Alter dubs Bush/NSA scandal ‘Snoopgate’

December 20, 2005

If you haven’t seen it, be sure to check out Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter’s online-only piece on the scandal he’s calling “Bush’s Snoopgate.”

Alter has two compelling observations. The first is a brief behind-the-scenes look at what transpired about a week before the New York Times broke the story on the NSA surveillance program. Apparently, Bush was so concerned about the revelations that he summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office to talk them out of going with the story. Obviously, it didn’t work, though it remains unclear why the NYT sat on the story for a full year.

The second is Alter’s take on why the president was so desperate to keep this news hidden.

Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story….because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism. […]

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason — and less out of genuine concern about national security — that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

Alter even mentions the “I” word, noting that “there may even be articles of impeachment introduced” if Dems regain majority control of Congress next year, adding that a similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Nixon in 1974.

This is a solid commentary from a leading journalistic voice, but it also may hint at how reporters in general perceive this story. Alter said “Snoopgate” is a scandal that “goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power.” Just as importantly, Alter concludes that Bush’s defense “will not work,” in part because the president “thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator.”

If that’s a sentiment common among the political journalistic establishment, this is a story that will haunt Bush’s presidency for quite a while.

Alter’s is a great piece.

And thinking about this further last night, I came to the conclusion that had these acts been something limited to one instance, or even a number of instances within the first year following the 9/11 attacks (while a potential threat could still be considered imminent and while the US government was still getting its act together in reorganizing itself to embrace the changes needed to effectively investigate/counter foreign terrorist threats), then this may be understandable and something that truly would be a question for the voters. If I remember correctly Carpetbagger had a post, I think related to potential and imminent terrorist attacks and the use of torture, where maybe the president could technically violate the law in using torture in that instance to obtain the information in order to thwart the plan and to ensure the safety of the American public, but this assumed that the information would be timely presented to the public afterwards and the president would be subject to a vote of the people. However, as the Snoopgate activities have continued on for years after the “imminent threat”, this clearly leaves that realm and now gets into a clear abuse of power, clear violations of law, clear breaches of trust and of civil rights, with this no longer being an issue that is a question of the voters and is now an issue of impeachment. Especially now as the Sadministration’s unquestionable intent was to cover this up while continuing the objectionable activities. It really is time to impeach, and to hold those House members who refuse to do their duty owed to the american public accountable.

  • If that’s a sentiment common among the political journalistic establishment, this is a story that will haunt Bush’s presidency for quite a while.

    I’m not so sure.

    Reagan had his teflon, and Clinton his charisma…

    But Bush has an even greater power:
    He is the original American fuckup (the ne’er-do-well that every family seems to have), and so the po’ little thing always gets forgiven.

    Doesn’t matter if he is:

    Skating away from the National Guard.
    Ditching classes at Yale.
    Driving and drinking.
    Runing businesses into the ground.
    Rushing us into an unwinnable war.
    Blowing the surplus
    Or shitting on the constitution….

    Bush is the Great American fuckup who the American people are anxious to feel sorry for, and forgive. I suspect he could get away with pederasty if he wanted to….

  • I remember seeing something late last week about why the NYTimes held back – just wish I could remember wehre. It had something to do with making sure all their ducks were lined up and the sources were good. I can see their point. A story like this was going to be big, and to publish without making sure you are on solid ground is asking for a passle of trouble. That may or may not be the whole reason but even as one reason among several it is no small matter.

  • His comment that, “Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story….because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker,” seems kind of a stretch to me.

    I’d bet that bush has convinced himself and/or was convinced by Gonzo, et al that this was totally in line with his “power” as president.

    Probably more of the latter of the two – who really thinks bush knows the first thing about the Constitution – other than maybe the 2nd amendment? He was told this would be ok or would be made to be ok & he signed off on it.

    It’d be funny if his lack of intellectual curiosity is what finally took him out.

  • I hope the media gets this story in its teeth and keeps hammering away at it through the holidays. The more people hear about it, the worse it sounds. And the more Republicans that come out angry and against it, the further we go.

    The thought of Specter holding hearings on this makes me giddy.

  • Several things come to mind stemming from the discussion of this article. What I cannot understand is many Americans’ obsession with sex scandal. I know people who thought, and likely still think that Clinton’s sex scandal was a worse deal than anything like, say, divulging confidential information that jeopardizes national security for a political vendetta. The justification among them is that, arguably the latter could be seen as an official policy decision and therefore not that bad while the former somehow, because it tarnishes our national image and tarnishes the office of the President, is the worst offense a President can make.

    And to go on, it’s so goddamn frustrating and infuriating, to see this country so full of these people who just viscerally hate Hillary for no good reason and when pressed for one can only charge her with being an Arkansan who ran for office in New York (Carpetbagger!) Why, then, isn’t the GOP fielding a bill to bar people from running outside the district they were born and raised in?

    The second is ‘oh man, I can’t wait to see how this damages Bush’s poll ratings.’ Numbers offer something visceral, and it’s especially fun to see Bush’s get closer and closer to Nixon’s Watergate-era numbers.

    And third is, I think that even if the Dems secure 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, two words will cause them to balk at attempting to impeach Bush – Dick Cheney. Not that he doesn’t already have unbridled power, but no one knows the extent to how much worse the country could become if he ends up in the Oval Office.

    And to add to ET’s point, two more words: Dan Rather. They ran something that damaged Bush but ultimately had to withdraw due to questionable sources. Ironically, those unbiased guys at Fox and on the right-wing radio shows never seem to be held accountable for making sh*t up. ALL. THE. TIME.

