When?... ya' mean now?

The always readable Glenn Greewald posts the following Update today in which he uses his lawyerly logic to raise a important (and as yet unanswered) question:

A commenter points to this article from today's Washington Post, which reports that (the absolutely odious) Rep. Jane Harman faxed a letter to Gonzales asking if there are currently any other warrantless eavesdropping programs aimed at Americans, and Gonzales then called her on the phone and -- as reported by Harman -- "assured (her) that there is not a broader program or an additional program out there involving surveillance of U.S. persons."

Gonzales' denial, at least as Harman conveyed it, purports to comment on what the Administration is doing currently, not what they have done in the past. If they stopped eavesdropping on domestic communications yesterday, Gonzales' statement would be technically accurate.

Here's one question raised by the oddity of how this denial was issued: If Gonzales can call Jane Harman on the telephone and tell her that there are no domestic eavesdropping programs currently in place (and then presumably authorize Harman to tell this to The Washington Post), why couldn't Gonazles have just answered the multiple questions that were asked when he was testifying about this three weeks ago? When he was asked while testifying if there were other warrantless eavesdropping programs, he refused to answer on the ground that such information was super-secret. How come he could answer that question to Jane Harman on the telephone but not the Committee while testifying?

And, since Gonzales has now commented on whether there are any current warrantless domestic eavesdropping programs, there is no conceivable rationale for refusing to say if there were any such programs in the past. Maybe Jane Harman can call her friend Alberto back for another chat and ask that question and then tell us what he says.