Mr. Gonzales's bitterest foes have gone so far as to call for a special counsel to investigate whether he has perjured himself in congressional testimony. Others have begun pushing for his impeachment.

But it remains unlikely that lawmakers alone will oust the attorney general from office. By all accounts Gonzales retains the support of the person who could fire him in a stroke: President Bush.

And the most important recent developments in the case may not involve Gonzales himself. In defending him against charges that he lied to Congress last week, administration officials indirectly may have confirmed that the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program involves more extensive activities than previously revealed.

"The administration has finally copped to a broader [surveillance] program," wrote Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in a July 31 analysis of recent developments in the case.

Testimony Revives Gonzales's Woes

The most recent chapter in this long-running saga began with a July 24 appearance by Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where senators queried him about a 2004 confrontation between administration officials that occurred at the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Perhaps choosing his words with care, Gonzales said the dispute was not about the National Security Agency's (NSA) secret eavesdropping effort, named the terrorist surveillance program.

However, two days later FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee that the confrontation did involve that program.

"The discussion was on a national, an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mr. Mueller told the House panel.

Some Democrats believe that Mueller's admission proved that Gonzales had flat-out lied. Four Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have now called on Solicitor General Paul Clement for a special perjury probe of Gonzales.

But administration officials have insisted that technically Gonzales was telling the truth, as he was talking about the terrorist surveillance program that was publicly confirmed by Mr. Bush in 2005 following news reports of its existence.

"The particular aspect of these activities that the president publicly described was limited to the targeting for interception without a court order of international communications of Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations coming into or going out of the United States," wrote Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell in a July 31 letter to Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's ranking minority member. [Editor's note: The original version incorrectly named the Director of National Intelligence.]

In other words, administration officials are saying the 2004 bedside dispute was about something other than the basic thrust of the program, something that has yet to be officially disclosed.

Given this defense, it perhaps would be hard to pin a perjury rap on the attorney general, according to some analysts. Perjury cases are hard to prove and can turn on technicalities.

Even so, Democrats say Gonzales clearly meant to mislead the panel. That fits a pattern of obfuscation on the part of the attorney general, they say. During a Senate hearing in April, Gonzales said more than 60 times that he did not recall certain aspects of the firings of US attorneys. Among the things he did not remember was a crucial final meeting on the subject in his office prior to the dismissals, a meeting which other testimony and documents show he did attend.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin said July 26 that he had read the classified record of the program, and that Gonzales's testimony was "misleading at best."

Other Secret Surveillance Programs?

That leaves open the question as to what other aspects of the terrorist surveillance program remain secret.

Reports in The New York Times and elsewhere have said the confrontation may have involved a dispute over "data mining," a practice in which computers perform complicated searches through masses of electronic records, in an attempt to piece together personal relationships or other networks that might reveal the workings of terrorists.

Large-scale data mining has long been controversial in the US, due to its potential for infringement on basic civil liberties. One post-9/11 effort, the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office, had its funds cut off by Congress in 2003 following criticism by the American Civil Liberties Union and others that it went too far.

The publicly admitted outlines of the terrorist surveillance program are "only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the NSA's spying on the American public," writes Ms. Cohn.

Despite opposition from EFF and other watchdog groups, Congress on Aug. 1 appeared close to updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on terror suspects overseas.

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

Why Bush Won't Ax Gonzales

By Massimo Calabresi

TIME Magazine

Thursday 02 August 2007

If cabinet members were perishable goods, Alberto Gonzales would have passed his "sell by" date sometime last spring. Since January, when he first faced sharp questioning over the firing of U.S. Attorneys, the Attorney General has earned disastrous reviews for his inconsistent testimony, poor judgment and for appearing to place loyalty to the White House above service to the public. By June it was hard to find a Republican willing to defend him. Now Gonzales' dissembling testimony about a controversial domestic-spying program has raised suspicions about what he is hiding and fueled new calls for him to go. Senate Democrats have called for a special prosecutor to investigate his activities as Attorney General, and a group of moderate House Democrats has called for the House to weigh impeachment proceedings against him.

Yet the embattled Gonzales' grip on his job seems unshakable. Bush tossed Donald Rumsfeld last fall despite support from conservatives for the then Defense Secretary, and the President chucked Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace at the first sign of congressional resistance to his renomination. So why the extraordinary support for Gonzales in the face of a protracted meltdown at the Department of Justice (DOJ)? Here are four reasons why Bush can't afford to let Gonzales go:

1. Gonzales is all that stands between the White House and special prosecutors. As dicey as things are for Bush right now, his advisers know that they could get much worse. In private, Democrats say that if Gonzales did step down, his replacement would be required to agree to an independent investigation of Gonzales' tenure in order to be confirmed by the Senate.

Without Gonzales at the helm, the Justice Department would be more likely to approve requests for investigations into White House activities on everything from misuse of prewar Iraq intelligence to allegations of political interference in tobacco litigation. And the DOJ could be less likely to block contempt charges against former White House aides who have refused to testify before Congress. "Bush needs someone at Justice who's going to watch the White House's back," says a Senate Democratic Judiciary Committee staffer. If Gonzales steps down, Bush would lose his most reliable shield.

2. A post-Gonzales DOJ would be in the hands of a nonpartisan, tough prosecutor, not a political hand. Newly appointed Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford is in line to take over until a new Attorney General could be confirmed. Morford, a 20-year veteran of the department, was brought in to investigate the botched trial of the first major federal antiterrorism case after 9/11. He is in the mold of James Comey, the former Deputy Attorney General who stood up to the White House over its domestic-eavesdropping program. Even New York Senator Charles Schumer, one of Gonzales' harshest critics, called Morford's appointment a positive step. Over the past six months, more than half a dozen top political appointees have left the department amid scandal. The unprecedented coziness that once existed between the Justice Department and the White House now remains solely in the person of Gonzales.

