Is The President a Crook?

Two questions about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration's unauthorized wiretapping:

1. Why wasn't Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put under oath for his testimony?
2. Why did he refuse to answer one of the central questions-why didn't the administration go to the FISA court to obtain warrants, even though they could have done so three days after beginning the wiretap?

The important issue here is to find out whether this adminstration violated the law and if so, for what purpose? The Democrats have to be careful not to fall into the Rove trap that by questioning officials of the administration about the possible violation of law, that we're handing Al Qaeda our playbook. This is nothing but nonsense. These hearings have nothing to do with the war on terror and everything to do with abuse of power and spying on Americans in the name of "protecting us." There are laws and mechanisms in place that allow the executive branch to conduct surveillance necessary to stay ahead of the terrorists. But they're required to follow the law in doing so. Even the Supreme Court has said that a war doesn't give the president a blank check. History and the rule of law demand that Congress get answers to why this administration feels it has the right to disregard the law. The question that remains is is the president a crook?