action?

DallasNE wrote on July 27, 2007 5:39 PM:

In all of this hair-splitting over the scope of a definition it has confused me on one point.

Is this part of the same program that amounted to the phone records of millions of Americans being handed over by AT&T in St. Louis and other locations. And could that have been the part that Comey would not sign off on?

PontchartrainPete wrote on July 27, 2007 5:40 PM:

I kept waiting for a reporter to say, "Tony, what's the meaning of is?"

Seriously, folks, the US Attorney firings and voter caging are nothing compared to the possibility of thousands of felony counts that could arise out of the administration's actions outside of FISA. I think it's an easier issue for the public to understand if impeachment proceedings were to begin.

1. Was there a wiretap placed on a phone based on US soil?

2. Were the provisions of FISA followed in placing the tap?

3. If no, then it's a felony count.

4. Repeat

johnnydoughey wrote on July 27, 2007 5:43 PM:

I listened to Snow today and realized how he got his name. Kinda reminded me of those carnival barkers I heard as a kid.

cv wrote on July 27, 2007 5:53 PM:

In other words, Comey never had any objections to the incarnation of the program that he found acceptable. Of Course.

Larry Hanry wrote on July 27, 2007 5:55 PM:

Yesterday afternoon when Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Tony Snow he made this same point about Mueller's testimony admonishing WB to refer to the transcript and he would see that Meuller never said TSP.
Lost in this was an argument he had made just seconds before in that interview concerning testimony by Whitehouse aids explaining that the administration will allow them to testify but not in public, not under oath and not with a TRANSCRIPT.
It seems that a transcript is a no no unless it can be used to prop up your own position.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:09 PM:

LEARN LESSON OF OLC IN RE SUBPOENA RESPONSES

Recall, OLC issued a "memo" saying that WH Counsel did not have to testify. This, according to the WH, was "gospel." Untrue, but that's another issue. OLC made a "rule" and then everyone said, "See, that's what they said."
Now, consider this, from TPMM quote, above: ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] That could mean anything, anybody, and without reference to any legal standard.

"not legally controversial" . . . _according to whom_. . . ?...:
- OLC?
- Consensus within NSC?
- Consensus within NSA?
- Rove's determination?
- Gonzalez assessment after talking to Goodling about door mats for the Hoover Building?
. . .

What's their idea of "non legal controversy", as opposed to a "controversy that is real, but not based on a law, just the Constitution"?

What is someone like Darth Cheney said, "We need to justify this -- find a reason. Ignore words in the law if you need to. Just give me a memo. You get an appointment to the bench if you can figure this out." What if Roberts or Alito gave a really good opinion on this and made everyone -- in that room -- believe it was "not controversial", even though it was?

. . .

Again, saying ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean:
A. "other programs" were controversial;
B. "other groups" _are_ doing illegal things, but you haven't asked us about them, so we haven't made up a lie. . . yet;
C. OLC "determined" (using a feather, some fairy dust, and after gazing into GOodling's eyes) that anything the NSC wanted to do under Cheney was OK, just as long as nobody traced the money.
. . .

There's another way of looking at this ["that program was not something that was legally controversial."]
D. "This program" is different from "that program" which has been hidden in another budget, unrelated to the NSA or NSC:
E. DoD _is_ allowed to do things overseas, and contractors have been assigned -- working for those _overseas_ entities -- in the US.
F. The data that is managed is channelled, but the contractors have no idea who it is they are monitoring: All they see is the raw data; someone else then recombines the data if there is a problem.
G. If we find a problem in the data, we then use the data we've collected to justify the warrant; if we can't get one, we self-issue one, and get the AG to certify it as being OK> Never mind that Qwest objected.
["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could also mean:
H. Legal counsel assigned to our units have been told to keep their comments to themselves
I. All contracts supporting this activity are -- by definition -- "legal contracts"; (just don't talk about whether they support a lawful or unlawful objective. Far too scary to contemplate!)
J. "not controversial" could mean all the legal views that opposed it were ignored; and the remaining opinions were in "full support".
K. The legal counsel who knew of the Constitutional violations were sent to Guantanamo, threatened with nasty things: "To the washroom, counsellor! No gloves for you."
L. Legal counsel who remained quiet were promised a "good rating" by "the decider" in their upcoming DOJ ranking list -- the names given to the Senate for Federal Benches.

"not legally controversial" could mean all case law showing it was illegal was ignored; or selectively rewritten, as Addington well did with the Iran-Contra minority report.

["that program was not something that was legally controversial."] could mean: other programs were contentious; but since AG Gonzalez is on the pig-spit this week, we need to pretend we are concerned, even though we are not.
The people who said this was "no problem" and were not saying tat it was lawful, just that it wouldn't be a problem to find a judge who they could bribe to not take action.

"not legally controversial" does not mean that it was legal; only that the in "someone's mind" (God knows where) their idea of "controversial" is a different definition which does not use controversy. Maybe legal counsel who opposed were _not_ using spears with _poison_ tips, so the spin misters said, "See not controversial, if they ere really upset they would have had nasty poison, the kind that makes Ebola look like a fuzzy kitten." The infamy! How dare they!

Sue wrote on July 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

If it weren't that the subject of this discussion is so damn serious, Tony Snow sounds for all the world like he's saying "...it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is...."

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:12 PM:

Posted by: Larry Hanry
Date: July 27, 2007 5:55 PM

Transcripts can tell you alot: The changes, pauses, and hesitations -- especially when compared to the audio -- can be very revealing: Find out if they are changing their pace of word; and is it liekly they've been fed lines through an ear piece like Bush is. Someone is pulling the strings; someone has a script.

The problem is when the questions asked do not match the scripted answers. How about some last minute changes to the questions to throw them off, Congress?

EH wrote on July 27, 2007 6:14 PM:

cv: Exactly!

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:17 PM:

This is not necessarily true: [}Very obviously, the program Mueller referred to was the Terrorist Surveillance Program."]

The "other programs" could be things _far too scary_ to contempate. Recall, this Preident is linked with war crimes: It means nothing for him to set up camps, and make people disappear. "all for the cause. . ."

Put the burden on the President: Prove those internment camps you've built aren't being used; and that the prisoners aren't out "exercising" when the Auditors arrive.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 6:32 PM:

I don't personally think the fact that they are or are not referring to "this" or "that" or "TSP" or "Not TSP" is the issue: The fact is that there isn't a consistent story, raising the question: What other activity is occurring that may be an NSA-related function, but has been organized to fall _outside_ FISA oversight, but is still illegal under the Constitution:
- Roving bands of contractors harassing US citizens;
- Temporary detention centers to detain US citizens without warrant or trial;
- Use of tax information by JTTF to compel US citizens to explain things that the agents are not able to determine through NSA intercepts
- Groups whose sole function is to fill in the gaps in the NSA intercepts, and provide some meat to explain what is going on with something that is unusual, but they don't want the court to know they're looking at . . . again.

