Captain's Quarters -

Two points.
One, I prefer Hinderaker's analysis.
Two, Audi Alterem Partem.

I'll be happy to "hear the other side", but I'm going to be very interested in why they went to a man who had already acknowledged an inability to execute his office for approval on such a serious matter when Comey was officially the temporary head of Justice.

As far as John's analysis goes, I agree with it. Gonzales and Card didn't do anything illegal. That doesn't make it smart or right.

Be careful, Ed; you may be getting too big for your britches. I'm with Terry and Hinderaker on this one. You seem to be piling on.

If they had obtained Ashcroft's signature it would have been an illegal act given how Comey was officially the acting Attorney General.

Also keep in mind that the call to Ashcroft's wife at the hospital telling her that Card and Gonzales were on the way came from President Bush himself. Not a small detail, that.

It sounds to me like both sides only got half of the story from the other, didn't trust each other, and only Ashcroft could resolve the impasse. Being the AG means being inconvenienced, interrupted, and uncomfortable sometimes. So does being President in an era of global terrorism. Sometimes, thousands of lives can depend on these "little" decisions.

"Prefer" all you like; but Gonzales stinks.

He sits in meetings where he is a potted plant; pushing responsibility for positions he takes, out there. On others.

The "ref" has dropped a red flag down. And, there will be a pentaly against the GOP side.

Having lawyers doesn't help ya; when you're confronted with the stuff ... that say ... confronted Richard Nixon.

It was Nixon's choice to do what he did. And, it was ultimately much worse than if he had come out early, and spoken the truth. Instead of trying to "game" it. PRICE WAS PAID.

Bush is sitting on the ropes. He has few friends in DC. And, this "race to a sick man's bedside;" when you begin to read the lineup ... With Comey racing up the stairs to the ICU, leaves you wondering NOW, not just about Alberto Gonzales' "problems," but Andrew Card's SANITY.

Well, you don't get to a mismanaged White House, without noticing how the "managers" mismanage.

Worse. Bush is past the point where he can have a heart to heart talk with anybody outside of his "bush business." Lots of Americans, including, yes, the "independents," and the RINO's, have already pulled away.

Yesterday, after Jerry Falwell had breakfast; and he dined with someone else from his organization. Both left breakfast to go to their own offices. No sounds were heard. Jerry Falwell didn't even fall down. Just appeared okay. And, then was dead.

Most of us expect death to come with great trauma. And, yet, it seems this is not always the case. So, there's shock when you hear about it.

Bush, too, looks healthy. He doesn't "look wounded." But he can't get the upper hand in DC, or even on the world stage. As a politician, he's lost his clout.

While, yes, politics is competitive. And, here, again, you see what the donks have TWO PERCENT, as their advantage, and Bush is just not well served.

This "sick man story" happens to coincide with issues that were out there, earlier.

If you think Americans are buying Bush's handling of terror, then why isn't there more supporters?

If you've got the right things going, American support usually follow you, easily.

This one is not gonna sell to the public as a president capable of doing the right thing.

Ill served by Card. And, just another hokey example of Alberto Gonzales being a useless tool.

As to "BUSH SENT THEM," since Ashcroft's wife was informed by the White House that they were due; STILL HAS A VERY SICK MAN RISING OUT OF HIS BED to tell Card and Gonzales "NO."

Okay. Put in BOLD that the president sent these two turkeys. It's a point. But it's a point that goes to the other side. Wrong Way, Corrigan.

You know, you dodder along weaving back and forth from forthright to weenie, and perhaps that's been one of your endearing qualities, but this post does it for me.

How anyone could ever take anything you ever write regarding homeland security from now on seriously I frankly don't know. You've become a cartoon.

Look. Maybe things look simple to you, down there in your in-home TV studio, what with your slippers and pajamas. I'm sure at this point everything looks to you like a pedantic parlor game.

But it's not. There are real monsters out there who are dedicated to inflicting real, unimaginable suffering on your fellow countrymen.

For you to wallow in your arm chair, whacking away at the keyboard on your laptop and take seriously the self-righteous ravings of an ego maniac like Comey lumps you into the same bin as him: someone for whom the war against our enemies is just an intellectual theoretical game.

It is not a game and you need to grow up and learn how to be one of those who fight the good fight against those who would treat our current events as a game.

