He could tell us, but then he’d have to kill us

January 3, 2006

I hate to criticize Scott McClellan two posts in a row — oh, who am I kidding — but there was another exchange in today’s briefing that’s important. Indeed, it gave us a hint as to how the White House will deal with questions surrounding Bush’s warrantless-search program whenever queries get uncomfortable.

Q: A number of members of Congress do not agree that the President has the authority to do what he did in that case.

McClellan: Well, previous administrations have cited similar authority.

Q: And they want to have hearings, and those hearings are supported by many on both sides, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, because they don’t believe that this is within the scope of the President’s authority.

McClellan: And what’s your question?

Q: And my question is, does the White House take this into account, will it try to talk to them, will it participate in the hearings?

McClellan: Like I said, and the President has said we’ve briefed members of Congress on more than a dozen occasions.

Q: But that’s not what they’re talking about.

McClellan: And in terms of discussions about this, the President talked about this at his end-of-the-year news conference. We shouldn’t be talking about intelligence activities, particularly in a time of war, in a public way. This is a highly classified authorization —

Q: Not anymore. I mean, it’s public now.

McClellan: No, it still is. It still is highly classified. The President has talked in a very limited way about the nature of this authorization and what it’s designed to do, and how it’s limited.

There’s ample mendacity here — Bush’s recent predecessors did not cite a similar authority, the congressional “briefings” McClellan cited were a joke, etc. — but it’s that last point that’s particularly interesting. When the questions started getting a little more pointed, and McClellan didn’t want to repeat the exact same talking points for the umpteenth time, he rolled out the “we shouldn’t be talking about intelligence activities” talking point. Nevermind that he’d just spent 15 minutes talking about these intelligence activities; there’s a war going on and that would be irresponsible.

That’s actually pretty clever. Someone has questions about the program? The White House will answer them, unless they’re too hard, in which case the program is “still highly classified.” What a convenient and selectively applied principle.

You know, one of my favorite things is watching ol Scotty boy up there in the crosshairs. I mean, seriously, this guy is going to leave this job with a catastrophic drinking problem and probably some other even less desirable conditions brought on by being the “doe in the headlights” for this administration for several years now. I almost feel sorry for the guy…..almost…..

  • These folks have no principles. Only deceit.

    If they really think that this is a valuable program in the fight against terror activities, they should do what is required–seek a constitutional amendment to the 4th amendment allowing a limited exception to the 4th amendment prohibitions, with a specific restriction that any information obtained cannot be used against US citizens or for the prosecution of anything other that “terrorism” criminal laws (yes, I know that “terrorrism” would need to be well-defined, or the specific criminal laws should be specifically cited). If they are so confident that the American public supports their program then they should have no problem doing this in a transparent manner and getting the required approval. And as a commenter in another thread noted, having a public debate on this can only harm terrorists, not help them.

  • Okay, I’ve been kind of incommunicado over the holidays, but in case I missed it, can someone please explain just how the disclosure of this domestic spying/eavesdropping/wireless-tapping in any way encourages or aids our adversaries in the GWOT? Does the administration really think that Al Qaida and their ilk never considered that their electronic communications might be vulnerable to taps?

    I can vouch from experience that if you engage in perfectly lawful vocal opposition to government action of some sort (like, say, a war), the first thing you do is start to imagine that your phones (land lines, cellular, VoIP, email) are tapped. Most of the time, you will have over-estimated your importance to the intelligence gatherers, but that won’t weaken your conviction that some J. Edgar Hoover type is listening (or trying to listen) to your every word. The only ones threatened by disclosure of this little project are the administration hacks who hatched it.

  • I can’t stop repeating it – remember NSA tapping the UN’s phones in the run-up to Iraq 2? Did they not also spy on the IAEA?

    Why should we trust them to only tap terrorist related activities?

    I don’t trust people after they lie to me.

  • Yeah, Timmy, “almost.” If the guy was just the teeniest bit likeable, maybe, but he’s really not. And remember, nobody’s holding a gun to the guy’s head. I assume he cashes his paycheck without much guilt and he probably sleeps better than you or I do.

    There’s little to smile about politically these days, so let us continue to find solace where we can. Watching Scottie dodge and weave (or try to) and sweat and stutter is one of the highlights of my day, and I refuse to feel bad about it!

    Regarding the substance of this particular exchange – bubba, Jim Strain and BuzzMon are all right on. The administration has no good answers to these questions because they don’t believe they should HAVE to answer these questions.

    From Day One this administration has behaved as if they were annointed rather than elected (which, come to think of it, they pretty much were). Their blatant disregard for the Constitution, the separation of powers, the rule of law is nothing short of astounding. Their arrogance is exceeded only by their complete and utter ruthlessness.

    LYING. FUCKING. BASTARDS.

  • Actually, a previous administration that cited a similar authority was one well known for its respect for the laws of this country: Richard M. Nixon. 😉

    This whole notion of not questioning one’s leaders in a time of war is a very troubling one. In fact, that is the BEST time to be questioning one’s leaders. That is when checks and balances on power and authority are the most crucial. And when the current “war” – this unending “war on terror” – is the one being fought, we are faced with the possibility of not questioning our leaders EVER. Is that the kind of country for which so many have fought and died over the last 200+ years? Is that the kind of country that we want to live in? I don’t think so!

    The President is attacking the Constitution and the very foundation of our governmental system. This is very dangerous. And it’s up to ALL of us to hold him accountable.

  • Parsing Scott’s briefings is akin to web analysis of Gilmore Girls episodes. What are we waiting for, nebbish rage?

  • When are we going to just call this guy what he is: Baghdad Bob?

    I’m sure the WH press corpse will love his expressions when they call him that.

    • Comments are closed.