Recall, the RNC has deleted/destroyed e-mail. If this "other program" were "OK," how does the RNC explain the failure to retain detain related to an ongoing "OK" activity? [I realizes this assumes the RNC e-mail was related to the activity; but isn't that the point: The RNC believes that this activity is lawful, so why not discuss it by email?" What if the RNC, when it first created the backup email system, through nobody would find out about it; and they assumed the e-mail would never see the light of day because of "privilege" claims. But when, what if someone from one of the law firms associated with he CIA went to the EU, and the RNC realized, "Oh, no. . . they've figure it out; it's not lawful; and we're in trouble. Destroy everything." IT doesn't make sense to destroy evidence related to a "legal program" when that activity -- if it were lawful and non-disclosed -- should be protected by privilege. Rather, it appears they realized private would not work, and the documents would not be shielded.

The question goes back to DOJ, OLC, and outside counsel: [ "When you learned of the "other programs" involved with this intelligence activity, did you fear that the information in the RNC accounts would be disclosed; or was there something you learned from the EU -- and CIA visits with the EU -- which prompted the evidence destruction related to rendition, FISA< prisoner abuse, and other things OLC apparently "all agreed" -- in a perverse Yoo-like fashion -- was "lawful". . . (never mind Geneva, FISA< or The Constitutional requirements)." ]

Sounds like a law firm which was auditing a company related to various NSA programs and prisoner transfers should have detected this chance of fraud, and internal control problems. Or is a law firm saying, despite attestations to the SEC on those financial statements, that they had "no idea" what was going on, despite counsel's awareness of the activity -- as evidenced by their meeting with the DoD General Counsel's staff on these very issues?

myrna wrote on July 27, 2007 6:50 PM:

It's a sad thing that Tony Snow has chosen to spend what time he has left in this world continuing to spin and tell lies for George W Bush and his dishonest administration. Surely Snow could find honorable work and leave a legacy in which his family can take pride.

Paul Prappas wrote on July 27, 2007 6:52 PM:

All this hair-splitting over the name of the program shouldn't be at issue. It's a red herring. Gonzales claims that he was seeking re-authorization of a program that he claimed the "gang of 8" had approved. Who cared what it's called. It required "authorization" by DoJ. That's why Gonzo and Card visited Ashcroft - for "re-authorization". So any objections by Comey to "other intelligence activities" - as claimed by Gonzo - are meaningless unless these activities were part of the program that required authorization. Comey's objections were over the program.

It's the program, stupid!

lysias wrote on July 27, 2007 6:55 PM:

The NSC is empowered to task the NSA.

lysias wrote on July 27, 2007 6:58 PM:

For example, the USS Liberty, although under the operational control of NSA and operating under Joint Chiefs orders when it went to the East Med in '67, was ultimately doing the bidding of the NSC. Its mission had been authorized by a special subgroup of the NSC.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 7:08 PM:

By Paul Kiel May 15, 2007 on TPM:
"The deadline for the Justice Department's providing its sign-off of the program was March 11th [2004] (the program required reauthorization every 45 days). On that day, Comey, then the acting AG, informed the White House that he "would not certify the legality" of the program."

By Spencer Ackerman today at TPM:
"The only relevance is Comey's objections to TSP -- the surveillance program that began in October 2001, no matter how the Bush administration wishes to obscure the issue."

By Spencer and Kiel yesterday - "Prior to 9/11, such surveillance had to be approved by a FISA judge so as not to violate the 4th Amendment."

My question is:
How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program? Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001? Because they say so is not good enough.

Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal? And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?

Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?

EBMckinnon wrote on July 27, 2007 7:15 PM:

"Namely, they merely have to acknowledge that when they use the term "TSP", they are referring to the program ultimately approved by Bush. When others use the term TSP, they seem to be referring to a larger set of activities, some of which may have been bundled in with a previous form of the NSA program from which TSP also derived."

Posted by: frankly0
Date: July 27, 2007 3:12 PM

That's the specific question that needs to be asked of each and every witness that shows up to testify. "When you use the phrase TSP, are you referring to the program precisely as the President disclosed?"

The administration is definitely playing semantics, but I would hope that at least one member of ANY committee could pin down what each and every witness means when they refer to TSP, NSA program(s), warrantless wiretapping, etc. Rep. Lee attempted to I think, but she still left room for ambiguity.

PeterS wrote on July 27, 2007 7:27 PM:

Ok, call me cynical, but does any one else feel that the administration could attack Iran right before the 08 elections and then cancel the elections for fear of emboldening our enemies? Then of course the AG's office and the Supreme Court will side with the Bush/Cheney based upon executive privaledge during wartime?
Am I crazy for even half thinking that could happen?

db wrote on July 27, 2007 7:31 PM:

Program X seems to have infiltrated TPM! My comments are being censored.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 7:32 PM:

I sincerely feel compassion for poor Tony. He's obviously not doing well, and perhaps we need to applaud his bravery. He has to be on some very potent drugs in order to stand up there and lie continuously, all the while scoffing at the audacity of those who dare ask such stupid questions. It's really quite sad.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 7:50 PM:

"September 5--INS entered the September 4 notice of revocation of Mihdhar's visa into the INS lookout system. The State Department identified Mihdhar as a potential witness in an FBI investigation, and inspectors were told not to detain him."

For what FBI investigation was al Mihdhar a potential witness? Why was it first ordered to detain al Mihdhar because he was armed and dangerous and thereafter ordered to not detain him because he was a potential witness in an FBI investigation? Al Mihdhar was "armed and dangerous" and "participating in terrorist acts" that were defined as "airline hijackings" and using "weapons of mass destruction." Who ordered his non-detainment a mere five days before 9/11? Perhaps current Secretary of State Rice (former National Security Advisor on 9/11) or her State Department counsel, Philip Zelikow, (former 9/11 Commission Staff Director) might have some answers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/the-kings-red-herring_b_12589.html

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 7:51 PM:

I kind of feel sorry for Tony these days. He looks like crap, and while it's tempting to chalk it up to the effects of chemotherapy or whatever health problems he's had, I suspect it's truly the result of spending his days telling lies to keep a guy he knows is a moron out of trouble. I'd say Tony would be a lot happier and healthier if he'd find himself an honest line of work.

-30- wrote on July 27, 2007 7:55 PM:

I'm still confused as to why Mueller thinks it's necessary not to say "TSP." It's already been discussed and publicly. Why so coy? Is my brain not functioning this week?

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 7:57 PM:

"Program X seems to have infiltrated TPM! My comments are being censored."

You're not being censored. What's happening is that a certain company in Australia doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

You know who you are, mate...

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:01 PM:

I know this makes me sound like a total dick, but next time, I'm rooting for the cancer.