A likely explanation: Ashcroft provisionally approved the program while the review of its constitutionality was done. Ashcroft, being an upright guy, wouldn't approve a program whose illegality was clear. Once it did become clear, he wouldn't go along with it.

And that fits the timeline: before falling ill, I'm sure he was made aware of the certain conclusion of the review.

So there's the answer to Powerline's wonderment about how Ashcroft could have approved the program multiple times in the past yet change his mind.

RBMN, Ashcroft himself delegated his authority to Comey because he recognized he was very ill and unable to carry out his responsbilities. Comey was therefore the one to deal with, instead of making an end run around as Card and Gonzales tried to do. It smacks to me of yet another attempt by the White House to grab power in the name of national security.

Carol, if President Bush didn't want Card and Gonzales to go over to the hospital in order to obtain Ashcroft's signature, he only had to tell those two turkeys not to go.

"If they had obtained Ashcroft's signature it would have been an illegal act given how Comey was officially the acting Attorney General."

sfdude,

Are you a lawyer? I think you mean nullity, not illegal act. I suspect the designation Acting Attorney General meant Comey had capacity to act if Ashcroft couldn't act.

Carol: you STILL owe me the pager number of your dealer; I definitely want to get on the same stuff that you are on, that way I too, can post ludicrous stuff all day long!

I would take anything Comey says with several grains of salt. He's the nitwit who appointed Patrick FitzFong, is he not?

I would take anything Comey says with several grains of salt. He's the nitwit who appointed Patrick FitzFong, is he not?

Terry, Ashcroft himself said to Card and Gonzales in the hospital that Comey was the one in charge and that they had to deal with Comey. If Ashcroft had signed off before officially assuming his powers again, it would have been an illegal act. I would be shocked that Gonzales would even contemplate going along with such a chaade, except for the fact that it's pretty clear that both he and Card went to the hospital with the tacit approval of President Bush himself.

This story has given me a newfound shred of respect for Ashcroft. It would appear that he was appalled by them even coming to him to bypass Comey. In any case, he denied the midnight request even from his bed.

As we have learned, younger, healthier, greener individuals in the administration and at Justice acquiesced to various end-runs around protocol and the law for years, and even drove the bus at times.

biwah, Gonzales and Card worked directly for President Bush, who knew what was going on. The cossacks work for the czar, not the other way around, so you may want to check the ID of your bus driver before blaming those sent by him to evidently do his bidding.

Hinderaker's analysis does sound very plausible to me, and I am by no means a Gonzales fan. Not really grounds for anything in itself, but...

In the context of everything else, I would say that it points to a flaw in Gonzales' character: when told no, evade the objector and do what you want to do anyway. However, that flaw is hardly unique.

You could argue that behavior extends to the administration's entire attitude toward governance in general - we are going to do whatever we deem right, and to heck with anyone else's concerns or issues - regardless of any valid basis for objecting and regardless of whether the objector is friend or foe.

Would you want your employee or your kids to behave that way? I wouldn't.

Frankly, the sense I have is that if you are not a 100% Bushie, you get zero respect and will be ignored or evaded. The problem is that it is a lousy way to run a nation, and after 5 years of it, we wound up with a hamstrung president and a paralyzed government.

Worst of all, the wreckage left behind will take years to recover from - the next president will be less of an administrator than a janitor - cleaning up the messes left behind by the previous occupants: Defense, Homeland Security, the budget, saving the tax cuts (don't forget, they all evaporate in 4 years), and, oh yeah, now Justice should be added to the list.

sfdude: So Bush/Rove were the "dispatchers". Someone still had to "drive" these schemes. McNulty, Sampson, Gonzales, Card all executed their orders with knowledge that (and why) they were doing so covertly. In this incident, Ashcroft was a reminder that all the president's men did not necessarily have to say yes at every turn.

Well, since it seems Aschcroft's wife got the call from Bush, it wasn't just Andy Card, calling.

And, laugh all you want to. Comey was there by Aschcroft's bedside to STOP Alberto Gonzales, and Andy Card from obaining a signature in the ICU.

Don't know about the lawyer types out there; but a signature obtained in the ICU, is up there with Bob Woodward's "conversation" with Bill Casey, either right before, or right after, Casey died. Well, Bob Woodward says he was standing by the hospital bed.

You can take it from there.

As to the political issue of this thing, it's not new to the public that there have been debates about what the war on terror has been doing to civil rights. (No. I'm not taking sides! I'm just saying the debate is not new to lots of American ears.)