  • I can’t get my arms around the fact that nobody
    cares that Bush (almost certainly) lied to get
    us into a war that killed tens of thousands,
    maimed hundreds of thousands, did tens of
    billions of dollars of infrastructural damage,
    cost the ordinary American tax payer half a trillion
    while the rich got deep tax cuts, and destroyed
    the lives and livelihoods of an entire nation. Yet
    here we are, the American press finally, seemingly,
    waking up to snoopgate, a gnat on the Iraq
    elephant’s ass compared to the holocaust of
    the invasion.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’ll take any crime that
    brings these bastards down. But I just don’t
    get it.

    With the press all fired up, if it lasts, the American
    people may yet rise up and express outrage, and
    demand action from Congress. Pretty far fetched,
    but we can hope.

    I wonder what we don’t know about.

    One still has to shake one’s head in wonder that
    all these scandals that have come out would have
    brought any other president down. Why not Bush,
    the worst president ever, based simply on his
    own ineptitude, ignorance and lack of qualifications
    for the office?

  • It amazes me that people keep thinking that the “press will get this story in their teeth” or that Jonathan Alter’s attitude might, in some significant way, preface more generally aggressive journalism.

    Wake up, people! The N.Y. Times and Washington Post kept the Whitewater pseudo-scandal alive for over five years. They led the shameful coverage of the 2000 campaign, slandering Gore at every turn. In 2004, the N.Y. Times suppressed the story of Bush cheating in the first debate, using an electronic device ill-concealed beneath his jacket. Now, we learn they suppressed the story of Bush violating FISA to spy on Americans. Just last week, we were treated to the spectacle of the Post’s Downie and Harris revealing how their number one priority in covering the White House was pleasing Karl Rove and company. If this were not a blog post, I could go on at length, citing the decline at NPR, etc.

    We are in this dire Constitutional situation because media consolidation has created an oligarchic, corporate right-wing media, to which there is no alternative outside of blogdom. The vast majority of the American public are getting what little news is provided from this corporate, right-wing media.

  • What Bruce said.

    Since this is not sex, but is instead more complex, the average American will lose interest simply from an inability to understand what is happening. Especially with Bush insisting that he was just trying to protect America from those really bad terrorists, who are currently attracted to iraq like paper clips to a magnet. Gosh darn it, he’s working really hard and doing his absolute darnedest best, by golly. Besides, he didn’t cheat on his wife some young whipper-snapper.

  • Crispy – while I agree that it’s not sex, I don’t agree that it’s complicated.

    The President has taken power to spy on Americans without obtaining a warrant, despite the fact that a warrant was perfectly easy to obtain. He insists that he will keep doing this.

    This directly contradicts law, and quite arguable directly contradicts the Constitution.

    These are the actions of a dictator, not a president.

    If this was a legitimate use of eavesdropping, there would be no reason to circumvent the legally defined process. If this involved some new way of going after terrorists that was clearly necessary, they could have sought to have the law changed.

    To do otherwise is “L’etat, c’est moi.” (And a hint to Shrubyans, the reason that’s impeachable is not because it’s French).

  • short fuse,

    I’m with you 100% on the legal, or illegal aspects of this. However, I’m being cynical. I’m just not sure it will stick with enough people. Unless, of course, the media can grab ahold of it and make it understandable. Make the average citizen outraged.

    I was also noting the irony of not only this, but the rest, as detailed by koreyel above, of the crimes commited by this administration for which there are no consequeces. Clinton, on the other hand, lied about a personal affair in a harassment trial that was dismissed, and we were subjected to the absurd and completely unnecessary impeachment hearings. I can only hope that things would be turning out better if the democrats controlled the house or senate, which they may well do after 2006.

    But, in the meantime, the republicans in congress are content to let these crimes continue unchecked.

  • I agree with bubba’s lead comment. In the year after 9/11 this “un-warranted” snooping by Bushco can be accepted by the public-at-large; but after that, there is no excuse. However, the fact that it continues to this day without court approval suggest a larger, more hell-bent motive: a desperate (and ongoing) attempt to “connect the dots” and between al Qaeda and Saddam–without leaving a paper trail through the FISA court. If this is the case, then the Iraq War’s opponents have a “smoking gun” that the war was “ginned-up.” I would want to know from what countries the telephone call and emails were exchanged and if observed contacts were disproportionately with people in Iraq. After 9/11, it seems to me that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Palestinian areas would be the leading countries for Bush’s secret surveillance. Congress should be able to ask for a pie chart that breaks down the count of the surveiled contacts by country–without compromising intelligence efforts. If the Iraq slice of the pie is one of the largest for the snooping, then we have a motive for bypassing the FISA courts.

  • The justification among them is that, arguably the latter[Bush] could be seen as an official policy decision and therefore not that bad while the former[Clinton blowjob] somehow, because it tarnishes our national image and tarnishes the office of the President, is the worst offense a President can make.

    I’ve been reading some Chomsky essays, and Rian’s comments above echo what Chomsky was saying about atrocities committed by the US. Presidents are forgiven for enacting policies that kill thousands of innocent people and wreck other countries because “they were only trying to do what they thought was best, and things got out of hand.” The “sensible” among the press will argue that, while it is bad that Bush may have violated the law/Constitution, he was only trying to make the country safer for everyone else. People will not accept that the US will act/has acted unlawfully, recklessly, or in the manner of a tyrant because they will not accept the fact that THEY have condoned/accepted such actions. “We all make mistakes,” they say to themselves.

    We all know the saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” When it comes to this administration, they think since we are on the way to hell, it must be due to good intentions. I hope that they notice their mistake before we get there.

    Blowjobs only serve to make everyone who is not getting one jealous.

    • Comments are closed.