Sorry, but nobody takes a shit on the country I love and then tries to rub others' noses in it.

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:03 PM:

I know this may make me sound like a total jerk, but next time, I'm rooting for the cancer.

Nobody dumps on my country like Tony does, and then gets away with trying to rub our noses in it.

Jamey wrote on July 27, 2007 8:04 PM:

Oops. Thought I had tripped the censor wire with my uncharacteristic use of profanity. Apologies.

foolme1ns wrote on July 27, 2007 8:06 PM:

It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Mark F. wrote on July 27, 2007 8:08 PM:

"I'm still confused as to why Mueller thinks it's necessary not to say 'TSP.'"

It's a word game--a way to lie without actually lying. Have you ever noticed how, whenever the subject of torture comes up, current and former members of the Bush administration always reply in the same way? They're always very careful to say, "We do not torture." It's a slightly odd phrase that always sounds a little awkward and non-conversational when they say it. I'm guessing they made a little rule that allows them, if they say it exactly that way, to do so without technically lying. Listen for it next time someone from the administration talks about torture. It's very odd.

mo2 wrote on July 27, 2007 8:11 PM:

Sorry for more, but this seems relevent.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0301resnickerrors
"An FBI agent, angry over a glitch in an e-mail tracking program that has somehow mixed innocent non-targeted e-mails with those belonging to al-Qaeda, reportedly accidentally destroys all of the FBI’s Denver-based intercepts of bin Laden’s colleagues under investigation. "

It also says that the FBI’s deputy director has told agents that contacting prosecutors without the OIPR’s permission is a “career stopper.” [OIPR = Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department]"

Sick&Tired wrote on July 27, 2007 8:38 PM:

Tony needs to spend his days trying to get closer to his God and not lying so much.

db wrote on July 27, 2007 9:39 PM:

". I'm guessing they made a little rule that allows them, if they say it exactly that way, to do so without technically lying."

Yes, the rule is they go by John Yoo's definition of torture, which means if it does not cause organ failure or death, it's not really torture.

And with TSP, that means only the program the president disclosed to the public, nothing else. Same game, which is to lie through your teeth. Muller was hip to the game and thus refused to use their TSP designation cause he knew it was just a mechanism to lie and have an escape hatch from perjury conviction and did not want to muck up his testimony with such horseshit, excuse my language.

olman wrote on July 27, 2007 9:40 PM:

TONY SNOWJOB = MAX HEADROOM, but pathetic.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:49 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 8:11 PM

Thanks. BTW: The "wall" argument [ in re FISA "needed reforms" ] falls apart: DSP combined the CIA and FBI info _before_ 9-11, making "the wall" irrelevant. It's not a real problem then, now; and the "solution" is a red herring.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:54 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:08 PM

My question is:

mo2" How do we know October 2001 was the beginning of the illegal spying program?"

Excellent point: We don't; allegations are that the _illegal_ surveillance started _before_ Sept 2001.

-------------

mo2: "Given that Bush/Rice were warned about al quaeda before Bush was sworn in in 2001, why is it thought that they did absolutely nothing before October 2001?"

Good point again.

mo2:" Because they say so is not good enough."

Right. Getting warmer.

-------------

mo2: Could it be that they did do something, but that something was illegal?

You are correct.

mo2: "And they feel it is better to be called do-nothings than criminals?"

Also, they like the idea people are focusing on the wrong surveillance, wrong time period: The confusion menas they can blame Congress for "not asking teh right questions."

mo2: "Can somebody please provide the link to the testimony that says the TSP started on October 1, 2001?"

Someone said that, you're correct; but TSP isn't necessarily what's being talked about.

- - - - -

THe point is: If the GOP will not convice Gonzalez for lying, then Gonzalez needs to explain why his comments are _true_:
- What programs could exist under both the inconsenst statementes of Gonzalez; and also the disparity between what Gonzalez and Mueller are saying.

The GOP Senators canot have it both ways: Sayhing, "AG is telling the truth; but not having any information to support _that_ conclusion.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 9:59 PM:

Posted by: mo2
Date: July 27, 2007 7:50 PM

The problem they have: Not only were they doign illegal things _before_ Sept 2001; those illegal things did _not_ work.

There's no basis for the President to say, "We need to do more of this illegal stuff" as it didn't work before Sept 2001; rather, what's needed is the opposite: "Given we tried ilegal things, and _that_ didn't work, who has some other ideas?"

They can't ask _that_ question because they'll admit:
1. They screwed up
2. They have no clue
3. They're not able to hire someone to help them out

The only option they have is to pretend the problem is one thing; and then solve that "new problem" in a way that appears to solve it. Forget the fact that the problem they may be "sovling" is illusory. They may have defined the program in terms of what _appears_ to be a solveable problem.

IN other words, if they've realized that they can't win, they['ll [a] redefine the enemy in terms of what Congress can be led to believe is a credilbe threat; and [b] redefine the solution in terms of not solvinga real problem, but in terms of what appers to solve what they've created the impression is the problem.

Problems, solutions, reality, and the illusion may or may not be matching: This may explain why things are not appearing all that straightforward: They're still tring to figure out how they're in power despite their stupidity.

Joseph Combs wrote on July 27, 2007 10:16 PM:

It's never been a "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The correct abbreviation is "ASP", "American Surveillance Program". There is no question that nearly all of the NSA activities involved US nationals: analysis of their voices; "trees" of who called/IMed/e-mailed whom; and ATM/PayPal/check imaging intercepts. The scale of warrantless interception of personal/private data is well beyond what major media have uncovered and published.

Anonymous wrote on July 27, 2007 10:20 PM:

these folks have zero dignity

Josh Marshall wrote on July 27, 2007 10:50 PM:

I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site. We weren't ignoring your complaints. The delay was caused by the fact that TPMm was not set up in a way to make it easy for us to ban someone. But we made some changes to make that possible. In the nature of things, Jake my resurface with another name or log-in-point of entry. And if that happens, let us know, and we'll get rid of Jake 2.0 too.

As I've noted on other occasions at TPMCafe, conservatives or people who for whatever reason don't share our editorial viewpoint are welcome here. The comments are not for adulation. But there's a difference between dissent and willful efforts to disrupt the conversation. Jake D. clearly went way over that line.

Josh

1oldlady wrote on July 27, 2007 11:30 PM:

People...there has surfaced new emails about voter fraud on truthout web site... oh my gosh!!! some shocking stuff! Now what are WE going to do about all the crap that keeps plaguing us daily??? and not to mention our Constitution!!

I am afraid if congress goes on recess brake, this administration is going to do something that could look like marshal law!

kentuck wrote on July 27, 2007 11:36 PM:

Dang! This crap sure does stink!

George W Bush should have been impeached the day he came out and admitted to illegally spying on millions of Americans. That was the day he decided to change its name to "Terrorist Surveillance Program"...Because if we are surveilling "terrorists", then that makes it all right. Right?