And, again, Alberto Gonzales is not coming off as a "swell hire," here. In an environment where the GOP will be blamed for "poisoning the atmosphere" with all their insults.

You need a drug dealer? You guys are so packed to the rim with insulting others, you've even got labels and tags. Ever hear of RINO, for instance?

Now, you think you're just influencing the world with this crap. But it's not gonna help ya extracate yourselves out of the mess Bush put the GOP in!

And, what's your compettion? The Ma and Pa Kettle Show? You take your opponents lightly. But they're beating the crap out of the GOP.

As to the story of Aschcroft being sick, I think it will make that fact a bit more known, than unknown. Given how Patrick Fitzgerald grew a whole investigation that hurt Libby, and perhaps others ... Just by having Aschcroft hand his powers to Comey. Who did WHAT?

And, now we have another WHAT?

If you're elected president in the USA, it turns lots of Americans off to see the powers of the office used in ways that are UNBECOMING.

This has nothing to do with a cigar. And, a fat lady.

And, nobody forces anybody to agree with opinions.

In a free country you'll get lots of opinions.

As to drugs and dealers, you can always grab your ass.

"Ashcroft himself said to Card and Gonzales in the hospital...."

They disagreed with the opinion of Ashcroft's deputy so they went to Ashcroft. How is this sinister?

Carol: once you come down off of your trip, just post the number please?

Olddeadmeat said:

You could argue that behavior extends to the administration's entire attitude toward governance in general - we are going to do whatever we deem right, and to heck with anyone else's concerns or issues - regardless of any valid basis for objecting and regardless of whether the objector is friend or foe.

Would you want your employee or your kids to behave that way? I wouldn't.

Frankly, the sense I have is that if you are not a 100% Bushie, you get zero respect and will be ignored or evaded. The problem is that it is a lousy way to run a nation, and after 5 years of it, we wound up with a hamstrung president and a paralyzed government.

Worst of all, the wreckage left behind will take years to recover from - the next president will be less of an administrator than a janitor - cleaning up the messes left behind by the previous occupants: Defense, Homeland Security, the budget, saving the tax cuts (don't forget, they all evaporate in 4 years), and, oh yeah, now Justice should be added to the list.

Truer words are hardly ever spoken here. Bravo!

It's past time that Conservatives stop identifying Bush and co. as the official leaders of the Conservative party - as if they are the ones that define it. When the dust has settled, I think most of us will see that a lot of damage has indeed been done to the Conservative movement by this administration.

Not sure I agree with that TyCaptains, but I am thinking that the cannonization of St. Alberto is looking pretty grim right about now.

TyCaptains and ODM, what you said should be obvious to conservatives but because most of them believe in the overall struggle if not the war they are stuck playing the nuance game. Two years will not be enough to create the distance they need from this admin, and at this rate it will take a decade or more. Falwell's death has more than a little symbolic value w/ regard to the wheels coming off the GOP wagon.

Keeping this issue confined to Alberto would take more luck than the admin has in reserve right now. If Iraq was an all-or-nothing proposition politically in 03, it truly is now. The only potential source of good news for the GOP on the horizon is that Operation Crapshoot (Iraq) will yield good results, and the chances of that are painfully slim. If that did happen, I would gladly accept a moderate GOP president for another four years (in the abstract, anyway). And rather than truly laying it out there, even the admin seems to be spltting hairs and focusing on insulating itself from political consequences.

What is depressing is while I have little confidence that any GOP administration will make much forward progress in the next four years (owing to the cleanup referenced above), I have no confidence in any of the Democratic candidates - some of their base is just too wacky.

At least when Newt too over the House, he got stuff done. It took a while for Congress to get utterly distracted by an obsession to nail the President.

This "Dem" (rhymes with ham) Congress took all of about 30 seconds to go into "to-heck-with-issues-let's-gut-the-Pres-mode"

The loud recurring thumping sound coming out of Texas is my forehead hitting the desk.

"Ashcroft himself said to Card and Gonzales in the hospital...."

They disagreed with the opinion of Ashcroft's deputy so they went to Ashcroft. How is this sinister?

