The Limits of 'Linguistic Parsing'

"What arguable excuse is there for continuing to conceal from Americans what our government did? Whatever it was they were doing is unquestionably illegal. It has been abandoned for years now, removing any 'national security' justification for ongoing secrecy. And it entails our government, at the highest levels, spying on us in ways that were so wrong and illegal that the Attorney General and FBI Director and various deputies all threatened to quit."

Getting to the Bottom of It

A lot of the mysteries surrounding the program and Gonzales's testimony could be resolved -- if the White House complies with a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena issued last month, demanding documents related to the administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

As I wrote in my June 28 column, committee chairman Patrick Leahy specifically demanded, among other things, information about what the government was doing before the Comey revolt put an end to it.

Leahy wrote: "This Committee would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to examine Executive Branch actions simply because we are told they have stopped. We have been given no assurance that these activities, or similar ones, will not resume based on the same or similar legal arguments. This Committee must conduct oversight to consider whether it wishes to act, through legislation or otherwise, to prevent such recurrence."

In contrast to its response to the subpoenas regarding the firing of U.S. attorneys, the White House has not (at least not yet) announced its refusal to comply with the wiretapping subpoena. Indeed, earlier this month, in what must be seen as a promising sign, the White House asked Leahy for more time to respond.

Contempt Watch

Dan Eggen and Paul Kane write in The Washington Post: "The House Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to issue contempt citations for two of President Bush's closest aides, moving nearer to a constitutional confrontation with the White House over access to information about the Justice Department's dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.

"The panel voted 22 to 17, along party lines, to issue citations to Joshua B. Bolten, White House chief of staff, and Harriet E. Miers, former White House counsel. Both refused to comply with committee subpoenas after Bush declared that documents and testimony related to the prosecutor firings are protected by executive privilege."

But a full vote of the House "is unlikely until after Labor Day, giving Congress and White House counsel Fred F. Fielding another month and a half to negotiate a settlement of the legal standoff."

Neil A. Lewis writes in the New York Times: "Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the committee, said the action was needed 'not only to gain an accurate picture of the facts surrounding the U.S. attorneys controversy, but to protect our constitutional prerogatives as a co-equal branch of government.' . . .

"In a letter on Wednesday to Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel, Mr. Conyers implored officials to seek a compromise with Congress. . . .

"The White House has offered to have Ms. Miers and others answer questions in a closed session that would not be transcribed and would not require those being questioned to do so under oath. Democrats have rejected that proposal as inadequate, but Mr. Conyers told Mr. Fielding that he still hoped 'that we can resolve with you the committee's need for information from the White House in our investigation.'"

Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post that the White House "left Republicans with little ammunition with which to defend the president. Instead, they opted to attack his predecessor. . . .