Wonder what it was called the day before he and Rove came up with that "new" name? Wonder if it might have been called "Total Information Awareness" Program which was supposed to have been shut down many months before? But, in a sleight of hand, they decided to keep it going. It was just too good to turn loose.

But they couldn't call it the TIA because that would have been an even worse admission. Yep, it sure stinks to high heaven...

Bill wrote on July 27, 2007 11:47 PM:

Thanks! Adieu Jake.

security code: waste

jimbo92107 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:21 AM:

My, what a tangled web.

They're looking more like the Nixons every day.

Rm wrote on July 28, 2007 12:41 AM:

What date would the executive branch give for the starting date of the TSP? Was it before March 10,2004? If not what was the program that the NSA was conducting prior to that, that the white house signed off on? Was that a legal program?

plr1960 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:46 AM:

Tony Snow is one piece of work! I swear the man's nose grows every time he opens his mouth.

Yet, he's still the darling of Christian conservatives everywhere. Check out what he wrote for the evangelical journal, Christianity Today, when they asked him "what spiritual lessons he has been learning through the ordeal (with cancer)."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/25.30.html

Myrna wrote on July 28, 2007 12:47 AM:

" but does any one else feel that the administration could attack Iran right before the 08 elections and then cancel the elections for fear of emboldening our enemies? Then of course the AG's office and the Supreme Court will side with the Bush/Cheney based upon executive privaledge during wartime?Am I crazy for even half thinking that could happen?
***********************************************
You're not crazy. I wouldn't put anything past the Bush Administration. I was already thinking what if they used another terror attack to refuse to hand over power to the new President. Giuliani made some noise in that direction after 9/11...floating the idea that NYC needed him to remain in office after his term was over.

The Bush Administration does not shrink from the unthinkable; and an honest Attorney General working for a new Administration might open investigations that could lead to criminal charges for the lot of them. So the Democrats had better consider possible scenarios Bush and Cheney might try to hold onto power,including a declaration of martial law, and plan how to deal with it before it happens.

db wrote on July 28, 2007 1:23 AM:

Forgive another post from me...i'm confined to home due to temporary medical condition. Typing is one of the few things i can do right now!

"They're looking more like the Nixons every day."

It's 'feeling' more like the beginning of the end of Nixon's farce, too. This week was a definite turning point. Look at the change in Snow's demeanor from Wed. to today. Mueller had clearly had it with these people. He wasn't going to play the game. Others may follow.

The dems need to be prepared to impeach. They should not seek it out as a strategy, but neither should they rule it out. Rather, knowing what we know about this admin, where there is NO reasonable doubt that they have committed impeachable offenses, congress should be ready to proceed with impeachemnt because chances are more and more bad stuff and bad behavior is in the pipeline. At some point, it is irresponsible, an abdication, not to impeach.

My sense is that for the first time, this congress is beginning to see that they may have to act. They might be forced to impeach, not only to preserve the integrity of the constitution, but also because these are bad people and the evidence of unlawful and outrageous conduct is starting to really build and will continue perhaps to the point where they will have no choice. They will have to act.

Finally, please try to let go of the meme that they are going to cancel the elections, etc. It's not surprising that people fear that, given the last 6 years. But it sounds whacked out and crazy and there is no evidence and people would be in the streets with guns if they tried it. It would be the surest way for them to lose power, forever.

Myrna wrote on July 28, 2007 1:36 AM:

Tony Snow is one piece of work.. Check out what he wrote for the evangelical journal, Christianity Today, when they asked him "what spiritual lessons he has been learning through the ordeal (with cancer)."
*************************************************
Snow wrote:
"We don't know how the narrative of our lives will end, but we get to choose how to use the interval between now and the moment we meet our Creator face-to-face."
**************************************************
So continuing to spin and lie for Bush, the worst President in the history of our country, is Snow's choice. I was feeling sorry for the man-maybe he needs the money or has to stay on the job so he won't lose his health insurance. Now I wonder whether the illness has affected his brain.
How do you suppose Snow plans to spin his service to Bush when he finally stands before his creator?

The Oracle wrote on July 28, 2007 2:04 AM:

"Terrorist Surveillance Program" is just a later incarnation of the "Total Information Awareness" program that supposedly was scrapped, due to it's blatantly illegal domestic data collection activities. Warrant? Who needs a warrant when building a data-base on all U.S. citizens and covering everything that can be uncovered about all U.S. citizens?

This TIA program was the one BushCo instituted in early 2001 before the 9/11 attacks, as they started converting the federal government into the 2nd edition of the Nixon administration.

After 9/11, the Bush administration essentially just dropped the name TIA (voila, it disappeared), and replaced the name TIA with their "Terrorist Surveillance Program" designation, while keeping intact all the illegal, warrantless surveillance and data collection processes that BushCo had established with all the "lap dog" telecommunications companies in the U.S..

This is why the "lap dog" telecommunication companies are trying to get legislation passed to make them immune from lawsuits filed by patriotic U.S. citizens who are defending their constitutional rights, defending their right to privacy and their right to be free from illegal searches and seizures.

TIA was being developed as a giant intelligence and surveillance vacuum cleaner, sucking up everything on American citizens that it could, while totally bypassing the FISA court.

BushCo dumped the name, but kept the program (as TSP), still totally bypassing the FISA court. This is what BushCo is trying to hide. This is what even spooked some lifelong Republicans in the Justice Department. They recognized a program that was just as illegal as anyone Richard Nixon had set up, an illegal domestic data collection program that had it's inception before the 9/11 attacks.

Johnsnottoodistracted wrote on July 28, 2007 2:35 AM:

Waiting for them to drop these invented concept/alterna-takes/mental garbage/space fillers.Why anyone would sit through this and then bother to report it should settle any who gets their paycheck from who question.
This is a bad act with non-critic robots.
You think f-non-news would have trained this guy better.He is totally unable to make stuff up.
What is he doing there??
Has anyone he works with noticed he is not prepared to fabricate.
Why would he know anything about any of this anyway?He surely is not an authority.

Next?

anon wrote on July 28, 2007 3:12 AM:

So - maybe the plan is for Gonzo to hold on til the recess, then resign and be replaced by a middle of the night appointment worse than he is - how about Harriet Meiers - after all, she didn't get the Supreme Court, and we know she's a loyal Bushie.

If it all weren't such a joke, I'd be depressed.

drational wrote on July 28, 2007 5:40 AM:

On Tony Snow:
I suspect he is like Ziegler (Nixon) and McCurry (Clinton) who were deliberately kept out of the loop to be "effective" Press Secretaries (Spin machines). His measure will be made if he recants or resigns when he learns the truth.