Uh, you're joking right? Terry, really.
Is there nothing these guys can do to make people like you stop and think?
Besides the obvious wrongness of circumventing the lawfully appointed acting AG, and doing it in the dead of night, how many other ways can it be seen as a) illegal b) sinister and c) just plain stupid?
A) As I mentioned (and I'm not a lawyer), getting someone to sign something, anything, while the person is not only sedated but had transfered what would be called "power of attorney" is if not outright illegal, certainly skirts the edge.
B) Swooping in at the dead of the night, without warning and without telling the staff of a major cabinet member, having the Director of the FBI (for god's sakes!) telling the his agents to "Under no circumstances let Card and Gonzo toss the acting AG out of the room", what's not sinister then? Was he joking? Just over reacting? And when Comley said that he wanted a witness to any further meeting they say they are just there checking on him? Come on.
C) The F@#$ thing was reauthorized the next day without DoJ approval anyway.

How many other can you think of?

"Ashcroft himself said to Card and Gonzales in the hospital...."

They disagreed with the opinion of Ashcroft's deputy so they went to Ashcroft. How is this sinister?

Uh, you're joking right? Terry, really.
Is there nothing these guys can do to make people like you stop and think?
Besides the obvious wrongness of circumventing the lawfully appointed acting AG, and doing it in the dead of night, how many other ways can it be seen as a) illegal b) sinister and c) just plain stupid?
A) As I mentioned (and I'm not a lawyer), getting someone to sign something, anything, while the person is not only sedated but had transfered what would be called "power of attorney" is if not outright illegal, certainly skirts the edge.
B) Swooping in at the dead of the night, without warning and without telling the staff of a major cabinet member, having the Director of the FBI (for god's sakes!) telling the his agents to "Under no circumstances let Card and Gonzo toss the acting AG out of the room", what's not sinister then? Was he joking? Just over reacting? And when Comley said that he wanted a witness to any further meeting they say they are just there checking on him? Come on.
C) The F@#$ thing was reauthorized the next day without DoJ approval anyway.

How many other can you think of?

"Ashcroft himself said to Card and Gonzales in the hospital...."

They disagreed with the opinion of Ashcroft's deputy so they went to Ashcroft. How is this sinister?

Uh, you're joking right? Terry, really.
Is there nothing these guys can do to make people like you stop and think?
Besides the obvious wrongness of circumventing the lawfully appointed acting AG, and doing it in the dead of night, how many other ways can it be seen as a) illegal b) sinister and c) just plain stupid?
A) As I mentioned (and I'm not a lawyer), getting someone to sign something, anything, while the person is not only sedated but had transfered what would be called "power of attorney" is if not outright illegal, certainly skirts the edge.
B) Swooping in at the dead of the night, without warning and without telling the staff of a major cabinet member, having the Director of the FBI (for god's sakes!) telling the his agents to "Under no circumstances let Card and Gonzo toss the acting AG out of the room", what's not sinister then? Was he joking? Just over reacting? And when Comley said that he wanted a witness to any further meeting they say they are just there checking on him? Come on.
C) The F@#$ thing was reauthorized the next day without DoJ approval anyway.

How many other can you think of?

Sorry for the messed up post... my computer seized up and i resent the comment by accident!

So, on a Thursday, the brand-new counsel to the DoJ sits down with the brand-new deputy AG and informs him that there is "a problem" with some aspect of the NSA program. Not the whole program, but some detail. The next Thursday, a whole week later, the deputy AG sits down to discuss with the AG what this particular problem is. The AG, who has authorized the program 29 times already in it's heretofore unappreciated defective state, agrees that they need to get this changed before agreeing to the next "reauthorization."

The AG is not the Chief Executive, the AG is the Chief Executive's lawyer. The AG can not and could not "authorize" or "approve" of the NSA program, only the president or his delegate (the NSA chief or management) can authorize or approve of an NSA program. Or de-authorize, or dis-approve. Under the system that the president set up, what the AG was authorizing was not the program, but a legal opinion which was about the program. You know, the crafting of legal advice -- the job of lawyers.

What we know from the structure of the president's approval process is that the president recognized (and still recognizes) that the program is skating very close to the edge of what is proper and legal. He refused to simply authorize the program, and then let the bureaucrats implement it under minimal supervision, like when the air force needs a new airplane or the army needs new recipes for MREs. Instead, he insisted that his authorization had to be renewed every 45 days, and he demanded that the Chief Executive's lawyer (that would be the Attorney General) give him legal advice every 45 days to make sure that no one had realized that there was something wrong with the program in the interim.

