Getting to the heart of what ‘oversight’ means

December 21, 2005

As nearly every White House talking point offered as a response to the warrantless-search controversy falls apart after a moment’s reflection, the Bush gang appears to be running out of things to say. This is particularly true when it comes to congressional oversight.

It’s an important part of the debate. As I mentioned yesterday, the fact that the administration briefed a handful of lawmakers about their spying program is, to hear the White House tell it, proof that the president’s authority was subjected to checks and balances. The law requires court approval, which the administration did not seek, but Bush, the White House says, did not have unlimited, unregulated power by virtue of congressional notification.

We now know, of course, that this defense is wrong. Not only does it not satisfy legal requirements about judicial oversight, but the briefings some lawmakers received were a joke, featuring key omissions, unanswered questions, and no recourse to those who felt the tactics were illegal.

One clever member of the White House press corps mentioned to Scott McClellan yesterday that Congress defines oversight as “the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations, to have access to records or materials, or to issue subpoenas or testimony from the executive.” If that’s what “oversight” means, the reporter asked, which of these powers were members of Congress granted with regard to the NSA surveillance program? It was a good question that led to an almost comical response.

McClellan: Well, as you just pointed out, Congress is an independent branch of government, and they’re elected by their constituents. We briefed and informed members of Congress about this program going back to 2001; more than a dozen times since then we’ve briefed members of Congress —

Q: But briefing isn’t power to investigate or issue subpoenas to ask questions. And I’m asking you, which of the powers of oversight were they granted?

McClellan: Congress is an independent branch of government. That’s what I just pointed out, Jessica.

Q: Which has the right to check the functions of the executive. And these are —

McClellan: They have an oversight role, that’s right.

Q: Okay, so in what way —

McClellan: That’s why we thought it was important to brief members of Congress about this vital tool that we’re using to save lives and to protect the American people, and why we talked to them about how it is limited in nature and limited in scope.

Q: But as you know, members of Congress who were briefed said that they were informed — yes, briefed, but given absolutely no recourse to formally object, to push back and say, this is not acceptable.

McClellan: They’re an independent branch of government.

Q: So in what way were they given oversight?

McClellan: They were briefed. And we believe it’s important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders —

Q: Would you also say they were given full oversight?

McClellan: They’re an independent branch of government. Yes, they have —

Q: Were they given oversight?

McClellan: Yes, they have oversight roles to play.

Q: So they have oversight. So, in what way could they have acted on that oversight?

McClellan: You should ask members of Congress that question.

And with that, another WH talking point bites the dust. Of course, considering the Bush gang’s concern for accuracy, I have a feeling they’ll keep using the line anyway.

This is the worst gang of crooks we’ve ever had. But still 35% of the american people believe everything they say. How is this possible. They are LFB’s, all of them.

  • “True, the administration did not give Congress all of the details of the program to allow oversight, but Congress was briefed and therefore had oversight.”
    Quote from the war-buddha.

  • Well, I am going to give Scotty a bit of support here. Although he sounds like the fool/jackass he really is, I think he is saying:

    “Congress has an oversight role, we told some of them what we were doing, and yet Congress, despite having this oversight role, failed/refused to do what it can do as an independent branch of government.”

    It does appear that although just a few members of both parties in Congress were briefed on this activity, “Congress” was told of this activity and those briefed members of Congress refused to do anything to investigate/stop the activity. This does not get the Sadministration off the hook for breaking the law, but it does point out the laziness/complicitness/failure of Congress in its oversight role.

    In effect I think scotty is saying Congress had enough info to perform oversight and investigate if it really wanted to, and it passed.

  • Almost comical??? How does he do it? I’ve never seen a better rendition of a human punching bag in my life. Whatever they are paying him, it can’t be enough. (Hehe, I said rendition…)

  • I think bubba is on the correct path. Not only did Bush break the law, members of Congress knew about it and did nothing. Let’s find out who in Congress failed to do their job (again, remember Brownie?) and get rid of them.

  • Was I the only one who, for a moment, thought that that would quickly turn into a strange rendition of “Who’s On First?”

  • He uses the term “independent” like the two (or is it three?) branches are specifically required to never interact. Perhaps he’s laboring under the misaprehension that there was some sort of anti-trust ruling that broke up the monopoly that the Government had on, uh, governing…

  • Was I the only one who, for a moment, thought that that would quickly turn into a strange rendition of “Who’s On First?”

    No, there’s a lot of that going around.

  • What G2000 said. That stuff is better than a lot of Laurel and Hardy.

    What is this obsession with flogging the “they’re an independent branch of government!” talking point that McClellen has? I don’t get it. It makes no sense at all, not even when trying to figure out which way they’re trying to spin. It’s like McClellen got knocked for such a loop with that initial question he had to go back to grade school US history to find some way to attempt to dodge the question.

    What Bubba says could be true, but it could still be otherwise, that rather than being capable of having oversight the law or whatever prevented them from saying anything about it. A few congressmen wrote something about it that either CB or Talking Points Memo posted yesterday, saying that he had no idea how he was supposed to perform oversight because, among other things, he was not allowed to talk to anyone about it. Effective oversight permits Congress to organize staffers and lawyers and analysts to staff and lawyer and analyze what is being overseen, and it appears Congress’ hands were tied on this point.

  • What I am basically saying is that I think Scotty is setting up another excuse if it is needed–that enough (one or two?) members of both parties in Congress at least knew a little bit about the program, enough to start an investigation if they really wanted to (in a manner consitent with protecting national security). But these members of Congress chose not to do anything. The White House was doing what it was doing, the White House notified Congress albeit not entirely or as fully as it could, and Congress had the powere to investigate and possibly stop the White House, but it did nothing. Why should the White House stop if the entity that is supposed to check it doesn’t even take the time to perform its function. The White House is always going to push its powers to or beyond the limit. If it goes beyond that limit, it is up to the Congress to reign it in. I think scotty is saying Congress never took any steps to reign them in , so why stop. It is Congress’ fault, not the White House’s fault. At least in their warped little world.

  • Oh yeah, I understand that point, bubba. I can see a few congressmen being given oversight power and doing nothing out of laziness and/or out of quiet complacence, but I suspect fear of breaking the law more, particularly after reading about Rockefeller’s concerned notes. I think the evidence so far is leaning in that direction. In my opinion – I could be wrong.

  • Everything contraversial in the War on Terror is consider by the administration to be a vital tool.

    Patriot Act=vital tool
    Rendition=vital tool
    NSA domestic spying=vital tool

    What else is a vital tool? Let’s see. Vital, full of life and vigor. Tool, one that is used or manipulated by another. Bush Cheney’s vital tool.

  • I don’t think the members of Congress who were briefed were being lazy. On the contrary, it seems clear that they did not start an investigation becasue they were forbidden to speak of it by law–see this post “Rockefeller and Pelosi COULDN’T Release Their Letters” from Daily Kos which says,
    “But the most important thing to remember is this: because of the laws and regulations governing national intelligence and Congressional oversight, Congressional critics of the domestic spying were legally prohibited from publicly voicing their opposition to the program “

    • Comments are closed.