On the start of "TSP":
The Admin (Gonzales) in testimony, written communication and "White Papers" have consistently noted that the FISA requirement was vacated by AUMF, which was passed 9/14/01. Gonzales written and oral testimony from 2/2006 states that "TSP" was initiated in October 2001, before Patriot act, but after AUMF.
http://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/doj032406.pdf

On Mueller not using the words "TSP":
Mueller didn't use the TSP terminology because he knows the "TSP" did not exist in 2004- it was a made up term to dissemble the Dec 05 leak. He knows the extent of the NSA-surveillance programs and why they were controversial and is not getting dragged into the cover-up.
Mueller was being honest and covering his ass, knowing full well that this TSP bullshit is gonna sink Gonzales, and whoever came up with it.

On why this story lives and the call for Sp Prosecutor:
In 2006, Schumer raised the issue of Comey. Schumer led Comey through his May 2007, SJC testimony.
The others 3 callers for Sp. Prosecutor: Whitehouse, Feingold, and Feinstein- are all on the Select Intelligence Committee, and have likely been most fully apprised of the NSA programs (and understand the lies) at this point. The Sp. Prosecutor is not targeting only Gonzales, but the architects of the cover-up.

On Jake D.
Thanks!

kentuck wrote on July 28, 2007 7:55 AM:

This is a story with more legs than a centipede. I sense that there is a curiosity awakened in some parts of the media and this story will not go away until that curiosity has been satisfied. That curiosity will not be satisfied until the White House comes up with a better story than the one that Tony Snow attempted yesterday.

It is not enough to simply say that it is "classified" and we cannot talk about it. Especially when the supposedly "classified" material is in contradiction to what most other Senators and Congressmen remember. So, where does it go from here?

Do I smell onions? When the FBI hands over the handwritten notes of Mueller to Conyers next week, that will only be another layer of the onion. Slowly, everyone is starting to smell the same onion.

Unfortunately, AG Gonzales slipped the noose around his own neck with his latest rendition of testifying before Congress. Most of the Republicans on the Committee did not even show up to question him. He has lost the support of his Party, whether he knows it or not. The President alone cannot save him, contrary to what he may think. He may end up dog-paddling in thin air.

Also, people want to know what was going on before the TSP declaration by the President of the United States. This is not going to disappear, like so many other stories. There is blood in the water...

TheraP wrote on July 28, 2007 8:50 AM:

kentuck:

All of it: Well said!

db wrote on July 28, 2007 8:57 AM:

"On the start of "TSP":
Gonzales written and oral testimony from 2/2006 states that "TSP" was initiated in October 2001, before Patriot act, but after AUMF."

Yes, but the designation "TSP" was never used to describe the program until after the NYT broke the warrantless wiretapping story in Dec. 2005. The term originated on a couple of winger blogs, notably newsmax.com in dec 2005 and then redstate.com in early January 2006. The WH picked up on the term and used it for the first time in a press release Jan 22., 2006. Within days, FoxNews started using it every chance it got. (See MediaMatters and Google.)

So, while the domestic spying activities started in 2001, the TSP designation (and bifrucation) did not come into being until after the NYT exposed the illegal activities. The term did not exist or was not used at the time of the famous hospital visit. The artificial bifrucation of legal and illegal activities (TSP and program X) gonzo relies on did not exist then either, it would appear.

Doctor Jay wrote on July 28, 2007 10:00 AM:

I think that what the WH has done is to split the programs, as mentioned. Both are SAP (special access programs) which means that even revealing the existence of a program that is SAP means instant jail time.

Make no mistake, Mueller and others understand the threat to them, and so do the questioners. If Mueller says, "No, it was another program," he goes to jail, put there by the Administration.

What's even more fun is that the gang of 8 isn't approved for some of these SAP programs.

The president has the authority to declassify whatever he wants, and presumably Gonzales is using that authority. Hamsher described AG as "selectively declassifying" material to bolster his case.

There's something really ugly being hidden here. And it's quite a chess game going on, too, since lots of people, Senators, Congressmen, and civil servants, know things that they can't say in public.

msmolly wrote on July 28, 2007 10:04 AM:

Posted by: Josh Marshall
Date: July 27, 2007 10:50 PM

I notice a few folks who asked or wondered what became of Jake D. Simply put, we banned him. We heard the many emails and requests you sent in describing how much he was intentionally disrupting the conversation and community here. We agreed and we banned him from the site.
*********

Phew! Thanks, Josh. What a relief. I *love* honest dialog and debate with people whose ideas differ from mine, if they are courteous and respectful.

Harmonika Savingsbonds wrote on July 28, 2007 10:19 AM:

JESUS CHRIST, TONY.

That you would spend your last days on earth defending this pack of liars tells me YOU think your life really isn't worth saving.

You have accelerated your Cancer with this choice.
What a goddamn shame to see a man waste his life away on this administration.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 28, 2007 10:58 AM:

Thanks, Josh!

party-of-one wrote on July 28, 2007 11:38 AM:

In all of its dishonesty and incompetence, the Bush-Cheney administration invokes "Executive Privilege" and "National Security" to hide their mistakes and increasingly their crimes. Why does a Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to enable this administration? Our Democracy is badly damaged and may be beyond repair Bush and Cheney are not held accountable.

party-of-one wrote on July 28, 2007 11:39 AM:

In all of its dishonesty and incompetence, the Bush-Cheney administration invokes "Executive Privilege" and "National Security" to hide their mistakes and increasingly their crimes. Why does a Congress sworn to uphold the Constitution continue to enable this administration? Our Democracy is badly damaged and may be beyond repair if Bush and Cheney are not held accountable.

Steve5117 wrote on July 28, 2007 12:23 PM:

Josh:

Thanks for calling in an exterminator. I was wondering whether a post at TPM or a policy statement might bring back Mrs. Panstreppon.

I recall reading one of her last posts that she would go elsewhere if Jake's posts were disrupting the muckrakers here.

Are there others who miss Mrs. Panstreppon?

Anna S. wrote on July 28, 2007 12:40 PM:

Steve:

I must have missed the post she made explaining that, but yes, I was wondering where she had gone. She was very good at digging up resources that others missed. I would have liked to see what she could find on the recent Alaska shenanigans.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on July 28, 2007 1:56 PM:

Steve and Anna,

Thanks for the kind words. I very recently had to retire from blogging at the TPM Cafe so I decided to get out of the comment business altogether. A friend of mine will probably take over where I left off, time permitting.

I am delighted that Jake D is no longer permitted to disrupt the TPM MR dialogue. When he first showed up, I said that he was going to ruin the comment section for everyone and he did.

Mrs P

melior wrote on July 28, 2007 2:29 PM:

We need a catchy new name for the not-TSP.

I propose "Innocent American Citizen Surveillance Program".