As Comey describes it, that is exactly what happened. "The new guy" (a new DoJ counsel) looked at the program with "fresh eyes" and saw something. Something that was not an emergency -- he briefed Comey, then Comey briefed Ashcroft a week later. Then, in an unfortunate coincidence, the very same day, Ashcroft became very ill and was rushed to the hospital. This was still not an emergency, because the now-acting-AG Comey waited five days to mention word one to the white house. According to Comey's own story, he did not tell the white house the truth -- he told them that he would not re-authorize approval of the program. According to Comey's own story he did not say, "not authorize unless X, Y, Z is done to change it, no his story is "I am the acting attorney general, and I will not authorize it."

Then, according to his own story, he did the whole hospital-drama bedside thing. (Sheesh, who knew Comey was such a freaking drama queen?!?) MeMeMe!!! I am the acting attorney general! Ashcroft's voice from the cloud, "this is my Acting AG; listen to him." Then the president had to freaking personally intervene to get the whole DoJ drama society to get past "we will resign!!!" and "you can't make us sign!!!" and tell the White House and NSA what the problem was. Which the NSA spent a week or so thinking about, and figured out a way to change the program so that the objectionable part was eliminated. In the meantime, the president re-authorized the program with the understanding that the issue (whatever it was) had to be resolved right away in a way that Comey would agree to. As in the president exercised presidential authority to demand that one group of his subordinates (NSA) change their program to satisfy the opinion of another group of his subordinates (DoJ).

And once the NSA implemented or at least agreed to implement whatever solution it was to whatever problem it was, the Acting AG signed off on the legal opinion. Which brings us to olddeadmeat's ROFLPIMP example of projection

You could argue that behavior extends to the administration's entire attitude toward governance in general - we are going to do whatever we deem right, and to heck with anyone else's concerns or issues - regardless of any valid basis for objecting and regardless of whether the objector is friend or foe.

Cathyf, apparently there is an important difference between undertaking a secret program with vs. without that approval. Otherwise, why would the admin care enough to approach Ashcroft on a midnight dark and dreary? I would reckon it has something to do with being able to claim that a certain activity is legal. That would be, as opposed to illegal.

But who cares about that? Besides a bunch of drama queens, that is...Why pull your punches on your best argument, just call Comey a fag and get it over with.

The AG is not the Chief Executive, the AG is the Chief Executive's lawyer.

cathyf, the Attorney General of the United States is considered the chief lawyer of the U.S. government, not the President, and is charged with enforcing the law of the nation.

Despite what Richard Nixon once said, just because the President does it doesn't mean it's legal, and that is what Ashcroft and Comey made clear to President Bush, who instead sent Card and Gonzales to a sick man's hospital bedside to try and pull a fast one on justice.

First of all, biwah, keep your homophobic frothings to yourself. No one here is interested.

I would reckon it has something to do with being able to claim that a certain activity is legal. That would be, as opposed to illegal.

Cathyf, perhaps it would help to start at the beginning. Maybe look up DOJ on wikipedia and familiarize yourself with what function it serves. Maybe then you could comprehend why the president was so darn interested in getting DOJ approval for its secret programs, and why they might want to pull out the stops to obtain that approval. And why, yes, it matters whether DOJ finds a certain executive action to be legal or not.

It's becoming quite common these days for admin apologists to simply claim, post-hoc, "it doesn't matter," at the departure of the last shred of deniability of some contemptible, undemocratic, and/or illegal act by the white house.

Is someone confusing White House Counsel for AG?

But since Comey's decision was based on a just-completed Justice review of the program, wouldn't Comey have told that to Card and Gonzales? Wouldn't they have at least asked on what basis Comey made this decision? Certainly, the White House would have had access to the document had they requested it. If this is the basis for their middle-of-the-night visit to Ashcroft's ICU unit, it's pretty thin gruel.

Possibly, but the justice review wouldn't be a substitute for Ashcroft's own opinion.
It sounds like nothing more sinister than the old-timers not trusting the new guy to fairly represent Ashcroft's official opinion.
You don't want someone in an temporary Acting position to change the course of policy. This is even more true if the real office holder is available.

If Bush were hospitalized and Cheney, as Acting President, issued a new policy (let's say he ordered a missile attack on Iran), don't you think people would rightly flock to Bush's bedside? Even if Cheney could produce the intelligence report that Iran was a growing danger?

