Anyone who knows me will know that I am anything but an administration apologist, and I had a good moment of jaw-dropping WTFness over the statement when I heard it.
To be fair, though, if you simply drop the word "electronic" from the statement, it becomes at least defensible, if yet to be substantiated.
Still, a heck of a mis-statement in opening remarks, no less. :)
Even if those previous presidents ordered surveillance of one sort or another without a warrant, Gonzales is making no sense, because the law has changed since FDR was around.
Yah, after I got over my WTF, I classed it as a "thinko" -- that is, about as indicative of the speaker's ignorance or intent as a typo, but still oppotunistically mockable.
Though trying to imagine what would be involved in doing surveillance that broadly in Washington's time -- even if you throw in a scaling factor for population growth -- makes me think that the statement still lacks credibility.
(no subject)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020600931_pf.html
Its in the "Senator Grassley" section. Looks like confirmation to me.
(no subject)
To be fair, though, if you simply drop the word "electronic" from the statement, it becomes at least defensible, if yet to be substantiated.
Still, a heck of a mis-statement in opening remarks, no less. :)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Though trying to imagine what would be involved in doing surveillance that broadly in Washington's time -- even if you throw in a scaling factor for population growth -- makes me think that the statement still lacks credibility.
(no subject)
I still think that under scrutiny, it won't hold up, but that wasn't what I meant.