Or at least not knowingly lie?

Officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went." - Michael Mukasey

Now comes the DOJ saying that

Some of the confusion regarding the Attorney General's remarks may have arisen from the details provided by the Attorney General of the nature and location of the terrorist facility. We note that while the Attorney General referenced a
communication between a 911 1 hijacker and a location in Afghanistan, he was, in fact, referring to communication between a 911 1 hijacker and a terrorist facility located in a different country. - http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Benezkowski080410.pdf

Or was he just having a senior moment, like when McCain (on at least two separate occasions) had the extreme Shi'a in Iran training the Sunni al Qaeda? The two do not get along.

Mukasey was speaking in San Francisco in support of warrantless wire-tapping. I guess it's OK to lie if you feel have a good cause (). I assume he got a great many "Atta boy" comments when he reported back to the White House. Is he going to get a medal, too, like the others who lied and mismanaged the Iraq fiasco?