Rolls right off the tongue, don't it?

chabuka wrote on July 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

the corporate mainstream news media..all say "Well (poor) Tony is not really in the loop" they (WH) dosen't "brief him on everything"..Its his job to snowball justice".... B.S.!! We the people know less than old Snowjob does and WE know whats going on..they (the WH) is lying and lying and lying..and Gonzo & (Bush) needs those smirks smacked off their faces! Hard!

melior wrote on July 28, 2007 3:08 PM:

Tony Snow's blowing smoke really doesn't reconcile the statements at all.

"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified."

Compare and contrast.

Mueller: The discussion was on a National -- uh, NSA program that has been much discussed, yes.

GoAskAlice wrote on July 28, 2007 3:31 PM:

Steve5117:

Yes! I, too, miss Mrs. Panstreppon and her doggedly thorough investigative work, her brilliant insights, her clever retorts and refreshingly frank comments! I really appreciate her, 'just the facts'/no bs approach.
She has a rare ability to educate and inform our TPM community on very complex and important issues without being a windbag. Please come back, Mrs. P, we need you and we miss you!

bb wrote on July 28, 2007 4:03 PM:

Just because Tony SnowJob suffered from a cancer affliction does not preclude him from being a c$cksuckin' liar all of the time!! A really useless Davidson College, Mecklenburg County, Charlotte, NC moron!

Davidson College was the dope capital near Charlotte, NC when this hippie freak was attending Davidson College.

He did not attend a Univeristy. That would have been to hard for him It would take brains for god's sake!!

sandys wrote on July 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

Wonder why someone didn't tell snowjob the "meeting with asscraft" was to get his ok to do all their little spying and eavesdropping WITHOUT a court order???....No one said the meeting was only about being able to spy on folks.....They obviously don't want to discuss the part about them doing it without a court order.

bb wrote on July 28, 2007 4:48 PM:

Wow, my last 2 Security Codes here were:

"blood" and "credit"

How "GW Bush" creepy is that?

I'm looking forward to "peace" and "intelligence" soon as alternatives!!

Aggie Kass wrote on July 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

So, am I losing it or:

Comey was against the program (as it was initially and illegal), but since it was not called "The Terrorist Survelliance Program" until AFTER the program was revised, Gonzo can claim that it was "other survelliance issues". Talk about a sewer loop of obfuscation. And the hmmming and hawing from Mueller about the "TSP" is giving us a glimpse of how Gonzo is hanging his hat on those "other" issues. He must think the turnip truck is out en masse.

Molly Ivans wrote on July 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

Raise Hell!!

Anonymous wrote on July 28, 2007 6:53 PM:

KNOW THE NATURE OF US GOVERNMENT LEGAL COUNSEL AND WHAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF DOING

I read this, and thought of the attorneys in DOJ who were saying gum this to death; and what Gonzalez has been saying/doing -- Lying, obstruction: ["Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay"]

The quote and subject are not as important as the point: US Government legal counsel will obstruct justice, and stupidly document that obstruction: How many of the RNC e-mails would WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel have sent back and forth on their progress in blocking review of FISA, Geneva, and other illegal activity; then delete these e-mails when they learned it was on the Libby/Abramoff Grand Jury subpoena list?

Know who you're up against: People who have no remorse over engaging in illegal conduct, and (apparently) hiding evidence related to executions of people who opposite reckless conduct. These are lawyers who are doing this: The very people who supposedly are the "best" and "brightest" in the legal profession: The same people who are put on the Federal Benches. Congress needs to take a wider view of the DOJ Staff misconduct in re FISA, Geneva, rendition, and prisoner abuse.

Doesn't look as through Congress has really woken up to the recklessness in the legal community. Let's get some state level disbarment investigations going; and forward the results to the public so we can throw it back at them during future confirmation hearings.

The lawyers were behind the Watergate break-ins, and the Holocaust. We can't let this happen again, and the lawyers need to be put on a tight leash. They've defied their oath, putting their party and President before the Constitution. That which is not lawfully opposed, will continue; the legal profession, left unleashed, will do what is least expected: Turn the law inside out to justify genocide, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and defiance of their oath and Constitution.

A president does not do this on their own; nor does a Congress -- with lawful options to end it -- have much of a defense when they have powers to investigate, block funding, and compel oversight. The Ranking Members of the Committees have had this power to compel reviews since day one. Doesn't matter that the GOP "controlled" Congress: The DNC has the power to filibuster bills; and could have issued letters to the DoJ-NSA-CIA-DoD IG requesting assistance. There's no merit to any assertion that "nobody was going to do anything" -- how do the Members of Congress explain the effort to _do_ something: Pass proclamations calling for Congress to impeach _despite_ the GOP "controlling" the US Government.

One answer: There is a way to lawfully oppose. There is no merit to any assertion that there is no opting; or that were are stuck with this abuse. There is a way: If Congress will not oppose this abuse; and Congress will not end funding, then there is _someone else_ who can be trusted to assert their oath, and defend the Constitution. Assent to DNC-GOP joint assent to this despotism is unacceptable. It doesn't matter if its unwillingness to impeach, refusal to investigate, inaction on subpoenas, or stupid assent to DoJ-US Atty decisions to do nothing to enforce the law. _Someone else_ can be found who _will_ do their job. Stop listening to excuses of why this "cannot" be done;and _find_ a way to make those who have an oath to _do_ their job: Defend the Constitution, even it means prosecuting the President, VP, Speaker, and House Judiciary Chairman for [a] violating Geneva; and [b] refusing to enforce the Constitution using all lawful options. It is reckless -- this many years after 9-11 and the disclosures of the prisoner abuse and illegal NSA -- for Congress to be still rubber stamping legislation/funding: There are options to end the funding, which the DNC refuses; and there are options to lawfully target legal counsel complicit with this illegal activity.

This isn't about DoJ, FISA, or RNC e-mails, but whether legal counsel -- with that "special position of trust before the court" -- can really be trusted; or whether they need to be overseen, audited, and intruded upon as if they were a branch of government. America's legal counsel have expected too much deference for reckless service; and this many years after the illegal activity has surfaced it is absurd for the American legal community to flaunt "how great it is" or ask anyone to embrace the "American model" when the lawyers have their disastrous results on _their_ hand. Their only solution appears to be to laugh at what they've done to gum things up; never realizing We the People have the option to get them disbarred, and make _them_ the lawful target of war crimes prosecutions. America's lawyers, indeed, did learn the lesson of the Holocaust: How to commit illegal warfare and not get caught. We the People have something to say about that. This is far from over. These are issues of international criminal law with one large defense pool: American legal counsel inside DoJ, OVP, DoD, and outside counsel

They wished this.

- - - -

[BTW: The quote is from the Tillman case in keeping criminal prosecutors from reviewing the close-range gun shot wounds to Tillman, leading some to believe that he was executed to silence him for his anti-war stances he was apparently going to advance outside the military. Tillman is reported to have been frustrated [a] there were too many shows going on in Afghanistan; [b] they were really not going after AlQueda; and [c] the staged engagements were just a dog and pony show, not really serious about defeating an enemy.]