3. If Gonzales goes, the White House fears that other losses will follow. Top Bush advisers argue that Democrats are after scalps and would not stop at Gonzales. Congressional judiciary committees have already subpoenaed Harriet Miers and Karl Rove in the firings of U.S. Attorneys last year. Republicans are loath to hand Democrats some high-profile casualties to use in the 2008 campaign. Stonewalling, they believe, is their best way to avoid another election focused on corruption issues.

4. Nobody at the White House wants the legal bills and headaches that come with being a target of investigations. In backing Gonzales, Bush is influenced by advisers whose future depends on the survival of their political bodyguard. Gonzales remains the last line of defense protecting Bush, Rove and other top White House officials from the personal consequences of litigation. A high-profile probe would hobble the White House politically, and could mean sky-high legal bills and turmoil for Bush's closest aides.

Keeping Gonzales isn't cost-free. But for now, Bush seems to have decided that the importance of running out the clock on investigations by keeping his loyal Attorney General in place is worth any amount of criticism.

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

Gonzales Admits Testimony 'Confusing'

By Lara Jakes Jordan and Laurie Kellman

The Associated Press

Thursday 02 August 2007

Washington - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales conceded on Wednesday that he used confusing language in describing national security efforts in recent Senate testimony.

His letter to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders stopped short of an apology as the Bush administration pushed to expand eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

But in response, the committee's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, joined Democrats who said Gonzales should not have sole authority to approve the warrantless interception of messages between foreign terrorists overseas.

The exchange marked the latest twist in a standoff between Congress and the administration over the beleaguered attorney general and his Justice Department.

Even as the administration sought to compromise with lawmakers over updating a 1978 surveillance law, the White House stood its ground against Congress on a separate matter. The White House invoked executive privilege in refusing to let two political aides testify in an inquiry about the Justice Department's firing of federal prosecutors.

That inquiry was the basis of what brought Gonzales before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when he repeatedly said a dramatic 2004 hospital room dispute between him and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was about "other intelligence activities" - and not what has since become known as the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

In his two-page letter to the committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Gonzales sought to clear up the confusion.

"I am deeply concerned with suggestions that my testimony was misleading, and am determined to address any such impression," Gonzales wrote. A copy also went to Specter.

"I recognize that the use of the term 'Terrorist Surveillance Program' and my shorthand reference to the 'program' publicly 'described by the president' may have created confusion," Gonzales wrote.

Leahy was not swayed.

"The attorney general's legalistic explanation of his misleading testimony under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week is not what one should expect from the top law enforcement officer of the United States," Leahy said in a statement after receiving Gonzales' letter.

Specter, too, said Gonzales misled the committee. But Specter said the attorney general's testimony did not amount to perjury; it was a crucial if reluctant vote of support.

"I don't think he did try to provide frank answers," Specter said. "It was more than confusion, it was misleading."

Specter sided with Democrats who said they would not let their disdain for Gonzales factor into decisions about whether to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the attorney general would oversee. But Specter said Gonzales should not have any say in the intelligence-gathering at issue. "This is a temporary bill at most," he said. "I think we can do without an attorney general for six months; we've done without one for a long time."

Democrats edged closer to a compromise with the White House on the pending legislation, agreeing to give the government greater authority to spy on suspected foreign terrorists. But they said the overhaul would only be temporarily, and would require Gonzales to get court approval before eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists overseas.

Any proposal without the review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "is simply unacceptable," said Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. He said the court "must continue to play an essential role in authorizing surveillance and overseeing its execution."

"They are the trusted steward of FISA, and they can and must be a part of any new streamlined approach," Rockefeller said.

At issue is a rush to update the law before week's end, when Congress takes a monthlong break. Summer generally is considered a vulnerable time for attacks, with more people traveling and terrorists able to move around undetected more easily.

The changes would fix what the White House says is a significant gap: the missing of foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks. The law generally applies to spying on suspected foreign terrorists in the United States. But changes in technology since 1978 have resulted in overseas communications being routed through U.S. companies.

Currently, the special court must approve a warrant for investigators to intercept messages that are believed - but not proved - to be between foreign suspects who are overseas.

The administration wants to give the attorney general authority to approve such intercepts without waiting for the court to issue a warrant. Rockefeller's proposal would require the court to review the process that the attorney general uses to determine the suspects are, indeed, overseas.

The White House responded with a counterproposal late Wednesday, endorsed by Senate Republicans, requiring that the director of national intelligence - not just the attorney general - sign off on plans for foreign surveillance.

The White House will not accept court review of eavesdropping plans before they are executed, according to a knowledgeable administration official. Instead, the administration is proposing that the court rule within 120 days of the time the director of national intelligence and the attorney general authorize the surveillance.

Also Wednesday, in a separate letter to Leahy, White House counsel Fred Fielding said Bush would invoke executive privilege to keep political advisers Karl Rove and J. Scott Jennings from answering questions or submitting documents at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday on the U.S. attorney firings.

Jennings was expected to appear at the hearing, but Rove was not, committee aides said.

"The president remains committed to protecting the ability of future presidents to ensure that the executive's decisions reflect and benefit from the candid exchange of informed and diverse viewpoints and open and frank deliberations that such a privilege provides," Fielding wrote.

Fielding's letter included a brief legal position by Solicitor General Paul Clement that backs up the White House's stand. Because Gonzales has withdraw from the matter, Clement is the acting attorney general on issues dealing with the fired prosecutors.