Bush is Gonzales' 'John', not 'client'

* glenn continues his great work into abu gonzales and his 'clarification' letter. the details are quite amazing - but if you don't get to read it all, this kinda captures the essence:

"Is this why the Republicans on the Committee voted unanimously against putting Gonazles under oath when he testified? Gonzales had weeks to prepare for this testimony. He is a trained lawyer. Unlike most witnesses in a lawsuit, he was never cut off by the questioner. He was free to speak at will in response to every question for as long as he wanted, and to say whatever he wanted. Why is it necessary for him to issue a 6-page single-spaced letter, the bulk of which is devoted to "clarifying" what was his unambiguous (false) testimony to the Committee just a few weeks ago?

Is the Senate Judiciary Committee going to tolerate being lied to and misled for eight hours by an Administration that, beginning with the President on down, has misled the Congress for four years about its law-breaking? Are Americans?

[snip]

And is it even remotely possible to sweep this scandal under the rug without now digging into the question which is begging and screaming to be answered. That is: are there other programs which entail warrantless eavesdropping on Americans beyond the parameters of what the President repeatedly claimed, including purely domestic communications? If that is the case (and every sign points to the fact that it is), how could it possible for the President -- even with our sleep-walking media and our country’s heightened tolerance for governmental deceit -- to politically survive such blatantly false statements to the country?"

in the hearings, Abu Gonzales inadvertently refered to Blinky as 'the client' - i think he meant 'my john'