TheraP wrote on July 28, 2007 8:27 PM:

I too will miss Mrs. P. But I trust that whatever she is now doing will forward the cause. And that her "friend" will do justice to the position that is now vacant.

Hats off to Mrs P!!!

Ducky wrote on July 28, 2007 9:04 PM:

It sure was nice to Mrs. Panstreppon again. I am sorry that she has to retire from blogging. Her posts always seemed to bring it all together for me. I am new to this, so I do not post much because I do not want to come across as a total boob.

I am glad that Jake is gone, as well. Thanks Josh. He really knew how to throw a debate off topic.

It disturbs me that a man as ill as Tony Snow appears to be isn't handing the reins to Dana so he would be able to make some memories with his children.

If I was in his place, I would be traveling with my family and "living" for as long as possible.
HE should be thinking of his family. Why would they want to watch old news clips of their husband and father lying for Bush when Tony could be doing some much more noble.

Bush isn't worth the effort it takes Snow to utter any words much less lies.

AS anyone read John Dean's new book?

Anonymous wrote on July 28, 2007 9:15 PM:

Posted by: Ducky
Date: July 28, 2007 9:04 PM

If you see content on here that seems confusing, feel free to ask about it with specific questions; or what you would like clarified. You may be asking the right question to help focuse the issue. Fresh eyes are good. Please continue to post. Thanks.

1oldlady wrote on July 29, 2007 1:46 AM:

Ok...I did some major emailing to night. Drafted this letter and sent it to every senator on the Judicial Committee. Even the Republicans! I wanted to make sure it was not PARTY...focused on their Oath, and the Constitution.

What do you think? did I waste my time?

Thanks.
--------

Thank you for your service. I am puzzled by the vision set forth which has facilitated that party comes before serving and defending the Constitution of America.

This troubles me personally that the Constitution is for the people and not by a political party. During your time in the Senate, you have seen many debates that have moved you to go beyond party lines, but thats where the Constitution holds no boundaries.

Do you as a citizen of the USA have love of the Constitution and hold its words dear to your heart? And as a Senator, did you take an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution? If so, you are bound by this oath to do so and this is where I am puzzled by the actions of many Senators who rather place their political party before the Constitution.

If the Senate keeps regressing on holding this administration accountable for the deceptions it passes as truth, regardless of which party may be in the white house in the future the same powers that are asserted now, will still be in place for future administrations.

This is an action that must not cross party because its the Constitution that is in need of Congress's intervention.

I plead to your wisdom of law and human understanding in defending what we are and where we are going as American's. With out your wisdom and your colleagues intervention, our form of life will cease and Congress will vanish, with out our Constitution.

Regardless of party, Regardless of power...One must be held to uphold and defend the Constitution, Regardless of the outcome and the negative feedback one may consume, The Constitution is the ONLY rule of law, and not ruled by people.

Thank you

TurtleNS wrote on July 29, 2007 1:57 AM:

Q from Sen. Hy Pathetical to AGAG: You seem to differentiate the program commonly known as TSP from the program Comey and Mueller and others had legal problems with; let's call it the Problematic Program, or PP. Is TSP the program which resulted when you constrained PP to meet the objections Comey and other DoJ & FBI officals had with PP?

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:07 AM:

TurtleNS...

Now you must work in a goverment office! They love actiniums and every thing is in a form number!

So, the TSP is form Devil666

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 9:57 AM:

To 1oldlady:

Amen! You have it exactly right!

Couple that with the NYTimes editorial - and, if we the People can prevail upon elected leaders and government workers to put the Constitution above party... we can perhaps save the Constitution and our form of government.

Otherwise, we are lost.

Now is the time for all of us to reread the Declaration of Independence. To be selfless in our commitment to have a nation of laws, a nation which pursues justice for all - for all citizens of this land and also for all peoples, so that we can once again hold our head up before the rest of the world.

Since 2000 - when the Supreme Court acted unlawfully - we have been in a Constitutional Crisis, which has only worsened over time. Either the Constitution can be restored - and we use constitutional means to do that. Or it needs to be retooled, if flaws have been found which leave us vulnerable to another lawless president - and that by constitutional means as well.

And yes, as Josh mentioned in his blog post - right now the AG's reckless and stubborn protection of a lawless president is preventing the very housecleaning that must happen - if we are to survive as republic, rather than founder as a dictatorship.

In my view there is nothing more important than salvaging the rule of law and restoring checks and balances and the notion of government serving the people.

The word is "muscle." Flex your muscles, Fourth Branch! If necessary we must turn to nonviolent civil disobedience - until our elected officials remember they are OUR REPRESENTATIVES!

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 10:09 AM:

This post is for our "mystery poster" - who seems to be asking for specific questions - in order to help us clarify the many long posts.

Mystery Person: I will do my best to go back and formulate some questions. This may take me a day or two. But I will do that. I wonder if I should do that here - or perhaps post some questions as a blog post at the Cafe.

Do you have any suggestions - whether for me or others who may want to do this? Roberta also seems willing to help here. And maybe others.

I'll wait for your suggestions.

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 10:42 AM:

TheraP

I'm not quite sure what you are saying is needed. I know that there has been so much deception on the part of this administration that it is sometimes difficult to explain it to someone who is not as informed as others.

Perhaps you and Roberta can become two new Mrs. Panstreppons in keeping the TPM community informed.

Jimbo wrote on July 29, 2007 10:49 AM:

If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.

The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 11:22 AM:

What's left Jimbo? Your Soul!

These greedy bastards want the Middle Class to be obedient little workers supporting the Military-Industrial Complex that has corrupted our government. The current administration's every move seems to have been designed to strip away our ability as common citizens to raise objections in various aspects of our life. All we'll be free to do is go to work so we can pay, pay, pay...

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:41 PM:

Thank you for your vote of confidence, Steve. But I see my role as different from that of Mrs. P's. She is good at ferreting out information. I am perhaps better at cheer-leading efforts such as hers and trying to synthesize or put my finger on sore spots.

Honestly I see us all as working together here - in many different ways. But it is a joint effort. And as painful as what we confront may be, it is also thrilling and humbling to be a participant.

I am as prone to error as the next person. And glad for the community here - all struggling together for the way forward.

Re your response to Jimbo, I think you have it right. Blackmail or whatever our weakness may be is what they're after. For one it's money. For another power. Others want fame. If it's not a carrot, then they are looking for whatever stick we fear. That seems to be the method for keeping everyone in line. Reward some. Punish others. And send the rest shopping. How can we buy your soul? That's what they're after!

And our task, above all, is not to let go of that soul.

Like Josh's view of blogging - we can each find our task, our chosen role, and remain committed. I have no fear that we have really "lost" Mrs. P.