MayBee: Ashcroft changed his mind about the program and had made it clear he would not approve it. The White House was aware of Ashcroft's position, so it was not just that they didn't trust Comey. That's why the midnight visit is not just a scene-setting. They were trying to get something from Ashcroft while he was down and drug-addled that they knew they couldn't get from him, his deputy, or any of his senior staff through official channels.

http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=274449&

Looks like Gonzalez needs to do some more "clarifying."

Why would there be such urgency for Card and Gonzales to get Ashcroft to sign the extension from his hospital bed? What seems to go unnoticed by most is the date on which this urgent visit to the hospital occurred. The night of 10 March, 2004. This was the night before the most deadliest terrorist attack in Spain was to unfold on Madrid's rail system. This single act ultimately lead to a socialist government being elected days later and withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq all of which was the stated goal of the murders who carried out the bombings.
Maybe the NSA had noticed an uptick in terrorists communications and didn't want the rug pulled out from underneath them just as more intelligence was coming in. Could the NSA might have been trying to learn the when and where of the terrorist strike before it occurred? This might explain the immediate urgency of Card and Gonzales to talk to Ashcroft about a program that was protecting peoples lives. Whatever the reason, the liberals now have they're sights set on getting rid of both Gonzales and the NSA program which will leave us as wide open as Spain was to another terrorist attack. I seriously doubt if another attack occurs the political results will favor the Liberals as they did in Spain.

If that were the case, then we are left to wonder why no one has stated that? Tying the late night visit directly to an attack would surely convince the public that it was motivated by the best possible reasons.

In other words, in the abscence of knowledge, people have the propensity to make up the worse case scenarios - and this isn't a trait limited to one political party.

No, TyCaptains. Not limited, but Americans got to see it during Nixon's administration, when a whole lot more than midnight poker games were going on.

And, then Bob Woodward got milage out of getting Bill Casey to talk to him in the ICU, prior to his death. Or, perhaps just after it. When Woodward got the "interview" that shook up a whole lot of assumptions.

I don't think it's in Bush's favor, here. Because he could'a just FIRED Comey. Except? He was not willing to go through the process to get someone else confirmed.

And, since Watergate we've been dealing with "rules and laws" that put TRANSPARENCY OUT THERE. Where we observe it? It's a presidential handicap. As much as a legacy.

While Bush is also known to have said, publicly, that wahabbism is a religion of pece.

Not sure HOW the world of banking works, either. SInce other countries got the goods on the Saud's, and pressed them. While we did not.

George Soros? Got convicted in france.

And, England's the one that exposed the banking habits of the Saud's in a terrible light.

James Baker sits on the garbage can. Has really swell offices in Riyadh. And, we've also watched Halliburton uprooting itself from Houston. Is Dubai nice? Or can Dubai become a french version of Disneyland? Where just plunking down billions, doesn't win ya a thing?

I do not know.

But I do know that Bush's relationships to the Saud's exists through his own family interests. Not necessarily beneficial to American interests.

But hidden? So far? Yes. It is.

While Alberto Gonzales looks like a jerk. Does this midnight ride change anything? Nah. he's no Paul Revere.

Some day, ahead, there will be books. More, if as I think, Bush drags the right down with him. And, the rest of the GOP look to survive the tidal waves, ahead. Because there are no guarantees. All you know, now, for sure, is that the donks captured TWO PERCENT. And, the rules in the USA say, when you pass 50% you collect ALL the cards.

To compare? It doesn't help you in parliamentary systems. Just ours.

By the way, I do not assume pelosi keeps her seat, if within her faction their are dissatisfied "blue dogs." Who can romp on her leash. I expect lots of the fighting, now, is happening behind drawn curtains.

But there will be a time the curtain goes up. And, lots of people tune in. We're not there, yet. We're still in "out-of-town" try-outs.

President Bush ducks the question today:

Q: Thank you, sir. There’s been some very dramatic testimony before the Senate this week from one of your former top Justice Department officials, who describes a scene that some senators called “stunning,” about a time when the wireless — when the warrantless wiretap program was being reviewed. Sir, did you send your then Chief of Staff and White House Counsel to the bedside of John Ashcroft while he was ill to get him to approve that program? And do you believe that kind of conduct from White House officials is appropriate?

BUSH: Kelly, there’s a lot of speculation about what happened and what didn’t happen; I’m not going to talk about it.

Shorter President Bush: I did.