The domestic spying spin was predictable, worn, and wrong

I suspect readers are getting tired of seeing it — I know I’m tired of writing it — but as long as the president continues to misrepresent his warrantless-search program, I feel compelled to call him on it. And since his latest defense was featured in such a high-profile setting last night, it seems particularly noteworthy.

As expected, Bush used the SOTU to repeat his defense of the NSA controversy before a captive audience. He devoted 152 words to the issue, which in context, was a quite a lot.

“We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.

So to prevent another attack — based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute — I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.”

There is almost nothing true to this; literally almost every sentence is misleading.

* “We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late.” — The most misleading of the bunch. The administration didn’t need warrantless, legally-dubious searches to track the 9/11 terrorists down; intelligence officials already knew about the hijackers Bush referenced. A member of the 9/11 Commission said the president’s claim is “not true.”

* “[B]ased on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute.” — No one outside the White House seems to agree.

* “Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have.” — No, they haven’t.

* “[F]ederal courts have approved the use of that authority.” — Name one.

* “Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed.” — It depends on what you mean by “appropriate.” According to Congress’ lawyers, the administration was required by law to provide more information to more lawmakers, but Bush did not do so.

* “If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.” — Of course we want to know about it. Follow the law, allow for some oversight, and get all the intelligence needed to keep America safe.

This is the best the White House can do in coming up with a defense. It’s wrong.

We didn’t catch the 9/11 highjackers because we weren’t translating the Arabic they were speaking until after the fact.

Do we have enough Arabic speakers now to translate the larger amount of communications we are capturing?

I’m seriously beginning to wonder if Michael Hayden’s program is nothing more then a list of telephone numbers and names they collect based on overseas telephone numbers they believe are related to Al Queada. The reason they don’t want to explain the program is that they don’t want Al Queada to know we aren’t actually translating the calls, and the reason they don’t want to take the calls to the FISA court is that they have no translations to prove they were listening to the right people.

They just give the list to the FBI to track down, which seems to have produced a lot of false positives. The FBI seems very unhappy about tracking down the NSA’s leads and there seem to be at most three claims of success, including one individual who thought about and discarded a plan to cut down the Brooklyn bridge with a blow torch.

Is the problem here not how great this ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ is, but how pathetic it is?

  • A great man once said anyone who looks to government for safety and freedom will lose both. This has happened in America and nobody seems to care. Our grandparents would have stormed Washington DC when the Bush people took the election by force in 2000. People today didn’t even murmer. Spy on everyone, put cameras on every corner. I have actually heard people say it is a good idea.
    I think it was Plato who said more are born slaves in spirit than in body.

  • I was able to neither watch the entire speech nor read through the full transcript of it. But, I did happen to catch this section of the speech on C-SPAN. When Bush paused for applause after saying “… we will not sit back and wait to be hit again,” the camera panned to the SCOTUS Justices who were in the house (Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito). I may be mistaken (or becoming a conspiracy theorist), but I could almost SWEAR that Roberts smiled and nodded at the President. That gesture (if indeed I did see it) may mean absolutely nothing. But, it is the most disturbing image I personally will carry away from this speech.
    Finally, NPR’s Mara Liason pretty much repeated (without any vetting) the President’s comments on this issue (twice) and remarked how every time Bush says this to the public, it helps him (she did not add that it particularly helps him when the press makes his point again for him and does not challenge his premise). NPR replayed her comments several times in its hourly newscasts after the speech. Gross.

  • Comments are closed.