WASHINGTON Feb 6, 2006 (AP)— Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insisted Monday that President Bush is fully empowered to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants as part of the war on terror. He exhorted Congress not to end or tinker with the program.

Gonzales' strong defense of Bush's program was challenged by Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and committee Democrats during sometimes contentious questioning.


Article quote:
"My answers would be the same whether I was under oath or not."
US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at today's NSA hearing


Then put his ass under oath. Did the Congress proceed to? Hell No. Why? Here's why:

Article Quote:
Monday's hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn't necessary.

Jeez, given the controversey that this surveilance program has created, and also it's dubious and secretive nature, one would think that Congress would be more than obliged to swear in the person who gave legal counsel affirming the legality of it, and specificailly all it entailed right?

Wrong. According to the article it didn't happen. Pg. 2 of article:
He wasn't.

Golly. For those who testify regarding the warrantless wiretaps - insert Alberto Gonzales name here - are afforded by members of Congress (who are supposed top be the investigators for crying out loud) the opportunity to not be sworn in.

God bless the good 'ol USA :(

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1586381&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312