And if the "Mystery Poster" or anyone else wants questions - so we can clarify confusion - I'll do my best. If I'm mistaken about that, well and good too.

But asking questions, figuring out where our ignorance lies, finding problems - these are vital tasks. We have had altogether too much of propaganda. And we need to ask questions. And keep asking questions. And proposing hypotheses - to be tested.

The word is "bucket" - and tpm is like a bucket brigade!

JEP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:47 PM:

...As the scent of gunpowder faded from the room, Tony blinked twice, waved his hand in front of his face to clear the fumes away, and repeated, "There is no smoking gun!"

Tony Snow is the new Baghdad Bob.

Busy morning, lots of comments, that's good to see again...

PS I don't doubt Snow's got some health problems, but the timing of his "discovery" remains very doubtful. remember he's a Fox guy, and they are notorious for saving up faux news stories to break conveniently.

Anyone recall who had announced she had cancer just a day or two before Tony's public health confessional?

Timing is everything.

It's like Tony's "sudden" ailments were really just another Rovian bowel movement, to offset the sincere sympathy we all had for Elizabeth Edwards.

Like I said, I don't soubt Tony's got colon problems, but the timing of his suddenly "desperate" situation just plain stunk.

Sorry, Tony, if I'm wrong, but your new pals just don't provide a trustworthy legacy for me (or anyone else with a brain of their own,) to think anything is going on here but the worst lyin' sack of cow-manure scenarios.

JEP wrote on July 29, 2007 12:54 PM:

Mrs. P;
If someone would do some hard work and find all your old posts, then publish them in context with some other related comments, it would be one of the most educational documents on the book market today.

And it would be a virtual Bolgger's primer...

Just a suggestion. Also, have you ever considered a dictation software program?

Please, WE NEED YOU STILL!!

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 1:06 PM:

JEP:

Mrs. P has a HUGE amount of information on her blog (at the Cafe), together with advice for how to search for such information.

And despite her farewell comments, I doubt she will really be "gone." She may just need to do her same work in a more unobtrusive way. Fight fire with fire, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:00 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 29, 2007 10:09 AM

Do what you have to do. The problem is simple: The clues are emerging; the issue is whether people want to see them, then dig. The answer are not hidden, they are not as deep as you might think. One thing surfacing in one area, sheds light on what else is happening in other areas. Take the larger perspective.

Anonymous wrote on July 29, 2007 2:04 PM:

If their really were talking about two separate programs i.e. the one we know about and the one we don't, I have to wonder what the one we don't know about could possibly be.

The fact is they have access to our telephone calls (cell and land line) our email and snail mail, the web pages we visit , our financial transactions, what we borrow from a library, and our medical records. They even claim the right to enter our homes without telling us about it. I mean really, what's left, satellite photos??

Posted by: Jimbo
Date: July 29, 2007 10:49 AM

---------------------------------------

In my view the question of "are there one, two, or more programs" isn't relevant: The _known_ information shows there's been _illegal_ activity.

Whether there is _alot_ of illegal activity; or whether there is _multiple_ or _many_ program's merely confirms the foregone conclusion: There's illegal activity.

Time to stop digging for "confirmation" of what we know; and compel Congress to explain why -- despite the known illegalities -- they continue to fund what they know, or should know is illegal.

Murtha's cutting of the DoD COngressional liaision office budget shows that the budget tools are there: "Mr. President, cooeprate with our inquiry; or you get no money." The arugment that the GOP is 'blocking' the DNC is fiction: The DNC can cut the money and _make_ the GOP "pass" an Amemdnet to add money back.

Again, I appreciate there are people who want to spend time getting clues and "figuring things out" -- in my view, it would be more productive to take the information that we have, and give it to the DNC is a simple format: The FISA violations are known to be illegal; either cut the money, or we're going after you wtih prosecutions.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 2:30 PM:

Larger Perspective. That's something I can do. And yes, I can see how this issue of what happened on March 11, 2004 - wait a minute! ...that's the date of the Madrid bombings!!! (suddenly that fell into place!)

Click. Click. It's like trying to pick a lock.... though I've never done that.

Ok, folks. This whole thing happened the very night of the Madrid bombings!

We need to look minutely at every aspect of this event related to Ashcroft and the Total Information Awareness (which I believe is still in place... though secretly).

And we need to take the larger picture. I'd say beyond even what was happening in the US. What else was going on around that time? And how do all of these things relate?

And how does what's happening in DoJ mirror what's going on through the rest of the government and so on?

Steve5117 wrote on July 29, 2007 2:46 PM:

TheraP

The DoJ has had a hand in illegal vote suppression, failure to proscute Republicans and their supporters, bringing false charges against Democrats and defending the illegal changing of rules and procedures. Then there's the Supreme Court.

I wonder how much dirt they got on their own people to keep them in line?

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:11 PM:

I'm sure it's huge, Steve. I'm sure it's huge.

Think of Powell who dragged his feet on the war, but suddenly, inexplicably did that UN presentation. Why?

We don't need the dirt here. But we need to consider how many people are compromised.

How many cover-ups are there?

Yes, we can surely guess that elections have been compromised. Think voting machines. If you can gather info, you can gather what's going on in an election. And if you can gather that info, if you have this huge ability to tap information - for example to tap the phone calls of the people who did the surveys of people after they voted.

And then we know it's possible to change computers regarding tallies of voting machines and also the scanned votes that are tallied.

So, you've got blackmailing. You've got outright buying of people, and you've got ability to tap into what the likely voting patterns are as well as changing the outcome.

Then if they tap everything, they know what's going on in campaigns, in the Congress, staffers, courts, you name it.

Madrid Bombings: that occurred right before the election in Spain. It promised to be a very close election. And the conservative was on bush's side, his opponent not, promising as I recall to pull the Spanish troops out. The bombings occurred, and Aznar blamed ETA (the Basques). That enraged the left - and they arranged for demonstrations outside govt buildings or something. And they sent each other cell phone messages urging all leftists to vote for the Socialists. This tipped the balance! And Aznar lost the Spanish election.

Now - who knows if they feared something similar could happen in the US? It was also an election year.

Ok. Maybe that's too far afield. But now it makes me wonder if there are any events in the US related to the London bombings?

Anyway - I think we need to examine everything connected with the Ashcroft bedside visit. Washington Post today says that cheney ordered that. What about Cheney's shooting accident?

Ok. Time to sort fact from fiction from illusion.

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:31 PM:

London bombings: 7/11/05 - right during the G8 Summit.

Somebody with flow chart ability - we need to see how many tentacles there are, how many ways this affects efforts to control the US, but also to control events in the world.

Too many coincidences here.

What have they got on Tony Blair - to keep him on board?

TheraP wrote on July 29, 2007 3:39 PM:

Larger Perspective.

Here we have Petreus, counter-insurgency "genius," in charg